Nothing could be more misleading than to suggest that the constitution of the City of London was well defined either in theory or practice. Except among a few antiquarians and lawyers, the form of the constitution was of small interest to those concerned in the working of the City government. They had no Whiggish preconceptions about fixed methods of procedure or “constitutional rights,” but adopted what lay to hand in the way that best suited their immediate purposes. For that reason…any general statement about the constitution [is] subject to many qualifications.
~Valerie Pearl1
Oligarchic rule was most powerful in London. There were “three main Courts or Councils”: Lord Mayor and Aldermen, Common Council, and Common Hall. The first was, roughly, the executive; the second, even more roughly, legislative; and the last “acted solely in an electoral capacity.”2 Membership in Common Hall was nominally limited, since 1475, to members of the livery companies (guilds), numbering some 4,000 men in 1640. The establishment of newer guilds in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries for some “craftsmen working in humbler trades” gave it a more inclusive and popular character.3 But, unless there was a dispute, during the elections for London’s officials “…men who were not entitled to vote frequently stayed and took part in elections. Since voting was usually by show of hands, there was no systematic way of checking on the voters’ qualifications.”4
Most practices of municipal government were ruled by feudal custom, not law, but even where law existed custom often trumped it. At the beginning of the 16th century, the right to nominate and elect the City’s four MPs was given solely to Common Hall. But the tradition that the Court of Aldermen and Common Hall each nominate two of the four candidates, whose selections were then ratified by the Common Council, persisted until 1628,5 a landmark year as will be seen.
The majority of elected office holders came from the twelve main livery companies.6 The domination of the aldermen in City affairs, including elections, dated back to the 14th century. Freemen and householders could nominally vote for and serve as common councilors, but in practice only liverymen normally held the office.7 In the early 17th century, parish church vestries often controlled the local electoral process.8 The powers of the Council were ill-defined and weak, and only its wealthiest members, in conjunction with the aldermen and Lord Mayor, had any real influence. Not only did the aldermen participate in the Council’s discussions, “Only those measures proposed to the assembly on the initiative of the Court of Aldermen were in fact discussed,” and they held veto power over it. Disputed elections were also resolved by them, and only the Lord Mayor had the power to call or dismiss a Council meeting. Whereas the aldermen met twice a week in the early 17th century the Council sat no more than 6 times a year, and often much less.9
So skillfully balanced was the City constitution that the Privy Council in 1621 commended it to the magistrates of Norwich (one of the few corporations where the citizens as a whole still exercised substantial influence) pointing out the admirable advantages of the constitution in excluding the lower orders, while maintaining a show of more liberal government.10
Elections to Norwich’s more open aldermanic council were gradually suppressed by the Privy Council during the 1620s,11 but in 1642 the powers of the London aldermen and Lord Mayor over the Common Council were done away with in practice by the revolution.
The much smaller Court of Aldermen controlled the selection process of its own members, who served for life, and were usually members of one of the twelve major livery companies. A property qualification of £10,000 was required to hold office. The aldermen oversaw all of the subsidiary courts and City government functions, and some senior members also sat as judges or Justices of the Peace (JPs). All guild ordinances had to obtain their approval, and they “enjoyed the special privilege of presenting petitions to the throne, and at the hands of the Sheriffs, to the House of Commons.” They also had the power to appoint, or sell, some 140 municipal positions. The aldermen’s discussions occurred in secret, and they did not have to explain their decisions.12 In this way, they were able to maintain their complete control of London’s government.
1 London and the Outbreak, 49
2 Pearl, London and the Outbreak, 49
3 Pearl, London and the Outbreak, 50
4 Pearl, London and the Outbreak, 50-51
5 Pearl, London and the Outbreak, 52-53, 109
6 Pearl, London and the Outbreak, 116
7 Pearl, London and the Outbreak, 53-55
8 Pearl, London and the Outbreak, 55
9 Pearl, London and the Outbreak, 56-58
10 Pearl, London and the Outbreak, 67
11 Hirst, Representative?, 48
12 Pearl, London and the Outbreak, 59-61