The London Journal
Volume 26 No.1 2001
ABSTRACTS
DEREK KEENE, Roots and Branches of Power, 1000-1300 (pp. 1-8) London owes its identity as a city to the Romans, but little to them in its form of government. With the renewed growth of London from A.D. 600 onwards, the importance of royal authority and officials in the management of its affairs emerges as a central and continuing theme. The city was not the seat of powerful early kings, but its commercial wealth and large population increasingly attracted their attention and shaped the realm. By A.D. 1000, the other source of authority in London, the complex customs and practices of its inhabitants, was already apparent. The tension between these two expressioons of power, and their interdependence, quickly emerged as central themes in the history of London's governemnt and remain so to this day. By 1300 a powerful system of collective governance had emerged in London which nevertheless owed much to the state of which it was now the capital. Notable features of that system were its complexity, especially in the local articulation of government; the significance of informal and non-secular modes of association in mobilising power; the difficulty of identifying London in straightforward administrative structures; and the attribution of responsibility for particular services ad hoc bodies.This article discusses four significant changes in the way that London was governed between 1300 and 1500: the transfer of the control of entry to the citizenship from the wards to the city companies; the development of a new legislative body, the Court of Common Council with over a hundred elected members and the absolute control over taxation in the City; and the regulation of the elections, and tenure, both of the powerful ward aldermen and of the mayor himself. It is argued that the systems put in place for governing London between 1300 and 1500 were altered very little in the ensuing five hundred years. The changes that are now proposed by Parliament, and by the Corporation itself, return, sometimes in unexpected ways, to the issues that faced the reformers in the late medieval period.
During the sixteenth century London enjoyed considerable political stability, a reflection of civic ideology which commanded a fair degree of support among the populace, a high degree of popular participation in local government and a porous elite which continued to reflect the city's commercial interests. Although there were periodic clashes between the crown and the city, these never escalated into full-blown congrontations because of a basically symbiotic relationship between the two. However, religious tensions, which had been successfully contained in the sixteenth century, resurfaced under the early Stuarts and proved the key factor in the polarisation of city opinion in the events of 1640 to 1642. An other source of destabilisation was the growth of the suburbs which remained outside the jurisdiction of the aldermen. It is argued that the problems of the suburbs can be easily exaggerated but that the failure of the aldermen to show much interest in extending their authority into these new areas contributed to the fragmentation of metropolitan identity.
The period from 1650 to 1750 was not characterised by major institutional innovation in the government of London, let alone revolutionary structural change. The contrast between the centralised and well-organised government of the City and the atomised and somewhat improvised governmental institutions of the rest of the metropolis was as striking in 1750 as it was in 1650. However, the nature of government changed. The power relations between national and local government shifted, as did the scope and competence of administrative activity. Many of the characteristic features of London's governance as it is today emerged or became significant within this period. This paper focuses on three main developments in London's government. The overarching one is the politicisation of the process of choosing or identifying the governors of London, and the increased significance in national party-politics of the stance of London's governors. Underpinning this is the financial revolution and the invention of 'the City' as we understand the term. Thirdly, local government in the rest of London, while still fairly ad hoc in its institutions, began to respond to heightened expectations of the quality of life in the metropolis, but encountered a number of new problems, notably that of accountability.
Between 1750 and 1850 London grew rapidly in size and importance but remained a conurbation of disparate communities that lacked any unitary local government. The City Corporation was the most democratic local government authority in any British city. In the early Victorian period the Corporation carried out an effective programme of sanitary reform but its reputation was undermined by the lack of constitutional reform. Outside the City, parish vestries remained the principal local authorities throughout the nineteenth century but were increasingly criticised as corrupt, ineffective, oligarchic and sectarian. Parliament devolved many local responsibilities to improvement commissions, which led to some administrative confusion but also to real improvements, notably in regard to sewerage. Public order was maintained partly because Londoners were well fed and partly because the government professionalised both the magistracy and the police force, but the changes effected by the Metropolitan Police have been exaggerated. Local government in London from 1750 to 1850 reflected local and national realities and was more successful than has generally been recognized.
This period witnessed the gradual erosion of parochial democracy, the retreat of the City Corporation into its square mile and the emergence of metropolitan authorities - first the Metropolitan Board of Works and then the London County Council. Given the patchwork nature of the second tier and the unaccountability of the indirectly elected Metropolitan Board of Works, the new metropolitan system devised in 1855 proved ill suited to the sort of 'gas and water' municipal enterprise that was emerging in the provinces. The L.C.C., which replaced the M.B.W. in 1889, proved a more charismatic authority. Public interest in it was heightened by the fact that its creation coincided with the growing interest in London's social problems in the 1880s, enabling the radical Liberal Progressives to dominate the Council in its early years. Eventually, though, Liberal control of a highly party politicised authority proved vulnerable to the ratepayer reaction of the 1900s. With the consequent decline of social municipalism, the L.C.C. found itself unable, because of its limited powers and area, to play the strategic, regional role being sought by the larger provincial authorities before and immediately after the First World War. Its eventual redundancy and replacement in the 1960s was arguably predictable by 1920.
Between 1920 and 1986 debates about London government bore little relationship to economic realities. Policy makers sought to control London's growth but rarely shaped or determined outcomes, which had more to do with individual decision-making. Sprawling metropolitan growth encouraged debate and generated plans about how best to govern Greater London. However, social polarisation between middle-class suburbs and working-class inner city areas hindered progress. Master plans for the county of London were drawn up and in 1946 Abercrombies' proposals for decentralisation were accepted. Rapid population growth, however, undermined the principle of the master plans and local development plans were formulated which took account of growth. Abercrombies' ideal of decentralisation was achieved not by policy but by market forces. The formation of the Greater London Council reflected recognition of the need to extend London's government beyond the old L.C.C. area. However, opposition by the boroughs, especially in the suburbs, curtailed the G.L.C.'s activities and Conservative hostility ultimately led to abolition in 1986.
Abolition of the G.L.C. led to a complex web of governmental institutions for London consisting of specific offices within central government departments, various appointed boards, and the boroughs and City of London. The Departments of Environment and Transport both had regional offices governing London. The Government Office for London was perhaps the most important of reforms instituted after 1992. The post 1986 framework for government relied heavily on government appointed or controlled institutions. Fragmentation led to pressures for joint arrangements and inter-borough co-operation, emphasising the need to overcome the fractious behaviour that had characterised relations prior to 1986. Abolition transferred significant powers to the boroughs and these, together with new responsibilities, enhanced their authority. Different forms of partnerships emerged, including city-wide, multi-borough and private-public committees.