City Government and Politics
The English Revolution caused less internal dissension and instability at Gloucester
than in many other English towns. Despite the vicissitudes of war and upheavals of
national government, Gloucester's civic leadership showed a striking continuity in its
personnel during the period. There were only five recorded dismissals and retirements from the corporation in the years 1640–6. Unlike other towns, no purges took
place in the late 1640s and the 1650s. (fn. 1) Death not political manoeuvring was the
principal cause of changes in membership. In the early 1640s royalists and neutrals
comprised only a small minority on the corporation. (fn. 2)
Civic government, as in the years before 1640, was dominated by the inner caucus
of aldermen. In 1647 the city's rulers heard a paean to oligarchic rule on the mayoral
election day. (fn. 3) The authority of the bench was underlined by parliament's appointment of most of the aldermen as deputy lieutenants at the start of the war. (fn. 4) Aldermen
also played a leading part in the civic committee of defence which was established in
August 1642 and in the more shadowy council of war which advised the governor. (fn. 5)
Aldermen used their powers as J.P.s to maintain order and to intervene in most
aspects of local administration. (fn. 6) Though a number of minor conciliar reforms were
introduced, as in the leasing of city lands, (fn. 7) there is no evidence to suggest any
significant liberalization of Gloucester's government during the period. Nor was there
any opening-up of the narrow parish vestries.
So far as can be judged, civic administration underwent only limited dislocation in
1642 and 1643. (fn. 8) Quarter sessions and most of the other courts seem to have continued
to function during the siege, though the volume of business was negligible. (fn. 9) The most
pressing administrative problem, as before 1640, was finance. The city entered the
revolutionary era with a debt of nearly £700. (fn. 10) Military preparations, the siege, and the
garrison imposed tremendous burdens on the chamber. In the years 1642–3 over
£4,000 was borrowed by the city, including £1,000 from Bristol, (fn. 11) £200 from a
Manchester man, (fn. 12) and the rest locally at 6 or 8 per cent interest. (fn. 13) In 1644 parliament
repaid £1,000 owed to the city and in 1648 granted it sequestered lands which raised
£1,800 when sold. (fn. 14) In 1655–6 the accumulated debt still stood at about £2,000 and
there was extra borrowing for military purposes in 1659. (fn. 15) The basic problem was
that the city's usual sources of revenue barely covered ordinary expenditure, even less
the exigencies of war. Annual deficits were recurrent throughout the period. Even so
the corporation aggravated the financial position. In 1642 the corporation invested
£200 in the Irish Adventure. (fn. 16) Though the city received a grant of Irish land, it never
recouped any of its money until well after the Restoration. (fn. 17) Another heavy expense
was on lobbying parliament for the union of parishes. (fn. 18) In 1649–50 Gloucester spent
about £700 buying the fee farm from the government. (fn. 19)
On numerous occasions the financial situation was critical. In 1643 a number
of councillors refused to serve in the post of steward. (fn. 20) Ten years later there was
a scheme to sell off city houses and land. (fn. 21) Struggling to maintain control,
the corporation appointed a salaried assistant to the stewards (fn. 22) and from 1650
the committee of auditors conducted a rigorous annual inspection of the stewards' accounts, putting forward proposals for reform. (fn. 23) No less important, the
magistrates endeavoured to redeem their plight by heavy exactions on the inshire,
which was made to pay at a much higher rate than the city towards parliamentary
levies. (fn. 24)
As in other provincial towns, there was considerable friction between the city
authorities and the governor. In 1644 Massey clashed with the local committee
of safety appointed by parliament under the leadership of Alderman Pury. (fn. 25)
Relations with Massey became acrimonious and other jurisdictional disputes broke
out. (fn. 26) More serious, however, was the continuing conflict with the county gentry. In
the 1640s the city had exploited its political credit with parliament after the siege to
harass its enemies in the inshire. (fn. 27) Excessive taxes on the inshire led to serious
opposition. In 1654 the county committee with the gentry dominant retaliated and
proposed a draconian monthly assessment on Gloucester. (fn. 28) Four years later the shire
gentry threatened a frontal attack in parliament on the city's jurisdiction over the
inshire. (fn. 29)
In order to resist the challenge from the county and also achieve some of its
cherished projects for the 'godly city', the magistracy did its best to keep on good
terms with parliament and the army commanders. Relations were helped by the city's
heroic defence in 1643 and by the support of William Lenthall, the city's recorder and
Speaker of the Long Parliament. Despite persistent lobbying London never provided
more than limited compensation for the losses of the Civil War. In other respects,
however, Gloucester received favoured treatment. There was no interference in civic
government or personnel; (fn. 30) the inshire was left under city control; and a number of
religious reforms close to the city fathers' hearts was approved.