Yorkshire Almanac The first edition of the Leeds Mercury

1 July 1718: The first edition of the Leeds Mercury

John Mayhall. 1860. The Annals and History of Leeds, and Other Places in the County of York. Leeds: Joseph Johnson. Get it:

Unedited excerpt

If an excerpt is used in the book, it will be shorter, edited and, where applicable, translated.

The Leeds Mercury, then published weekly, on Tuesdays, was first printed this year, July 1st, by “John Hirst, over-against Kirkgate-end.” During the first two years of its existence this now popular journal consisted of twelve small quarto pages, the first of which is ornamented with a rude wood cut, representing the Golden Fleece, and a fat old postman, with a wig, and a low-crowned and broad-brimmed hat, blowing a straight horn, and appearing to gallop on a heavy bob-tailed horse, under which was printed, in large type, “THE LEEDS MERCURY, being the freshest advices, Foreign and Domestick, together with an account of trade,” etc., etc.

The paper then sold for three-half-pence, and the editor of that day appears to have considered the local affairs of his own town and neighbourhood to be too well known to require noticing: during the whole of the period alluded to, the Mercury contained nothing but brief extracts from the London papers, with the weekly metropolitan bills of mortality, and casualties.

Order the book:

Subscribe to the free daily email:

To facilitate reading, the spelling and punctuation of elderly excerpts have generally been modernised, and distracting excision scars concealed. My selections, translations, and editions are copyright.

Comment

Something to say? Get in touch

Comment

Something to say? Get in touch

20 September 1819: Flags and fasces at a procession from Briggate to Hunslet Moor to protest the Peterloo Massacre

26 July 1827: Amid Nonconformist protests at a new church rate, payable by all Leeds to build temples for the Church of England, a Farnley man says organs are a waste of money

15 October 1838: Apologies from “imprisoned” Huddersfield workers are read to the great Chartist rally on Peep Green (Hartshead Moor), accusing middle-class radicals of betrayal

2 October 1880: The Leeds Mercury reproduces a typographical intemperance tree from the 1840s origins of the Band of Hope

17 July 1844: Tory Radical Joshua Hobson tells Leeds council that Liberal mayor Hamer Stansfield was wrong to prohibit public meetings on the semi-privatised Kirkgate market

7 October 1830: Mrs Stanley arrives in Leeds from London, to the surprise of her husband

13 October 1855: The Mercury publishes a letter from a chemist claiming that Leeds’s bakers adulterate their bread with a poisonous whitener

19 September 1835: The Leeds Mercury attacks property valuations under the recent Municipal Corporations Act, which facilitate the political careers of men from the centre of town

27 June 1835: On the eve of municipal reform, the Leeds Mercury maps the self-electing clan that runs the Leeds corporation

Order the book:

Subscribe to the free daily email:

Comment

What of checks and balances? An amusing detail in the commissioners’ report on Leeds (via Frédéric Moret (Moret 2015)):

The close constitution of the corporation is obvious; all vacancies in each branch of it being filled by the Select Body, gives to that body absolute and uncontrolled self-election.

Family influence is predominant. Fathers and sons and sons-in-law, brothers and brothers-in-law, succeed to the offices of the corporation, like matters of family settlement.

The great respectability of the present members of the corporation and their impartial conduct as justices, were universally acknowledged; but the restricted system and want of a more popular method of election were loudly complained of; and it was said that it would be satisfactory to a great majority of the town, that there should be such more open course, as the Legislature in its wisdom, should think best.

The ill effects of the present exclusive system are rendered strikingly apparent from one circumstance in this borough. In cases where the election is popular, as in the choice of Commissioners under the Local Acts, the persons selected are all of one political party, professing the opposite opinions to those entertained by the majority of the corporation; which is accounted for by the necessity of balancing the influence of the corporation, at the same time that it is said to show the inclination of the majority of the town. This choice of commissioners exclusively from one party is admitted to be undesirable, but is justified as being resorted to in self-defence.

(Dwarris 1835)

The mayor didn’t get paid out of the corporation’s annual income of £220 (£23K in July 2024; Liverpool’s income was £90K – £9,600K in 2024 (Moret 2015)), so there may not be any good corruption stories out there.

The main conclusions of the first report (more):

The corporations were exclusive bodies with no community of interest with the town after which they were named.

The electorate of some corporations was kept as small as possible.

Some corporations merely existed as “political engines” for maintaining the ascendancy of a particular party.

Members of corporations usually served for life and the corporate body was a self-perpetuating entity. Roman Catholics and Dissenters, although no longer disabled from being members, were systematically excluded.

Vacancies rarely occurred and were not filled by well-qualified persons.

Some close corporations operated in almost complete secrecy, sometimes secured by oath. Local residents could not obtain information on the operation of the corporation without initiating expensive legal actions.

The duties of the mayor were, in some places, completely neglected.

Magistrates were appointed by the corporations on party lines. They were often incompetent and did not have the respect of the inhabitants.

Juries in many boroughs were exclusively composed of freemen. As the gift of freedom lay with the corporation, they were political appointees and often dispensed justice on a partisan basis.

Policing in the boroughs was often not the responsibility of the corporation but of one or more bodies of commissioners. An extreme example was the City of Bath, which had four districts under different authorities, while part of the city had no police whatever.

Borough funds were “frequently expended in feasting, and in paying the salaries of unimportant officers” rather than on the good government of the borough. In some places funds had been expended on public works without adequate supervision, and large avoidable debts had accrued. This often arose from contracts being given to members of the corporation or their friends or relations. Municipal property was also treated as if it were only for the use of the corporation and not the general population.

The commission concluded its report by stating that:

…the existing Municipal Corporations of England and Wales neither possess nor deserve the confidence or respect of Your Majesty’s subjects, and that a thorough reform must be elected, before they can become, what we humbly submit to Your Majesty they ought to be, useful and efficient instruments of local government.