Noticeboard identifying the incumbents of a ward
photo © S. Alsford
For most of the late medieval period the ward was the constituency
in London. Only a few other English towns were populous enough to warrant
a division of the electorate on that kind of basis, and they did not use
the system to the same extent as in London. There the ward had long been
a unit for defence, police and judicial administration, and
other administrative concerns (e.g. sanitation).
The wardmoot was where London citizens met to choose their aldermen and
their Common Councillors. Ward meetings, as administrative institutions,
were supposed to be attended by all lay male adult residents. Whether
electoral meetings were attended by such a large group, we do not know,
and the holding of some elections of aldermen in the Guildhall is
suggestive of less than full participation.
In fact, other than in periods of political radicalism, the aldermen tended
to hold office for life, or until they chose to step down, or (less commonly)
disgraced themselves in the eyes of their peers. This apparently unwritten
custom, not unchallenged, was overthrown in favour of annual election by the
political fervour harnessed by John Northampton in the 1370s and '80s. But
this reform met with its own reversal when conservative forces regained
control. Annual election was allowed to go by the boards and in 1394 was
formally abolished by Parliament. In 1397 popular influence over the
selection of aldermen was further diminished by an ordinance allowing the
electorate only to nominate two candidates, with the mayor and aldermen
making the final choice; the number was subsequently altered to four.
So the opportunity of the electorate came infrequently, as regards the
selection of London aldermen. And when it did come, the electors almost
invariably chose to shoulder the burden on a member of the "ruling class",
if we may use such a term to describe the wealthier members of
the community, whose interests and outlook were more closely aligned
with each other than with lesser residents who earned a more meagre living
by the skill or labour of their hands. Probably in no town was
collective decision-making by the community (or, rather, those
adult male members of the community qualified, usually by having become
freemen, to participate in political assemblies) more than a principle;
practical government, by its nature, tends to devolve to much smaller
groups.
London's Common Council emerged out of ad hoc committees of citizens
brought together to address specific problems and assemblies for more
general business at which representatives were summoned from the wards,
as far back as the late thirteenth century. Early in the next century
again a period of the conflict of different political perspectives
the principles were declared that each alderman was answerable to
the constituency of his ward, and that mayor and aldermen collectively
were answerable to the citizenry as a whole; from which stemmed an
ordinance requiring unanimous consent of an assembly to the common seal
being appended to any document of importance. The constitution
of this assembly was left to experiment; it may be that the councillors
were freely elected by ward residents, or possibly the alderman of each ward
had some influence over the selection.
Short-lived attempts to have Common Councillors selected by the craft gilds
rather than the wards did serve to introduce men lower down the social
scale into city government. But by the close of the fourteenth century,
election had been returned to the wards. The number of councillors per
ward was made proportional to the size of the ward.
This situation has remained the same over the last half-millennium, until
very recently,* with councillors elected by freemen
(a status now open to women) in ward meetings, and aldermen serving for
"life" (retirement at age 70). The aldermen, who still wear fur-trimmed
scarlet gowns on ceremonial occasions, continue to have important
jurisdiction in their wards; but as a body, are less important today than
they were in the Middle Ages. The Court of Common Council, which includes
the aldermen, is the principal decision-making body. Similarly, the mayor
is still elected, as he was by the close of the Middle Ages, by a select
number of citizens specially summoned: the Common Councillors and
representatives of the livery companies; and still they nominate two
candidates, from whom the aldermen choose the new mayor. The essential
shape of London's government, as well as that of its bureaucracy, was
thus established by the end of the medieval period.
We could say the same for many other English towns,
notwithstanding reforms of the Victorian era. A form of limited
representative government was settled on London's full council
sometimes exceeding two hundred participants, while those of other towns
where multi-tiered councils were established often exceeded sixty.
This constitutional solution offered the hope of stability, as opposed to
the risks of turbulence and demagoguery of a more populist kind of
democracy. By broadening the base of participation in government somewhat,
the ruling class appears to have won the support of most of the
leading members of the crafts, thus depriving the disempowered lesser
townsmen of the leadership that they would have needed to alter the
situation.
At the same time, urban politics was less dominated than it
had been in thirteenth and fourteenth centuries by a small number of
powerful local families, furnishing leaders across several generations.
Due in part to restrictions on re-election or consecutive terms, but also
to social and economic changes, executive office was spread among a
larger number of the ruling class.
* Reforms given royal assent in November 2002
allow city businesses to have the vote (a situation reminiscent of the
medieval political involvement of craft gilds), while the aldermen's posts
are now to be subject to elections every few years. Boundaries of the
25 wards are being reviewed.
print window |
close window