32 Chapter II
Between the fragmented republicanism of the small states just described, the
magnificent monarchy of France, and the parliamentary regime of Great Britain
there were obviously great differences, but the tendency to self- perpetuation in of-
fice was universal. It is illuminating to glance at the towns in England and France.
They resembled those of the Netherlands and central Europe; each had its peculiar
variations, but all showed their common origin in the great town- building era of
the Middle Ages, from which each derived some sort of council or councils and
some faint vestiges of a former popular organ of government. In both England
and France, it appears, the town councils became increasingly closed organiza-
tions, and in that sense more aristocratic; but in both countries in the eighteenth
century they lost out in real power, since both the Bourbon monarchy and the
British Parliament, using the authority of central government that was missing in
the European middle zone, created new statutory bodies for new tasks of munici-
pal administration.
At Lyon, for example, since the time of Henry IV, the council was made up of
only five members, a mayor or prévot des marchands, and four aldermen or échevins.
The mayor was designated by the King. He alone had to be a native of the city; to
become alderman it was only necessary to have lived in the city for ten years, cer-
tain property qualifications also having to be met. This rule had been forced upon
the city by the royal government; it contrasts with the regulations of Swiss or Ger-
man towns where a century of residence was often required, and shows how cen-
tral government advanced the social and geographical mobility of the urban upper
class. The council lost power over the years, but its members could console them-
selves with privileges; they were noble by virtue of their office, exempted from
certain taxes, enjoyed special costume and escort at city expense, and could engage
in wholesale trade or banking “without derogation or being reputed common.” The
pleasures of office were thus sufficiently attractive to encourage family ambition,
and in the eighteenth century “the municipal administration recruited itself within
an oligarchy of increasingly narrow scope.”^18
In England some of the towns were close corporations, others more democratic.
Norwich was one of the latter, but its democracy deteriorated in the eighteenth
century through public apathy and private abuse. Perhaps half the householders in
1689 were freemen, who actually voted for members of the town council. But they
sold or otherwise gave their votes for other than civic reasons, and in any case the
growth of new trades brought newcomers to the city who seldom took the trouble,
or went to the expense, of acquiring its citizenship. The council even tried to com-
pel people to become citizens, but there “seems to have been no great desire to
become Freeman of Norwich.”^19
Bristol was a close corporation. Its common council chose its own members and
the public officials. It was disliked by some for its exclusiveness; on the other hand,
wealthy merchants sometimes refused to accept membership in it, perhaps because
they thought it too lordly, and even paid fines to avoid being included. Oligarchy
18 Kleinclausz, Histoire de Lyon (Paris, 1948), 11, 146.
19 S. and B. Webb, English Local Government: Manor and Borough (London, 1908), I, 539. See also
I, 390; II, 445–70.