Online Encyclopedia
Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.
GROWTH AND
Online EncyclopediaEncyclopedia Home :: GRA-GUI
del.icio.us it!
|
GROWTH AND See also:POPULATION
Much has been written upon the population of See also:medieval See also:London, but little certainty has resulted therefrom. We know the See also:size of London at different periods and are able to guess to some Medie ai extent as to the number of its inhabitants, but most of the Popuki.
figures which have come down to us are See also:mere guesses. The t1oa. results of the See also:poll-tax have often been considered as See also:trust-
worthy substitutes for population returns, but See also:Professor See also:Oman has shown that little trust can be placed in these results. As an instance he states that the commissioners of the poll-tax reported that there were only two-thirds as many contributaries in 1381 as in 1377. The adult population of the See also:realm had ostensibly fallen from 1,355,201 to 896,481. These figures were monstrous and incredible.'
The Bills of Mortality of the 16th and 17th centuries are of more value, and they have been considered and revised by such able statisticians as See also: During the latter See also:part of the Saxon period the numbers of the population of the See also:country began to decay; this decay, however, was arrested by the Norman Conquest. The population increased during ten peaceful years of See also: Although there were fluctuations in the numbers at different periods there is See also:evidence to show that on the See also:average the amount of forty to fifty thousand fixed by Dr Creighton for the years between 1189 and 1509 is fairly correct. The medieval period closed with the accession of the Tudor See also:dynasty, and from that time the population of London continued to increase, in spite of attempts by the See also:government to prevent it. One of the first periods of increase was after the See also:dissolution of the religious houses; another period of increase was after the Restoration.
A See also:proclamation was issued in 158o prohibiting the erection within 3 m. of the city See also:gates of any new houses or tenements " where no former See also:house hath been known to have been." In a subsequent proclamation See also:Queen See also: The See also:Company of Parish Clerks is named in an See also:ordinance of 1581 (of which there is a copy in the See also:Record See also:Office) as the See also:body responsible for the bills, and their duties were then said to be " according to the See also:Order in that behalf heretofore provided." John See also:Bell, clerk to the company, who wrote an See also:essay during the great See also:plague of 1665, had no records in his office of an earlier date than 1593, and he was not aware that his company had been engaged in registering births and deaths before that year. The See also:fire of 1666 destroyed all the documents of the Parish Clerks Company, and in its See also: He estimates the population to have been 180,000 persons, which Dr Creighton affirms to be nearly three times the number that we obtain by a moderate calculation from the bills of mortality in 1532 and 1535. Population Following on his calculations from 1509, when the in 16th population may be supposed to have been about 50,000, and 17th r Creighton carries on his numbers to the Restoration centuries. in the following table: 1532-1535 • . 62,400 1605 . . . 224,275 1563 . . 93,276 1622 . . 272,207 1580 . . . 123,034 1634 • • 339,824 1593-1595 • . 152,478 1661 . . . 460,000 The numbers for 1661 are those arrived at by Graunt, and they are just about See also:half the population given authoritatively in the first See also:census 1801 (864,845). It therefore took 140 years to See also:double the numbers, while in 1841 the numbers of 18oi were more than doubled.
These numbers were arrived at with much care and may be considered as fairly accurate although some other calculations conflict with a few of the figures. The first See also:attempt at a census was in See also:August 1631 when the See also:lord See also:mayor returned the number of mouths in the city of London and Liberties at 130,268, which is only about half the number given above. This is accounted for by the larger See also:area contained in the bills of mortality compared with that containing only the city and its liberties.' See also:Howell's See also:suggestion that the population of London in 1631 was a million and a half need only be mentioned as a specimen of the wildest of guesses.
Petty's numbers for 1682 are 670,000 and those of See also:Gregory See also: These figures include (I) the City of London within and (2) without the walls, (3) the City and Liberties of See also:Westminster, (4) the outparishes within the bills of mortality and (5) the parishes not within the bills of mortality. No. 5 is given as 9150 in 1700, and 22,350 in 1750. It is curious to find that already in the 18th century a considerable reduction in the numbers of the city of London is supposed to have taken See also:place, as is seen in the following figures: 1700. City of London within the walls . . 139,300 87,000 without the walls 69,000 57,300 As the increase in Westminster is not great (130,000 in 1700 and 152,000 in 1750) and there is little difference in the totals it will be seen that the amount is chiefly made up by the increase in the parishes without the bills of mortality. The extraordinary growth of London did not come into existence until about the middle of the 19th century (see § IV. above). GOVERNMENT We know little of the government of London during the Saxon period, and it is only incidentally that we learn how the Londoner had become possessed of See also:special privileges which he stizan continued to claim with success through many centuries. period. One of the See also:chief of these was the claim to a See also:separate See also:voice in the See also:election of the king. The citizens did not dispute the right of election by the kingdom but they held that that election did not necessarily include the choice of London. An instance of this is seen in the election of See also:Edmund Ironside, although the See also:Witan outside London had elected Canute. The remarkable instance of this after the Conquest was the election of See also:Stephen, but William the Conqueror did not feel secure until he had the See also:sanction of the Londoners to his kingship, and his attitude towards London when he hovered about the neighbourhood of the city for a time shows that he was anxious to obtain this sanction freely rather than by compulsion. His hopes and expectations were fulfilled when ' The return was made " by special command from the Right See also:Honourable the Lords of His See also:Majesty's Privy See also:Council." The Privy Council were at this time apprehensive of an approaching scarcity of See also:food. The numbers (130,268) were made up as follows: London Within the Walls 71,029, London Without the Walls 40,579, Old See also:Borough of See also:Southwark (See also:Bridge Without) 18,660. the gates of London were opened to receive him, as already related. See also:Athelstan's See also:acceptance of the London-made See also:law for the whole kingdom, as pointed out by Mr Gomme, is another instance of the See also:independence of the Londoner. When William the Conqueror granted the first See also:charter to London he addressed the See also:bishop and the portreeve—the bishop as the ecclesiastical See also:governor and the portreeve as the representative of the See also:civil See also:power. The word " See also:port in the See also:title " portreeve " does not indicate the Port of London as might naturally be supposed, for See also:Stubbs has pointed out that it is See also:porter not See also:portus, and "although used for the city generally, seems to refer to it specially in its See also:character of a Mart or City of Merchants." The Saxon title of See also:reeve was continued during the Norman period and the See also:shire-reeve or See also:sheriff has continued to our own time. There were originally several distinct See also:reeves, all apparently officers appointed by the king. Some writers have supposed that a See also:succession of portreeves continued in London, but J. H. See also:Round holds that this title disappeared after the Conqueror's charter. Henry I. granted to the city by charter the right of appointing its own sheriffs; this was a great See also:privilege, which, however, was recalled in the reigns of Henry H. and Richard I., to be restored by John in 1199. H. Round holds that the office of See also:Justiciar was created by Henry I.'s charter, and as he was the chief authority in the city this somewhat takes off from the value of the privilege of appointing sheriffs. In the 12th century there was a great municipal See also:movement over See also:Europe. Londoners were well informed as to what was going on abroad, and although the rulers were always willing to wait for an opportunity of enlarging their liberties, they remained ready to take See also:advantage of such circumstances as might occur. Their great opportunity occurred while Richard I. was engaged abroad as a crusader. In 1889 a See also:medal was struck to commemorate the Tooth anniversary of the mayoralty which according to popular tradition was founded in 1189. With respect to this tradition Round writes (See also:Commune of London, p. 223) : " The See also:assumption that the mayoralty of London dates from the accession of Richard I. is an See also:absolute perversion of history," and he adds that " there is record evidence which completely confirms, the remarkable words of .Richard of See also:Devizes, who declares that on no terms whatever would King Richard or his See also:father have ever assented to the See also:establishment of the Communa in London." In See also:October 1191 the conflict between John the king's See also:brother and See also:Longchamp the king's representative became acute. The latter The bitterly offended the Londoners, who, finding that they commune. could turn the scales to either See also:side, named the Commune as the See also:price of their support of John. A small party of the citizens under Henry of Cornhill remained faithful to the See also:chancellor Longchamp, but at a See also:meeting held at St See also:Paul's on the 8th of October, the barons welcomed the See also:archbishop of Rouen as chief justiciar (he having produced the See also:kin's sign See also:manual appointing a new See also:commission). and they saluted John as See also:regent. Stubbs, in his introduction to the See also:Chronicle of See also:Roger de Hoveden, writes: " This done, oaths were largely taken: John, the Justiciar and the Barons swore to maintain the Communa of London; the See also:oath of fealty to Richard was then sworn, John taking it first, then the two archbishops, the bishops, the barons, and last the burghers with the See also:express under-See also:standing that should the king See also:die without issue they would receive John as his successor." Referring to this important event Mr Round writes: " The excited citizens, who had poured out overnight, with lanterns and torches, to welcome John to the See also:capital, streamed together on the See also:morning of the eventful 8th of October at the well-known See also:sound of the great bell swinging out from its campanile in St Paul's Churchyard. There they heard John take the oath to the 'Commune ' like a See also:French king or lord; and then London for the first time had a See also:municipality of her own." Little is known as to what the Commune then established really was. Round's remarkable See also:discovery among the See also:manuscripts of the The Mayor British Museum of the Oath of the Commune proves for the first time that London in 1193 possessed a fully and See also:developed " Commune " of the See also:continental See also:pattern. A 1 cherins. striking point in this municipal revolution is that the new privileges extended to the city of London were entirely copied from those of continental cities, and Mr Round shows that there is conclusive See also:proof of the assertion that the Commune of London derived its origin from that of Rouen. This MS. gives us information which was unknown before, but upsets the received opinions as to the early governing position of the aldermen. From this we learn that the government of the city was in the hands of a mayor and twelve echevins (skivini) ; both these names being French, seem for a time to have excluded the Saxon aldermen.
Twelve years later (1205–1206) we learn from another document, preserved in the same See also:volume as the oath, that alii probi homines were associated with the mayor and echevins to See also:form a body of twenty-four (that is, twelve skivini and an equal number of councillors). Round holds that the See also:Court of Skivini and alii probi homines, of which at See also:present we know nothing further than what is contained in the terms of the oaths, was the germ of the See also:Common Council. We must not suppose that when the city of London obtained the privilege of appointing a mayor, and a See also:citizen could boast in 1194 that " come what may the Londoners shall haveno king but their mayor," that the king did not occasionally exert his power in suspending the liberties of the city. There were really See also:constant disagreements, and sometimes the king degraded the mayor and appointed a custos or See also:warden in his place. Several instances of this are recorded in the 13th and 14th centuries. It is very important to See also:bear in mind that the mayors of London besides holding a very onerous position were mostly men of great distinction. They often held See also:rank outside the city, and naturally took their place among the rulers of the country, They were mostly representatives of the landed interests as well as See also:merchant princes.
There is no definite information as to when the mayor first received the title of lord. A claim has been set up for See also: Apparently the title was occasionally used, and the use gradually See also:grew into a prescriptive right. There is no evidence of any See also: Distinct rank was accorded to aldermen, and in the See also:Liber Albus we are told that " it is a See also:matter of experience that ever since the year of our Lord 1350, at the sepulture of aldermen, the ancient See also:custom of interment with baronial honours was observed." When the poll-tax of 1379 was imposed the mayor was assessed as an See also:earl and the aldermen as barons. The government of the city by reeves dates back to a very early period, and these reeves were appointed by the king. The prefix of the various kinds of reeves made but little difference in the duties of the office, although the area of these duties sheriffs. might be different. There was slight difference between the "office of sheriff and that of portreeve, which latter does not appear to have survived the Conquest. After the establishment of the Commune and the See also:appointment of a mayor the sheriffs naturally lost much of their importance, and they became what they are styled in Liber Albus ' the Eyes of the Mayor." When See also:Middlesex was in See also:farm to London the two sheriffs were equally sheriffs of London and Middlesex. There is only one instance in the city records of a sheriff of Middlesex being mentioned as distinct from the sheriffs, and this was in 1283 when Anketin de Betteville and See also:Walter le Blond are described as sheriffs of London, and Gerin as sheriff of Middlesex. By the See also:Local Government Act of 1888 the citizens of London were deprived of all right of See also:jurisdiction over the See also:county of Middlesex, which had been expressly granted by various charters. In 1383 it was ordained and agreed " that no See also:person shall from henceforth be mayor in the said city if he have not first been sheriff of the said city, to the end that he may be tried in governance and See also:bounty before he attains such See also:estate of the mayoralty." The two courts—that of aldermen and that of the common council —were probably formed about the same time, but it is remarkable that we have no definite information on the subject. The Common number of members of the common council varied greatly Coanci/. at different times, but the right to determine the number was indirectly granted by the charter of Edward III. (1341) which enables the city to amend customs and usages which have become hard. There have also been many changes in the mode of election. The common council were chosen by the wards until 1351, when the appointments were made by certain companies. In 1376 an ordinance was made by the mayor and aldermen, with the assent of the whole See also:commons, to the effect that the companies should select men
with whom they were content, and none other should come to the elections of mayors and sheriffs; that the greater companies should not elect more than six, the lesser four and the least two. Forty-seven companies nominated 156 members. In 1383 the right of election reverted to the wards, but was obtained again by the See also:livery companies in 1467.
The Common Hall was the successor of the folkmote, the meetings of which were originally held in the open See also:air at the See also:east end of St
Paul's and afterwards in the See also:Guildhall. These general Common assemblies of the citizens are described in the old city See also:Hail. records as immense communitas or immensa multitudo civium. The elections in Common Hall were by the whole body of citizens until Edward I.'s reign; citizens were then specially summoned to Common Hall by the mayor. In Edward IV.'s reign the elections of mayor, sheriffs and other officers and members of See also:parliament were transferred to liverymen. Various alterations were subsequently made and now the qualification of See also:electors at the election of the corporate offices of lord mayor, sheriffs, See also: The common sergeant was formerly of the by the city, but since ,888 by the lord city. chancellor. The See also:town clerk is appointed by the city and re-elected annually. The chamberlain or See also:comptroller of the king's chamber is appointed by the livery. He was originally a king's officer and the office was probably instituted soon after the Conquest. The See also:remembrancer is appointed by the common council. The common See also:hunt, an office abolished in 1807, was filled by John See also:Courtenay in 1417. The See also:sword-See also:bearer is noticed in the Liber Albus (1419) and the first record of an appointment is dated 1426. Few fundamental alterations have been made in the constitution of the city, but in the reign of Charles II. the most arbitrary See also:pro-Later ceedings were taken against its liberties. The king and See also:Lat a ry of his brother had See also:long entertained designs against the city, thecor- and for the purpose of crushing them two pretexts were the See also:coon. set up—(1) that a new See also:rate of See also:market tolls had been levied by virtue of an act of common council, and (2) that a See also:petition to the king, in which it was alleged that by the See also:prorogation of parliament public See also:justice had been interrupted, had been printed by order of the Court of Common Council. Charles directed a See also:writ quo See also:wart-ante against the See also:corporation of London in 1683, and the Court of King's See also:Bench declared its charter forfeited. Soon after-wards all the See also:obnoxious aldermen were displaced and others appointed in their See also:room by royal commission. When James II. found himself in danger from the landing of the See also:Prince of See also:Orange he sent for the lord mayor and aldermen and informed them of his determination to restore the city charter and privileges, but he had no time to do anything before his See also:flight. The See also:Convention which was summoned to meet on the 22nd of See also:January 1689 was converted by a formal act into a true parliament (See also:February 23). One of the first motions put to the House was that a special See also:Committee should be appointed to consider the violations of the liberties and franchises of all the corporations of the kingdom " and particularly of the City of London." The'See also:motion was lost but the House resolved to bring in a See also:bill for repealing the Corporation Act, and ten years later (March 5) the See also:Grand Committee of Grievances reported to the House its opinion (1) that the rights of the City of London in the election of sheriffs in the year 1682 were invaded and that such invasion was illegal and a grievance, and (2) that the See also:judgment given upon the Quo Warranto against the city was illegal and a grievance. The committee's opinion on these two points (among others) was endorsed by the House and on the 16th of March it ordered a Bill to be brought in to restore all corporations to the See also:state and See also:condition they were in on the 29th of May ,66o, and to confirm the liberties and franchises which at that time they respectively held and enjoyed.' When the Act for the reform of Municipal Corporations was passed in 1835 London was specially excepted from Its provisions. When the See also:Metropolitan See also:Board of See also:Works was formed by the See also:Metropolis Management Act of 1855 the city was affected to a certain extent, but by the Local Government Act of 1888 which founded the London County Council the right of appointing a sheriff for Middlesex was taken away from the city of London. When the county of Middlesex was dissociated from the city of London one portion was joined to the administrative county of London, and the other to the county of Middlesex. The lord mayor of London has certain very remarkable privileges which have been religiously guarded and must be of great antiquity. Privileges It is only necessary to mention these here, but each of the lord of the privileges requires an exhaustive examination mayor. as to its origin. They all prove the remarkable position of Old London, and See also:mark it off from all other cities of modern Europe. Shortly stated the privileges are four: ' R. R. See also:Sharpe, London and the Kingdom (1894), i. 541.The closing of Temple See also:Bar to the See also:sovereign.
2. The mayor's position in the city, where he is second only to the king.
3. His See also:summons to the Privy Council on the accession of a new sovereign.
4. His position of See also: See also:Thornton 1784) ; J. Noorthouck, A New History (1773); Walter See also:Harrison, A New and Universal History (1775); J. P. See also:Malcolm, Londinium Redivivum or an Ancient History and Modern Description of London (1803); See also:David Hughson (E. Pugh), London (1805–1809); B. See also:Lambert, History and Survey of London (1806); Henry See also:Hunter, History of London (1811) ; J. W. See also:Abbott, History of London (182,); Thomas See also:Allen, History and Antiquities of London (1827–1829, continued by Thomas See also:Wright 1839) ; William See also: J. Loftie, Historic Towns (London, 1887) ; See also:Claude de la See also:Roche See also:Francis, London, Historic and Social (See also:Philadelphia, 1902) ; Sir Walter See also:Besant, The Survey of London (19o2–,9o8)—Early London, Prehistoric, Roman, Saxon and Norman (1908); Medieval London, vol. 1, See also:Historical and Social (1906), vol. 2, Ecclesiastical (1906) ; London in the Time of the Tudors (1904) ; London in the Time of the Stuarts (1903) ; London in the Eighteenth Century (1902); H. B. See also:Wheatley, The See also:Story of London [Medieval Towns] (London, 1904). The following are some of the See also:Chronicles of London which have been printed, arranged in order of publication: R. See also:Grafton; Chronicle 1189--1558 (1809) ; R. See also:Arnold, London Chronicle (1811) ; A Chronicle of London from 1089 to 1483 written in the Fifteenth Century (1827) ; William Gregory's Chronicle of London, 1189–1469 (1876); Historical Collections of a Citizen of London, edited by James See also:Gairdner (See also:Camden Society, 1876) ; Chronicles of London [1200–1516], edited by C. L. See also:Kingsford (Oxford, 1905). Many books have been published on the government of London, of which the following is a selection: City Law (1647, 1658); Lex Londinensis or the City Law (168o); W. See also:Bohun, Privilegia Londini (1723) ; See also:Giles See also:Jacob, City Liberties (1733) ; See also:Laws and Customs, Rights, Liberties and Privileges of the City of London (1765) ; David Hughson, See also:Epitome of the Privileges of London (,816) ; George See also:Norton, Commentaries on the History, Constitution and Chartered Franchises of the City of London (1829, 3rd ed. 1869); Munimenta Gildhallae Londoniensis, edited by H. T. See also:Riley—vol. 1, Liber Albus (1419), vol. 2, Liber Custumarum (1859) ; Liber Albus: the See also: Riley. French Chronicle of London 1259–1343 (1863); See also:Analytical See also:Index to the Series of Records known as the Remembrancia 1579–1664 (1888) ; See also:Calendar of Letter-Books [circa 1275–1399] pre-served among the Archives of the Corporation of London at the Guildhall, edited by Reginald R. Sharpe, D.C.L. (1899–1907) ; W. and R. See also:Woodcock, Lives of Lord Mayors (1846) ; J. F. B. See also:Firth, Municipal London (1876) ; Walter Delgray See also:Birch, Historical Charters and Constitutional Documents of the City of London (1884, 1887) ; J. H. See also:basement See also:bed becomes a thick See also:deposit (6o ft.), forming part of Round, The Commune of London and other Studies (1899) ; Reginald R. Sharpe, London and the Kingdom; a History derived mainly from the Archives at Guildhall (1894) ; G. L. Gomme, The Governance of London. Studies on the Place occupied by London in See also:English Institutions (1907); See also:Alfred B. Beaven, The Aldermen of the City of London temp. Henry III. (1908). In connexion with the government of London may be noted works on the following: Inns of Court. William See also:Herbert, Antiquities of the Inns of Court and See also:Chancery (1804); Robert P. See also:Pearce, History (1848). See also:Artillery Company, See also:Anthony Highmore, History of the Hon. Artillery Co. of London to 1802 (1804) ; G. A. See also:Raikes, History of the Hon. Artillery Co. (1878). William Herbert published in 1837 History of the Twelve great Livery Companies of London, and in 1869 Thomas Arundell published Historical Reminiscences of the City and its Livery Companies. Since then have appeared The Livery Companies of the City of London, by W. See also:Carew See also:Hazlitt (1892); The City Companies of London, by P. H. Ditchfield (1904); The See also:Gilds and Companies of London, by George Unwin (1908). Separate histories have been published of the chief London companies. The following are some of the chief works connected with the See also:topography of London: Thomas See also:Pennant, Of London (1790, 1793, 1805, 1813, translated into See also:German 1791) ; John T. Smith, Antient Topography of London (1815) ; David Hughson E. Pugh], Walks through London (1817); London (edited by Charles See also:Knight 1841–1844, reprinted 1851, revised by E. Walford 1875–1877); J. H. See also:Jesse, See also:Literary and Historical Memorials of London (1847); See also:Leigh Hunt, The Town, its Memorable Character and Events (1848, new ed. 1859) Peter See also:Cunningham, A Handbook of London past and present (1849, 2nd ed. 185o, enlarged into a new work in 1891); Henry B. Wheatley, London past and present; Vestiges of Old London, etchings by J. W. See also:Archer (1851); A New Survey of London (1853); G.
Thornbury, Haunted London (1865, new ed. by E. Walford 1880); Old and New London, vols. i.-ii. by G. W. Thornbury, vols. iii.-vi. by Edward Walford (1873-1878); Walter Besant, London, Westminster, See also:South London, East London (1891-1902); East London Antiquities, edited by Walter A. Locks (East London Advertiser, 1902); See also: Birch, U.D. 1759); Graunt's Observations, Petty's Another Essay and C. Morris's Observations are reprinted in this collection. Graunt and Petty's Essays are reprinted in Economic Writings of Sir W. Petty (1899). (H. B. Additional information and CommentsThere are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML. Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide. |
|
|
[back] GROVE, SIR WILLIAM ROBERT (1811-1896) |
[next] GROZNYI |