It ranked second in the proportion of its citizens who paid more than a basic rate
of tax in 1692 , for example: fully 70 per cent did so.^68 That does not mean that
the City’s richest citizens lived in the ward. But it does mean that the body of
male householders from whom the constables were chosen in the first instance
were on the whole men well into the upper levels of the citizenry of the City, men
of standing in the community. In particular, these tax assessments confirm what
one would expect in Cornhill: that it contained a significant number of pros-
perous shopkeepers and tradesmen.
The men elected as constables were fully representative of this community. A
total of fifty-eight names of men elected between 1690 and 1706 can be recovered
from the wardmote book. Of these, at least nine were acting as substitutes for men
originally named at the ward meeting who paid to be excused. Two other elected
men are known to have subsequently paid for deputies. Others may have done so:
it is not possible in this period to be certain how many of those elected managed
ultimately to opt out by paying for a deputy.^69 None the less, it is worth trying to es-
tablish from the tax assessments the occupations and social standing of the men
who were at least named as constables and who had not stood down before their
names were forwarded to the Court of Aldermen. Evidence can be recovered
about forty-five of the fifty-eight men elected in Cornhill between 1690 and 1706.
This is a high proportion, and is testimony to the stability of this community, con-
sidering that the tax assessments are from the years 1692 and 1694 and the body of
constables I have examined includes men elected in the following twelve years.^70
Evidence concerning the tax assessments of these forty-five Cornhill con-
stables is set out in Table 3. 2. What it reveals, in the first place, is that no one was
elected who was paying at the highest rate of taxation, that is those who paid a
guinea because they fell into certain occupational or status groups: merchant,
gentleman, men of the learned professions, those who owned coaches. No such
men in Cornhill allowed their names to go forward to the wardmote for elec-
tion; presumably they had purchased their freedom from local office. On the
other hand, close to 60 per cent of those whose assessments are known were
wealthy enough to be taxed at the middling rate of eleven shillings, including
substantial shopkeepers (linen-drapers, haberdashers, booksellers), and arti-
sans. Across the City as a whole, just over 20 per cent of ratepayers fell into that
tax category.^71 The remaining nineteen elected constables in Cornhill were
Constables and Other Officers 137(^68) De Krey, ‘Trade, Religion, and Politics’, 335 (Table 5 ). (^69) See below, pp. 140 – 50.
(^70) Cornhill wardmote inquest book (GLMD, MS 4069 / 2 ). In tracing the occupations and wealth of
these men from the tax records, I have relied on the work ofJames Alexander—particularly, in this
instance, on the computer printout of assessed householders included in his thesis, a copy of which is in
the CLRO: ‘The Economic and Social Structure of the City of London, c. 1700 ’, Ph.D. thesis (University
of London, 1989 ). There could be several reasons why some of the men named as constables in the
period 1690 – 1706 cannot be found in the 1692 and 1694 tax assessments: the two most obvious are that
the records themselves are incomplete, or the men came into the ward and were elected after the
assessments were made.
(^71) De Krey, ‘Trade, Religion, and Politics in London’, 335 – 7.