The Bund and the Square Mile: A Tale of Two Self-Governing Entities

 

The Bund and the Square Mile: A Tale of Two Self-Governing Entities - Shanghai Municipal Council vs. the City of London Corporation

As a historian, the parallels and stark contrasts between the Shanghai Municipal Council (SMC) during the Concession Era (roughly 1863-1943) and the City of London Corporation offer a fascinating study in self-governance, power dynamics, and the enduring impact of historical context. While both entities exhibited a remarkable degree of autonomy and played pivotal roles in their respective urban landscapes, their origins, nature of authority, and ultimate legacies diverge significantly.

The City of London Corporation, with its roots stretching back to the medieval period, represents a unique continuity of English self-governance. Its power evolved organically through royal charters and acts of Parliament, granting it specific rights and privileges within its ancient boundaries – the "Square Mile." The Corporation's financial strength, particularly the "City's Cash" endowment, is a testament to centuries of accumulated wealth and prudent management, providing a bedrock of independence from direct central government control. Its governance structure, while archaic in some aspects, reflects this long history, blending tradition with the demands of a modern financial hub.

In stark contrast, the Shanghai Municipal Council was a creature of 19th-century imperialism and the unequal treaties imposed on Qing Dynasty China. Following the Opium Wars, foreign powers carved out concessions in key Chinese port cities, with the British and American settlements in Shanghai merging in 1863 to form the International Settlement, governed by the SMC. This council, though exhibiting a surprising degree of autonomy, derived its legitimacy not from Chinese sovereignty but from the extraterritorial rights granted to foreign nationals.

Similarities in Self-Governance:

Both the SMC and the City of London Corporation exercised significant control over their respective territories:

• Municipal Functions: Both entities were responsible for essential urban services, including policing (the SMC had its own Shanghai Municipal Police), infrastructure development (roads, sanitation), public health, and the regulation of businesses within their jurisdictions. The City of London Police, while serving a geographically small area, is also an independent force.
• Financial Autonomy: The SMC, through levying rates (property taxes) on residents and businesses within the International Settlement, possessed considerable financial independence. Similarly, the City of London Corporation, bolstered by "City's Cash" and business rates, enjoys a significant degree of fiscal autonomy.
• Representation of Interests: Both bodies, albeit in vastly different ways, aimed to represent the interests of their constituents. In the City of London, this evolved to include both residents and the powerful financial institutions. The SMC, initially dominated by foreign ratepayers (primarily British), gradually included some Chinese representation later in its history, though real power remained largely in foreign hands.

Crucial Differences in Power and Legitimacy:

The fundamental differences between the two entities lie in the source and nature of their power:

• Sovereignty: The City of London operates within the framework of the British state, its powers ultimately derived from and subject to the UK Parliament. The SMC, however, existed within Chinese territory but operated largely outside Chinese legal and administrative control due to extraterritoriality. This fundamental difference shaped their interactions with the central government. The City of London engages with Parliament as a unique local authority, while the SMC often clashed with both local Chinese authorities and, at times, even the foreign powers whose interests it ostensibly served.
• Representation and Inclusion: The City of London, despite its unique electoral system, operates within a democratic framework (albeit one with historical peculiarities). The SMC, particularly in its early decades, was a distinctly colonial institution, with the vast majority of its tax base (the Chinese population) having little to no direct political representation. This inherent inequality was a major source of tension and ultimately contributed to its demise.
• Financial Foundation: While both enjoyed financial autonomy, the "City's Cash" of the City of London is a long-term endowment, deeply embedded in its historical identity. The SMC's revenue stream was primarily based on contemporary taxation within the Concession, lacking the same historical depth and independent foundation.
• Long-Term Vision: The City of London Corporation has endured for centuries, adapting to changing times while maintaining its core functions and identity. The SMC, inherently tied to the era of foreign concessions in China, was a temporary entity, destined to be reintegrated into Chinese sovereignty.

Legacy and Conclusion:

The City of London Corporation continues to thrive as a unique and influential entity within the UK, balancing its historical traditions with its role as a modern global financial center. Its model, while difficult to replicate, speaks to the enduring power of historical continuity and financial independence.

The Shanghai Municipal Council, on the other hand, represents a specific chapter in China's history – a period of foreign influence and unequal power dynamics. While it oversaw the development of a modern and vibrant urban center, its legitimacy was always contested due to its colonial origins and the exclusion of the Chinese population from meaningful governance. Its eventual dissolution and the reintegration of the International Settlement into Shanghai under Chinese sovereignty were an inevitable consequence of rising Chinese nationalism and the end of the concession era.

Comparing these two entities offers valuable insights into the diverse ways in which urban centers have been governed and financed throughout history. The enduring success of the City of London Corporation stands in stark contrast to the ultimately temporary nature of the Shanghai Municipal Council, a testament to the fundamental differences in their origins and the enduring power of national sovereignty.