Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T10:05:47.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From oligarchy to a ‘rate payer's democracy’: the evolution of the Corporation of London, 1680s–1750s

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2012

MARK LATHAM
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Between the Glorious Revolution and the mid-eighteenth century the governance of the Corporation of London was transformed from an oligarchy of aldermen to a ‘rate payer's democracy’. Previous analyses of this transformation have produced a contradictory picture of how and why this shift in governance occurred. By analysing the Corporation's progress to democracy from an administrative perspective, this article argues that this process was more evolutionary in nature than has previously been suggested.

Type
Research Article
Information
Urban History , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , May 2012 , pp. 225 - 245
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For the Webbs' political leanings see: Davis, J., ‘Webb, Beatrice and Webb, Sidney’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004)Google Scholar.

2 Harding, V., ‘Controlling a complex metropolis 1650–1750’, London Journal, 26 (2001), 29CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

3 Rogers, N., Whigs and Cities: Popular Politics in the Age of Walpole and Pitt (Oxford, 1989), 13–86Google Scholar; Rogers, N., ‘Resistance to oligarchy: the City opposition to Walpole and his successors’, in Stevenson, J. (ed.), London in the Age of Reform (Oxford, 1977), 1–29Google Scholar; De Krey, G., A Fractured Society: The Politics of London in the First Age of Party, 1688–1715 (Oxford, 1985)Google Scholar; Horwitz, H., ‘Party in a civic context: London from the exclusion crisis to the fall of Walpole’, in Jones, C. (ed.), Britain in the First Age of Party, 1689–1750 (London, 1987), 173–94Google Scholar.

4 For the structure of the Corporation, see Webb, B. and Webb, S., English Local Government: The Manor and the Borough (London, 1908), 569–692Google Scholar.

5 Rogers, N., ‘The City Elections Act (1725) reconsidered’, English Historical Review, 100 (1985), 604–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rogers, Whigs and Cities; Rudé, G., Hanoverian London: 1714–1808 (London, 1971), 143–61Google Scholar.

6 For example, see chapter 2 in Rogers, Whigs and Cities, entitled ‘The struggle for control of the City’. Such language is similar to that used by Linda Colley, in her work on the Tory party during the period, entitled In Defiance of Oligarchy (Cambridge, 1982).

7 Sweet, R., ‘Oligarchy and urban government in eighteenth-century England’, in Saupin, G. (ed.), Le pouvoir urbain dans l'Europe Atlantique du xvie au xviiie siècle (Nantes, 2002), 185Google Scholar.

8 Evans, J.T., ‘The decline of oligarchy in seventeenth-century Norwich’, Journal of British Studies, 14 (1974), 47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Pearl, V., London and the Outbreak of the Puritan Revolution: City Government and National Politics, 1625–43 (Oxford, 1961)Google Scholar.

10 Gauci, P., Politics and Society in Great Yarmouth: 1660–1722 (Oxford, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Evans, ‘Norwich’; Kirby, J., ‘Restoration Leeds and the aldermen of the Corporation, 1661–1700’, Northern History, 22 (1986), 123–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clark, P., ‘The civic leaders of Gloucester 1580–1800’, in Clark, P. (ed.), The Transformation of English Provincial Towns: 1600–1800 (London, 1984), 311–45Google Scholar; J. Ellis, ‘A dynamic society: social relations in Newcastle-upon-Tyne 1660–1760’, in ibid., 190–227. In defence of Clark, he does make reference to the impact of Gloucester's aldermanic oligarchy on the magistrates’ bench.

11 I.G. Doolittle, ‘The government of the City of London, 1694–1767’, unpublished University of Oxford D.Phil. thesis, 1980, ch. X; Miller, J., Cities Divided: Politics and Religion in English Provincial Towns, 1660–1722 (Oxford, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gauci, Great Yarmouth.

12 Rogers, N., ‘Money, land and lineage: the big bourgeoisie of Hanoverian London’, in Borsay, P. (ed.), The Eighteenth-Century Town (London, 1990), 268–91Google Scholar.

13 Andrew, D., ‘Aldermen and big bourgeoisie of London reconsidered’, Social History, 6 (1981), 359–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Horwitz, H., ‘“The mess of the middle class” revisited: the case of the “big bourgeoisie” of Augustan London’, Continuity and Change, 2 (1987), 263–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Beattie, J., Policing and Punishment in London, 1660–1750 (Oxford, 2001), 101–2 and 220–3Google Scholar.

15 Ibid., 98–9.

16 Webb and Webb, Manor and Borough, 656–70.

17 Doolittle, I., ‘Walpole's City Elections Act (1725)’, English Historical Review, 97 (1982), 528Google Scholar.

18 Webb and Webb, Manor and Borough, 637.

19 Ibid., 639.

20 Ibid., 664.

21 Rudé, Hanoverian London, 120–1; Jones, P.E., The Corporation of London: Its Origin, Constitution Powers and Duties (Oxford, 1950), 43Google Scholar.

22 Aylmer, G., ‘From office-holding to civil service: the genesis of modern bureaucracy’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5 (1980), 91–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Davison, L., Hitchcock, T., Keirn, T. and Shoemaker, R., ‘The reactive state: English governance and society, 1689–1750’, in Davison, L., Hitchcock, T., Keirn, T. and Shoemaker, R. (eds.), Stilling the Grumbling Hive: The Response to Social and Economic Problems in England 1689–1750 (Stroud, 1992), xxviii–xliGoogle Scholar; E.J. Dawson, `Finance and the unreformed borough’, unpublished University of Hull Ph.D. thesis, 1978, 372–7 and 731–74; Langford, P., Public Life and the Propertied Englishman: 1689–1789 (Oxford, 1991), ch. 4Google Scholar; Sweet, ‘Oligarchy and urban government’, 183–94.

23 Jones, The Corporation, 130.

24 Keene, D., ‘London Bridge and the identity of the medieval city’, Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, 51 (2001), 148Google Scholar.

25 The Bridge House was largely at the whim of the monarch (as was the City) from its inception until Edward II's charter of 1319 granted the City the right to appoint the Bridge Masters: Barron, C., London in the Later Middle Ages: Government and People, 1200–1500 (Oxford, 2004), 1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar. D. Keene ‘London Bridge’, 143–56.

26 Shipley, N.R., ‘The City Lands Committee, 1592–1642’, Guildhall Studies in London History, 2:4 (1977), 168–9Google Scholar; J.R. Woodhead, ‘The rulers of London: the composition of the courts of aldermen and common council of the City of London, 1660–89’, unpublished University of London MA thesis, 1961, 15. For an example of Bridge House sub-committees, see London Metropolitan Archives (LMA), Bridge House Committee Papers (BHCP) COL/CC/BHC/03 fol. 02 (1679–80).

27 For a more detailed description of the BHLC, see M. Latham, ‘The London Bridge Improvement Act of 1756’, unpublished University of Leicester Ph.D. thesis, 2009, 40–61.

28 LMA, repertories of the Court of Aldermen (RCA), COL/CA/01/01/156 fol. 452. COL/CA/01/01/146 fol. 352, COL/CA/01/01/154 fol. 408, COL/CA/01/01/158 fols. 505–6 (1741–53).

29 Webb and Webb, Manor and Borough, 641–2 and 664.

30 Figures for the 1660s have been omitted as they are skewed by the number of meetings required to lease property after the fire. Similarly, meetings for the 1680s are unrepresentative due to the suspension of the City's charter. Between 1684 and 1688, only aldermen sat on the BHLC and as a consequence of fewer men dealing with the Bridge House business, the number of meetings rose.

31 Sweet, R., The English Town: 1680–1840 (Harlow, 1999), 56–9Google Scholar.

32 Beattie, Policing and Punishment, 192.

33 LMA, Bridge House Journals (BHJ) COL/CC/BHC/01/09 (1737).

34 LMA/BHJ COL/CC/BHC/01/08 (1743): Edward Bellamy – three, John Thompson – two, Daniel Lambert – five, William Calvert – two, Walter Bernard – six, Samuel Pennant – one.

35 For Stampe, see LMA/BHJ COL/CC/BHC/01/03 and 04. Child attended in 1723, 1731, 1735, 1737 and 1739, LMA/BHJ COL/CC/BHC/01/06&07. Ladbrooke attended in 1741, 1745, 1748, 1749 and 1751, LMA/BHJ COL/CC/BHC/01/08–10.

36 LMA/BHJ COL/CC/BHC/01/04 onwards; Rogers, ‘Money, land and lineage’, 279–80.

37 Latham, ‘London Bridge’, 43–8.

38 Webb and Webb, Manor and Borough, 582; Jones, The Corporation, 38; Baddeley, J.J., The Aldermen of Cripplegate Ward from A.D. 1276 to A.D. 1900 (London, 1900), 109–19, quote from 116Google Scholar.

39 Webb and Webb, Manor and Borough, 656–7.

40 LMA/BHCP, COL/CC/BHC/03 fol. 04. See, for example, viewings on 5 Apr. 1693, 20 Oct. 1698, 10 Nov. 1708.

41 LMA/BHJ COL/CC/BHC/01/08, 5 Oct. 1743; LMA/BHJ COL/CC/BHC/01/06, 8 May 1728, 5 Sep. 1733.

42 LMA/BHJ COL/CC/BHC/01/07, 1 Mar. 1738, undated Dec. 1738. LMA/BHJ COL/CC/BHC/01/08, 6 Jul. 1743.

43 LMA/BHJ COL/CC/BHC/01/03, 13 Oct. 1693; LMA/BHJ COL/CC/BHC/01/05, 12 Mar. 1718; LMA/BHJ COL/CC/BHC/01/06, 31 May 1728. LMA/BHJ COL/CC/BHC/01/07, undated Oct. 1738; LMA/BHJ COL/CC/BHC/01/08, 11 May 1743, 6 July 1743.

44 LMA/BHJ COL/CC/BHC/01/10.

45 LMA/BHJ COL/CC/BHC/01/06.

46 LMA/BHJ COL/CC/BHC/01/05, 4 Mar. 1719, 3 Jun. 1719. Swann discusses further administrative reforms: B.A.S. Swann, ‘A study of some London estates in the eighteenth century’, unpublished University of London Ph.D. thesis, 1964, 3–6.

47 Sweet, English Town, ch. 5; Davison, Hitchcock, Keirn and Shoemaker, ‘The reactive state’, xxviii–xli; Dawson, ‘Unreformed borough’, 372–7 and 731–74.

48 LMA/BHJ COL/CC/BHC/01/06, 4 Sep. 1728; LMA, Court of Common Council journals (CCCJ) COL/CC/01/01/057 fol. 176 (1728).

49 George, D., London Life in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1951), 9Google Scholar.

50 Doolittle, ‘City of London’, 224–7.

51 LMA/RCA, COL/CA/01/01/113 fol. 433 (1708).

52 LMA/BHJ COL/CC/BHC/01/04, 1 Dec. 1708.

53 LMA/RCA COL/CA/01/01/113 fols.102 and 426 (1708).

54 LMA/CCCJ COL/CC/01/01/058 fols. 50, 147, 207 (1738–40); LMA/CCCJ COL/CC/01/01/058 fol. 302 (1743).

55 LMA/CCCJ COL/CC/01/01/058 fol. 207 (1740); LMA/BHJ COL/CC/BHC/01/08, 7 Dec. 1743; LMA/CCCJ COL/CC/01/01/058 fol. 313 (1743).

56 Doolittle, ‘City of London’, 224; LMA/CCCJ COL/CC/01/01/059 fol. 193 (1749).

57 A more detailed examination of these accusations of corruption is planned for a forthcoming article.

58 See n. 21 above and Sweet, R., ‘Corrupt and corporate bodies: attitudes to corruption in eighteenth-century and early nineteenth-century towns’, in Moore, J. and Smith, J. (eds.), Corruption in Urban Politics and Society, Britain 1780–1950 (Aldershot, 2007), 41–56Google Scholar.

59 Latham, M., ‘The death of London's “Living Bridge”’, London Journal, 35 (2010), 164–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 An Act to Improve, Widen and Enlarge the Passage Over and Through London Bridge, 31 George II c. 40 (1756).

61 Webb and Webb, English Local Government, 3.

62 Spencer, F., Municipal Origins (London, 1911), 5Google Scholar; Webb and Webb, Statutory Authorities.

63 E. Jones and M. Falkus, ‘Urban improvement and the English economy in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries’, in Borsay (ed.), The Eighteenth Century Town, 137–41; Langford, Public Life, 211–87; Sweet, English Town, 42–56; Spencer, Municipal Origins, 7–45.

64 LMA, London Bridge Improvement Committee minute books (LBICM), COL/CC/LBI/02/001 (1756–8).

65 LMA/LBICM COL/CC/LBI/02/001, 1 Feb. 1757; LMA, London Bridge Improvement Committee papers, COL/CC/LBI/03/001 (1754–65)

66 For the creation of this profession of the architect planner, see Ogborn, M., ‘Designs on the City: John Gwynn's plans for Georgian London’, Journal of British Studies, 43 (2004), 15–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67 LMA/CCCJ COL/CC/01/01/061 fol. 145 (1757).

68 Act to Improve London Bridge, cc. 36 and 37.

69 LMA/CCCJ COL/CC/01/01/061 fols. 82, 186–7, 210 (1755).

70 Latham, ‘London Bridge’, 199–203.

71 Webb and Webb, Manor and Borough, 626–56 and 685–92; Innes, J., ‘Managing the metropolis’, in Clark, P. and Gillespie, R. (eds.), Two Capitals: London and Dublin 1500–1840 (Oxford, 2001), 53–79Google Scholar.