City of London Borough constituency
Created:	1298
Abolished:	1950
Type:	House of Commons

The City of London was a former United Kingdom Parliamentary constituency. It was a constituency of the House of Commons of the Parliament of England then of the Parliament of Great Britain from 1707 to 1800 and of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1950.

Boundaries and boundary changes

This borough constituency consisted of the City of London, which was the historic core of the modern Greater London. In the twenty-first century the city forms part of the London Region of England.

The southern boundary of the City is the north bank of the River Thames. The City of Westminster is situated to the west. The districts of Holborn and Finsbury are to the north, Shoreditch to the north-east and Whitechapel to the east.

London is first known to have been enfranchised and represented in Parliament in 1298. Because it was the most important city in England it received four seats in Parliament instead of the normal two for a constituency. Previous to 1298 the area would have been represented as part of the county constituency of Middlesex. The City formed part of the geographic county, even though from early times it was not administered as part of Middlesex.

The City was represented by four MPs until 1885 and two thereafter until 1950.

The City of London was originally a densely populated area. Before the Reform Act 1832 the composition of the City electorate was not as democratic as that of some other borough constituencies, such as neighbouring Westminster. The right of election was held by members of the Livery Companies. However the size and wealth of the community meant that it had more voters than most other borough constituencies. Namier and Brooke estimated the size of the City electorate, in the latter part of the eighteenth century, at about 7,000. Only Westminster had a larger size of electorate.

During the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the metroplitan area of London expanded enormously. The resident population of the City fell as people moved to the new suburbs. However the City authorities did not want to extend their jurisdiction beyond the traditional "square mile", so the Parliamentary constituency was left unchanged as its resident population fell. By the twentieth century almost all electors in the City qualified as business voters, due to the ownership of shop or office premises in the City. The business voters were a type of plural voter so when that voting qualification was abolished by the Representation of the People Act 1948 the City had far too few voters to remain a Parliamentary constituency.

In 1950 the area was merged for Parliamentary purposes with the neighbouring City of Westminster, to form a new single-member constituency of Cities of London and Westminster.

There are special provisions concerning the City and Parliamentary boundaries. Rule 3 of the Rules for Redistribution of Seats, used by the Boundary Commission for England in its General Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries starting in 2000, provided that:-

"There shall continue to be a constituency which shall include the whole of the City of London and the name of which shall refer to the City of London".

Members of Parliament 1707-1950

See also City of London (elections to the Parliament of England) for citizens known to have represented the City in Parliament before 1707

Paliaments of England and Great Britain 1660-1800

• Note:-
• (a) Expelled

Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1801

Key to parties from 1802: C Conservative from 1832, L Liberal from 1832, Nat National candidate (allied to the Conservative Party), T Tory to 1832, W Whig to 1832.

• Constituency abolished (1950)

• Note (1918-1922): Balfour and Banbury were Coalition Conservative MPs

• Leigh Rayment's Peerage Page

“Modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of political parties” E. E. Schattscheneider (1942:1) “Parties are inevitable. No one has shown how representative government could be worked without them.” James Bryce (1921:119) “That institutional arrangement for arriving at political decision in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for people’s votes.” Joseph Schumpeter (1942:269)

Through out the history most of the scholars believed and argued that the parties are essential for a healthy democracy. However today researches points out the fact that the role of parties in democratic systems is diminishing. While membership rates of political parties are going down significantly and systematically, disenchantment with specific parties and often towards the system itself is reported as increasing. Partisan feeling has been weakening in many nations that have a long history of democracies and parties. The discussions came out stronger in recent years since dissatisfaction with parties increased further. For instance, electoral participation decreased in Turkey, in the elections of 1990’s. Change in the organizational structures of parties, upstage of mass media; and the arise of citizen interest groups and other political intermediaries as alternatives are the most widely recognized causes of diminishing party role in democratic system. There are also alternative reasons that vary from on nation to another. Parties perform many functions in order to keep the democratic system in a good shape. As stated by many scholars political parties help to the efficient functioning of democratic system by translate mass preferences into policy choices. All the functions stated in the article make parties an indispensable element of the process. A decrease in the attachment of voters for the parties and indirectly an attenuation of party’s power might cause serious problems for democratic process. According to modernization hypothesis changing role of the individual in advanced industrial societies is the main reason for partisan change. In the first years of democratic systems parties was the only source of information that citizens apply to. With more information sources available to a more educated citizen parties lost the ground. The modernization process also transformed the values that voters care for. Individuals became more interested in the topics such as environmental quality, lifestyle choices, and consumer rights. While these topics have expanded the boundaries of politics, parties with classic agendas have fallen to meet the expectations. Another factor triggering the partisan change was the weakening of the ties of groups like working-class milieu or a church community. Finally rising levels of education, process of cognitive mobilization, new issue concerns, and weakening group ties are mentioned as potential sources of micro-level partisan changes in the article. Mass media have become the primary source of information and took control of an area previously controlled by parties. Like the media did “special-interest groups and single-issue lobbies” have stolen the role of parties. Changing media and cropping up special-interest groups and single-issue lobbies contributed to the decline in partisan attachment.

Elections

In multi-member elections the bloc voting system was used. Voters could cast a vote for one to four (or up to two in two-member elections 1885-1950) candidates, as they chose. The leading candidates with the largest number of votes were elected. In 1868 the limited vote was introduced, which restricted an individual elector to using one, two or three votes, in elections to fill four seats.

In by-elections, to fill a single seat, the first past the post system applied.

After 1832, when registration of voters was introduced, a turnout figure is given for contested elections. In multi-member elections, when the exact number of participating voters is unknown, this is calculated by dividing the number of votes by four (to 1868), three (1868-1885) and two thereafter. To the extent that electors did not use all their votes this will be an underestimate of turnout.

Where a party had more than one candidate in one or both of a pair of successive elections change is calculated for each individual candidate, otherwise change is based on the party vote.

Candidates for whom no party has been identified are classified as Non Partisan. The candidate might have been associated with a party or faction in Parliament or consider himself to belong to a particular political tradition. Political parties before the nineteenth century were not as cohesive or organised as they later became. Contemporary commentators (even the reputed leaders of parties or factions) in the eighteenth century did not necessarily agree who the party supporters were. The traditional parties, which had arisen in the late seventeenth century, became increasingly irrelevant to politics in the eighteenth century (particularly after 1760), although for some contests in some constituencies party labels were still used. It was only towards the end of the century that party labels began to acquire some meaning again, although this process was by no means complete for several more generations.

Sources: The results are based on the History of Parliament Trust's volumes on the House of Commons in various periods from 1715-1820, Stooks Smith from 1820 until 1832 and Craig from 1832. Where Stooks Smith gives additional information this is indicated in a note. See references below for further details of these sources.

Dates of general and by-elections from 1660-1715 (excluding general elections at which no new MP was returned)

Parliament of Great Britain election results 1713-1800

Elections in the 1710s

• 6,787 voted. The losing candidates demanded a scrutiny, which did not change the result. (Source: Copy of the pollbook

Elections in the 1720s

• After a scrutiny the members returned were unchanged and vote totals were amended to Lockwood 4,025; Barnard 3,840; Godfrey 3,723; Child 3,575; Heysham 3,441; Parsons 3,393.
• Death of Godfrey 10 November 1724

• After a scrutiny the members returned were unchanged and vote totals were amended to Eyles 3,539; Barnard 3,514; Perry 3,396; Parsons 3,255; Thompson 3,244; Lockwood 2,977; Hopkins 2,921; Williams 2,914.

Elections in the 1730s

• Note (1734): Poll 7 days (Source: Stooks Smith)

Elections in the 1740s

• Note (1741): Poll 7 days (Source: Stooks Smith)
• Death of Godschall 26 June 1742

Elections in the 1750s

• Note (1754): Poll 7 days, 5,931 voted (Source: Stooks Smith)
• Death of Bethell 1 November 1758

Elections in the 1760s

• Note (1761): Poll 7 days (Source: Stooks Smith)