Economic History Review, LU, 3 (1999), pp. 469^93

Continuity, change, andspecialization within metropolitan

London: the economy ofWestminster, 1750-1820^

By CHARLES HARVEY, EDMUND M. GREEN, andPENELOPE J. CORFIELD

M etropolitan London by the later eighteenth century was already oneof the largest cities in the world. With a resident population of

almost a million people in 1801, it constituted a huge economic regionin its own right. Having long outstripped any provincial rivals, Londonhad attained, and kept, the advantages of established urban primacywithin Britain. Visitors were agog at its vitality, glitter, and collectivewealth, even if sometimes repelled by its crowds, noise, smog, andinequalities. Since the sixteenth century, 'greater' London had developedas the hub of government, law, commerce, banking, manufacturing,transport, entertainment, and conspicuous consumption." It was the placeto go for specialist goods and services. For example, a purchaser ineighteenth-century Westminster could buy from a rocking horse maker,a Cossack boots maker, a mousetrap maker, a tortoiseshell button maker,a razor case maker, and a water closet manufacturer. In addition, cus-tomers could employ a junk dealer, a dog doctor, a horse milliner, a bugdestroyer (always useful), a grave digger, or a tomb shower (in modemparlance, a cathedral tour guide).'

Such variety testified to the marked division of labour within themetropolitan economy. Business and service specialisms alike wereencouraged by ready proximity to London's massive consumer market.Demand was also stimulated by country visitors, who regularly came totown for shopping trips. A promenade among the fieshpots of consump-tion became a routine pleasure for tourists. In 1786, the German visitorSophie von la Roche was thoroughly dazzled by the luxurious goodsdisplayed in iovely Oxford Street. . . . First, one passes a watchmaker's.

' The authors thank the Economic and Social Research Council for supporting the researchproject 'Choice and change in a mass electorate: the City of Westminster, 1749-1820' (ref:R000236309) from which this articie is drawn. Thanks for references and critical comments are alsowarmly extended to Peter Clark, Derek Keene, Leonard Schwarz, and all participants at the one-day Historical Databases Conference at Royal Holloway in March 1998.

^ See variously Beier and Finlay, eds., London, 1500-1700; Rude, Hanoverian London, Sheppard,London, 1808-70, and de Vries, European urbanisation, pp. 35, 96, 122-3, 152, 159-60.

'All details from Westminster Historical Database, for which see appx., below, p. 491.

f^ Economic History Socuiy 1999. Putiished by Bladnveil f^blishen, 108 Cotiitey Road, Oiford 0X4 iJF, UK and ISO Main Stmt, Maiden,MA 02148, USA.

4 7 0 C. HARVEY, E. M. GREENj AND P. J. CORFIELD

then a silk or fan store, now a silversmith's, a china or glass shop'."*Businesses benefited from the external economies of quick and easyaccess to consumers. There was a constant interchange of informationabout the state of supply and demand. Furthermore, specialist workerswere not left in economic limbo. Thus Benjamin Tiffin, the bug destroyerresident in the Strand in 1784, could rely upon others for the commercialavailability of food, housing, and clothing, just as they could engage hisservices to remove unwelcome infestations.

Streamlined economic activity of this sort, which was characteristic ofthe very large metropolitan economy, was one process that helped toraise overall labour productivity.^ Specialists in any particular field perfor-med more efficiently than did generalists who did a little of everything—provided always that the economy was sufficiently well integrated toenable specialists to specialize with confidence. It was a process that AdamSmith identified approvingly in 1776 as a sign of economic betterment:

The division of labour, . . . , so far as it can be introduced, occasions, in everyart, a proportionable increase of the productive powers of labour. The separ-ation of different trades and employments from one another seems to havetaken place in consequence of this advantage. This separation, too, is generallycarried furthest in those countries which enjoy the highest degree of industryand improvement; what is the work of one man in a rude state of societybeing generally that of several in an improved

One important economic characteristic of London was thus its gener-ation of a flourishing labour market that was both specialized and inter-dependent. As a result, the metropolitan regional economy may be viewedas 'an' (but certainly not 'the') engine of growth within Britain's widereconomic trajectory. Such a case was made long ago. Both Wrigley andFisher analysed the positive impact of London's growth upon the domesticeconomy between 1600 and 1750;' and their views have been widelyaccepted by historians of pre-industrial England. Moreover, the emergenceof Britain's worldwide trading empire was facilitated by crucial specialistservices, such as banking, insurance, transport, and trading knowhow,and all of these services were located in the metropolis.**

For the period after 1750, however, the role of London has been onlypatchily examined. Certainly, its crucial importance in taxation terms hasbeen amply documented by Rubinstein. He has shown that in 1812, forexample, 38.8 per cent of the total assessed profits from businesses andthe professions (income tax schedule D) throughout the whole of theUK were derived firom the Cities of London and Westminster, plusMiddlesex.^ Similarly, in the early nineteenth century, the metropolis

*von la Roche, Sophie in London, pp. 141-2,'Button, Urban economics, esp. pp. 19-23; Stigler, 'Division of labor'.* Smith, Wealth of nations, I, 5-6.^Fisher, 'London as an "engine"'; Wrigley, 'London's importance'.*Ingham, Capitalism divided?, pp. 40-1, 43-9, 93-5; Hancock, Citizens of the world.'Rubinstein, 'Victorian middle class', pp. 615-17.

C Economic Hinory Sixitty 1999

THE ECONOMY OF WESTMINSTER, 1750-1820 471

contained well over 50 per cent of all British millionaires, half-millionaires,and 'lesser' wealthy, as ranked by their probated wealth at death.'°

The workings of the metropolis after 1750 have, however, featuredremarkably little in the textbooks, whether old or new." The Hammondsfamously declared that 'London was scarcely touched by the IndustrialRevolution'.'- Moreover, authorities such as Braudel argued that generallyacross Europe the capital cities were mere spectators of economic growthelsewhere.'^ Thus Daunton (writing in 1978) summarized the view thatLondon had been bypassed. He accepted the importance of the metropolisbefore 1750 but concluded that thereafter the dramatic expansion ofEngland's provincial economy left the capital marooned in its 'pre-industrial' stage.'"'

More recently, however, historians on both the right and the left of theideological spectrum have reviewed these questions from new perspectives.Many point instead to the gradual, cumulative nature of industrializ-ation.'^ Economic transformation did not follow a neatly defined sequenceof discrete stages, and there was more to industrialization than the adventof 'whirring machinery and . . . smoking chimneys'.'" Hence, within thecompound processes of growth, fresh analytical attention has been givento the positive role of the tertiary (service) sector, including the impactof effective financial markets.'^ That in turn has encouraged a newappreciation of the importance of the world's great 'command cities' formodem intemational business,'^ and, specifically, ofthe City of London'sdynamic role in the emergence of Britain's global trading empire.'^

An authoritative overview by Schwarz of the eighteenth-century metro-politan economy has also provided an enriched perspective upon theconsiderable fluctuations of fortunes that occurred within processes ofgrowth.^" His account updates the lively but impressionistic evidence inGeorge's pioneering analysis.^' In particular, Schwarz surveys the struc-tural composition of London occupations, providing key data on a subjectthat has been remarkably little studied.^^ This evidence confirms that themetropolis did not experience a sudden reconfiguration in the course ofthe eighteenth century. In 1851, 'greater' London had a notably diversi-fied economy, with many craft industries and a formidable array of

'"Ibid., pp. 609-11."For example, London gets only a cursory mention in Ashton's classic Industrial revolumn,

p. 40, and in Berg's modem synthesis. Age of manufactures, p. 212.''Hammond and Hammond, Tozvn labourer, p. iii.' ' Braudel, Capitalism, p. 440."Daunton, 'Towns and economic growth', p. 247. This verdict contrasts with Daimton's later

(1995) positive assessment of London's impact: idem. Progress and poverty, pp. 137-40.'''Lee, British economy, pp, 17-22; Samuel, 'Workshop ofthe world'.'"Barker, 'Business as usual?', p. 45.'•'Lee, British economy, pp. 60-70, 98-103. See also O'Brien, 'Analysis'; Stanbrook, Understanding

lhe service economy."^Feagin and Smith, 'Cities', p. 4."Hoggan and Green, eds., London, pp. 8-33.^"Schwarz, London, pp. 11-30; idem, 'London, 1700-1840'.'̂ George, London life, pp. 158-212, 262-312.

' 'But for one parish in 1729-43, see Forbes, 'Weaver and cordwainer'.

Cl Economic History Soeit^ 1999

472 C. HARVEY, E. M. GREEN, AND P. J. CORFIELD

commercial, professional, and governmental services. The same wasbroadly true in 1700.̂ ^

However, broad structural continuities do not in themselves prove alack of importance. On the contrary, London's persistent economic plural-ism suggests that its diversified role was remarkably successful. If thegreat metropolis was an 'engine of growth' before 1750, then the casecan also be argued thereafter. London retained a powerful 'clustering' ofcompetitive services and industries diat continued to generate positivemomentum by means of a system of interlocking feedbacks.^" Its complexregional economy did not suddenly stall or go into reverse drive after1750.̂ ^ Indeed, as Britain's trading empire extended into genuinely globaldimensions, London's role at the heart of interlocking regional, national,and intemational networks became ever more crucial and, simul-taneously, diversified.

This study provides some hard data about an exceptionally well docu-mented area within the metropolis in the later eighteenth century, namelythe City of Westminster. Ideally, of course, historians would like compara-ble information for the whole of London. But, without that, evidencerelating to one sub-region, housing more than one in six of the metropoli-tan population in 1801, can throw significant light on the whole. First,then, Westminster's household economy is modelled. Next, the overallcontinuity between 1749 and 1820 in Westminster's broad sectoral distri-bution of labour is confirmed. Thirdly, however, the processes of continu-ing change are identified, especially via the growing range of specialistoccupations. And, fourthly, an index of the wealth holding of the differentoccupational groupings within Westminster is presented to show relativejob status.

Overall, the data reveal in exceptionally rich detail the adaptability ofthe workforce that sustained the fleshpots of metropolitan life. In sodoing, this study offers a strong reminder that 'London' was by no meanssimply absorbed by its trading and financial role, important as that was.The massive economic importance of government, professional services,and conspicuous consumption was also unmistakable. Such diversificationensured that the metropolis had a compound impact upon the wider econ-omy.

Greater London's economic region was famously polycentric. While theCity was unchallenged at the hub of intemational trade and finance, itspopulation constituted only a small part of the whole. Other parts oftown had their own specialisms, such as silk weaving in the Spitalfields,brewing in Southwark, and watch making in Clerkenwell. Moreover, theCity of London had a powerful rival and alter ego, close at hand within

"Schwarz, London, pp. 23-30. See also Green, From artisans to paupers, pp. 17-26.^•'For industrial 'clustering', see Porter, Competitive advantage, pp. 148-52.^'Michie, 'London', develops the positive case throughout the years 1750-1990.

® Economic Hisiarv Sodity 1999

THE ECONOMY OF WESTMINSTER, 1 7 5 0 - 1 8 2 0 473

the metropolis, in the form of the City of Westminster, which was cededits civic title by the crown in 1540 (even though Westminster was notformally incorporated by charter until 1900).^" These two authoritieswere often described as the twin locations of a 'commercial' East Endand a 'consumerist' West End.

By 1800 Westminster housed 150,000 men, women, and children, whoconstituted approximately 15 per cent of the population of greater Lon-don, and thus approximately 1.5 per cent of the total population ofEngland and Wales. That made it a significant urban grouping in itself.Moreover, Westminster was the sole civic arena to house the augustinstitutions of national government. Its urban boundaries accommodatednot only the Houses of Parliament and Whitehall's growing array ofministerial offices but also the royal court at St James, which becamethe king's official residence after fire destroyed the venerable WhitehallPalace in 1698. The combined allure of monarchical and political powergave Westminster immense social cachet. Its role as England's foremosturban amphitheatre for entertainment and conspicuous consumption wasconsolidated in the eighteenth century, with theatres and bagnios in Sohoand Covent Garden, fashionable shops in Piccadilly and Oxford Street,and a plenitude of smart new residential squares and town houses in StGeorge's, as the West End continued to spread north and west of thewinding river Thames.^' Added to this, Westminster contained most ofthe celebrated Inns of Court that constituted the organizational andresidential headquarters of 'legal England'. There was a continuous pro-cess of urban building and rebuilding, putting ever greater pressure uponthe few remaining market gardens, cow pastures, and open land, in thestill rural Tothill Fields (soon to be developed as Pimlico).

Viewed overall, Westminster's economic role was based upon itscapacity to suck in substantial wealth and purchasing power from acrossthe country. Even a relatively decentralized political system, such as thatoperating in eighteenth-century Britain, depended upon ready access tothe administrative and political nerve-centres. Westminster attracted aconstant flow of people coming to visit or to stay in town, includingMPs, peers, and prelates attending Parliament, and litigants throngingthe law courts in Westminster Hall.̂ ** This concentration of affluencepromoted an urban economy intensively based upon conspicuous con-sumption. The political, administrative, legal, professional, and culturalservices provided by Westminster may in tum be regarded as its 'exports'to the rest of the country. No doubt, too, many of its luxury goods weretaken to destinations outside its boundaries. Its own economic centralitywas underpinned by the big central realities of social and political power.

Systematic details of Westminster's working life were publicly declaredwhenever its electorate went to the polls.̂ ** Voters called out their names,

^̂ Green, 'Social structure', p. 61.^̂ See Phillips, Mid-Georgian London, for an illustrated street-by-street survey.^"The law courts in the Strand were not opened until 1882.*̂ Harvey, Green, and Corfield, Westminster Historical Database, pp. 40-53.

© Economic History Socury 1999

474 C. HARVEY, E. M. GREEN, AND P. J. CORFIELD

their occupations, and their votes.^^ Admittedly, this information was farfrom perfect. There was no easy way of telling whether people wereembellishing their status, nor do the records reveal whether voters wereactively engaged in work or merely 'at play', in the expressive eighteenth-century term for unemployment.^' Furthermore, the stated occupationswere all respectable ones. A jolly pen portrait of the Covent Gardenentertainment area observed in 1790:

Here's bullies, gamblers, bawds, and whores.Who daily do ensnare men; ' 'Thief-takers, vintners, pimps by scores,With Welsh and Irish chairmen.̂ ^

Of these, only the vintners and chairmen appeared in the electoralrecords, the latter group themselves testimony to the vicissitudes ofchanging fashions: 91 chairmen voted in 1749 but by 1818 they haddisappeared, as the man-handled sedan chair was superseded by thehorse-drawn hackney carriage. Meanwhile, the many gamblers, bawds,pimps, and whores who operated within Westminster's 'immoral econ-omy' remained entirely uncounted.

None the less, a synoptic overview can be derived from informationthat was made available at the polls. Westminster's franchise was confinedto adult male rate-paying householders. Hence women, children, lodgers,very poor men, and living-in domestic staff were permanently excluded.On the other hand, adult menservants who maintained their own rate-paying homes (as some did) were entitled to vote alongside theiremployers and betters.^^ Moreover, there was some leeway in theinterpretation of Westminster's franchise. At times, voters who weresimply liable to pay rates were admitted to the polls as well as voterswho had actually paid them. This flexibility resulted from political press-ure upon customary procedures, as all candidates strove vigorously tomaximize their electoral support. Eventually, there was a significant clari-fication of procedures in 1795 but the broad-based *scot and lot' or rate-paying franchise was retained. '̂* All voters had an address and a financialstake in the locality. Westminster continued as the largest of the popular'urban' constituencies under the unreformed constitution. It thusremained a key political arena.

By 1802, when the Whig hero Charles James Fox was re-elected forhis final term as MP, Westminster had as many as 10,000 voters.

'"For voting procedures, see Harvey, Green, and Corfield, Westminster Historical Database, pp. 3,19-20. The compilation of the database that is the source of all voting statistics cited here isdocumented in ibid., pp. 32-70.

" For problems in interpreting occupational data, s=e ibid., pp. 71-117.' ' Anon., Humours of Covent Garden.' 'Thus in 1780 votes were cast for the govemment candidates by both the Rt. Hon. Charles

Jenkinson, esquire. Secretary at War, and one William Felton, an 'extra man in His Majesty's kitchen'.*•' Harvey, Green, and Corfield, Westminster Historical Database, pp. 14-17. Because Westminster's

voting qualification was vested in local rate payers rather than in individual freemen for life, electionsin Westminster (unlike those in the large freeman boroughs such as Norwich) did not see organizedcontingents of migrant freemen or 'outvoters' retuming to vote.

® Economic History Society t999

THE ECONOMY OF WESTMINSTER, 1 7 5 0 - 1 8 2 0 475

constituting approximately one in 15 of the total population of 153,000(as recorded at the 1801 census). Electoral authority was clearly notmonopolized by a tiny elite. Indeed, if the figures are recalculated toexclude women (nowhere enfranchised in the eighteenth century), thenWestminster's voters constituted approximately one in seven of the totalmale population of 69,000 (all age-groups) and consequently as many asone in four of Westminster's adult male workforce of some 40,000.'^

Moreover, while women did not feature directly in these records, someinferences can be made about their economic roles. One bold man, whodeclared his occupation in 1819 to be that of 'laundress', confirmed thatthe job of washerwoman was known as a characteristically female pre-serve.̂ * And other occupations were commonly associated with work forwomen. For example, the numerous male shopkeepers and innkeepersbetween them generated many employment opportunities for female shopassistants and servants. Indeed, Westminster's labour-intensive economyof shops and services was not likely to overlook such a ready source ofcheap labour. Similarly, the aristocratic town households employed notonly their known menservants but also a larger total of women servants,as household service was becoming increasingly feminized. And, of course,countless lesser households depended upon the labours of female cooks,maids, and skivvies.

Given the abundance of shops, professions, and service occupationsrecorded by Westminster's electorate, it was clear that here was a highlyflexible urban economy, with large numbers of people moving frequentlyinto and out of a multitude of different occupations of greater or lesserlegality, on either a full- or part-time basis.

There were few obstacles to household formation. Indeed, the survivingdata allow an exercise in simple modelling, using Westminster's 1801census population. A disputed by-election led in 1789 to an appeal tothe House of Commons. It was then authoritatively declared by the HighBailiff that Westminster contained 16,394 inhabited houses that wereassessable for payment of rates.'' Of these, a huge majority, 14,549 or88.75 per cent, were headed by men while a small but not negligibleminority—1,845, or over one in 10—were headed by women.'** Puttingthis information together, Westminster's household economies can bemodelled as shown in figure 1.

For this exercise, notional families have been created: 80 per cent ofthe male rate-paying householders are assumed to be married orcohabiting, and each of the 12,000 wives is 'given' 2.5 children. Thatgenerates an immediate 'family' population of 57,000. In addition, eachmale householder is assumed to have on average 1.33 male tenants, plus

" For the size of the workforce, see below, p. 477,"* James Trotter, 'laundress', of Floorcloth Yard in St George's, voted for the moderate refomi

candidate in 1819." Harvey, Green, and Corfield, Westminster Historical Database, p. 4."̂ A householder in Westminster was defined as having an undisputed right to the exclusive use

of the outward (front) door of a building: ibid., p. 16. He or she was a person of status, responsiblefor payment of local rates, whether as a freeholder (in some cases) or as a leasehold tenant.

® Eamomit Hisiory Sacit^ i999

476 C. HARVEY, E. M. GREEN, AND P. J. CORFIELD

Male householders15,000

Female householders2,000

Wives12,000

Children30,000

Servants(m+f)20,000

Tenants (m)20,000

Children2,000

Servants(m+f)2)000

Wives Children Servants14,000 31,000 (m+f)

5,000

Westminsterpopulation, 1801

M 69,000

F 84,000

Total 153,000

Figure 1. A simple model of Westminster's households, 1801

the same number of living-in domestic staff (male and female). It shouldbe noted, incidentally, that servants who did not co-reside with theiremployers are included as ordinary householders. Seventy per cent of thetenants are then assumed to be married and each tenant's wife is 'given'a slightly smaller allocation of 2.2 children. The living-in domestic ser-vants, by contrast, are taken to be single. That adds another 90,000inhabitants, as connections of the male householders. Meanwhile, a muchsmaller segment of the population came under the domestic sway offemales. There were 2,000 women householders of independent means,who presumably included many older women and/or widows. They areallocated one servant and one child apiece. Residents of these female-headed households consequently totalled 6,000, giving Westminster apopulation of 133,000 (as in the 1801 census).

Complete accuracy within this model is impossible. It does not furnishthe fine detail of household composition. For example, there is noseparate calculation for a modest number of lodgers,^^ who are subsumedwithin the servant population. Nor is there a separate category for non-householder widows, who are counted with the wives. But tests confirmthe broad plausibility of the social profile thus generated. For example,the living-in servants amount to 27,000, which matches the figure esti-mated for Westminster as a whole in the 1780s, from assessed tax

'^ Lodgers, who were not infrequently family friends or relatives, shared facilities within thehousehold, in contrast to visitors who rented dieir own suites of rooms. See Anderson, Familystructure, pp. 43, 45-8.

O Economic History Soeu^ 1999

THE ECONOMY OF WESTMINSTER, 1 7 5 0 - 1 8 2 0 477

payments upon servant keeping.'*" Gender ratios can also be checked forcompatibility with census data. The model envisages 84,000 women,comprising 2,000 female householders, 26,000 wives, a large majority ofthe servants'" at 21,000, and 35,000 girls (55 per cent of the 63,000children). That matched Westminster's female population at the 1801census. Similarly, the men are calculated at 69,000 (45 per cent of thetotal), including 15,000 male householders, 20,000 male tenants, 6,000living-in menservants, and 28,000 boys. The estimates can also be cross-checked by household size. Wealthy people tended to live in largerdomestic groupings than did the poor. But all urban households at thistime were fairly compact in size: this model proposes 153,000 peopleliving within 37,000 households, averaging 4.13 people apiece, whichclosely matches Wall's calculation of an overall mean household size of4.10 for the London region in 1801.'*^

Hence, assuming the general plausibility of the model/^ Westminster'seconomy supported some 17,000 independent household units plusanother 20,000 tenants. These between them supplied a potential work-force of approximately 41,000 adult males (15,000 male householders 4-20,000 tenants + 6,000 menservants). However, the number of womenin the labour market remains uncertain, since, in addition to the known21,000 female servants, an unknown proportion of wives worked, oftenat low-paid and casual jobs. Overall, labour was in plentiful supply, sinceWestminster contained a high proportion of young adults (rather thanvery young children) in its population. That was a characteristic demo-graphic profile, that signalled brisk urban growth fuelled by continuousin-migration from the countryside.*"*

nInformation about Westminster's economy focuses strongly upon theadult male householders—both large and small—who collectively led theurban economy. They were major wealth creators and job generators,employing additional labour in their shops, businesses, warehouses,

"•"Tax records for all Westminster in 1780 showed some 6,000 menservants (P\jblic RecordOffice, T 47/8, List of persons paying duty on male servants (1780)), while a listing for oneWestminster parish in 1784 (Westminster Archive Centre, E 3164, Taxes, window, house, servantsand carriages—St Margaret and St John (1786; actually 1784)) indicated a ratio of 3.5 maidservantsper manservant. Multiplying up, that gives 21,000 female (78%) to 6,000 male servants (22%),totalling 27,000.

'" The feminization of live-in domestic service as an occupation is noted in Hill, Servants, pp. 31-2, 37-9, 41-3.

•'•'Wall, 'Mean household size', p. 192, table 5.3 (also showing a 'mean of means' for Londonof 4.59 and a median of 4.24). TJiis is smaller than the often cited national 'mean of means' of4.75 for the years 1574-1821, as proposed by Laslett, 'Mean household size', pp. 132-4, 139; butLaslett stressed that 4.75 did not constitute a 'imiversal multiplier'.

""The model is open to detailed amendment but is designed to show that changes to the size ofany one group require countervailing changes elsewhere within the model, to keep the whole withinthe 1801 population total.

•'•'Westminster's population expanded from approximately 125,000 in the 1780s, to 153,272 in1801, and 182,085 by 1821. Information about Westminster's age profile is derived fi-om the 1821census, although unfonunately no comparable data are available for earlier periods.

® Economic Hiaoty Sodtty 1999

4 7 8 C. HARVEYj E. M. GREEN, AND P. J. CORFIELD

offices, and homes. As electors, these adult male householders had notonly economic power but also valuable political rights. The precisepercentage who used their votes in Westminster's many contested elec-tions is unknown. Yet, given that there were 14,549 adult male house-holders in 1789 and that some 12,300 voters went to the polls in 1784,it suggests a very crude 'turnout' figure of 84.5 per cent.'*^ That wassubstantial, in a year when passions ran high both for and against thecandidacy of Charles James Fox. His dramatic election victory, whichwas achieved against intense govemment hostility, signalled that a shop-keeping, artisan, and professional constituency was willing to take anindependent stand, although Foxites elsewhere suffered heavy losses.^^

Table 1. Distribution of Westminster voters by economic sector, 1749-1818

AgricultureBuildingManufacturingTransportDealingProfessionalIndustrial serviceDomestic serviceRentiersTotal

141884

3,015207

388123163

1,5419,437

1749

n.1.59.4

31.92.2

31.54.11.31.7

16.3100.0

Voters

1551,1343,379

2463,602

515307381

1,708

11,427

1784

%

1.49.9

29.62.2

31.54.52.73.3

14.9

100.0

Voters

75821

3,178150

3,482739180181

1,286

10,092

isia

%

0.78.1

31.51.5

34.57,31.81,8

12.7

100.0

Source: Westminster Historical Database. See appx. ]

Collectively, the voters illuminated Westminster's respectable face ofwealth-creation. That was seen in the spread of occupations at threeseparate elections from a 70-year span. The key dates selected are1749, 1784, and 1818. All were keenly contested elections, that of 1784particularly so.'*'' Each offers especially full data from all Westminsterparishes, with occupational statements surviving for 9,437 voters in 1749,11,427 in 1784, and 10,092 in 1818.̂ « Table 1 presents an overview.At the most general level, the overwhelming impression is unmistakablyone of broad continuity between 1750 and 1820.

Throughout the period, the most visible economic activity remaineddominated by the 'shop', in the sense of both workshop and small retailoutlet. Measured by the standard Booth/Armstrong sectoral economicclassification, almost one-third of voters were engaged in making the

•"Green, 'Taxonomy', p. 165.""See Mitchell, Fox, pp. 70-1; and P. J. Corfield, E. M. Green, and C. Harvey, 'Westminster

man: Charles James Fox and his electorate, 1780-1806' (unpub. paper)." The number of votes cast reflected the variable keenness of the eleaoral contest rather than

trends in the absolute size ofthe electorate, which, in the absence of electoral registers before 1832,was not known precisely.

••̂ Totals exclude all cases of incomplete or missing data, and a tiny number of voters withunknown occupations.

e Economic Hiswry Socitiy 1999

THE ECONOMY OF WESTMINSTER, 1 7 5 0 - 1 8 2 0 479

high-quality hand-crafted consumer goods for which London remainedfamous,**̂ and a further 30 per cent in selling them.^° Moreover, as iswell known, the boundaries between 'manufacturing' and 'dealing' werehighly porous. A commonly cited example was the hatter who both madeand sold hats. Hence, if the overlapping activities of craft production andretail selling are grouped together, the collective dominance of the 'mak-ers' and 'dealers' among Westminster's voters was overwhelming, account-ing for 63.4 per cent of occupations in 1749 and an even more substantial66 per cent in 1820. Of course, these were only proportional figures. Inabsolute terms, Westminster's domestic servants (some 27,000 in thelater eighteenth century) constituted easily the largest single occupationalgrouping. But these workers toiled behind the scenes, without eithereconomic muscle or political power.

At the macro-occupational level, Westminster's economy showed manyaspects of continuity between 1750 and 1820. A sizable group of voters(some 9 per cent) were engaged in building, and a smaller number inthe organization of transport (2.2 per cent in 1749 and in 1784, fallingto 1.5 per cent by 1820). Unsurprisingly, only a small and diminishingproportion were agriculturalists. In addition, a small contingent of voterswas engaged in the provision of domestic services (hairdressers, porters),while others worked in industrial services (labourers, clerks).

Table 2. Percentage distribution of male voters inWestminster classified by product or service cluster^

1749-1818

Product sector

Household provisionsHousehold goodsApparelCulture and entertainmentPolitical, professional, and merchantTransport and storageBuildingEngineering and equipment manufacturersDomestic and personal servicesOthersTotal

1749^12.612.019.314.721.94.99.42.91.11.2

100.0

JSISf-13.512.918.813.722.5

5.58.13.10.71.2

100.0

Notes: a For 1749, n = 9,437 voters.ft For 1818, n = 10,092 voters.Source: Westminster Historical Daiabase.

If the occupational data are reclassified sectorally according to the 'finaldestination' of the goods or services provided, the broad continuity ofWestminster's macroeconomic role is again confirmed. Table 2 highlightstwo linked functions. One was the supply of luxury goods (householdprovisions, goods, apparel). TTiat engaged the attention ofa massive bloc

''"Marshall, Industry and trade, pp. 285, 800; Schwarz, London, p. 231.'"The (amplified) Booth/Annstrong sectoral classification provides a viable framework for inter-

preting eighteenth- and nineteenth-century occupational data: see Harvey, Green, and Corfield,Westminster Historical Database, pp. 93-111.

® Ecimomic Hiiuny Soeiiiy 1999

480 C. HARVEY, E. M. GREEN, AND P. J. CORFIELD

of 43.9 per cent of Westminster voters in 1749, rising slightly to 45.2per cent by 1818. The other key function was the aggregate supplyof specialist services (entertainment, culture, government, professional,mercantile). This composite sector accounted for as many as 36.6 percent of voters in 1749, and remained steady at that level (36.2 per cent)in 1818."'

It was this latter function in particular which differentiated Westminsterfirom all other urban centres. Nowhere else in England was there anythingapproaching this concentration of occupations dedicated to the businessof government, the professions, and the entertainment industry. Theraffish diversions of Covent Garden 'low life' were as much part of theappeal as were more respectable pleasures. London's 'West End' thusfiourished as Britain's premier interchange centre for the gamut of activeconsumerism, where effective demand met service supply.̂ ^

As the permanent heartland of the fashionable world, attracting anational and intemationai clientele of visitors, Westminster was throngedby the country's social elite, who either came for the long winter 'season'or maintained a permanent town residence there. That was apparent inthe large number of gentlemen (classified with the men of status, anddefined in economic terms as 'rentiers') and professionals among itselectorate. Parliament and the royal court were never-failing magnets.Thus, more than one in 10 of the Westminster voters in 1749 wereaccorded the status of 'gentleman', making them the largest single group-ing among the voters at any point between 1749 and 1820. There was,however, some reshuffling of status. As table 1 shows, the 'rentiers'remained the third largest grouping. Yet their relative importance fellfrom about one-sixth of the voters (16.3 per cent) in 1749 to about one-eighth (12.7 per cent) in 1818. That change was, however, not a markof any serious diminution in the attractiveness of Westminster to men ofleisure and status. Instead, the decline of the 'rentiers' was offset by theconcomitant rise of the professional men, who increasingly by the latereighteenth century were willing to identify themselves by their full pro-fessional title rather than simply as 'gentlemen'.^^

Lawyers were particularly plentiful. In the 1780s, as many as one-thirdof the entire legal profession of England and Wales were located in thecapital city.̂ "* They flocked into their professional habitat around thevenerable Inns of Court, most of which were located within Westminster'seastern parishes. Attorneys and solicitors thus multiplied in numbersthroughout the three survey years of 1749, 1784, and 1818. JonathanSwift had already claimed, unfiatteringly, that members of the professionwere as prolific as 'Caterpillars'.^^ The later eighteenth century saw a

" This a^regate cannot easily be broken down into smaller sectoral categories, because consutnp-tion, entertainment, govemment, etc. provided work for overlapping rather than discrete groupsamong the Westminster workforce.

'̂ On 'demand conditions', see Porter, Competitive advtmiage, p. 258.' ' Corfield, Power and the professions, p. 80.'"Ibid., p. 82. I" Ibid., p. 78.

© Bconoiriic History Society J999

THE ECONOMY OF WESTMINSTER, 1 7 5 0 - 1 8 2 0 481

continuing rise not only in the number of lawyers but also in their socialvisibility. It was their success, allied with the growth of other professionalspecialisms, that ensured the notable surge in the proportionate impor-tance of the professional sector among Westminster's voters, from 4.5per cent in 1784 to 7.3 per cent in 1818 (see table 1). This was asignificant development which signalled at once the determined advanceof Britain's service sector and the consolidation of its organizationalheadquarters within the metropolis. The emergent 'aristocracy of talent'thus lived and worked close to the traditional citadels of political andsocial power.

mAdaptability was necessary for urban economic survival. As a result, themen and women within Westminster's workforce were constantly updatingand refining their roles. While the affluence of metropolitan consumermarkets provided a general stimulus to economic activity, there were nosafeguards against the fiuctuations of trade and fortune. A process ofcontinuous adaptation took place within the framework of long-termcontinuity in Westminster's overall role. It was not to be expected thatits macroeconomy would undergo drastic change. There was no scopefor mining; and very little for agriculture, given the pressure to buildupon available land. Nor did Westminster have cheap local fuel resourcesto become a centre of mechanized mass industrial production. Its urbaneconomy after 1750 thus tended to intensify and diversify within itsown parameters rather than to undergo a sudden structural mutation.Westminster's established concentration as a centre of government andof conspicuous consumption was reinforced by a mixture of old traditionsand new successes.

Heightened economic activity is particularly difficult to detect withinaggregate sectoral statistics. One possible criterion of economic intensifi-cation is the growth over time in the number of specialist occupationsamong the Westminster electorate. At the polls, voters identified theiravocations in full and sometimes idiosyncratic detail. For example, inaddition to the familiar ale-dealers, one man specified his calling as'dealer in ale and bottled porter'. Similarly, ordinary lace weavers weredistinguished from the voter who described himself punctiliously as a'coach livery lace maker'.

Between them, the electors in later eighteenth-century Westminstermentioned a grand total of 1,612 distinct occupations.^^ That was a verylarge figure indeed—almost twice the 840 listed for the whole of metro-politan London at the 1841 census.^^ It indicates that there was a muchwider terminology of job descriptions in ordinary use than was collectedin official summaries. Thus, in 1749, the 9,463 Westminster votersacknowledged 460 separate callings (one for every 21 voters). By 1818,

'"Harvey, Green, and Corfield, Westminster Historical Database, p. 94.'^ Green, From artisans to paupers, p. 5.

O Economic Hisutty Society t999

482 C. HARVEY, E. M. GREEN, AND P. J. CORFIELD

however, 10,138 electors claimed a considerably larger total of 670distinct occupations (one for every 15 voters).^^ TTiat alone pointed to amarked diversification of work processes within the metropolis. It maybe compared with the high figure of 721 different occupational labelsrecorded in the City of London by 12,858 taxpayers in the 1690s (onefor every 18 individuals listed).^^ Certainly, these metropolitan totals werevery much higher than the 200-300 separate occupations found inEngland's leading provincial towns in the early nineteenth century or the100+ in the smaller market towns.^°

Yet evidence for the growth of specialist jobs must be taken as indicativerather than absolutely precise. For a start, not all individuals were engagedsolely upon the single job stated at the poll. Some people played multipleroles, which were characteristically under-reported.^' Moreover, as alreadynoted, the occupational titles chosen by the voters represented only therespectable face of their labours. The richness of nomenclature was alsoa function of descriptive ingenuity, as indeed was the willingness orotherwise of parish officials to note down every variant. The manuscriptpoll books thus tended to show a larger number of discrete job titlesthan did the printed lists, suggesting that information was somewhatstandardized for publication purposes. Added to that, the modem his-torian's own classification can materially influence the results as well. Ifevery minor variant of spelling is counted separately ('plaisterer' and'plasterer' as two occupations rather than one), then a jobs boom canrapidly result. The Westminster data have been standardized, whereverpossible, to avoid double counting of this sort, but even slight differenceshave been retained in doubtful cases, in order to respect the contemporaryrecord.^^ Hence it is clear that comparisons between different figuresfrom different sources, that are compiled by different historians fordifferent purposes, can be no more than suggestive.

Another sign of change within continuity can be seen in the gradualreshuffling of the leading occupations over time (table 3). The leadingsix occupational/status groups remained unchanged in 1749, 1784, and1818. Throughout, the miscellaneous 'gentlemen' headed the lists. How-ever, the collective dominance of the 20 leading occupational/statusgroups was beginning to wane: from 61.8 per cent of all voters in 1749,to 56.4 per cent in 1784 and 52.1 per cent by 1818. That confirmed agradual process of job diversification. While the radical tailor FrancisPlace and the radical shoemaker Thomas Hardy remained highly typicalof the Westminster electorate, at least in terms of their employment,there were more and more voters with few occupational fellows, such asthe poet and artist William Blake, self-described in 1790 as 'engraver'.*"'

Within table 3, the relative waxing and waning of the smaller occu-

'* Green, 'Social structure', pp. 194-5."Alexander, "Economic struaure', p. 53.** Corfield, 'Defining urban work', p. 221.'*' Schwarz, London, pp. 48-50." Harvey, Green, and Corfield, Westminster Historical Daitd>ase, p. 93."Ibid., pp. 148-9.

© Ectmomic History Soday 1999

THE ECONOMY OF WESTMINSTER, 1 7 5 0 - 1 8 2 0 483

Table 3. Leading male occupational and status groups in Westminster,1749-1818

1749-

Occupation

GentlemenVictuallersTailorsEsquiresCarpentersShoemakersPeruke makersButchersChandlersBakersDistillersStay makersGrocersCheesemongersApothecariesBricklayersLabourersCabinet makersBlacksmithsOilmen

Total

%

10.49.75.15.04.53.53.13.02.81.91.51.41.41.31.31.21.21.21.21.1

61.8

178^

Occupation

GentlemenVictuallersTailorsShoemakersCarpentersEsquiresButchersLabourersHairdressersBakersChandlersCoal dealersCabinet makersGrocersGreengrocersBricklayersBrokersOilmenlinen drapersPeruke makers

%

9.87.74.94.84.74.02.42.21.81,51.41.41.41.31.31.21.21.21.11.1

56.4

ISIS"

Occupation

GentlemenVictuallersTailorsShoemakersEsquiresCarpentersButchersBakersOilnienCoal dealersGrocersGreengrocersSolicitorsPaintersSurgeonsLabourersLinen drapersUpholsterers ' ' .JewellersCheesemongers

%

8.06.65.94.53.83.32.52.01.81.71.61.41.31.21.21.11.1

va1.01.0

52.1

Notes: a For 1749, n = 9,437 voters.b¥oT 1784, n = 11,427 voters.cFoi 1818, n = 10,092 voters.Source: Wcatniinster Historical Database.

pations among the 20 leading categories are also apparent, indicatingflexibility in response to changing fashions and trends. The peruke (wig)makers, for example, were the seventh largest group in 1749, but hadslipped to twentieth by 1784, and disappeared by 1818, by which timewigs had yielded to real hair on all but special occasions. By contrast,the oilmen moved unambiguously up the list, and a variety of specialists,ranging from solicitors (attorneys) to surgeons, jewellers, painters, andupholsterers, who were not among the leading occupations in either 1749or 1784, constituted sizable groupings by 1818. Such changes confirmedthe continuing process of renewal and adaptation.

Multiplication in the range of jobs can be detected statistically whenindividual designations at the three survey dates are ranked by frequency.That is shown in table 4, which tabulates the relationship of occupationsto voters. Again, there are signs of both continuity and change. Thedominance of the top 10 occupations (by frequency) remained verystriking. In 1818 these accounted for well over one-third of all West-minster voters, as in 1749 and 1784. Yet the proportionate 'clout' ofthese leading occupations was also declining. In the 35 years between1749 and 1784, their share ofthe voters fell from 46.8 to 38.7 per cent;and the process continued gently in the succeeding years down to 1818.@ Eamomic History Saeuiy 1999

4 8 4 C. HARVEY, E. M. GREEN, AND P. J. CORFIELD

Table 4. Distribution of Westminster voters byindividual occupations, 1749-1818

Rankedoccupations"

1-101-201-301-401-501-601-701-801-90I-lOO1-n

1749

46.858.765.971.475.979.682.584.886.788.3

100

Cumulative percentages* 1784'-

38.750.858.864.869.473.376.579.281.483.3

100

}8!Sf 1

36.4 146.9 ,55.4 '61.8 '66.670.3 \73.576.278.480.4

100

Noiei-. a Individual occuparions have been ranked from 1 . . . n onthe basis of frequency of membership, from largest to smallest.h For n see tab. 3. ,Source: Westminster Historical Database.

As that happened, the 'tail' of more unusual occupations increased. Thefigures in table 4 confirm the multiplication of job designations. Thus,in 1749 three-quarters of the voters were clustered into the top 50occupations/status groups; by 1784 it took 70 occupations, and by 1818the top 80 occupations, to employ three-quarters of the voters.

Variety of goods and services was thus a keynote of the Westminstereconomy. The German visitor in 1786, who went to admire 'lovelyOxford Street', returned to marvel at the cornucopia of shops, confidingthat: 'Our imagination, dear children, is not nearly big enough to picturethe quantities of inventions and improvements' on display.'̂ '' Westminsterrepresented in macrocosm the fast-burgeoning consumerism that wassimilarly bringing new shops and trades, albeit in microcosm, to smallerresorts and trading towns across the country.*^ The multiplying shopsand workshops were themselves major employers of labour, according tothe fluctuations of fashion. That in tum encouraged a further element ofspecialization among the wider workforce, although the extent of econ-omic participation by women and their collective gaining (or loss) ofskills awaits further research.*^

IV

Productivity and profitability among the different business sectors arenotoriously difficult to measure, especially for an economy that wassubdivided into many small and diverse workplaces. The WestminsterHistorical Database does not contain information that bears directly upon

'•"von la Roche, Sophie in London, p. 261."See Neale, Bath., pp. 12-48j and, on Chester, Stobart, 'Shopping streets'.**See Earle, 'Female labour market'; and Schwarz, London, pp. 14-22, for a judicious summary

of research to date.

O Economic Hiuory Soeitty 1999

THE ECONOMY OF WESTMINSTER, 1 7 5 0 - 1 8 2 0 485

such matters. What it does permit, however, is a closer look at theperformance of different occupational groupings, as indicated by theirdifferential rate assessments upon their 'immovable' local property. Hence,for the purposes of discussion, housing can be taken as a reasonable,though not perfect, indicator of economic status.

Table 5. Rack rental assessments by economic sector

AgricultureBuildingManufactureTransportDealingProfessionalIndustrial serviceDomestic serviceRentiers

All linked voters

Mean rackrent (Q

20.8917.2321.4623.6826.2)31.7119.0717.8543.53

26.53

MM

[nter-quartilerange i

QL

8.0010.0012.(508.00

14.0015.008.009.33

17.00

12.00

Qv

20.3321.0027.0030.0032.0040.0023.3322.0054.00

31.00

Gimcoeffidettt

0.470.330.340.490.320.370.460.340.38

0.40

Mean rackrent CO

28.7331.2036.0649.0743.8256.6127.3327.5677.22

45.22

/ S i

Inter-quartHerangt

QL

18.0017.0020.0014.0024.0030.0014.0017.0030.00

22.00

OO

Qv

32.0035.0044.0056.0050.0070.0029.5030.0096.0050.50

Ginicoefficient

0.31 ,0.360.290.540.320.360.410.300.470.38

Notes: a For 1784, n = 7,764 linked rate-paying voters.feFor 1818, n = 7,799 linked rate-paying voters.Source: Westminster Historical Database.

Since Westminster had a broadly based rate-paying franchise, it hasbeen possible to identify a large number of voters in the rate books andto record the rack-rent assessments that were entered against theirnames.*''' Table 5 provides an overview of those voters for whom thislinked information was obtained. Data relating to rack-rental levels aredisplayed for each economic sector in the two survey years of 1784 and1818. As might be expected, the 'rentiers' easily topped the league. Theirmean standard rack rent in 1784 was £43.53, which had risen consider-ably to £77.22 in 1818. As a gentry financial elite, they stood in markedcontrast to the plutocracy of overseas merchants who dominated the Cityof London.*^^ Westminster's rentiers were followed by the professionals,assessed at £31.71 in 1784, increasing to £56.61 by 1818. The otheroccupations also showed substantial augmentations in mean rack rentalsover time. In addition, table 5 tabulates Gini coefficients to indicateinequality levels within each group.^^ Comparison ofthe results for 1784with those for 1818 shows that there was no general trend for rentalinequalities within each economic sector to increase: they did in the caseof Westminster's builders, transport providers, and 'rentiers'; but did notin others.

'•̂ To achieve comparability over time, the database records the rack-rent assessments rather thanthe sums actually levied, which varied according to administrative contingencies: see Harvey, Green,and Corfield, Westminster Historical Database, pp. 20-6.

"" Alexander, 'Economic structure", pp. 55-6.""By this calculation, 0 = perfect equality; 1 = perfect inequality: for details, see below, p. 491.

© Economic History Society 1999

486 C. HARVEY, E. M. GREEN, AND P. J. CORFIELD

Considerably more meaningful than these broad summaries, however,are figures that focus upon specific occupational groups. Some callingstended to be very homogeneous. Banking was one example of a businessthat was usually prosperous. On the oxhtr hand, many other occupationsspanned a gamut of wealth and poverty. Tables 6 and 7 rank the 20commonest occupational/status groups in 1784 and 1818 by financialstanding. This provides a snapshot of ratable housing values and, byproxy, of economic success. Decisively at the top, in both 1784 and1818, were the esquires. They lived grandly, as their rank required. Thencame (in 1784) the linen drapers, gentlemen, victuallers, grocers, and (in1818) the linen drapers, surgeons, upholsterers, and gentlemen. Again,the picture was one of adaptation within a stable macro-framework.Westminster's economy remained poised around the functions of con-sumption and gentry social/political life. But within that, the success ofthe surgeons^" in 1818, for example, was a pointer to the rise of thespecialist professions.

Table 6. Rack rental assessments for leading male occupationaland status groups in Westminster, 1784

Occupation

Esquireslinen drapersGentlemenVictuallersGrocersOilmenCoal dealersTailorsCabinet makersHairdressersBakersBrokersButchersShoemakersPeruke makersBricklayersGreengrocersCarpentersChandlersLabourers

Mean rackrent (£) -

58.3439.0330.6728.4226.1224.5221.8221.4821.0420.8820.6020.0218.8818.1817.8816.9416.9216,1315.2312.96

Inter-quartde

QL

28.0023.0013.3316.0016.0014.8313.2512.0014.0012.0014.0012.0010.0010,0010.679.33

10.009.00

10.678.00

range (£}

70.6756,0040.0034.0032.0030.0026.0028.0024.5028.0024.0024.0024.0020.0023.2520.0020.5020.0020.0014.67

Ginicoefficient

0.400.290.410.340,300.310.330.320.240.310.240.290.330.370.290.300.320.320.250.34

Source: Westminster Histoncal Database.I/

Meanwhile, towards the bottom of the rankings were those withoutshops (labourers, carpenters, bricklayers) or those with only modestpremises (chandlers, greengrocers). This gives a clear picture of therelative economic standing of those trades. But the figures also show thatover time there was considerable variation up and down the rankings of

'"Few physicians could be linked, because they were commonly described in the rate books as'Dr. Smith' etc. and hence lacked full details for name identification.

O Economic Hiitory Sodtty t999

THE ECONOMY OF WESTMINSTER, 1 7 5 0 - 1 8 2 0 487

Table 7. Rack rental assessments for leading male occupationaland status groups in Westminster, 1818

Occupation

EsquiresLinen drapersSurgeonsUpholsterersGentlemenSolicitorsVictuallersJewellersOilmenGrocersCoal dealersCheesemongersTailorsBakersPaintersButchersGreengrocersShoemakersCarpentersLabourers

Mean rackrent (£)

109.5767.4860.0554.0548.8847.0644.8443.3742.0141.2139.3036.9334.9734.0831.7231.2928.5828.1025.3316.25

Inter-fjuartile

Qi.

50.0040.0039.5030.0024.0030.0030.0025.0025.0026.0020.0023.0020.0024.0018.0020.0018.0016.2515.0010.00

range (£)

Qv

144.2580.0073.5071.0057.0060.5050.0055.0052.0043.5043.2540.0040.0040.0042.0040.0034.0035.0028.0020.00

Ginico^ideni

0.390.320.280.330.380.280.300.300.310.310.370.290.310.220.290.260.300.310.330.21

Source: Westminster Historical Database.

the largest 20 occupational groups. For example, a comparison of tables6 and 7 shows the modest financial status of the peruke makers in 1784,and the new success ofthe jewellers in 1818. This confirms contemporarytestimony about the considerable spectrum of costs and opportunitiesrepresented by London's multifarious trades and professions.^'

Dispersal of ratable values within each occupation, as indicated by theGini coefficient, again varied considerably. Notably, in both 1784 and1818, much the greatest inequality was found among the esquires andgentlemen. The urban gentry were a notably diversified social group.''^By contrast, the labourers in 1818 had a very low coefficient, confirmingthat by then it was very rare indeed to find labourers in high-ratedhousing. In other words, the range of options was relatively more con-stricted at the foot of the social scale and more diversified at higherpoints upon the 'greasy pole' of advancement.''^ Furthermore, in thelonger term, a distinct 'stretching' ofthe financial ladder can be observed.The highest mean standard rack rent in 1784 was 4.5 times as great asthe lowest standard among the top 20 occupations (from £12.96 to£58.34) whereas in 1818 the gap had stretched to 6.74 times. The richwere patently getting richer, as the overall wealth of the whole Londonregion grew, while the social costs lower down the hierarchy were muffled

" Campbell, London tradesman.'^ Corfield, 'The rivals'.*̂ Compare with data in Schwarz, London, pp. 65-73.

© Economic HisKry Joewry 1999

4 8 8 C. HARVEY, H. M. GREEN, AND P. J. CORFIELD

by the restless turnover of population and the shifting patterns of workwithin the metropolis.

Individual fortunes varied according to skill, luck, access to financecapital, market opportunities, good salesmanship, and so forth. Thosewho did not succeed often moved from job to job. However, manyof Westminster's voters showed considerable constancy to their chosenoccupations. In table 8, three different sets of linked data (linked byname and address 1784/88; 1774/84; and 1774/88) are analysed to showthe extent of stability over time. When voting at a four-year interval,three-fifths gave exactly the same occupation; and even over a 14-yearinterval about half of the linked voters stayed in the same economicsector. However, there was scope for mobility. Thus, over 14 years, justover 70 per cent had changed their specific occupation, and over two-thirds had changed fi*om one occupational group to another. Moreover,these data relate only to those whose names could be linked acrosselections. The 'unlinked' may well have been yet more mobile. After all,it was not difficult to change a job or to move house or, as oftenhappened, to do both at once.*̂ "* Westminster's mobile economy andsociety fostered adaptability as well as tenacity.

Table 8. Occupational stability of Westminster voters, 1774-1788:percentage remaining in occupational class

Occupational 4-year interval 10-year interval 14-year intervalclassification'' (1784-1788)'' (1774-1784/ (1774-1788/

I

Economic sector 79.6 59.2 48.6Economic subsector 72.8 47.7 34.8Occupational groups 69.9 44.7 32.5Individual occupations 63.7 40.9 29.9 .'

Notes: a For details of occupational classification see appx.b Number of linked voters = 3,720.c Number of linked voters = 3,613, 'J Number of linked voters = 2,266. jSource: Westminster Historical Database.

Interestingly, the same exercise implemented at the level of individualoccupation for linked electors in 1784 and 1788, as summarized in table9, further suggests that it was the possession of a skill or a successfulmarket niche and/or access to capital that encouraged occupational con-stancy. The bricklayers head the list, while the general labourers comeat the foot. An array of successful dealers and manufacturers also clusternear the top (perhaps surprisingly, greengrocers, but unsurprisingly, coaldealers, tailors, shoemakers, drapers). Meanwhile, again at the foot ofthe list come the declining peruke makers, the 'generalist' brokers, andthe socially flexible esquires. This latter group, after all, had no jobdescription but instead a claim to status. Over a four-year span, overhalf of them had changed their public designation—either through move-

'''* On the important question of urban mobility, sec PhiUips, 'Working and moving', esp. pp. 196-8. London's business volatility is also highlighted in Schwarz, J^ndon, pp. 79-123.

O Economic History Sixiaty 1999

THE ECONOMY OF WESTMINSTER, 1 7 5 0 - 1 8 2 0 489

Table 9. Leading male occupational/status groups in West-minster ranked by stability, 1784-1788

Occupation

BricklayersGreengrocersCoal dealersTailorsShoemakersLinen drapersButchersBakersCarpentersGrocersCabinet makersTallow chandlersVictuallersGentlemenHairdressersChandlersPeruke makersEsquiresBrokersLabourers

All voters

No. of votersin 1784

142148157565548130270175541149155139879

1,120203158128456141250

11,427

No. of voters linked.1784-1788

474344

186181468974

209515146

261326725546

145

80

3,730

% in sameoccupation

93.690.786.483.982.982.682.081.180.480.478.478.372.867.566.763.660.948.346.935.0

69.9

Source: Westminster Historical Database.

ment up or down the social hierarchy or through progression into anoccupation. Thus even Westminster's elite proved to be mobile. A shiftingpattern of advancement and/or failure was characteristic of the urbanflux, and visibly so in Westminster.

Admittedly, these fascinating details about the standing of the variousoccupational and social groups cannot directly reveal the secrets of labourproductivity or of business prosperity. They do, however, further highlightthe particular combination of macro-continuity and micro-changes thatbetween them sustained the economic life of the Westminster electorate.

All these occupational data indicate a vigorous, eclectic, and responsiveworkforce. That clearly implies that Westminster's economy was not anincubus but continued to be a dynamic force throughout this period.Given its role within the wider metropolis, Westminster's exampleendorses the Wrigley/Fisher interpretation of London as a cumulative'engine of growth' (but not 'the' engine). The metaphor is an apt one.London was an engine, requiring fuel and resources from outside tofunction effectively, but also sending pulses of power throughout the widernational and intemationai economy. Any suggestion that conspicuousconsumption and governance faltered in their economic, as well as theirsocial, importance after 1750 is erroneous. As the multiplication of the© Economic History Society 1999

4 9 0 C. HARVEY, E. M. GREEN, AND P. J. CORFIELD

professions indicated, Westminster played a central role in the vigorousservice economy that was emerging alongside Britain's commercial andmanufacturing specialisms.

That suggests in tum the need for a more textured view of 'greaterLondon' than is often implied in exercises of historical modelling. Thegiant metropolis was not a single homogeneous bloc, functioning in auniform manner. Instead, it consisted of a set of distinct but inter-dependent economic districts. The role of Westminster as the centre ofgovemment, professional services, and conspicuous consumption wasclearly differentiated from that of the City of London, as the financialand commercial headquarters of Britain's expanding trading empire. Inother words, there was a palpable process of locational specialization evenwithin the wider metropolitan region. Tlie conjunction of separate butinterlocking economic 'clusters' provided strength in depth to the greaterLondon conurbation as a whole. The metropolis was thus at the otherend of the urban spectrum from the single-industry or single-service town.

Economic specialization within the greater London region was thebasis for Westminster's continuing success, that in tum encouraged jobspecialization within its own urban confines. It marked an intensificationof effort, as Adam Smith noted in 1776, that could be applied to allforms of work (whether or not undergoing technological innovation).Already by 1749, the range of discrete occupations in Westminster wasextensive, and it had further broadened by 1820. By the mid-nineteenthcentury, commentators such as Mayhew were able to detect specializationin urban lifestyles at every social level. Even London's beggars had theirown expertise as 'begging-letter' writers, 'ashamed' beggars, 'swell' beg-gars, *naval and military' beggars, 'foreign' beggars, 'disaster' beggars,'distressed operative' beggars, and 'petty trading' beggars, working on thefringes of respectable commerce.'^

Although the sources for eighteenth-century Westminster do not coverthe entire population from the highest to the lowest, the evidence fromthe respectable electorate (one in four of the adult male workforce)provides the basis for a considerable reconstruction of the Westminstereconomy. It stands revealed as an adaptive entity, preserving its role bymeans of a mixture of continuity and change. That firmly consolidatedits position, within Britain's pluralist society, as the hegemonic centre ofpolitical, professional, consumerist, and cultural life.'^ It was a constantmagnet and meeting-place, with an infiuence that was felt both nationallyand internationally. The capital city's own diversification was part signifi-cant cause, as well as part responsive effect, of Britain's economic expan-sionism. And one of the twin poles of London as a mighty worldmetropolis can be identified firmly in the City of Westminster.

Royal HoUoway, University of London

Mayhew, London's underworld, pp. 345-427. ]'Borsay, 'London connection'.

@ Economic Hitioiy Sonny 1999

THE ECONOMY OF WESTMINSTER, 1 7 5 0 - 1 8 2 0 491

APPENDIX: Technical note on the Westminster Historical Database

The main primary source underpinning this analysis is the Westminster Historical Data-base (WHD), compiled and published by rhe authors. At rhe core of rhe WHD are rhe87,410 extant poll book records for the City of Westminster at 12 contested parliamentaryelections between 1749 and 1820. Each poll book record contains information on thesurname and forename of the voter, his parish and street of residence, his occupation,and his political behaviour. This is supplemented by a further 56,430 rate book records,consisting of a complete survey of the City of Westminster in 1784 and 1818, togetherwith selected parishes at or near rhe time of orher conresred elections. Each rate bookrecord contains information on the surname and forename of the assessed rate payer foreach rated property, together with the parish, ward, and street where the assessed propertylay and the rack rental valuation of the property. For further details, see Harvey,Green, and Corfield, Westminster Historical Database, published with database availableon CD-ROM,

In order to create tables 5-9, extensive use was made of sophisticated record linkageprocedures, which are explained in Harvey, Green, and Corfield, Westminster HistoricalDatabase. For this article, a six-pass record linkage algorithm was employed to link pollbook records to rate book records, and to link poll book records for different years toone another, using surname, shortened forename, parish, and street as designated linkagekeys. Linkage rates were much higher for poll and rate books for any one year (rangingfrom 75 to 80 per cent) than for poll book linkage over time (ranging from 30 per centover 14 years to 45 per cent over four years).

The main occupational classification scheme for the WHD is discussed at length inHarvey, Green, and Corfield, Westminster Historical Database. It is a nested four-leveleconomic taxonomy, derived from the Booth/Armstrong classification. The organizingprinciple is division and subdivision by function, the lowest level corresponding to thestated occupation. Tables 1 and 5 employ the scheme at its highest level of generality.Table 3, 6, 7, and 9 employ the scheme at its second most specific level in which closelyrelated occupations are grouped (for example, coal dealers and coal merchants). Table4 is derived from stated occupations. Table 8 makes use of the entire four-level taxonomypassing from the most general (economic sector) to the most specific (stated occupations).In table 2, the second highest level of the scheme has been reworked to derive altemativecategories defined by product or service cluster.

The statistical methods applied are essentially descriptive, with the exception of theGini coefficient. This is a summary measure of the distribution of income or a similarresource. It varies between 0 (perfect equality) and 1 (perfect inequality), although inpractice these extremes are rarely approached. The Gini coefficient has the advantageover measures such as the inter-quartile range of considering the distribution of the entirepopulation. It is calculated by ranking all observations from the smallest to the largest,and by assigning weights to each. These weights start at 1 for the smallest and progresssequentially to the largest. With a widely distributed set of values, the Gini coefficientcan be calculated by taking the mean of all combinations of mutual differences of allindividual values. The Gini coefficient is one half of that amount. See Marsh, Exploringdata, pp. 86-92; and Cowell, Measuring inequality.

Footnote referencesAlexander, J., 'Tlie economic structure of the City of London at the end of the seventeenth century',

Urban Hist. Yearbook, 1989 (Leicester, 1989), pp. 47-62.Anderson, M., Family structure in nmeteetjlh-century Lancashire (Cambridge, 1971).Anon., The humours of Covent Garden (Salisbury, 1790?).Ashton, T. S., The industrial revolution, 1760-1830, ed. P. Hudson (Oxford, 1996).Barker, T. C , 'Business as usual? London and the industrial revolution', Hist. Today, 39, 2 (1989),

pp. 45-51.Beier, A. L and Finlay, R., eds., London, 1500-1700: the making of the metropolis (1986).Berg, M., The age of manufactures, 1700-1820 (Oxford, 1994).Borsay, P., 'The London connection: cultural diffusion and the eighteenth-century provincial town',

London J., 19 (1994), pp. 21-35.Braudel, F., Capitalism and material life, 1400-1800 (1973).

© Ectmomk History Soduy 1999

4 9 2 C. HARVEY, E. M. GREEN, AND P. J. CORFIELD

Button, K. J., Uiian economics: theory and policy (Basingstoke, 1976).Campbell, R., The London tradesman: being a compendious view of ail the trades (1747; repr. Newton

Abbot, 1969).Corfieid, P. J., 'Defining urban work', in P. J. Corfield and D. Keene, eds., Work in umm, 850-

1850 (Leicester, 1991), pp. 207-30.Corfield, P. J., Power and ihe professions in Britain, 1700-1850 (1995).Corfield, P. J., 'The rivals: landed and other gentlemen', in N. B. Harte and R. Quinault, eds.,

Land and society in Britain, 1700-1814 (Manchester, 1996), pp. 1-33.Cowell, F. A., Measuring inequality (1995).Daunton, M. J., 'Towns and economic growth in pre-industrial England', in P. Abrams and E. A.

Wrigley, eds., Tovms in societies: essays in economic history and historical sociology (Cambridge, 1978),pp. 245-77.

Daunton, M. J., Progress and poverty: an economic and social history of Britain, 1700-1850 (Oxford,1995).

Earle, P., 'The female labour market in London in the late seventeenth and early eighteenthcenturies', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., X U I (1989), pp. 328-53.

Feagin, J. R. and Smith, M. P., 'Cities and the new international division of labor: an overview',in M. P. Smith and J. R. Feagin, eds.. The capitalist ciiy: global restructuring and commujiity politics(Oxford, 1987), pp. 3-34.

Fisher, F. J., 'London as an "engine of economic growth"', in P. J. Corfield and N. B. Harte, eds.,London and the English economy, 1500-1700 (1990), pp. 185-98.

Forbes, T. R., 'Weaver and cordwainer: occupations in St. Giles without Cripplegate, London, in1654-93 and 1729-43', GuUdhaU Stud. London Hist., 4 (1980), pp. 119-32.

George, M. D., London life in the eighteenth century (Harmondsworth, 1965).Green, D. R., From artisans to paupers: economic change and poverty in London, 1790-1870

(Aldershot, 1995).Green, E. M., 'The taxonomy of occupations in late eighteenth-century Westminster', in P. J.

Corfield and D. Keene, eds.. Work in towns, 850-1850 (Leicester, 1991), pp. 164-81.Green, E. M., 'Social structure and political allegiance in Westminster, 1774-1820' (unpub. Ph.D.

thesis, Univ. of London, 1992).Hammond, J. L. and Hammond, B., The lown labourer, 1760-1832: the new civilization (1966).Hancock, D., Citizens of the world: London merchants and the integration of the British Atlantic

community, 1735-85 (Cambridge, 1995).Harvey, C. E., Green, E. M., and Corfield, P. J., The Westmimter Historical Database; voters, social

structure and electoral behaviour (Bristol, 1998); with accompanying CD-ROM.Hill, B., Servants: English domestics in the eighteenth century (Oxford, 1996).Hoggan, K. and Green, D. R., eds , London: a new metropolitan geography (1991).Ingham, G., Capitalism divided? The City and industry in British social development (Basingstoke, 1984).Laslett, P.) 'Mean household size in England since the sixteenth century', in idem, ed., Household

and family in past time (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 125-58.Lee, C. H., The British economy since 1700: a macroeconomic perspective (Cambridge, 1986).Marsh, C , Exploring daia: an introduction to data analysis for social scientists (Oxford, 1988).Marshall, A., Industry and trade: a study of industrial technique and business organisation (1919).Mayhew, H., London's underworld, ed. P. Quennell (1966).Michie, R. C , 'London and the process of economic growth since 1750', London J., 22 (1997),

pp. 62-90.Mitchell, L G., Charles James Fox (Oxford, 1992).Neale, R. S., Bath: a social history, 1680-1850—a valley of pleasure, yet a sink of iniquity (1981).O'Brien, P. K., 'The analysis and measurement of the service economy in European economic

history', in P. K. O'Brien and R. Fremdling, eds., Productivir^f in the economies of Europe (Stuttgan,1983), pp. 79-89.

Phillips, J. A., 'Working and moving in early nineteenth-century provincial towns', in P.J. Corfieldand D. Keene, eds., V^ork in towns, 850-1850 (Leicester, 1991), pp. 182-206.

Phillips, H., Mid-Georgian London: a topographical and social surv^ of central and western London about1750 (1964).

Porter, M. E., The competitive advantage of nations (1990).von la Roche, S., Sophie in London, 1786, trans. C. Williams (1933).Rubinstein, W. D., 'The Victorian middle classes: wealth, occupatioii and geography', Bcon. Hist,

Rev., 2nd ser , XXX (1977), pp. 602-23.Rude, G., Hanoverian London, 1714-1808 (1971).Samuel, R., 'Workshop of the world: steam power and hand technology in mid-Victorian Britain',

Hist. Workshop, 3 (1977), pp. 6-72.Schwarz, L. D., London in the age of industrialization: entrepreneurs, labour force and living conditions,

1700-1850 (Cambridge, 1992).

0 Eamomie Hiaay SocMfy t999

THE ECONOMY OF WESTMINSTER, 1 7 5 0 - 1 8 2 0 4 9 3

Schwarz, L D., 'London, 1700-1840', in P. Clark, ed.. The urban history of Britain, II: 1540-1840(Cambridge, forthcoming 2000).

Sheppard, F., Undon, 1808-70: the infernal wen (1971).Smith, A., An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (2 vols., 1970).Stanbrook, T. M., Understanding the service economy: employment, productivity, location (Baltimore,

1979).Stigier, G. J., 'The division of labor is limited by the extent of the market', J. Pol. Econ., 59 (1951),

pp. 185-93.Stobart, J., 'Shopping streets as social space: leisure, consumerism and improvement in an eighteenth-

century county town'. Urban Hist., 25 (1998), pp. 3-21.de Vries, J., European urbanization, 1500-1800 (1984).Wall, R., 'Mean household size in England from primed sources', in P. Laslett, ed.. Household and

family in past time (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 159-203.Wrigley, E. A., 'A simple model of London's imponance in changing English society and economy,

1650-1750', in idem. People, cities and wealth: the transformation of traditional society (Oxford, 1987),pp. 133-56.

<S> Economic Hiitory .Sbcwry 1999