Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 December 2011
The revolution by which the municipal government of Cambridge was in the decade 1780-90 transformed from an oligarchy to a dictatorship has this in common with the Glorious Revolution of 1688, that it was made possible by the absence of a written constitution; but whereas it is impossible, as Maitland has said, by any stretch of ingenuity to make the Revolution of 1688-9 a perfectly legal act, the processes of constitutional change at Cambridge a century later were again and again submitted to the scrutiny of the courts. Indeed, Newling v. Francis, the judgement in which finally established the right of the corporation to revise its own constitution, may be described as a leading case in the law of corporations.
1 See below, p. 165, for a list of cases with dates and references.
2 B[ritish] M[useum] Add. MS. 5803, f. 36.
3 , Laprade, Parliamentary Papers of John Robinson, p. 71Google Scholar.
4 , S. and Webb, B., The Manor and the Borough, p. 367Google Scholar.
5 , Maitland, Cambridge Borough Charters, p. xGoogle Scholar.
6 Ibid. p. 147.
7 , Cooper, Annals of Cambridge, IV, 407Google Scholar.
7a paid a fine in lieu of serving.
8 , Cooper, Annals of Cambridge, III, 129 ffGoogle Scholar.
9 , Namier, Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III, p. 276Google Scholar.
10 Ibid. pp. 255, 525–77.
11 For all this, see Mr T. Cook's unpublished thesis on the parliamentary representation of the County, Borough and University of Cambridge in the eighteenth century, at the Institute of Historical Research of the University of London.
12 BM. Add. MSS. 35626, 20 Nov. 1775. See also Add. MSS. 35627-9, 35631.
13 BM. Add. MSS. 5813, 5832, 5855.
14 Rex v. Mayor, Bailiffs and Burgesses of Cambridge (1766-7); in Burrows, Reports, IV, 2008 ff.
15 Cooper, IV, 342.
16 Cooper, IV, 354; for pamphlet literature, see Bodleian Library, Gough Camb. 103.
17 Note, for example, the entry for 13 January 1761 in the Common Day Book: ‘The Mayor, the Aldermen, the Common Council men and the Burgesses present agreed to support C. S. Cadogan and S. Jenyns as members to represent this corporation at the next general election.’
18 Cooper, IV, 372 ff.; Add. MSS. 5832, f. 98b, 5846, f. 442; Poll Book; Add. MS. 35631.
19 Add. MS. 5832, cf. Soame Jenyns: ‘We have a very good Mayor.’ Add. MS. 35631, 25 August 1774.
20 Cooper, IV, 372.
21 Cooper, IV, 382 ff.
22 BM. Add. MS. 35626.
23 Cooper, IV, 379 f.
24 A Letter to the Freemen of Cambridge (Cambridge, 1818), p. 15Google Scholar.
25 Add. MS. 5813.
26 Cooper, IV, 402, 405. Four aldermen, including the mayor, protested against the election of Tunwell.
27 Cambridge Chronicle, 22 April 1780. See also Gunning's Reminiscences.
28 Cooper, IV, 394 ff., and Cole's ‘Account of events of 1780-81’ in Add. MS. 5855, ff. 140-4d.
29 Add. MS. 35628; Cooper, IV, 91.
30 Add. MS. 35626.
31 Add. MS. 35627.
32 Cf. , S. and Webb, B., The Manor and the Borough, p. 272Google Scholar.
33 Cobbett's State Trials, VIII, 1266
34 Hist. MSS. Comm. House of Lords MSS. xii, 6, 422 ff.; xiii, 5, 70 ff.
35 Rex v. Spencer (1766); Burrows, Reports, III, 1827.
36 Rex v. Francis; Durnford and East, Reports, II, 484.
36a Rex v. Stacey (1785); Durnford and East, Reports, I, 3.
37 Willcock, J. W., Law of Municipal Corporations (1827), pp. 460–502Google Scholar.
38 Ibid. pp. 354–64.
39 Rex v. Mayor, Bailiffs and Burgesses of Cambridge; Burrows, Reports, IV, 2008-14; Cooper, IV, 344.
40 Cooper, IV, 342.
41 Cooper, IV, 382. See below, pp. 154, 160-2.
42 Cooper, IV, 42, 241.
43 Common Day Book, 22 January 1783.
44 Rex v. Phillips (1749), Lee v. Wallis (1756) and the Case of Corporations (1598) were cited. Douglas, Reports, III, 207.
45 Common Day Book, 30 September 1782; carried against the protest of Merrill, Newling, Norfolk and Bond.
46 Norfolk, Whittred, Newling, Burleigh, Merrill, Mott.
47 Tunwell, Purchas, Finch, Forlow, Mortlock, Ind.
48 Common Day Book, 4 March 1783, 10 February 1784.
49 Common Day Book.
50 BM. Add. MS. 35627; 18, 26 January, and 28 April 1784.
51 Cambridge Chronicle, 3 April 1784.
52 BM. Add. MS. 35382, f. 50.
53 Common Day Book, 25 May, 8 June 1784; Cooper, IV, 403 f. Yorke expressed surprise to his uncle: ‘To increase the number of voters would merely add to the difficulty of managing the borough.’ Add. MS. 35381, f. 20.
54 Cooper, IV, 414.
55 BM. Add. MS. 356271 16 May 1784: ‘The corporation is more divided than ever by Alderman Purchas’ revolting from Mortlock, and the bells ringing all day yesterday for Mr Mortlock's victory in getting the receivership for Mr Francis has added no small fuel to the town and county fires.’
56 During a short-lived attempt in 1787 to compel the attendance of the aldermen at Common Hall, Whittred protested, when a notice was served on him, that ‘he knew no use in the Common Days’. Common Day Book, XIII, p. 107.
57 Evidence given before Commissioners of 1853.
58 Report of Municipal Corporations Commission of 1833.
59 Cooper, I, 98; II, 233; IV, 417.
60 Whittred, W., A Letter to the Freemen of Cambridge (Cambridge, 1818)Google Scholar.
61 Cooper, IV, 418; H.M.C. Rutland MSS. in, 115, 255, 283 f., 295, 303, 305 f., 374; The Pitt-Rutland Correspondence, p. 171; BM. Add. MS. 35627, 17 April 1785, 7 June 1786.
62 See Mortlock's letter to the Duke of 2 October 1787, Rutland MSS. III, 424, and compare with Pulteney's letter of 24 February.
63 Rutland MSS. III, 374 (24 February 1787).
64 Cooper, IV, 423. The opposition protested that William Fisher, who had received six votes, was duly elected.
65 Cambridge Chronicle, 15 March, 19 April, 10 May 1788.
66 Cooper, IV, 344; Common Day Book, 16 August 1773, 16 August 1783.
67 Cambridge Chronicle, 12 July 1788.
68 Durnford and East, Reports, VI, 732-6.
69 Grant, Law of Corporations (1850), p. 75.
70 Newling, Bond, Purchas junior and eleven others recorded their protest.
71 Common Day Book, 9, 10 January, 13 April 1787.
72 Cambridge Chronicle, 28 July 1787.
73 Cooper, IV, 423.
74 Common Day Book; Beales had twelve votes, and Hazard nine.
75 James Day, the town clerk, later alleged that he had sent a copy of the mandamus to Mortlock in town. Common Day Book, 15 March.
76 Ibid.
77 Common Day Book, 2 April 1788.
78 Durnford and East, Reports, II, 456 f.
79 Cooper, IV, 422.
80 Cooper, IV, 414, 445, 459.
81 Cambridge Chronicle, 15 March 1788.
82 Cooper, 1, 96; IV, 417.
83 On 3 May 1788, in the King's Bench, Cambridge Chronicle, 10 May 1788.
84 Common Day Book; Cooper, IV, 427 f.
85 Cambridge Chronicle, 3 May 1788.
86 For the double elections to other offices, see Cooper, IV, 430.
87 Durnford and East, Reports, III, 189-99.
88 Cooper, IV, 436 f.
89 Among the cases of which there is no record, and which may in fact never have reached the courts, was one against James Day, the town clerk, an inveterate opponent of Mortlock's. On 22 November 1785 the Common Day Book notes that Robert White, attorney, was ordered to prepare a case for the Court of King's Bench, as Day had refused to resign, to compel him to show by what warrant he exercised the offices of town clerk and common councillor at the same time. Not till 7 April 1788 did James Day resign, on the day that Mortlock resigned his Recordership. Robert WKite was elected town clerk on Mortlock's nomination on 29 September 1788, by 100 votes against 51 given for Newling's nominee. Day, who had been elected town clerk in 1756, presumably held a patent of appointment for life like his successor; an order of 1748 forbade an alderman to be town clerk, but councilmen were not mentioned. Cooper, IV, 250, 432.
90 Cooper, IV, 431. The Reverend George Crabbe, chaplain to the Duke of Rutland from 1782 to 1786, was one of the batch: six belonged to the Manners family. Sixty at least of the seventy-three resided outside Cambridgeshire. Common Day Book.
91 See above, p. 157.
92 See above, p. 154.
93 Cooper, IV, 414-16.
94 Common Day Book, 2 June 1778. J. Mortlock, woollen-draper, by a general agreement was admitted to the freedom for a fine of £40.
95 Durnford and East, Reports, III, 300.
96 See above, p. 149.
97 By James Day? The erasure is evident to-day.
98 Durnford and East, Reports, III, 310.
99 BM. Add. MS. 35380.
100 Corporation of Cambridge: a digested Report of the evidence, 1833 (evidence of E. Foster).
101 The practice of duplicating elections as a safeguard is seen carried to an extreme in the election of Butcher as alderman on 29 September 1789. He was elected twice by the eighteen electors, directed by Francis the outgoing mayor and by Forlow the outgoing deputy-mayor; twice by ‘the floor’, that is the commonalty, similarly directed; and once by the mayor and aldermen in their parlour.
102 Cooper, V, 513.
103 English Reports, vol. 100, p. 112.
104 Corporation Lease Book, 1775-91.
105 See Mitchell, J. B., ‘The Growth of Cambridge’, in Darby, H. C., The Cambridge Region (1938), pp. 170 ffGoogle Scholar.
106 See Rental of Borough of Cambridge, compiled by the Town Clerk (1906).
107 Gray, J. Milner, Biographical Notes on the Mayors of Cambridge, pp. 49, 51Google Scholar.
108 Oldfield, T., Boroughs of Great Britain (1792), I, 50Google Scholar, definitely assigns Cambridge to the Rutland interest, attributing this to ‘J. Mortlake’.
109 Cooper's evidence at the inquiry into corrupt practices at Cambridge in 1853.
110 Later augmented to eighty-seven.
111 Newling was a Cambridge alderman from 1763 to 1814.
112 Cooper, IV, 419 f.
113 State Trials, XIV, 862; Rex V. Spencer (1766) in Burrows, Reports, III, 1833.
