other leading bankers of the early eighteenth century, Sir Francis Child and his
son, Sir Robert.^29 A significant proportion of aldermen at any one time were, in
addition, members of parliament for constituencies outside the City.
The lord mayor of London occupied an office of prestige, power, and influ-
ence. He spoke for the City and acted as the principal contact between the
monarch and central government and the City administration. He exercised in-
fluence over the affairs of the City during his year in office by presiding at the
meetings of the Court of Aldermen, and, by exercising his right to call into ses-
sion the other major institution of City authority, the Common Council, and to
chair its meetings. In addition, the mayor had the right to fill many of the lucra-
tive posts in the City as they became vacant, patronage that (depending on cir-
cumstances during his term) might help compensate him for the considerable
costs of his year in office. How well the lord mayor fared financially during his
year in office depended largely on which of the offices in his gift fell vacant. Sir
Francis Child was said to have been out of pocket by 4,000pounds at the end of
his mayoral year ( 1698 – 9 ), for example, because he had not been able to make a
major appointment.^30 Most importantly, from the point of view of the policing
of the City, the lord mayor was essentially the chief magistrate. He sat daily for
magisterial business in Guildhall and, along with a varying number of other al-
dermen acting in their own houses or perhaps in the halls of their companies,
dealt with citizens’ complaints, including accusations of criminal offences. He
was also chairman of the two principal criminal courts that acted in the City—
the sessions of the peace, held at the Guildhall, and the sessions of oyer and ter-
miner and gaol delivery at the Old Bailey.
The mayor and aldermen were members of the Court of Common Council,
but that body of more than 250 members consisted mainly of men elected an-
nually by the freemen of the wards. The Common Council was both an admin-
istrative and legislative body. It could create committees (typically consisting of
both aldermen and commoners) to investigate and report on issues of import-
ance, and it had the power to pass by-laws touching all areas of City life—both
of which aspects of their work were to become increasingly significant in the
eighteenth century. The Court of Aldermen’s long-standing claim to exercise a
veto over the acts of the Common Council gave rise to a particularly bitter con-
flict in this period of sharp political division.^31 But, fully autonomous in that re-
spect or not, the Common Council remained an institution of importance in the
construction of the City’s administrative policies and practices. As we will
88 City Magistrates and the Process of Prosecution
(^29) De Krey, A Fractured Society, 78 , 139 , 160 , 136 – 65 passim.
(^30) David Hayton (ed.), The History of Parliament: The House of Commons, 1690 – 1715 (forthcoming).
(^31) On the City Elections Act, which temporarily settled in their favour the aldermen’s disputed claim
to have a veto over common council legislation, see Nicholas Rogers, ‘The City Elections Act ( 1725 )’,
English Historical Review, 100 ( 1985 ), 604 – 17 , who takes issue with the view expressed by I. G. Doolittle,
‘Walpole’s City Elections Act ( 1725 )’, English Historical Review, 97 ( 1982 ), 504 – 29.