Andy Burnham’s decision to establish No 10 North, a permanent northern base for the prime minister’s office, has been hailed as an ambitious shift in state power.
Supporters see it as a long-overdue attempt to rebalance political power away from Westminster. Critics have questioned the practicalities of moving part of the machinery of government beyond London.
The idea that England has always been governed from a single political centre is surprisingly recent. Westminster may now appear almost inseparable from the state, but for much of English history, government was far more mobile.
The royal household, senior officials, courts, records and administrative departments moved with the monarch, creating what historian J.E.A. Jolliffe called “a government of the roads and the roadsides”. The scale of this movement could be extraordinary. At the height of his reign, King John (who reigned from 1199 to 1216) relocated his court and government on average 220 times a year.
Other historical centres of power include Winchester, which served as the political heart of pre-Conquest England. During the English civil war (1642-1651), Charles I established Oxford as the Royalist capital, because parliament controlled London.
But these examples are not quite the same as Burnham’s No 10 North. Winchester was an early royal capital – before Westminster, rather than alongside it. Oxford was the capital of the king, but not of parliament.
York was different, however. Between 1298 and 1337, three successive English kings repeatedly transferred major parts of their central administration to York. Parliament met in the newly completed chapter house of York minster.
The city’s sheriff was ordered to construct the distinctive chequered table used by the Exchequer, and prepare secure accommodation for the royal treasury inside Clifford’s Tower. York castle was adapted to house the two principal common law courts, King’s Bench and Common Pleas.
York even witnessed a royal wedding when Edward III married Philippa of Hainault in the minster in 1328. For extended periods, York was the closest England came to having two administrative centres.
Why York?
By the late 13th century, York was uniquely equipped to play this role. It was the largest and wealthiest city in England after London. Situated on the tidal River Ouse, it was connected directly to the Humber and the North Sea, making it one of England’s most important commercial centres. Major roads converged on the city, giving it communications second only to London.
York was also already a centre of authority. It was the county town of Yorkshire, England’s largest shire, and the seat of the archbishop of York, whose ecclesiastical province stretched across much of northern England. The city already possessed many of the things a government needed: accommodation, administrative experience, skilled clerks, commercial wealth and political prestige.
Edward I’s wars against Scotland made governing from Westminster increasingly difficult. York offered proximity to the northern frontier while still providing the infrastructure required to administer a kingdom.
But military necessity was only part of the explanation for this move. Edward also had political reasons for looking beyond London. Following tensions with the city’s political elite in 1297, York offered the king an alternative base of operations away from the capital.
Westminster’s eventual position as England’s political centre was far from inevitable. It was the demands of the Hundred Years’ War (1337-1453) between England and France that helped draw the institutions of government permanently towards Westminster.
Yet a different outcome was possible. As argued by Mark Ormrod, had Edward III continued to prioritise Scotland instead of France: “York, rather than Westminster, might have been chosen as the heart of a new-style Plantagenet empire.”
No 10 North is not a medieval revival. Edward I moved his government north because of war, royal politics and the practical realities of medieval kingship, not because he sought to reduce regional inequality or rebalance the relationship between London and the rest of England. The motivations are entirely different.
Yet the historical comparison matters because it challenges a persistent assumption: that England has always been governed exclusively from London. Westminster’s dominance can appear timeless, but it is the result of historical change rather than inevitability. For much of the middle ages and early modern period, the location of government remained flexible.
Whether No 10 North succeeds in reshaping the relationship between Westminster and the regions is a question for contemporary politics. History cannot answer that. What it can show is that relocating the government beyond London is not without precedent.
England has experimented with multiple centres of power before – and for a time, York showed that a different seat of government could work.
Stephanie Brown, Lecturer in Criminology, University of Hull
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Friends of Bylines Network
There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn’t free.
STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.
