important pieces oflegislation enacted in the reigns ofWilliam and Mary and
of Anne. The aldermen were well informed about parliamentary business since
they employed an officer, the remembrancer, to attend the house and report on
matters that had implications for the City’s affairs.^20 The keeper of Guildhall,
another City official, was also instructed to provide the aldermen with bound
copies of the public acts passed in each session of parliament.^21 The aldermen
were sensitive to legislative initiatives that threatened to encroach upon their an-
cient privileges, and they were ever ready to intervene when their interests were
engaged. And while it is clear that legislation touching on the criminal law was
never simply available to anyone for the asking,^22 the City had both influence
and resources to bring to bear if the aldermen were interested in supporting a
particular bill. The aldermen became engaged in criminal issues at Westmin-
ster as it became increasingly clear in the generation after the Revolution that
parliament was becoming an important forum for the regulation of social pol-
icy, and as crime became perceived as an increasingly serious problem in Lon-
don. The City was to play a leading role in the passage of some of the most
significant criminal statutes in this period.
The City’s most direct contact with parliament was through its four elected
members. A number of London men sat for other constituencies in every
parliament, and their efforts and support were commonly solicited when matters
of importance were before the house. But the four City members were clearly
expected to act as spokesmen for the City and to accept the instructions of the
Court of Aldermen on issues of importance. They were regularly called upon to
forward or to obstruct pending legislation, to present petitions, and in general,
as was said on one such occasion, to use their ‘interest and endeavors’ on the
City’s behalf.^23 So important was their presence in parliament at one point in
1696 that the Court of Aldermen resolved to meet by 9 a.m. to enable the four
City members (who were invariably aldermen) to attend to the City’s business at
Westminster.^24 If they decided that it was in their interest to promote criminal
legislation in parliament, the City authorities had the means at hand—certainly
the means to get it introduced.
In explaining the City’s engagement with some of the major pieces oflegisla-
tion in the reigns of William and Anne, two further characteristics of the
political structure of the City of London are of importance. The fact that many
324 The Revolution, Crime, and Punishment in London
(^20) The remembrancer was given an allowance of 6 s. 8 d. per day to keep the aldermen abreast of par-
liamentary developments and was likely to be chastised if he let important matters go unreported
(Rep 97 , p. 346 ; Rep 100 , fo. 68 ). In a typical instruction, the aldermen ordered the Remembrancer in
1701 – 2 to provide them with information about a proposal in parliament to regulate the King’s Bench
and Fleet prisons, both of which were within their jurisdiction (Rep 105 , p. 223 ; Rep 106 , p. 85 ). The
Remembrancer’s duties continued into the nineteenth century to require him to attend parliament
daily, to report all bills of likely interest to the City, and to facilitate the presentation of the Corporation’s
petitions and resolutions to parliament and the monarch (CLRO: P.A.R. 12 , fos. 301 – 9 ).
(^21) Rep 97 , p. 180 ; Rep 98 , p. 312.
(^22) The level of failed bills makes this abundantly clear; see Hoppit (ed.), Failed Legislation, 1660 – 1800 , 10.
(^23) See, for example,Jor 51 , fo. 238 ; Jor 52 , fo. 34 ; and Rep 102 , p. 203. (^24) Rep 100 , fo. 5.