Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:51:23.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Varieties of Radicalism: Attwood, Cobden and the Local Politics of Municipal Incorporation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Nicholas C. Edsall
Nicholas C. Edsall
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1837 leading reformers in a number of England's rapidly growing but still archaically governed industrial cities began to agitate for the incorporation of their boroughs in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act passed two years before. Up until then little interest had been shown in the subject in the provinces, an attitude which is rather easier to understand than the sudden belated burst of enthusiasm. For, even after it had become clear in 1835 that the great reform bill had made some sort of municipal reform inevitable, Tory opponents of the measure had not given way without a struggle. By strictly limiting the powers of the reformed borough councils, by creating a property qualification for councillors, and by requiring the inhabitants of unincorporated cities to petition the Privy Council for a charter rather than, say, providing for automatic incorporation of parliamentary boroughs, they hoped to emasculate what they dared not destroy. In this they were remarkably successful. The borough councils remained hobbled for years because the powers of the variety of trusts which existed in most cities to take care of such things as paving, water supply, cleaning and general improvements were not handed over to the municipal authorities. And largely because of this even many reformers in the proud industrial cities of the north and midlands were often less than enthusiastic about getting a charter for their city. The prospect of replacing narrowly selected Court Leets and Boroughreeves with semi-democratically elected borough councils and mayors was appealing, but it had to be balanced against the fact that these councils would not supersede but merely take their place alongside already existing boards and commissions, with the result that the cost of local government was likely to go up. Looked at in this way there did not seem to be much in it, or at least not enough to make incorporation worth the fighting that would probably be necessary to secure it.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 1973 , pp. 93 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For the parliamentary history of the Municipal Corporations Act, see Finlayson, G. B. A. M., ‘The Politics of Municipal Reform, 1835’, English Historical Review, LXXXI (1966), 673–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 British Parliamentary Papers, 1840, XLI, 514;Google Scholar 1852, LXXVIII, 331–2.

3 Birmingham Journal, 11 Mar. 1837.Google Scholar

4 There is a brief account of the incorporation struggle in Gill, Conrad, History of Birmingham (London, 1952), vol. I, chs. XI and XII.Google ScholarThe Birmingham Journal, the newspaper of the Birmingham Political Union, is the most valuable contemporary source. Aris's Birmingham Gazette was the leading Tory, anti-incorporationist paper.

5 Birmingham Journal, 14 Oct. 1837.Google Scholar

6 Morley, John, The Life of Richard Cobden (London, 1906), p. 125;Google Scholar see also Birmingham Journal, 17 Feb. 1838.Google Scholar

7 Cobden Papers (West Sussex Record Office), vol. XI, Parkes to Cobden, 7 July 1838

8 Birmingham Journal, 4 Nov. 1837.Google Scholar

9 Compare Aris's Birmingham Gazette for 13 Mar. and 6 Nov. 1837.

10 Birmingham Journal, 13 Jan. and 29 Dec. 1838; Bolton Free Press, 1 Dec. 1838

11 Birmingham Journal, 4 Nov. 1837. On how democratic or undemocratic the suffrage under the Municipal Corporations Act turned out to be in practice, see Keith-Lucas, B., The English Local Government Franchise. A Short History (Oxford, 1952), pp. 59–70.Google Scholar

12 There is no detailed account of the history of the incorporation question in Sheffield. The controversy is best followed in the Sheffield Iris and the Sheffield Mercury for Jan.-Apr. 1838. For some general comments on the similarities between Birmingham and Sheffield, see Briggs, Asa, Victorian Cities (London, 1963), pp. 34–5.Google Scholar

13 Walton, Mary, Sheffield : Us Story and Achievements (Sheffield, 1949), p. 174.Google Scholar

14 Sheffield Iris, 9 Jan. 1838. On the trade unions and the courts, see Pollard, Sidney, A History of Labour in Sheffield (Liverpool, 1959), p. 41.Google Scholar

15 The full figures (Sheffield Mercury, 28 Apr. 1838) were:

16 The earliest and still the best account of the incorporation fight in Manchester is in Axon, W. E. A., Cobden as a Citizen (Manchester, 1907).Google Scholar It forms the basis for all later accounts including Redford, Arthur, The History of Local Government in Manchester (London, 1940), vol. II, ch. xv.Google Scholar All of the Manchester papers are important sources. The most consistent advocate of incorporation was the Radical-Liberal Manchester Times; the Whig-Liberal Manchester Guardian supported incorporation but had some early doubts about the campaign; the Radical Manchester and Sal ford Advertiser wavered; the Conservative Manchester Courier opposed incorporation throughout. General comments on the political and social character of Manchester in comparison with Birmingham can be found in Read, Donald, The English Provinces (London, 1964), ch. 11,Google Scholar section 1; Briggs, Asa, ‘The Parliamentary Reform Movement in Three English Cities’, Cambridge Historical Journal (1952).Google Scholar

17 For the nature and chronology of the Anti-Poor Law Movement at this time see Edsall, Nicholas C., The Anti-Poor Law Movement (Manchester, 1971);Google ScholarRose, M. E., ‘The Anti-Poor Law Movement in the North of England’, Northern History, vol. I, 1966;Google Scholar and Rose, M. E., ‘The Anti-Poor Law Agitation’, in Ward, J. T., Popular Movements, c. 1830–1850 (London, 1970).Google Scholar

18 Cobden, Richard, Incorporate Your Borough (Manchester, 1837), p. 2.Google Scholar The pamphlet is reprinted in Axon, Cobden as a Citizen.

19 Ibid. p. 5.

20 Manchester and Salford Advertiser, 13 Jan. 1838.

21 Ibid. 27 Jan., 10 Feb. and 3 Mar. 1838.

22 Cobden Papers, B.M. Add. MSS 43665, Cobden to Tait, 3 July 1838.

23 It should be noted that Wroe, as a member of the police commissioners, could hardly be called a disinterested critic.

24 Wilson Papers (Manchester Public Library), M 20, Cobden to Wilson, 4 May 1838; Lonergan to Wilson, 23 June 1838.

25 Manchester Guardian, 23 June 1838.Google Scholar

26 Ibid. 21 July 1838. The final figures were:

27 Manchester Times, 27 Dec. 1838.Google Scholar

28 M 20, Cobden to Wilson, 5 May 1838.

28 Cobden, , Incorporate Your Borough, p. 12.Google Scholar The direct link between the incorporationists and the Leaguers has been noted in Read, Provinces, pp. 131–2.

30 For Cobden's view of the interrelationship between these issues, see Add. MSS 43662, 17 Feb. 1838 and Add. MSS 43665, 17 Aug. 1838.

31 M 20, Cobden to Wilson, 11 Jan. 1838. See also Add. MSS 43665, Cobden to Tait, 17 Aug. 1838, and M 20, Parkes to Cobden, 17 Aug. 1838.

32 McCord, Norman, The Anti-Corn Law League (London, 1958), Intro.Google Scholar

33 The pioneer treatment of Tory-Radicalism is Hill, R. L., Toryism and the People (London, 1929);Google Scholar the best is Driver, Cecil, Tory-Radical: The Life of Richard Oastler (New York, 1946).Google Scholar

34 Add. MSS 43665, Cobden to Tait, 3 July 1838.

35 M 20, Cobden to Wilson, 12 Mar. 1838 (reporting a conversation with Henry Ashworth, the leading member of Bolton's most powerful family of manufacturers and politicians). The best account of the Bolton incorporation fight is in the Bolton Free Press, Jan.-Mar. 1838.

36 M 20, Cobden to Wilson, 5 May 1838.