Until recently, Britain’s first Black voter was believed to be Charles Ignatius Sancho, a famous abolitionist, composer and grocer in Mayfair. However, recent research has revealed that Britain’s first Black voter was a very ordinary pub landlord named John London.
For Black History Month in the UK, I thought it would be interesting to delve into how this man’s vote was overlooked, how he still may not have been the first Black voter in a British parliamentary election, and how his story adds to the wider context of Black history in Britain.
New findings
Polling records show that Charles Ignatius Sancho voted in parliamentary elections in Britain in 1774 and 1780. He owned a grocer’s shop in Mayfair, which gave him the right to vote. He was believed to be Britain’s first Black voter.
However, in 2024, while researching polling corruption in the 18th century, Dr Gillian Williamson came across evidence proving that a Black man had voted in a parliamentary election 25 years before Sancho.
The only reason John London’s participation even drew attention was because his vote became embroiled in a contested victory. (Yes, nothing changes in politics🙄.) Without that, his name would likely have been overlooked amongst the many names of voters in the polling records that don’t include racial identifiers.
The right to vote in the 18th century
As always, I ended up digging a little deeper than necessary. I hate to waste research, so I’ll also share a little about what circumstances enabled an individual to vote. Only around 14% of the population in 18th-century Britain was entitled to vote.
You could vote if:
- You were an adult (set at 21 years of age back then)
- Born in Britain (I can’t verify if this included the British colonies or British-owned land. Sancho was born on a slave ship yet could vote.)
- Male (🙄)
- A ratepayer
What was a ratepayer?
For centuries, rates were a tax collected by the local parish from individuals who owned property. The money was used to provide welfare for the parish poor and pay for services such as street lighting and street cleaning.
If you qualified for the Forty-shilling Freehold, you were required to pay rates on your property. On behalf of the Overseer of the Poor in the parish, a rate collector made door-to-door rounds to collect the rates and recorded the payments.
What was the Forty-shilling Freehold?
In 1430, the Forty-shilling Freehold Act established the right to vote in England when an individual owned freehold land or property yielding an annual income of at least 40 shillings.
The act was initially established to limit voting to substantial landowners, yeoman farmers, those in receipt of annuities or ecclesiastical beneficiaries. However, it was never adjusted for inflation over the centuries, so the real-world amount of property required to qualify gradually shrank, and more property owners became entitled to vote.
The forty-shilling freehold qualifier was not changed in England and Wales until the Great Reform Act of 1832. Before that, a man may have significant earnings from personal enterprise, but if he didn’t own land or properties that earned him at least 40 shillings, he was not entitled to vote.
John London qualified for the right to vote because he owned and managed a pub (or tavern/alehouse as it would have been known then) in Hungerford Market, just south of The Strand and now the site of Charing Cross railway station.
John London’s life
Not much at all is known about John London. We have the record of his rate payments in 1749 and 1750, but he did not pay after that, which would suggest he was no longer a property owner. Had his business failed, and why? Or had he moved on because of other circumstances?
Evidence suggests that by 1770 he had transformed from contributor to parish relief to recipient when he was admitted to St Martin’s Workhouse when unwell, and died there.
It’s the minutes of the scrutiny hearings of the 1749 by-election that reveal the most about John London.
The by-election of 1749
In November 1749, Viscount Trentham defended his seat in parliament against Sir George Vandeput, winning by 157 votes. Vandeput contested the result and requested a ‘scrutiny’, where all votes were investigated and any illegal votes would be discounted.
Like the other 9,465 voters in the by-election, John London’s vote came under scrutiny, but it was only during this process that it was revealed that John London was Black.
During the hearing, John London’s vote was alleged to have been invalid. A Mr Rybot, the Overseer of the Poor for the parish, claimed that John London was not a ratepayer at the time of the vote.
Evidence quickly proved that not to be the case. Rates for the parish had been collected in September 1749, after John London had only recently moved to the area and established his alehouse. While his name may not have been officially ‘in the book’, the rate collector listed him on the blue cover and the payment he made. The next time rates were collected, John London was officially ‘in the book’.
Rybot then changed his argument saying that London was ‘a blackamoor’ (a historical term describing a Black or dark-skinned person). Williamson believes this term was used to argue that London was not born in Britain, based solely on his racial identity.
Fortunately, John turned up in person at the hearing to defend his vote and was able to prove he was born in Bury St Edmunds. So the matter was closed, and his vote stood.
John’s contribution to Black history in Britain
The minutes of the scrutiny hearings reveal a lot about John London as an individual and about the wider story of Black history in Britain.
John was clearly a determined man. That he turned up in person to defend his vote (very unusual in itself) suggested he was keen to take an active role in civic life and stand up for his right to vote. It also suggests that he suspected his race might be used to nullify his vote.
John clearly possessed a level of authority and self-assuredness to run a tavern where he would need to keep order, stop fights and remove drunkards. He may also have possessed a dry sense of humour, for he named his tavern The Blackamoor’s Head. Did he deliberately use this derogatory term to make it clear his business was run by a Black man, and for Black clientele? Or was he hinting at an inside joke between himself and his customers?
Within the wider context of Black history in Britain, John London’s story shows that while many Black people in 18th century Britain worked in low-level jobs, such as domestic service, the military, musicians or sex work, not all fell into this category.
John is likely one of many Black entrepreneurs who were prosperous enough to be independent householders and able to exercise their right to vote. Because polling records of the time didn’t include racial identifiers, many more Black voters could be hidden amongst the names listed.
It’s also important to recognise that while rate-paying records didn’t include racial identifiers, race did not seem to matter when it came to contributing to poor relief. However, it seemed to matter when it came to being in receipt of poor relief because John’s race was stated in the workhouse records.
John London’s story is an example of how Black people in Georgian London went about their business, contributed to society and were willing to stand up for themselves and their rights.
Sources
Black England: A Forgotten Georgian History (2002), Gretchen Gerzina
Discover more from Bianca White Writes
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
