EARLY EFFORTS TOWARDS MUNICIPAL HOME RULE--1786--1821--1828--THE FIRST MUNICIPAL CHARTER OF 1831--THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF MONTREAL--JACQUES VIGER FIRST MAYOR--THE RETURN TO THE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE--LORD DURHAM’S REPORT AND THE RESUMPTION OF THE CORPORATION IN 1840--CHARTER AMENDMENT, 1851--FIRST MAYOR ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE--CHARTER AMENDMENT OF 1874--THE CITY OF MONTREAL ANNEXATIONS--CIVIC POLITICS--THE NOBLE “13”--1898 CHARTER RECAST, SANCTIONED IN 1899--CIVIC SCANDALS--THE “23”--JUDGE CANNON’S REPORT--THE REFORM PARTY; THE “CITIZENS’ ASSOCIATION”--REDUCTION OF ALDERMEN AND A BOARD OF CONTROL, THE ISSUE--THE WOMEN’S CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS--THE NEW REGIME AND THE BOARD OF CONTROL--FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO CHARTER--THE ELECTIONS OF 1912--ABOLITION OF THE SMALL WARD SYSTEM ADVOCATED--THE ELECTIONS OF 1914--A FORECAST FOR GREATER MONTREAL--SUPPLEMENT: LIST OF MAYORS--CITY REVENUE. The citizens of Montreal, as already narrated, had had in view for many years under the British rule, the introduction of a responsible form of Home Rule in municipal affairs. As early as 1786, on the invitation of the Superior Council, they had reported in favour of the incorporation by charter of a municipality, but notwithstanding, the system of government by justices of the peace was continued. At a meeting of October 23, 1821, the citizens again agitated for a charter. In 1828 a great meeting was held on December 6th and resolutions were passed to the effect that in the flourishing state of the growth of population and the progress of trade the government by magistrates was not sufficient to provide for municipal advance in the future; that among the evils due to insufficient powers granted to the magistrates was the inefficiency of police regulations and the want of an efficient system of bookkeeping in the appropriation of the revenues of the town; the deplorable state for many years of the water front and the lands adjoining the “little river,” which by their unhealthy condition, had become dangerous to the well being of the great part of the surrounding population; the lack of means and authority for undertaking and executing a preconceived and general plan of improvement, it being left to the individual to put obstacles to the proper growth of the town which narrowness of view and self-interest might suggest to the delay in growth and the increase of avoidable expenses. The citizens concluded by demanding from the legislature the incorporation of the town. The committee formed to present the petition was as follows: For the town, J.B. Rolland, P. McGill, J. Quesnell and A. Laframbroise; for the districts of St. Antoine, St. Ann and the Recollets, John Fry, Father Desautels, John Torrance, Charles de Lorimier, C. Wagner and H. Corse; for St. Lawrence, C.S. Delorme, A. Tullock (Père), A. Tullock (Fils), John Baptiste Castonguay, B. Hall and Louis de Chantal; for the Quebec and St. Louis