London and the Kingdom - Volume 3
by Reginald R. Sharpe · English · Gutenberg #45759 · 1,134,015 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of London and the Kingdom - Volume 3
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: London and the Kingdom - Volume 3
Author: Reginald R. Sharpe
Release date: May 25, 2014 [eBook #45759]
Most recently updated: October 24, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45759
Credits: Produced by Richard Tonsing, Paul Murray and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LONDON AND THE KINGDOM - VOLUME 3 ***
[Illustration: FACSIMILE OF WRIT AND RETURN]
LONDON AND THE KINGDOM
A HISTORY
DERIVED MAINLY FROM THE ARCHIVES AT GUILDHALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON.
BY
REGINALD R. SHARPE, D.C.L.,
RECORDS CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK OF THE CITY OF LONDON;
EDITOR OF "CALENDAR OF WILLS ENROLLED IN THE COURT OF HUSTING," ETC.
IN THREE VOLUMES.
VOL. III.
* * * * *
_PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE CORPORATION UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE LIBRARY
COMMITTEE._
* * * * *
LONDON
LONGMANS, GREEN & Co.
AND NEW YORK: 15 EAST 16TH STREET.
1895.
* * * * *
_All rights reserved._
LONDON:
PRINTED BY BLADES, EAST & BLADES,
23, ABCHURCH LANE, E.C.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XXXV.
_Accession of George I.--The Old Pretender.--Impeachment of
Ministers.--Tory re-action.--End of Jacobite Rebellion.--The
King's Picture and Statue.--The Septennial Act.--Trial of
the Earl of Oxford.--Disputed Elections.--The right of the
City to discharge law costs incurred in Elections over the
Chamber, questioned.--Paying "Scot" defined.--An Alderman
insulted by the Military.--The South Sea Company.--Supremacy of
Walpole.--Fears of another Jacobite rising.--The Election Act,
II George I, c. 18.--Death of the King._ _Page 1_
CHAPTER XXXVI.
_Accession of George II.--Walpole and the Queen.--Dissenters
and the Corporation and Test Acts.--Walpole's Excise
Bill.--Unpopularity of Billers, Mayor.--Disputes with
Spain.--Jenkin's ear.--The Spanish Convention.--"Leonidas"
Glover.--War with Spain declared.--Capture of Porto
Bello.--George Heathcote.--The Aldermanic Veto
again.--Resignation of Walpole.--War declared with
France.--The Young Pretender.--"Black Friday."--The Victory
of Culloden.--City Address.--Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.--The
Newcastle Administration.--The National Militia Bill.--A
tax on Plate.--The loss of Minorca.--Newcastle succeeded by
Pitt.--Execution of Byng.--Civic_ _honours for Pitt and
Legge.--Coalition of Pitt and Newcastle.--Conquest of Canada._
_Page 31_
CHAPTER XXXVII.
_Accession of George III.--The fall of Pitt.--Alderman
Beckford.--Unpopularity of Bute.--The King and Queen at
the Guildhall.--John Wilkes.--War with Spain.--The Peace
of Paris.--Resignation of Bute.--Wilkes and the "North
Briton."--No. 45 burnt at the Royal Exchange.--Conduct of the
Lord Mayor.--Wilkes's "Essay on Woman."--Wilkes Expelled the
House.--Is outlawed.--Pitt created Earl of Chatham, proposes
to bring in an East India Bill.--Wilkes's letters to the
Duke of Grafton, is elected M.P. for Middlesex.--Committed
to the King's Bench.--Sentence pronounced.--Wilkes elected
Alderman.--Again expelled the House.--Is thrice elected for
Middlesex and thrice rejected.--Colonel Luttrell usurps
his Seat.--Remonstrance of the Livery.--The City and Lord
Holland.--Beckford's second Mayoralty.--Another remonstrance of
the Livery.--The remonstrance approved by "Junius."--Condemned
by the Goldsmiths, Weavers and Grocers.--The King hesitates
to receive it as being "entirely new."--Consults Lord
North.--Consents to receive it on the Throne.--The remonstrance
condemned by Parliament.--Beckford entertains the Opposition
at the Mansion House.--Wilkes regains his liberty.--City
address to the King.--Beckford's famous Speech.--Chatham's
approval.--Vote of thanks to Chatham.--Beckford's death._ _Page
66_
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
_Brass Crosby, Mayor.--The legality of Press Warrants.--The
Freedom of the Press.--The Messenger of the_ _House of
Commons arrested in the City.--His recognizance ordered to be
expunged.--Crosby and Oliver before the House.--Committed to
the Tower.--Chatham's opinion as to the conduct of the civic
magistrates.-- Bitter feeling against the Ministry.--Crosby
and Oliver regain their liberty.--Another remonstrance of
the Livery.--Received on the Throne.--Wilkes and Bull,
Sheriffs.--Wilkes and Junius join forces.-- Parson Horne.--Nash
elected Mayor.--Refuses to summon a Common Hall.--Sawbridge
and Short Parliaments.--Townshend elected Mayor.--Riot at
the Guildhall.--Address of the Livery in favour of Short
Parliaments.--Wilkes declines to attend its presentation.--
Claims his seat in the House.--The Recorder's opinion
touching the rights of the Livery in Common Hall.--Plumbe's
case.--Alderman Bull elected M.P. for the City.--England and
America.--The Quebec Bill.--Wilkes elected Mayor.--Takes his
seat as Member for Middlesex._ _Page 106_
CHAPTER XXXIX.
_Wilkes and his brother Aldermen.--Chatham and the City deprecate
England's policy towards America.--The King notifies his
intention of receiving no more Addresses of the Livery on the
Throne.--Wilkes and the Lord Chamberlain.--New York appeals to
London.--An Address of the Livery not received.--Address of the
Common Council received in usual manner.--Address of the Livery
to the Electors of Great Britain.--Ex-Sheriff Sayre committed
to the Tower.--Expenses of Wilkes's Mayoralty.--Wilkes and the
Chamberlainship.--Doctor Richard Price.--The Declaration of
Independence.--The City and Press Warrants.--Alliance between
France and America.--The Death of Chatham.--His Funeral.--His
Monument in the Guildhall._ _Page 146_
CHAPTER XL.
_Court Martial of Admiral Keppel.--The Freedom of the City
conferred on Keppel.--Spain declares war.--Economical
Reform.--Committees of Association.--Dunning's Motion.--The
City accepts a Form of Association.--Sir George Savile's
Act.--The Gordon Riots.--The City's petition for repeal
of Savile's Act.--Dispute between Civic and Military
Authorities.--Wilkes attacks the Lord Mayor in a violent
speech in the House.--The City's claim for damages arising
out of the Riots.--A New Parliament.--Alderman Bull and the
Livery.--Another remonstrance of the Livery not received.--The
fall of North's Ministry.--The City's congratulations to
the King.--The first step taken towards Parliamentary
Reform.--Alderman Harley.--The younger Pitt.--Rodney's
Victory.--The relief of Gibraltar.--The Peace of Paris._ _Page
172_
CHAPTER XLI.
_Fox's East India Bill.--Pitt and the Coalition.--The City and
Pitt.--Pitt's East India Bill.--The Reform Bill.--The City
and the Shop Tax.--The Convention with France.--The City and
the Slave trade.--Pitt's Regency Bill.--Thanksgiving service
at St. Paul's for the King's recovery.--Pitt's Excise Bill
for duty on tobacco.--The Military Guard of the Bank of
England.--The French Revolution.--France declares war.--The
Battle of the first of June.--Riots in the City.--Great
scarcity of wheat.--Standard wheaten bread.--Assault on the
King.--Negotiations for Peace.--Pitt's Loyalty Loan.--Foreign
subsidies.--Suspension_ _of cash payments by Bank of
England.--Another remonstrance of the Livery not received.--The
Mutiny at the Nore.--Duncan's victory off Camperdown.--Pitt
mobbed in the City.--Military associations in the City.--The
Battle of the Nile.--Pitt's Income Tax Bill.--Royal review
of City volunteers.--Capture of the Dutch fleet.--French
overtures for peace declined.--The Livery protest against the
prolongation of the war.--The Act of Union.--Bread riots in the
City.--Conduct of Harvey Combe, Mayor.--Pitt resigns.--Battle
of Copenhagen.--Peace of Amiens._ _Page 204_
CHAPTER XLII.
_Resumption of hostilities.--Pitt recommends the fortifying of
London.--Renewal of the Income Tax.--Nelson takes offence at
the City.--Addington gives place to Pitt.--Volunteer review at
Blackheath.--Pitt's Additional Force Bill.--The City claims to
be treated in a separate Bill.--Artillery practice in Finsbury
Fields.--The French camp at Boulogne.--Disgrace of Lord
Melville.--The Battle of Trafalgar.--Nelson's funeral.--His
monument in the Guildhall.--Death of Pitt.--The Ministry
of all the Talents.--The fall of the Ministry.--The Duke
of Portland.--The Berlin Decree.--The Peninsular War.--The
Convention of Cintra.--The Scandal of the Duke of York.--The
Walcheren Expedition.--The King's Jubilee.--The City urges
an enquiry into the cause of recent failures.--Another
remonstrance of the Livery not received.--The City opposes
Wellington's annuity.--Sir Francis Burdett committed to
the Tower.--Riots in the City.--Petition of the Livery to
Parliament.--Petition dismissed.--Another Petition.--Ordered
to lie on the table.--The King seriously ill.--The Regency
Bill.--The Freedom of the City declined by the Prince_
_Regent.--An address of the Livery to the Regent not
received.--Assassination of Spencer Perceval.--Battle of
Salamanca.--The Shannon and the Chesapeake.--Treaty of
Paris.--The Freedom of the City conferred on Wellington.--The
City and the Slave trade.--The Battle of Waterloo._ _Page 251_
CHAPTER XLIII.
_The City opposes renewal of Income Tax.--Agricultural
depression.--The First Corn Law.--Another address of the
Livery not received.--Vagrants in the City.--The Spa Fields
Riot.--Matthew Wood, Mayor.--City address to Regent on
state of affairs.--Outrage on the Regent.--The City urges
Parliamentary Reform.--The trial of Hone.--Parliamentary
Elections.--The Manchester Massacre or "Peterloo."--The
Six Acts.--Tumultuous proceedings in Common Hall.--Conduct
of Sheriff Parkins.--Accession of George IV.--Addresses of
sympathy to Queen Caroline.--The Queen's trial.--Matthew
Wood at Brandenburgh House.--The Queen presents her portrait
to the City.--The Queen attends at St. Paul's.--The City
urges the dismissal of the King's Ministers.--The Queen's
death.--Disgraceful scene at her funeral.--Riots at
Knightsbridge.--Sheriff Waithman assaulted.--The City and the
Holy Alliance.--Wild speculation followed by great distress._
_Page 292_
CHAPTER XLIV.
_The Repeal of Corporation and Test Acts.--The Catholic
Emancipation Bill.--Accession of William IV.--The King's
visit to the City postponed for fear of riot.--Resolutions
respecting Reform.--Introduction of the first Reform
Bill.--The Bill approved by the City.--The Bill withdrawn
and Parliament dissolved.--The Bill re-introduced.--Passes
the Commons, rejected by the Lords.--City address and King's
reply.--Political Unions formed.--Sir John Key re-elected
Mayor.--The Freedom of the City voted to lords Grey and
Althorp.--Resignation of the Ministry.--The City expresses
dissatisfaction.--The Ministry recalled.--The Reform Bill
passed.--The rights of the Livery saved.--Grand Entertainment
at the Guildhall.--A retrospect.--The Enfranchisement of
Jews.--The City's public spirit.--The abolition of Coal and
Wine Dues.--The City and the Port of London._ _Page 326_
CHAPTER XXXV.
[Sidenote: George I proclaimed king, 1 Aug., 1714.]
Like her predecessor on the throne, Queen Anne died on a Sunday. A
proclamation was immediately drawn up by the lords spiritual and
temporal, assisted by the members of the Privy Council and the lord
mayor, aldermen and citizens of London, announcing the accession of
Prince George, the Elector of Hanover, and that same afternoon he was
duly proclaimed at Temple Bar and elsewhere. The proclamation does not
appear on this occasion to have borne the signature of the lord mayor
or any of the aldermen.[1]
[Sidenote: City addresses to the new king.]
Some weeks elapsed before George arrived in England. Meanwhile the
Common Council prepared an address which the lords justices, who held
the reins of government until the king's arrival, transmitted to his
majesty. The address was graciously received, and the king, who knew
little or no English, sent word by the lords justices that the City
might count upon his support. Both the Common Council and the Court of
Aldermen were desirous of presenting addresses to the king in person
soon after his arrival.[2]
[Sidenote: The reception of George I by the City, 20 Sept., 1714.]
The 20th September being the day fixed for the king's passage through
the city to St. James's Palace great preparations were made to give
him a befitting reception. It was decided to adopt the same measures
as those taken for the reception of William III in 1697, after the
conclusion of the Peace of Ryswick but with this exception, viz.,
that members of the Common Council should take the place in the
procession of those who had either served or fined for sheriff.[3]
The earl marshal, however, ruled that the common councilmen of London
should neither ride nor march in the procession. The court thereupon
appealed to the lords justices, but the result is not recorded.[4]
On the day appointed the mayor and aldermen took up their station at
the court-house on St. Margaret's Hill in Southwark. Cushions from
the Bridge House were borrowed for the occasion, and the open space
before the court-house was fenced with rail to prevent crowding.[5]
His lordship was provided with a new crimson velvet gown, the city
marshal's men with new liveries, and the city trumpeters with new
cloaks.[6] The conduits ran with claret furnished by order of the
Court of Aldermen. The erection of balcony stands was discouraged
for fear of accidents, and for the same reason the firing of guns or
_padreros_ under the piazza of the Royal Exchange was forbidden.[7]
At St. Margaret's Hill the king was welcomed by the Recorder, who
read a congratulatory address on behalf of the citizens, after which
the procession moved on towards the city, the Recorder taking up his
position immediately in front of the mayor,[8] who rode bareheaded with
the city sword in his hand.
[Sidenote: Precautions against the Pretender.]
Three days later (23 Sept.) the whole of the Common Council proceeded
to St. James' to present their congratulations to the king on his safe
arrival, and to assure him of their loyalty.[9] This assurance was
opportune, for the country was being flooded with pamphlets advocating
the claim of Prince James Edward, better known as the Pretender, to the
throne, and a reward had been offered for the capture of the prince
should he attempt to set foot in any of his majesty's dominions.[10]
When Humphreys entered on his mayoralty in the following October he
made himself especially active in putting a stop to the spread of
seditious literature in the city, and for his services in this respect
was heartily thanked by Secretary Townsend.[11]
[Sidenote: The king attends the lord mayor's banquet, 29 Oct., 1714.]
On the 20th October the king was crowned,[12] and on the 29th,
according to custom, he attended the lord mayor's banquet. The
lord mayor was called upon to contribute the sum of £300, and each
of the sheriffs the sum of £150 towards defraying the cost of
the entertainment. The rest of the expenses were paid out of the
Chamber.[13] So pleased was the king with the entertainment that he
conferred a baronetcy upon the lord mayor. He also bestowed the sum of
£1,000 for the relief of poor debtors.[14]
[Sidenote: Thanksgiving service at St. Paul's, 20 Jan., 1715.]
By the end of the year all immediate danger appeared to have passed
away, and Thursday, the 20th January, 1715, was appointed to be kept
as a day of solemn thanksgiving for the king's peaceful accession.[15]
Once more the majestic but gloomy walls of St. Paul's contained a
brilliant assembly of worshippers. King George attended the service
accompanied by the royal family, and there, too, were the mayor,
aldermen and sheriffs of the city seated in their accustomed places
in the lower gallery on the south side of the altar, their wives and
ladies being accommodated in the opposite gallery.[16]
[Sidenote: General Election, 1715.]
In the meanwhile the statutory period of six months--during which the
parliament existing at the time of the demise of the crown was to
continue to sit--had elapsed, and the last parliament of Queen Anne
had been dissolved (13 Jan.), a new one being summoned to meet in
March. Riots such as had occurred at previous elections were strongly
deprecated by royal proclamation (11 Jan.), and a reward of £500 was
offered for the discovery of the printer or publisher of a paper
intituled "English advice to the freeholders of England," which had
been freely circulated for the purpose of advocating the Pretender's
claims.[17] The elections, which were hotly contested, resulted in the
Whigs--the party already in power--obtaining a large majority. The
City returned two aldermen, viz.: Sir John Ward, who had sat in the
parliament of 1708 in the Tory interest, and Sir Thomas Scawen;[18] and
two commoners, viz.: Robert Heysham and Peter Godfrey, of whom little
is known. As delegates of the City, they were to carry out the City's
instructions given to them under twenty-one heads. They were more
particularly to cause an enquiry to be made as to the manner in which
the Peace of Utrecht had been brought about.[19]
[Sidenote: Impeachment of late Ministers, March, 1715.]
Similar instructions were drawn up by electors in other parts of the
country, and so well were they carried out that as soon as the Houses
met preparations were made to impeach Harley, Bolingbroke and the Duke
of Ormond, for the part they had taken in the secret agreements made
with the French during the negotiations for peace. Bolingbroke and
Ormond immediately took fright and fled to France, where the former
entered the service of the Pretender as secretary of state. Oxford, who
alone stayed at home and faced the storm, was forthwith committed to
the Tower.
[Sidenote: Tory re-action.]
Such high-handed proceedings on the part of the triumphant Whigs led
to a Tory re-action. In spite of all precautions[20] riots broke out
in the city on the 28th May, when the king's birthday was being kept
with bonfires and illuminations. The next day (29 May), being the
anniversary of the restoration of Charles II, there were more bonfires,
and those who refused to light up their houses had their windows
broken. A patrol of life guards was insulted and made to join in the
cry "High Church and Ormond!" A print of King William III was publicly
burnt in Smithfield, and the mob carried everything before them until
stopt in Cheapside by ward constables and dispersed.[21]
[Sidenote: Jacobite Conspiracy, July, 1715.]
The Jacobites took advantage of the general disaffection that prevailed
to push forward the conspiracy which had been set on foot at the close
of the last reign. Ormond had up to the moment of his flight been
busily engaged in organising it in England, while Bolingbroke had been
no less busy in endeavouring to obtain the assistance of France. On the
20th July the king announced to the new parliament that he had received
information of a projected invasion by the Pretender, which was abetted
and encouraged by disaffected persons in this country.[22] Three days
later (23 July) a similar announcement was made to the lord mayor by
letter from secretary Townshend.
[Sidenote: The City's loyal address.]
Notwithstanding the recent riots to which the aggressive policy of the
whigs had given rise, the respectable citizen remained true Hanoverian
and staunch supporter of the established church. The municipal body
were proud of the part they had taken in bringing about the "glorious"
Revolution, and in later years took occasion more than once to remind
George the Third that the House of Hanover owed its accession to the
crown of England in no small measure to the citizens of London. As soon
as the secretary's letter was communicated to the Common Council, they
immediately drew up a loyal address, in which they assured the king
that they entertained the utmost abhorrence and detestation of all who
encouraged either openly or secretly the hopes of the Pretender, and
promised their adherence to his majesty's person and government against
the Pretender and all other enemies to the king at home and abroad.[23]
[Sidenote: Precautionary measures.]
An Act known in those days as the Proclamation Act, but better known
at the present day as the Riot Act, investing magistrates with the
power of compelling any number of persons exceeding twelve to disperse
on pain of being held guilty of felony without benefit of clergy
was passed (20 July, 1715),[24] whilst another Act authorising the
appointment of commissioners for tendering the oaths of allegiance and
supremacy, as well as the abjuration oath to all suspected persons,
was passed a month later (20 Aug).[25] Pursuant to this last Act,
commissioners were afterwards (5 Dec.) appointed for the purpose of
administering the oaths in each city ward. The names of recusants were
to be returned to the next quarter sessions and there enrolled.[26]
Nor were the municipal authorities idle. The anniversary of the
king's coronation (20 Oct.) was to have been celebrated in the city
by a solemn procession with "effigies of several persons," and money
had been collected for the purpose of defraying expenses. The mayor,
however, hearing of this, issued a precept to the effect that although
the promoters of the scheme might well have intended thereby to show
their affection to his majesty's person and government "yet at this
time, when the nation is alarmed by a rebellion, it is not thought
convenient to be permitted, lest under that pretence many disaffected
persons might gather together and raise tumults to the endangering
of the public peace." The constables were accordingly instructed to
prevent any meeting for the purpose, and to prevent all bonfires and
illuminations.[27]
[Sidenote: End of Jacobite rebellion, Feb., 1716.]
These precautionary measures were taken not a whit too soon. The Earl
of Mar, who had undertaken the organization of an insurrection in
Scotland in favour of the Pretender, had already made himself complete
master of that country as far as the Forth. He was, however, soon
afterwards (13 Nov.) defeated by the Earl of Argyle at Sheriffmuir
near Stirling, and although the Pretender himself appeared in Scotland
before the close of the year, not another blow was struck, and in the
following February (1716) Prince James stole back to France, leaving
his army to shift for itself.
[Sidenote: City address. 11 May, 1716.]
The rebellion being thus put down, the Common Council unanimously
resolved (11 May, 1716) to present another address to the king, in
which after offering their congratulations upon the failure of the
rebels to depose and murder his majesty, and to subvert the Church
and State, they declared their resolution (1) as friends to monarchy
to promote true zeal and loyalty towards his majesty's person, (2)
as members of the Church of England to act up to its principles by
submitting to the powers that be, and (3) by all possible means to
prevent discord and support the Protestant succession. To this the king
returned a gracious answer, and expressed his conviction that the
example set by the City would have a good effect upon the nation.[28]
[Sidenote: The king's statue and picture.]
The Council at the same time resolved to set up a statue of the king
at the Royal Exchange as well as his picture in the Guildhall. The
royal assent having been asked and obtained, Sir Godfrey Kneller was
sent for to paint the portrait. Considerable delay took place in the
execution of the work,[29] but the picture was at last completed and is
still believed to grace the walls of the members' reading room at the
Guildhall, although in 1779 it was reported to be so much decayed and
torn as to be incapable of repair.[30] The statue, if ever set up at
the Royal Exchange, probably shared the fate of other statues erected
there, and was destroyed in the fire of 1838.
[Sidenote: Thanksgiving service at St. Paul's, 7 June, 1716.]
Thursday, the 7th June (1716), was ordered by royal proclamation (8
May) to be kept as a day of public thanksgiving for the suppression of
the rebellion. A sermon was preached at St. Paul's on the occasion. The
members of the livery companies were desired to attend in their best
gowns and hoods, at nine o'clock in the morning; this early hour being
probably fixed so as not unduly to interfere with the business of the
day.[31]
[Sidenote: The Septennial Act, April, 1716.]
One of the immediate effects of the rebellion was the repeal of
the Triennial Act (passed Dec., 1694), limiting the duration of
parliament to three years. According to the provisions of this Act
a new parliament would have to be elected in 1718. The Whigs were
afraid, however, to face the country and risk the return of a Jacobite
majority. The ministers therefore proposed and parliament agreed that
the existing parliament should continue for a term of seven instead of
three years--a somewhat arbitrary proceeding on their part and only
to be justified by the exigency of the time. The Septennial Act[32]
was only intended as a temporary measure, but it has been found to
work so well that it continues to this day to regulate the duration
of parliaments, notwithstanding repeated efforts made by the City in
general and by Alderman Sawbridge in particular to get it repealed.
[Sidenote: The King and the Prince of Wales.]
A few weeks later, parliament was prorogued (26 June, 1716) and the
king paid a visit--often repeated during his reign--to his beloved
Hanover, leaving his son, the Prince of Wales, as guardian of the realm
and his lieutenant. Between father and son there was never any love
lost, there was a sort of hereditary family quarrel, which in this
case was brought to a climax in November of the following year over
the christening of a babe. The court became split up into two distinct
parts. The prince was ordered to quit St. James's and those who paid
court to the prince and princess were for ever banished from the king's
presence.[33]
[Sidenote: Trial of the Earl of Oxford, June, 1717.]
After remaining a prisoner in the Tower for nearly two years, the Earl
of Oxford was at length, at his own request, brought to trial. The
13th June (1717) was originally fixed as the day on which he was to
appear at Westminster Hall, but this was afterwards changed to the 24th
by desire of the House of Commons, who wished to put off the trial as
long as possible. The lord mayor and sheriffs being directed by the
House of Lords to take precautions for guarding the city's gates and
preventing an unnecessary concourse of people resorting to Westminster,
it was resolved to place double watch in the ward of Farringdon Without
during the trial "as was done in the tryal of my Lord Winton and the
like cases."[34] Fortunately for the earl, a dispute arose between the
two houses on a question of procedure. The Commons were glad of the
opportunity of backing out and declined to appear as his accusers, and
the Lords thereupon ordered his discharge.[35]
[Sidenote: Act for quieting and establishing corporations (5 Geo. i, c.
6) 1718.]
For many years past the Corporation Act of 1661, had not been strictly
enforced in the city. Such negligence laid the citizens open to pains
and penalties. It was therefore deemed advisable towards the end of the
next year (1718) to address the king on the subject and a petition was
drawn up by the Court of Aldermen setting forth the apprehension of
the petitioners of being "disquieted in the execution of their offices
by pretence of not subscribing a declaration against the Solemn League
and Covenant at the time of their admission into their respective
offices" according to the Statute. Such subscription they submitted had
been generally disused, and the Act in that particular, disregarded.
Nevertheless, the petitioners had behaved themselves in their offices
with all duty and affection to his majesty and the government. They
humbly prayed therefore that His Majesty would take such order as
should effectually quiet their minds and enable them "to proceed with
cheerfulness in the execution of their respective duties."[36] This
petition was received very graciously by the king, who looked upon
it as a mark of the City's trust and confidence in him. "I shall be
glad"--he said--"not only for your sakes, but my own, if any defects
which may touch the rights of my good subjects are discovered in my
time, since that will furnish me with means of giving you and all my
people an indisputable proof of my tenderness for their privileges, and
how unwilling I shall ever be to take advantage of their mistakes."[37]
His Majesty's assurance thus given was quickly followed by the passing
of an Act for the purpose of relieving the City of London and other
boroughs of any disabilities for their neglect in subscribing the
prescribed declaration.[38]
[Sidenote: Disputed election in Tower Ward, 1717 1719.]
The reign of George I was marked not only with repeated disputes
between the Court of Aldermen and the Common Council, but also with
disputes over different municipal elections, until in 1725 matters
were to a certain extent accommodated by the passing of the Election
Act, 11 George I, c. 18. It had been the custom of the City, whenever
the ruling of an alderman at a wardmote had been disputed, to defend
the alderman's action when brought before a court of law at the
City's expense. The legality of this proceeding was now questioned. In
December, 1717, when the annual elections for the Common Council came
on, there had been a disputed election in Tower Ward, and the ruling of
Alderman Sir Charles Peers had been called in question by Peter Bolton
and Edward Bridgen, two unsuccessful candidates. The dispute engaged
the attention of the Common Council and the law courts for a whole
twelvemonth, the expenses of the aldermen being defrayed by the City.
In February, 1719, it reached the House of Lords, but before the matter
came on for hearing a compromise was effected, the City agreeing to pay
taxed costs.
The reason for this sudden change of attitude on the part of the City
is doubtless to be found in a resolution of the House of Lords (17
Feb., 1719) to appoint a committee to examine and report what sums
of money the City had expended out of its own chamber on this and
similar causes, and what jurisdiction the Common Council exercised
over elections of its members. The committee was authorized to carry
its investigations as far back as they deemed proper, and to send for
persons, papers and records. On the 17th April the committee made
its report to the House. The Town Clerk and the City Chamberlain had
attended the committee with the necessary warrants and minutes of
proceedings, and it had been found that a sum of £2,827 10_s._ had
been paid out of the City's cash for carrying on causes and suits at
law relating to the elections of Aldermen and Common Councilmen since
the 8th November, 1711.[39] As regards the claim of the Common Council
to hear and determine matters in connection with elections of its
own members, the committee found that it was based upon a resolution
of the Court of the 9th January, 1641,[40] which resolution had been
disclaimed (with many others) by Act of Common Council of 1683.[41]
[Sidenote: Resolution of the House thereon.]
The report having been read, the House passed a resolution to the
effect that in maintaining suits at law between citizen and citizen
in cases of disputed elections, the Common Council had "abused
their trust, and been guilty of great partiality, and of a gross
mismanagement of the city treasure, and a violation of the freedom of
elections in the city."
[Sidenote: A protest entered.]
So scathing an indictment against the City was not allowed to pass
unchallenged. Sixteen peers entered a vigorous protest on the several
grounds: (1) that no evidence had been taken on oath, and that without
such evidence they conceived that so heavy a censure ought not to be
passed on any individual, much less on so important a body as the
Common Council of the city, which had done good service on pressing
occasions; (2) that the Common Council had not had due notice given
them; (3) that the resolution of the House might be construed as
prejudging matters which might come before the House judicially; and
lastly (4) that had the Common Council been heard they might have shown
that the money had been expended in defence of their ancient rights and
privileges, and in order to prevent any encroachment thereon.[42] That
the dissentient Lords had reason on their side there can be little
doubt. Nevertheless, some writers[43] whilst setting out in full the
committee's report, as well as the returns made by the Chamberlain of
money expended by the City on election suits, and the resolution of the
House thereon, have entirely ignored the fact that a solemn protest
was made against such resolution, and the reasons which urged the
dissentients to make such protest.
[Sidenote: What is "paying Scot?"]
In the meantime another disputed election had taken place. This time
it concerned an alderman. The mayor had reported the case to the
Court of Aldermen the day that the Lords appointed their committee to
investigate the City's law costs. The case was shortly this. On the 9th
January a wardmote had been held at Cordwainers' Hall, for the purpose
of electing an alderman for the ward of Bread Street, in the place
of Sir Richard Hoare, deceased. The show of hands for the respective
candidates--Robert Baylis and Richard Brocas, both of them members of
the Grocers' Company--had been so equal that the mayor had been unable
to declare which had the majority. A poll had therefore been demanded,
the result being declared by the mayor to be in favour of Brocas, and
thereupon a scrutiny had taken place, with the same result.[44] The
whole question turned upon the qualification of certain voters. Did
they or did they not pay Scot, and in what did "paying Scot" consist?
The matter having been argued before the Court of Aldermen by counsel
on behalf of each candidate, the Court came to the conclusion that
paying Scot was "a general contribution to _all_ public taxes," and
at the same time declared Baylis to be duly elected.[45] The Common
Council then attempted to interfere, but the Court of Aldermen would
brook no invasion of their rights,[46] and although litigation
continued well into the next year (1720) Baylis retained his seat in
the Court.
[Sidenote: An insult offered to an alderman on Lord Mayor's Day, 29
Oct., 1720.]
On Lord Mayor's day (29 Oct.) 1720, an incident occurred worthy of a
passing notice. From particulars laid before the Court of Aldermen (10
Jan., 1721) by a committee appointed to investigate the matter,[47]
it appears that when the members of the Court of Aldermen were
riding in their coaches towards the Three Cranes on the banks of the
river, thence to attend the new lord mayor (Sir John Fryer) in his
barge to Westminster, a certain ensign in the Second Regiment of the
Guards--Thomas Hockenhull or Hocknell by name--who was in charge of
a detachment of soldiers on their way to the Tower, thought fit to
break through the aldermen's procession, and to bring Sir John Ward's
coach to a sudden standstill, his horses being struck over the head by
the soldiers' muskets. The affront was too serious to be passed over,
and Sir John reported the matter to Secretary Craggs, who forwarded
the alderman's letter to the Secretary at War, and at the same time
expressed regret that such an incident should have happened.[48] Later
on the officer himself appeared before the Court of Aldermen bearing
a letter from Sir George Treby to Alderman Ward to the effect that
the officer had already received a reprimand, and would (he hoped)
make a suitable apology. A written apology was read to the Court of
Aldermen in which Hockenhull pleaded ignorance as to whose coach it
was that had been stopped, and endeavoured to throw the blame on two
of his soldiers, who he declared to be "a little in liquor." The
officer being called in offered to make submission and to beg pardon,
but the Court was not in the humour to accept his apology, and so the
matter rested until the following January (1721), when upon Sir George
Treby's intercession and Hockenhull's submission the Court agreed to
pass the matter over. The Secretary at War was at the same time desired
"that for the future the route for the Guards marching to and from the
Tower may be as usual through Watling Street, and not through the high
streets of this city."
[Sidenote: The South Sea Company, 1711-1720.]
Sir John Fryer had been elected mayor at one of the most critical times
in the history either of London or the kingdom, for his election took
place just at the time of the bursting of the great South Sea bubble.
The South Sea Company had been formed in 1711 by Harley, with the
view of carrying on such trade with Spanish America as Spain might be
willing to allow in the treaty which was then expected. When the Treaty
of Utrecht was concluded Spain was found to have conceded the right
of trading with America, but only to a limited extent. Nevertheless
the idea got abroad that the company was possessed of a very valuable
monopoly, and that the trade with Spanish America would enrich all
who took part in it. Accordingly the shares of the company were
eagerly bought, and in a few years the institution began to rival the
Bank of England itself. Early in 1720, when a scheme was propounded
for lessening the National Debt, the company was in a position to
outbid the Bank in buying up government annuities, and holders of such
annuities were found only too ready to exchange them for shares in the
company. The company next invited the public to subscribe new capital,
and upwards of £5,000,000 were subscribed in an incredibly short space
of time. The wildest speculation prevailed. Bogus companies sprang up
in all directions, and no matter how ridiculous the purpose might be
for which they were avowedly started, they always found subscribers.
Men of all ranks, ages, and professions, nay! women also flocked to
Threadneedle Street (where stood the South Sea House) or to Change
Alley, and the very streets were blocked with desks and clerks, and
converted into counting-houses. The whole nation suddenly became
stock-jobbers. Swift, writing of the ruin worked by the mad speculation
of the day, thus characterises Change Alley, the centre of all the
mischief:
"There is a gulf where thousands fell
Here all the bold adventurers came,
A narrow sound, though deep as hell;
'_Change Alley_ is the dreadful name."
The South Sea Company continued to maintain its pre-eminent position,
and the value of its shares continued to rise until, in August, a £100
share was worth £1,000.
At last it brought about its own ruin in a way little anticipated.
In an evil hour the directors commenced proceedings against the
unlicensed, and therefore illegal, companies which had interfered
with the great company's more legitimate business. The result was
disastrous. One fraud after another was exposed. The nation suddenly
recovered its senses. A panic arose as bubble after bubble burst.
By the end of September, South Sea stock had fallen from £1,000 to
£150, and at last, after an abortive effort to obtain assistance from
the Bank of England, this biggest bubble of all collapsed, bringing
thousands to beggary. Even the Bank of England itself experienced
difficulty in maintaining its credit during the panic, and was
compelled once more to resort to stratagem. Payments were made in
silver, and chiefly to persons who were in league with the bank, and
who no sooner received their money than they brought it back. The money
had of course to be re-counted, and by this means time was gained, and
time at such a crisis, and to such an institution, meant literally
money. On Michaelmas-day the Bank according to the custom prevailing
was closed, and when it opened again, the public alarm had subsided.[49]
[Sidenote: Thomas Guy and his hospital.]
A few--a very few--of those who had speculated in South Sea stock
kept their heads, and got out before the bubble burst. Among these
was Thomas Guy, the founder of Guy's Hospital, at that time carrying
on business as a bookseller at the corner of Lombard Street and
Cornhill--the "lucky corner." He made a large fortune by buying stock
at a low price and selling before the crash came, and right good use
did he make of his money, for at his death he endowed the hospital
called by his name with a sum exceeding £200,000.
[Sidenote: Parliamentary enquiry, Jan., 1721.]
As is not unusual in such cases, there was a universal endeavour to
fasten the guilt upon others than the rash speculators themselves. An
outcry was raised, not only against the directors of the company, but
also against the ministry. Nothing would suffice but a Parliamentary
enquiry into the affairs of the company. This was granted, and early
in the following year the Lords commenced an open investigation,
whilst the Commons appointed a committee of secrecy. The Lords had
scarcely entered upon their investigation before it was discovered that
the secretary of the company had made his escape to the continent.
Thereupon the Commons gave orders for all ports to be watched in order
to prevent the directors of the company following his example. Any
director holding office under Government was dismissed. Two members of
the House, who were also directors, were expelled the House and taken
into custody. These were Jacob Sawbridge, the grandfather of Alderman
John Sawbridge, of whom we shall hear more later on, and Sir Theodore
Janssen, the father of Stephen Theodore Janssen who, after serving
the City in Parliament and in the Mayoralty chair, became the City's
Chamberlain. Other directors were also taken into custody and their
papers seized.
[Sidenote: The Sword-blade Company.]
Jacob Sawbridge was a member of the firm of Turner, Caswall and
Company, commonly known as the Sword-blade Company, carrying on
business as goldsmiths in Birchin Lane. Sir George Caswall, one of
the partners, was member for Leominster, and was serving as Sheriff
the year of the South Sea Bubble. His firm had acted as cashiers of
the South Sea Company, and like many similar firms of goldsmiths, had
advanced large sums upon the company's stock. The committee of secrecy
appointed by the House of Commons soon discovered that Sir George had
been guilty of tampering with the firm's books in order to shield
Charles Stanhope. For this he was expelled the House and committed to
the Tower, whilst his firm was made to surrender its illgotten gains to
the extent of a quarter of a million sterling.[50]
[Sidenote: Parliament and the South Sea Company.]
All the directors were forced to send in inventories of their
respective estates to the Parliamentary Committee. These were
confiscated for the benefit of their dupes, their owners being allowed
some small portion of their former wealth to keep them from starvation.
Peculation and dishonesty were not confined to the city. Peers of the
realm and cabinet ministers were charged with receiving large bribes
either in money or stock. The Earl of Sunderland, first commissioner
of the Treasury, was reported by the committee of investigation to
have received £50,000 stock without any consideration whatsoever, and
although the House of Commons refused to find him guilty,[51] the
Earl felt compelled to give up his post. Craggs, who was Secretary of
State, and Aislabie, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to mention
others, were convicted by the House of receiving similar bribes.[52]
Craggs died of an attack of small-pox, pending the enquiry, but he
left a large estate, and this was confiscated for the relief of
sufferers. Aislabie was expelled the House, and committed to the Tower.
Among the directors who were thus made to feel the heavy hand of
Parliament was Edward Gibbon, grandfather of the great historian of the
"Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." Out of an estate of £60,000,
Parliament allowed him to retain no more than £10,000. That the action
of Parliament towards the directors was afterwards condemned by the
historian as arbitrary and unjust, and only to be excused by the most
imperious necessity, need not therefore cause surprise.[53]
[Sidenote: The action of Parliament upheld by the City.]
The city fathers, on the other hand, upheld the action of Parliament,
and urged it to take further measures to alleviate the prevalent
distress by presenting to the House the following petition (3
April)[54]:--
"Your peticoners think it their duty most humbly to represent to this
Honoble House the present state of the City of London (so considerable
a part of the kingdom) now filled with numberless objects of grief
and compassion (the sad effects of the mismanagemts avarice and fatal
contrivances of the late Directors of the South Sea Company, their
aiders, abettors and confederates in the destruccõn of their country.)
"Nor is it the case of this great city alone your peticoners lament,
but the general decay of trade manufactures and of public creditt,
whereof this Honoble House have been alwaies so extreamly tender, as
also of the honour of the British name and nacõn.
"Your peticoners beg leave to return their most humble thanks to this
Honoble House for the great pains they have taken to releive the
unhappy sufferers by compelling the offenders to make restitucõn as
likewise for their continued applicacõn to lay open this whole scene
of guilt, notwithstanding the industrious artificers of such sharers
in the common plunder as have endeavoured to obstruct the deteccõn
of fraud and corrupcõn, and your peticoners doubt not but the same
fortitude, impartiality and public spirit wherewith this Honoble House
have hitherto acted will still animate them in pursuit of those truly
great and noble ends.
"We are too sensible"--the petitioners went on to say--"of the load
of public debts not to wish that all proper methods may be taken to
lessen them, and it is an infinite concern to us that the paiment of a
great summe towards them (which was expected from the success of the
late scheme) is now rendered extreamly difficult, if not impracticable,
and yet is a cloud hanging over the heads of the present unfortunate
Proprietors of the South Sea Company, and a great damp to public credit.
"We will not presume," they said in conclusion, "to mention in what
manner releif may be given in this arduous affair, but humbly submit it
to the serious consideracõn of this Honoble House."
This petition was followed by others in the same strain from different
parts of the country, and conduced to the passing of a Bill which,
besides appropriating the sum of £2,000,000 out of the private
property of the directors for the relief of sufferers, remitted a
sum of £7,000,000 due by the Company to the Government, and made an
equitable division of the remainder of the Company's capital among the
proprietors.[55]
[Sidenote: Supremacy of Walpole.]
These measures were greatly, if not exclusively, due to Walpole, the
great financier of the day, and one of the few who had not allowed
themselves to become involved in the affairs of the South Sea Company.
The recent disclosures led to his becoming first lord of the treasury,
and chancellor of the exchequer, with his brother-in-law Townshend as
secretary of state. In March, 1722, the first septennial Parliament
came to an end, and again the Whigs were returned by an overwhelming
majority.[56] Walpole thus found himself absolute master of the field,
and this position he continued to maintain for twenty years.
[Sidenote: Jacobite Conspiracy, 1722.]
In the meanwhile the birth of an heir[57] to the Pretender (1721) had
raised the hopes of the Jacobites, who were only waiting for a fitting
opportunity to renew their attack upon the House of Hanover. The
confusion which followed the bursting of the South Sea Bubble seemed
to afford them the opportunity they desired. Again the aid of France
was invoked. Not only did the Regent refuse assistance, however, but
he informed the English minister in Paris of the conspiracy that was
on foot. Thus it was that on the 8th May (1722) Townshend informed the
Lord Mayor (Sir William Stewart) by letter[58] that the king had the
best of grounds for believing that another plot was being prepared in
favour of the Pretender, but that as the plot was unsupported by any
foreign power, and the king had been forewarned, there would be little
to fear. At the same time the king looked to the mayor and his fellow
magistrates to secure the city.
[Sidenote: City address to the king, 9 May, 1722.]
The letter being the next day brought to the notice of the Court of
Aldermen, that body prepared a loyal address to the king and presented
it to him the same evening.[59] In acknowledging the address the king
assured the deputation that his interests and the interests of the City
were inseparable, that he would do all in his power to maintain public
credit and protect the City's privileges and estate as well as uphold
the religion, laws and liberties of the kingdom. An order was issued
the same day by the Privy Council for putting into execution the laws
against papists, reputed papists and non-jurors, as well as against
riots and tumults.[60] In addition to this the Habeas Corpus Act was
suspended for a whole year, the longest time on record, and throughout
the summer troops were kept encamped ready for any emergency. Some
of the chief conspirators in England, among them being Atterbury,
Bishop of Rochester, were placed under arrest. Had not the conspiracy
been timely discovered and precautions taken the whole kingdom "and
particularly the City of London"--as George told the new parliament
when, after frequent prorogations, it met in October--might have
become involved in blood and confusion.[61] As matters turned out, the
conspiracy proved a complete failure.
[Sidenote: Bill for regulating elections in the city, Jan., 1725.]
Whilst Walpole continued to pursue his policy of peace and increased
in influence year by year, the City found itself constantly involved
in disputed elections. At one time it was an election of an alderman,
at another a member of the Common Council, at another an election of
a sheriff. At length matters arrived at such a pitch that a petition
from the citizens at large was presented to the House of Commons (16
Dec., 1724)[62] setting forth that, at elections by the liverymen
of the city, numbers of people voted who had no right to vote; that
at wardmote elections non-freemen claimed the right to vote on the
ground that they contributed to the charges of their respective wards,
refusing at the same time to qualify as voters by taking up the
freedom of the city because they would thereby restrict their right
of testamentary disposition of their estate;[63] that the Court of
Aldermen had decided (as we have just seen) that payment of scot was a
general contribution to all the public taxes and charges upon the city
and inhabitants thereof--a decision which had not met with the favour
of the Common Council, and that thus fresh causes of dissension between
these two bodies had recently arisen. The petitioners prayed therefore
"the relief of the House for preserving the liberties and peace and
quieting the minds of the citizens and for punishing all intruders upon
their rights and privileges, and settling their elections upon a just
and lasting foundation." In answer to this prayer the House gave leave
for the introduction of a Bill "for regulating elections within the
City of London, and for preserving the peace, good order and government
of the said City."
[Sidenote: Bill supported by majority of Aldermen.]
After the Bill had been brought in (27 Jan., 1725), two petitions were
laid before the House; one purporting to come from "the major part of
the Aldermen of the city," the other from the Common Council.[64] The
former, which was in favour of the Bill, had been previously submitted
to the Court of Aldermen; but upon the question being proposed that
the petition should be the petition of the Court, the lord mayor (Sir
George Merttins) declined to put the question on the ground that it
would not be consistent with his honour to let his name be inserted in
that petition, when already a petition had been presented to parliament
in the name of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Commons in Common Council
assembled.[65] The aldermen's petition drew attention more particularly
to a clause in the Bill touching the right of passing Acts or By-laws
by the Common Council. It declared that the right of the aldermen to
veto such proceedings had never been questioned until the time of the
civil war, and not afterwards until quite recently; it further stated
that the aldermen had lately (20 Feb., 1724), by their recorder,
proposed to the Common Council a settlement of all disputes by
reference either to the judges of the High Court or the parliament; but
the offer had been declined.[66]
[Sidenote: Bill opposed by Common Council.]
The petition of the Common Council was against the Bill as being
destructive to many of the rights and privileges which they and their
fellow citizens enjoyed by ancient charters.[67] The Bill passed its
second reading on the 6th of February, after which both parties were
heard by counsel. When the Bill was before the committee, several
petitions against it were presented from Livery Companies of the city.
On the 19th March it was read a third time and passed the Commons.[68]
In the passage of the Bill through the Lower House it had been
strenuously opposed by three out of the four members for the city, viz:
Francis Child, Richard Lockwood and John Barnard. For their services in
this respect the Common Council passed (22 March) them a formal vote of
thanks. The Court at the same time prepared to oppose the Bill in the
Lords.[69]
[Sidenote: Election Act, 11 Geo. i. c, 18, 1725.]
When the Bill was carried up to the Lords, petitions from "the major
part of the aldermen" and from the Common Council were again presented,
as well as another petition subscribed by certain freemen who objected
to parts of the Bill.[70] The passage of the Bill through the Upper
House was nevertheless expeditious; on the 1st April it was read
a second time and committed, and on the 13th, it was passed with
some amendments, but not without a protest being formally entered by
dissentient lords.[71] On the 20th the Bill received the royal assent.
There are three clauses in the Act of special interest. First, the
clause (No. ix), which prescribes the nature of the charges embraced
in the term "payment of scot;" secondly, the clause (No. xv), which
confirms to the Aldermen of the city their right to negative Acts of
the Common Council;[72] and thirdly, the clause (No. xvii) abolishing
the custom of the City restraining citizens and freemen from disposing
of the whole of their personal estates by will.
[Sidenote: Death of George I, 11 June, 1727.]
Just when the reign of George I was drawing to an unexpected close,
it seemed as if England was on the point of becoming involved in a
European War. The emperor and the king of Spain had laid aside their
quarrels and become united in a confederacy against France and England.
Unless Gibraltar were ceded by England, another invasion of the
Pretender might be shortly expected. The citizens were highly incensed
at the thought of their trade being periodically put in jeopardy by
Jacobite risings, and they hastened to assure the king once more of
their determination to sacrifice their lives and fortunes in defence
of the constitution both in church and state against all enemies
whatsoever.[73] Thanks to the pacific tendencies of Walpole and the
diplomatic skill of Townshend, hostilities were averted, and George was
able to set out for his customary visit to Hanover, where he had been
in the habit of spending a portion of each year. Before his journey was
completed, however, he was seized with apoplexy and died in his coach,
near Osnabrück (11 June).
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Journal 56, fo. 130b; Repertory 118, fo. 357.
[2] Journal 56, fos. 132b, 150; Repertory 118, fo. 363.
[3] Journal 56, fos. 133-134b.
[4] Journal 56, fo. 150; Repertory 118, fo. 394.
[5] Repertory 118, fos. 389-391.
[6] _Id._, fos. 368, 369, 384.
[7] Repertory 118, fos. 377, 381.
[8] This "indulgence" was granted by the lords justices, but was not to
be drawn into precedent.--_Id._, fo. 395.
[9] Journal 56, fo. 150b.
[10] Proclamation dated 15 Sept., 1714.--_Id._ fo. 135b.
[11] Repertory 119, fo. 8.
[12] The City put in its customary claims, and the masters and wardens
of the principal livery companies were appointed to assist the lord
mayor in his duties.--Repertory 118, fos. 382-383.
[13] Journal 56, fos. 151b, 161b, 181b.
[14] Maitland, i, 517.
[15] Proclamation dated 6 Dec., 1714.--Journal 56, fo. 139b.
[16] Repertory 119, fos. 79-81.
[17] Journal 56, fo. 147b.
[18] Both aldermen had been knighted by George soon after his
landing.--Maitland, i, 517.
[19] Maitland, i, 518.
[20] Journal 56, fo. 164.
[21] Rapin's Hist. of England (continuation by Tindal), v, 424, 425.
[22] Journal House of Commons, xviii, 232.
[23] Journal 56, fos. 194b-195.
[24] Stat. 1 Geo., i, c. 5. Journal House of Commons, xviii, 232.
[25] Stat. 1 Geo., i, c. 13. "An Act for the further security of his
majesty's person and government ... and for extinguishing the hopes of
the pretended Prince of Wales...." _Id._, xviii, 279.
[26] Repertory 120, fos. 50-70. Rolls of quarter sessions of this
period containing the signatures of those who had not previously
subscribed to the oaths are preserved at the Guildhall.
[27] Repertory 119, fo. 386. Journal 56, fo. 203.
[28] Journal 56, fos. 217, 217b, 218b.
[29] _Id._, fos. 217b, 218b, 270b. Journal 57, fo. 3b.
[30] Journal 67, fo. 267.
[31] Journal 56, fos. 216b, 218.
[32] Stat. 1, Geo. i, c. 38.
[33] Rapin, History of England (contd. by Tindal) iv, 550.
[34] Repertory 121, fos. 250, 265, George Seton, the 5th Earl of
Winton, had joined the rising of 1715. He was taken at Preston, and
being brought to trial was condemned to death. He managed, however, to
make his escape from the Tower and fled to France.
[35] Rapin iv, 541-545.
[36] Repertory 123, fo. 17.
[37] _Id._, 123, fo. 19.
[38] Journal House of Commons, xix, 47.
[39] Journal House of Lords, xxi, 72, 145-147.
[40] A mistake for 19th Jan., 1641-2. See Journal 40, fo. 16.
[41] Journal 50, fo. 32b.
[42] Journal House of Lords, xxi, 148, 149.
[43] See Maitland i, 521-525; Noorthouck, 312.
[44] Repertory 123, fos. 210-215.
[45] Repertory 123, fos. 223, 242.
[46] Journal 57, fo. 22b; Repertory 123, fo. 401.
[47] Repertory 125, fos. 149-156.
[48] Letter from Secretary Craggs to Alderman Ward "at his house upon
Lambeth Hill," 8 Nov., 1720. Repertory 125, fo. 151.
[49] Macleod, "Rise and Progress of Banking in England," ii, 55.
[50] Journal House of Commons, xix, 476.
[51] _Id._, xix, 482.
[52] _Id._, xix, 472-473, 532.
[53] Gibbon, Miscellaneous Works, i, 16-18.
[54] Journal 57, fo. 85. Journal House of Commons, xix, 502.
[55] Rapin v. 645.--Journal House of Lords, xxi, 584.
[56] Only one of the old members (viz., Peter Godfrey) was returned for
the City, the remaining seats being gained by Francis Child, of the
banking firm, who in the next Parliament sat for Middlesex, Richard
Lockwood and John Barnard, who afterwards became Lord Mayor and one of
Walpole's strongest opponents.
[57] Charles Edward Stuart, better known as the young Pretender.
[58] Repertory 126, fo. 344.
[59] _Id._, fos. 344-352. The address as well as the king's reply are
set out by Maitland (i, 531-532).
[60] Repertory 126, fo. 355.
[61] Journal House of Commons, xx, 11.
[62] Journal House of Commons, xx, 363.
[63] By the custom of the City a freeman disposing by will of his
personal estate was obliged to leave his wife one-third of that estate,
and to his children, if any, another third.
[64] Journal House of Commons, xx, 383, 387, 389.
[65] Repertory 129, fo. 123.
[66] Repertory 128, fos. 149-150, 204. Journal 57, fo. 110.
[67] Journal 57, fos. 119b. 120.
[68] Journal House of Commons, xx, 403, 426, 462.
[69] Journal 57, fos. 121, 121b.
[70] Journal House of Lords, xxii, 472, 474, 483. Journal 57, fo. 121.
Repertory 129, fo. 218.
[71] Journal House of Lords, xxii, 499, 500. During the debate in
committee, a proposal had been made to ask the opinion of the judges
whether the Bill repealed any of the privileges, customs, or liberties
of the City restored to them or preserved by the Act passed in 2
William and Mary for reversing the judgment on the _Quo Warranto_ and
for restoring the City its ancient rights and privileges. The proposal
was negatived; but 16 lords entered a formal protest against rejecting
it, whilst 25 lords protested against passing the Bill.
[72] This clause was repealed by Stat. 19, Geo. ii, c. 8. On the 24
April, 1746, the Common Council passed a general vote of thanks to
the lord mayor and Aldermen who had assisted in bringing about the
repeal of a clause which had been "productive of great jealousies and
discontents and might, if continued, have proved subversive of the
rights and liberties of the citizens of London."--Journal 59, fo. 29b.
[73] Journal 57, fo. 149b.
CHAPTER XXXVI.
[Sidenote: King George II proclaimed, 15 June, 1727.]
On the 15th June, 1727, the Court of Aldermen were informed by Sir John
Eyles, the lord mayor, that he had received an order of council dated
from Leicester House (the residence of the Prince of Wales) for his
lordship and the Court to attend at eleven o'clock the next morning at
Temple Bar for the purpose of proclaiming King George II. The Court
thereupon agreed to be present, and instructed the lord mayor to see
that they were allowed to follow in the procession immediately after
the lords of the council.[74] Proclamation having been duly made the
mayor and aldermen, accompanied by the Recorder, waited upon the king
with an address, and afterwards proceeded to pay their compliments to
the queen.[75] Another address had been drawn up by a joint committee
of aldermen and common councilmen on behalf of the Common Council.
But when it was submitted for approval the aldermen insisted upon
exercising their right of veto--recently confirmed by parliamentary
authority--and as they and the commons failed to agree on the several
clauses of the address it had to be abandoned altogether. The mayor
was asked to summon another court, "in pursuance to common usage and
ancient right," to consider another address, but after consultation
with the aldermen he declined to accede to the request.[76]
[Sidenote: The king's coronation, 11 Oct., 1727.]
The coronation did not take place until October. The ceremony was one
of far greater splendour than that of George I, such pageants being "as
pleasing to the son as they were irksome to the father."[77] The City
put in its customary claims, which were duly allowed. The manner in
which these claims were made, as set out in a report made to the Court
of Aldermen by the city Remembrancer, whose duty it was to make them,
was shortly this. Having first obtained the names of the masters of the
twelve superior companies, he put in two claims--written on parchment,
and stamped with a treble sixpenny stamp--for the usual services in
attendance upon the king and queen. The claims being allowed, he
obtained certificates to that effect, and on presenting them at the
lord great chamberlain's office he received warrants to the master of
the king's jewel office for two gold cups, each weighing 21 ozs. One
of these, the king's cup, he conveyed to the lord mayor; the other,
the queen's cup, he left until after the ceremony, "for note"--says
he--"they were not nor are they used to be carryed down to Westminster
Hall to be made use of on that solemnity." The coronation over, the
Remembrancer applied for and received from the Clerk of the Crown a
copy of the judgments on the several claims.[78]
[Sidenote: The lord mayor's banquet, 28 Oct., 1727.]
According to custom the king attended the first lord mayor's banquet
after his accession. He was accompanied by the queen, the royal family,
the great officers of state, and a large number of the nobility.[79]
The entertainment was signalised by what appears to have been a
barefaced attempt at extortion on the part of the king's own cup-bearer
who made a claim on the City for a silver cup (or its value) by way
of fee. The matter having been brought to the notice of the Court of
Aldermen, the Town Clerk was instructed to search the city's Records
for precedents, and upon his reporting that he had failed to find
one the claim was dismissed.[80] The new king, like his father,
ordered £1,000 to be paid to the sheriff for the relief of insolvent
debtors.[81]
[Sidenote: Portraits of king and queen.]
The day that the king was invited to the lord mayor's banquet the
Common Council resolved to set up his statue at the Royal Exchange.[82]
Eventually they commissioned Charles Jervas, an Irish painter and pupil
of Kneller, to paint portraits both of the king and queen for the
Guildhall. Jervas had been originally apprenticed to a frame maker, and
this may account for the anxiety he displayed to put the portraits into
better frames than was usual. To do this he asked for and obtained the
consent of the Court of Aldermen.[83] The pictures now hang in the
members' reading room at the Guildhall.[84]
[Sidenote: Walpole and the queen.]
For a short time after the king's accession it appeared as if Walpole's
ascendancy was to be suddenly cut short. The minister was fortunate,
however, in winning over the queen to his interests, and her influence,
combined with his own masterful tact, turned the scale in his favour,
and he was allowed to remain at the head of affairs. Before long
he succeeded in gaining the entire confidence of the king himself,
but during the lifetime of the queen it was chiefly to her that the
minister turned in times of difficulty. She was a woman of considerable
ability, and thoroughly appreciated Walpole, and together they were
able to avoid many political pitfalls and to persistently carry out
that policy of peace which characterised the whole of this reign.
[Sidenote: Dissenters and the Corporation and Test Acts, 1730.]
Thus it was that in 1730, when the government was placed in an
unpleasant dilemma over an attempt that was being made by Dissenters
throughout the country to obtain the repeal of the Corporation and
Test Acts Walpole took counsel with the queen, and these two laid a
plan with Hoadley, Bishop of Salisbury, for getting the Dissenters
to postpone bringing their petition before parliament. The plan as
we learn from Lord Hervey,[85] who had every means of making himself
acquainted with the inner workings of the Court of George II, was this.
Hoadley, in whom the Dissenters placed much confidence as an avowed
advocate of ecclesiastical as well as civil liberty, was to do all he
could to persuade them to postpone, at least for a short time, their
petition to parliament, whilst Walpole was to see that the committee of
London Dissenters, which was to be chosen to confer with government,
should comprise none but creatures of his own. The scheme succeeded
entirely. The Dissenters were hoodwinked. The packed committee went
through the form of an interview with the ministers, and in due course
reported to the general assembly of Dissenters that the time was
inopportune for petitioning parliament. The general body agreed, and
the ministry was thus saved.
[Sidenote: The City and Walpole's Excise Bill, 1733.]
Although it was chiefly as a financier that the great minister, under
whom England enjoyed an unexampled period of peace and prosperity,
excelled, it was a financial reform that nearly brought him to ruin
three years later. This was his famous Excise Bill. In a hasty desire
to curry favour with the landowners by reducing the Land Tax Walpole
proposed to establish a new system of levying duties on tobacco and
wine. The tax itself was not new, but only the manner of levying it.
Hitherto the duty on wine and tobacco had been payable on importation.
The new proposal was that these commodities should be allowed to lie
in bonded warehouses duty free until taken out for home consumption,
when their sale was to be restricted to shops licensed for the purpose.
In other words the customs' duties on these commodities were to be
changed into excise duties, a form of taxation especially hateful in
those days, as seeming to infringe the rights of the subject by giving
revenue officers the right of entering and searching houses at any hour
without further warrant. The City and the country were up in arms, and
the city members of parliament were instructed to oppose the Bill for
reasons set out in writing and delivered into their hands.[86]
Walpole delayed bringing in the Bill as long as he could in hopes that
the clamour against it--"epidemic madness," as Hervey called it--might
subside. Neither London nor the kingdom, however, would listen to
reason, and the universal cry was _No slavery--no excise--no wooden
shoes!_[87] When the Bill was at last introduced (14 March) it met
with violent opposition, and more particularly from two of the city
members, viz., Sir John Barnard and Micaiah Perry. During the debate
the doors of the House were besieged by such a noisy crowd that Walpole
in an unguarded moment characterised the mob as "sturdy beggars." This
at once brought Barnard to his feet, and although there was at first
a disposition not to hear him, as he had already spoken to the Bill,
the House was prevailed upon to give him a second hearing, owing to
his position as a representative of "the greatest and richest city in
Europe," and a city greatly interested in the issues of the debate.
Barnard thereupon took Walpole severely to task for the expression he
had let drop. "The honourable gentleman," said he, "talks of sturdy
beggars; I do not know what sort of people may be now at the door,
because I have not lately been out of the House, but I believe they
are the same sort of people that were there when I came last into the
House, and then I can assure you that I saw none but such as deserve
the name of sturdy beggars as little as the honourable gentleman
himself, or any gentleman whatever." Sturdy beggars or not (he declared
in conclusion) they could not legally be prevented from coming down to
the House. After some further debate Walpole gained the day, and on the
4th April the Bill was read a first time.[88]
Before the Bill came on for its second reading a copy of it had been
laid before the Common Council (9 April), and a petition had thereupon
been drawn up and presented to the House asking that the City might
be heard by counsel against the Bill.[89] After long debate the
prayer of the petition was refused, but only by a bare majority of
seventeen.[90] By this time the clamour had become so great, even the
army showing signs of disaffection, that Walpole, true to his principle
of expediency, the key-note of his policy, resolved to purchase
peace by concession. He postponed the further consideration of the
Bill (11 April) for a period of two months, and afterwards withdrew
it altogether. On leaving the House the day that the motion for
postponement was carried the minister was mobbed. The affair was little
more than an "accidental scuffle," but it was studiously represented
to parliament as "a deep-laid scheme for assassination." Resolutions
were passed condemning in strong terms all actors and abettors of the
outrage, and the city members were especially directed to carry copies
to the lord mayor for publication within his jurisdiction--the City
being considered as the real author of all the mischief.[91]
[Sidenote: Mayoralty of Sir William Billers, 1733-1734.]
The defeat of the Bill was received with extravagant joy, and in 1734
it was proposed to celebrate its anniversary in the city with bonfires.
For this purpose subscriptions were invited through the medium of the
press. The mayor, Sir William Billers, on learning this consulted
the Court of Aldermen as to what was best to be done under the
circumstances, and by their advice he issued his precept for a special
watch to be kept, and for the arrest of all persons attempting to make
bonfires or to create disorder.[92] Notwithstanding this precaution a
riot broke out, and Billers not only had his windows broken, on account
of his obnoxious precept, but was himself pelted with dirt and stones,
whilst patrolling the streets in company with the Swordbearer. Insult
was added to injury by the newspapers of the day holding him up as
having himself been the real cause of all the disorder. The Court of
Aldermen, on the other hand, accorded him a hearty vote of thanks for
the courage he had displayed.[93] On going out of office Billers again
became an object of attack, the mob pelting him with all kinds of filth
and endeavouring to smash his coach. The Court of Aldermen were so
indignant at this outrage that they offered a reward of £50 for every
offender brought to justice.[94]
[Sidenote: Royal marriages, 1734 and 1736]
In 1734 the princess royal was married to the Prince of Orange, and
two years later the Prince of Wales married the Princess Augusta
of Saxe-Gotha. On both occasions the City presented congratulatory
addresses.[95] Lord Hervey, the king's vice-chamberlain, was highly
indignant at the first address because of the reference it made to King
William III. But if the City sinned in this respect it sinned in good
company, for Oxford University and other corporate bodies made similar
allusions. "The city of London," wrote Hervey,[96] "the University of
Oxford, and several other disaffected towns and incorporated bodies
took the opportunity of the princess royal's marriage to say the most
impertinent things to the king, under the pretence of complimental
addresses, that ironical zeal and couched satire could put together.
The tenor of them all was to express their satisfaction in this match
from remembering how much this country was indebted to a prince who
bore the title of Orange, declaring their gratitude to his memory,
and intimating as plainly as they dared, how much they wished this
man might follow the example of his great ancestor, and one time or
other _depose his father-in-law_ in the same manner that King William
had deposed his." Happily the king took a more sensible view of the
address, and vouchsafed a gracious reply. So far from being offended
at the City's allusion to William of Orange he was pleased. "It is a
great pleasure to me," he said, "to see this great metropolis remember
with so much gratitude the deliverance of these kingdoms from popery
and slavery by my great predecessor King William."[97] Soon after the
marriage of the Prince of Wales he was presented with the Freedom of
the City in a gold box, having previously been admitted a member of the
Saddlers' Company.[98]
[Sidenote: Disputes between England and Spain in the West Indies.]
For nearly twenty years England had enjoyed uninterrupted peace at home
and abroad. The last action in which an English force had been engaged
had taken place in the summer of 1718, when Admiral Byng defeated a
Spanish fleet off Cape Passaro. Since then trade had been flourishing,
and the city merchant had been busily sending cargoes of English
merchandise across the sea to the West Indies, paying little regard to
the restrictions imposed on them by the provisions of the Treaty of
Utrecht.[99]
[Sidenote: Jenkin's ear, 1738.]
Spain on the other hand insisted upon the right of search, and their
coastguards had often seized English vessels suspected of smuggling,
and were sometimes reported as having brutally ill-used their
crews.[100] Matters were fast tending to an open rupture when the
episode of Jenkin's ear roused an intense desire for war both in the
city and the country generally. The story is well known. Jenkin was
master of a small trading vessel which seven years before had been
overhauled by a Spanish guarda-costa. Irritated at finding nothing
contraband on board the Spanish commander is said to have cut off
one of Jenkin's ears, bidding him carry it to the king. Jenkin took
advantage of the prevalent feeling against Spain to exhibit his ear
wrapt in cotton wool, and when asked as to his feelings at the time
of the outrage declared that he had commended his soul to God and his
cause to his country. This clap-trap story--it is shrewdly suspected
that Jenkin lost his ear in the pillory--had the desired effect.
Popular indignation was roused, and the nation clamoured for war.
[Sidenote: The City and the Spanish Convention, 1739.]
To all this Walpole turned a deaf ear, and instead of proclaiming war
opened negotiations for peace. A Convention with Spain was agreed to,
but as it left the question as to right of search still unsettled,
great opposition was displayed, both in and out of parliament, to
its ratification. The minister was in the greatest straits. His best
friend and supporter, the queen, had recently died, and the king,
freed from the peaceful influence of his wife, as well as the City,
were urging war. It was not often that the Londoners called for war,
they were too interested in commercial pursuits not to appreciate
to the full the blessings of peace. But on this occasion the City
felt bound to make a strong representation to parliament as to "the
fatal consequences of leaving the freedom of navigation any longer
in suspense and uncertainty." They had too much reason to fear (they
said) that if the right claimed by Spain of searching British ships at
sea were admitted in any degree "the trade of his majesty's subjects
to America will become so precarious as to depend in a great measure
upon the indulgence and justice of the Spaniards, of both which they
have given us for some years past such specimens as we humbly think
this nation can have no cause to be satisfied with."[101] The citizens
were probably right, although they were held up to much ridicule for
venturing to give advice upon affairs of state. During the debate on
the convention, lists of the members of the Common Council, with their
respective trades or companies, were scattered abroad, and to these
lists were appended texts from scripture to the effect that however
useful such men might be in a city "they shall not be sought for in
public council."[102]
[Sidenote: "Leonidas" Glover.]
One citizen in particular distinguished himself by advocating war in a
poem of greater length than merit. This was Richard Glover,[103] known
as "Leonidas" Glover (from another poem he wrote bearing that title),
author of "London, or the Progress of Commerce," in which he reminds
the citizens of their former prowess at Newbury, and asks--
"Shall we be now more timid, when behold,
The blackening storm now gathers round our heads
And England's angry genius sounds to arms?"
Besides being an "eminent Hamburgh merchant" and a writer of verse,
Glover took an active part in city elections, and was a strong
upholder of the rights of the livery. On Michaelmas-day, when Sir
George Champion, who sat for Aylesbury, was put in nomination for the
mayoralty and rejected chiefly, if not wholly, on account of his
having voted for the Convention,[104] Glover was asked to move a vote
of thanks to the city members, for having opposed the Convention. This
he did in a spirited speech, in which he referred to Champion's chance
of election to the mayoralty as being in all probability for ever lost,
a prediction which proved true.[105]
[Sidenote: War declared with Spain, 19 Oct., 1739.]
Although the Convention was carried, it became apparent that either
war must be declared or Walpole resign. The minister's love of power
overcame his convictions, and he allowed himself to be dragged into a
war which he felt at the time to be unjustifiable and foreboding of
evil. The declaration of war which was made in October was welcomed
with peals of bells from London churches. "They ring their bells now,"
said he, "before long they will be wringing their hands." When the
outgoing mayor received instructions from the Duke of Newcastle to
assist at the proclamation of war according to custom, he demurred on
the ground that the town clerk had been unable to find a precedent
for the Court of Aldermen attending a proclamation of war; but upon
the Duke referring him to what had taken place when war was declared
in 1718 against Spain, the objection was withdrawn. A question next
arose as to the place the civic authorities should occupy in the
procession, and the Remembrancer was instructed to make enquiries on
the point both at the secretary's office and the Heralds' College.
The information gathered by him proving unsatisfactory, the Court of
Aldermen took it upon themselves to decide that the civic party should
fall in immediately after Garter King-at-Arms. This order, however,
was not carried out, for the Horse Guards thrust themselves into the
procession in front of the municipal officers.[106]
[Sidenote: Capture of Porto Bello, Nov., 1739.]
At the outset of the war fortune favoured British arms, and in
November, Admiral Vernon succeeded in surprising and capturing the town
of Porto Bello, situate on the Isthmus of Darien (Panama). The City
was delighted and presented the king with the usual congratulatory
address.[107] Such a feat the citizens declared would not only serve to
show that the maritime power of the country, although allowed to lie
dormant so long, was still capable of vindicating the honour of the
crown, but also gave promise of future successes, and they assured the
king that he might depend upon them to contribute towards the support
of a war so necessary for the protection of their long injured trade.
[Sidenote: "Admiral Hosier's Ghost."]
As for Vernon, he became a popular idol with the citizens, who
continued to look upon his single success whilst they turned a blind
eye to his many subsequent failures. Not only was he presented with the
Freedom of the City in a gold box, but his birthday was for some years
kept with general rejoicing.[108] His capture of Porto Bello was made
the subject of a poem by Glover--his one readable ballad--under the
title of "Admiral Hosier's Ghost," in which Vernon's good fortune is
compared with the ill-luck which attended Hosier's expedition to the
West Indies in 1726, when, doomed to inaction by orders from home, that
gallant officer saw the greater part of his men swept off by disease,
and he himself died subsequently of a broken heart.[109]
[Sidenote: Heathcote discharged Mayor by Common Council, Oct., 1740.]
When Michaelmas-day again came round Glover was again to the fore. It
was customary for the livery to hold a preliminary meeting either at
the London Tavern or some company's hall before they met in Common
Hall. On this occasion the meeting was held in Vintners' Hall, and
Glover took the chair. The business of the day having been opened by
a speech from the chairman, in which he referred to the rejection of
Sir George Champion the previous year, and exhorted them to choose a
mayor for the year ensuing who would be agreeable to the majority of
the citizens, the livery proceeded to choose Sir Robert Godschall and
George Heathcote, although they were not the senior aldermen below
the chair.[110] There names were accordingly submitted to the full
body of the livery assembled in Common Hall on Michaelmas-day and were
accepted.[111] It now became the duty of the Court of Aldermen to
select one of these two to be mayor for the year ensuing. Godschall
was the senior, and Heathcote particularly desired not to be chosen
on the plea of ill-health, and because he had so recently served
sheriff. Nevertheless the choice of the aldermen was declared to be
for Heathcote, although he repeated his request not to serve. A
Common Council was thereupon summoned to consider the matter, and it
was eventually resolved that Heathcote should be discharged without
fine.[112]
[Sidenote: Humphrey Parsons re-elected Mayor, Oct., 1740.]
This necessitated the summoning another Common Hall, and another
accordingly met on the 14th October. A preliminary meeting of the
livery took place, as before, at Vintners' Hall, and again Glover was
in the chair. The action of the Court of Aldermen in thus passing
over Godschall merely because the livery had refused to nominate
Champion, was strongly condemned by the chairman, who no less strongly
eulogised the action of Heathcote for refusing to serve--a refusal
which emanated, according to the speaker, not from ill-health, but from
a determination not to fill the place of the rejected Godschall.[113]
When the election came on in Common Hall the livery returned Godschall
for the third time, and with him Humphrey Parsons who had served mayor
ten years before. Again Godschall was passed over by the Court of
Aldermen, and Parsons was called to the mayoralty chair for the second
time, although by the bare majority of one vote.[114]
The Common Council were desirous (22 Oct.) of passing a vote of thanks
to Parsons for again accepting a laborious and expensive office,
"_and thereby endeavouring in some measure to restore the peace and
tranquility of this city which has been greatly disturbed by a late
extraordinary and unusual proceeding_." A A long debate arose, some
of the aldermen present insisting upon their right of a negative voice
in the matter; and upon the question being put to them, the words in
_italics_ were vetoed by twelve aldermen to one.[115] Those aldermen
who had previously voted for Godschall and a large number of the Common
Council had already got up and left the Court.[116]
[Sidenote: A general election, 1741.]
In 1741 a general election took place. Parsons, who had sat in the
last two Parliaments with Sir John Barnard, had, in the meantime,
died during his mayoralty, and had been succeeded in the civic chair
by Daniel Lambert.[117] Barnard retained his seat, and with him were
returned the new mayor, and Aldermen Godschall and Heathcote. The
ministry still retained a majority in the House, but it was not always
to be depended upon.
[Sidenote: City petitions to parliament, Jan., 1742.]
Early in the following year two petitions were laid before Parliament
complaining of the manner in which the trade of the country was being
ruined owing to insufficiency of convoys. One petition--drafted by
Glover--was from merchants of the city, and was presented to Parliament
by Godschall,[118] who had at last succeeded in becoming mayor; and
the other was from the Common Council of the city, and was presented
by the sheriffs.[119] Both petitions were referred to a committee of
the whole House, with Godschall in the chair, and in due course the
House instructed the lord mayor and Sir John Barnard to prepare a Bill
for the better protecting and securing the trade and navigation of the
kingdom in time of war.[120]
[Sidenote: Death of Godschall, mayor, June, 1742.]
A Bill was accordingly prepared, which passed rapidly through the
Commons but was thrown out by the Lords.[121] This was almost the last
parliamentary business on which Godschall was engaged, for he died
during his mayoralty in the following June.
[Sidenote: Resignation of Walpole, 17 Feb., 1742.]
Whilst these petitions were under consideration the ministry suffered
a defeat over an election petition, and Walpole resigned (17 Feb.).
With the great "corrupter" removed the City hoped for great things.
The Common Council had, previously (10 Feb.) made a "representation"
to the city members urging them to promote a Place Bill and a Pension
Bill, as well as the repeal of the Septennial Act, and so secure the
constitution "against all future attempts either of open or secret
corruption or of any undue influence whatsoever."[122]
[Sidenote: The City and the new ministry.]
After some difficulty a new ministry was formed in which Carteret soon
became the leading man. The City continued to look for the execution of
the long-wished-for reforms, but looked in vain. It was the old story.
Men who when out of office breathed the spirit of patriotism and virtue
were anything but virtuous and patriotic in office. Again were the city
members urged by another "representation" to press forward certain
measures and not to vote supplies until the government showed some
signs of moving in the direction required.[123] The example of the
City was followed in other places, and copies of the "representation"
were freely circulated in all parts of the country. The newspapers of
the day, whilst lamenting the condition into which the country had
fallen through "the iniquitous administration of the late corrupter,"
expressed their confidence that the example set by London--"the source
and fountain head of all our wealth and trade"--would continue to have,
as it had already had, its proper influence both within and without
doors.[124]
[Sidenote: France and the Young Pretender, 1743.]
When Carteret came into power, Europe was distracted with the war of
the Austrian succession, and before long England was drawn into the
vortex. Whilst France embraced the cause of the Elector of Bavaria,
England supported Maria Theresa. In June, 1743, the French army was
defeated at Dettingen, when, for the last time, a king of England
appeared in the field of battle at the head of his men, and bore
himself right royally. Louis retaliated by promising assistance to
Charles Edward Stuart, known in history as the Young Pretender, who
meditated an invasion of England to claim the crown.
[Sidenote: War declared against France, 29 March, 1744.]
Information of the project having been communicated to Parliament (15
Feb., 1744), both Houses concurred in an address of loyalty to the
king, promising him their utmost support, and the next day the Common
Council voted a similar address.[125] The deputation which waited upon
his majesty with the City's address met with a gracious reception, and
the king conferred the honour of knighthood upon the mayor (Robert
Westley), the recorder (Simon Urling), two aldermen, (viz., Daniel
Lambert and Robert Willimot), and the two sheriffs, Robert Ladbroke and
William Calvert,[126] the latter of whom had succeeded to Godschall's
seat in Parliament as one of the members for the city. Before the end
of the month the lord mayor was informed by letter from the Privy
Council that extensive preparations were being made at Dunkirk, in
concert with disaffected persons in this country, for an invasion, and
it behoved his lordship to put into operation the Acts against papists
and non-jurors.[127] The aspect of affairs began to look black indeed.
"If they still attempt the invasion," wrote Walpole to his friend,
"it must be a bloody war."[128] The danger that seemed so imminent
passed away owing to a violent storm which destroyed the French
transports, and England was thus again saved from foreign invasion by
the difficulties of the channel passage.[129] Nevertheless on the 29th
March, war was declared against France.[130]
[Sidenote: The Pretender in Scotland, 1745.]
Though bitterly disappointed at the failure of this expedition the
prince did not lose courage, but resolved in the following year (1745)
to cross over to Scotland unsupported by France, and to trust to the
loyalty of his friends there. Landing in the western highlands with
a mere handful of followers he gradually drew to his side a small
force, and on the 19th August set up his standard in Glenfinnan. On
the 4th September the Duke of Newcastle (brother of Pelham, who had
recently succeeded Carteret in the premiership) informed the lord
mayor by letter of the Pretender having set up his standard and of his
then being on his way to Perth or Edinburgh. The king was assured, he
said, that the mayor would do his utmost to preserve the peace and the
security of the city.[131] Both the Common Council and the Court of
Aldermen presented addresses to the king in testimony of their loyalty
to the constitution of Church and State, and both bodies in return
received assurances of royal favour and promises of protection for
their trade and commerce.[132] The London merchant and trader had been
the greatest gainers by the Revolution and the policy of peace pursued
by Walpole. It would have been base ingratitude, if nothing else, had
the City acted otherwise at this important crisis. Dr. Gardiner points
out that it was much the same in Scotland, and that the traders there,
having profited by the Union, were to a man staunch Hanoverians.
[Sidenote: The Pretender's march to Derby.]
On the 17th September the prince entered Edinburgh and took up his
quarters at Holyrood House. A few days later he succeeded in defeating
an English force under Sir John Cope at Preston Pans, and thus
encouraged he prepared to cross the border and to appeal to England for
support. The news caused a run upon the Bank of England, and had it not
been for the praiseworthy promptitude of the leading London merchants
who met and passed a formal resolution pledging themselves to support
the credit of the bank's notes, its doors would probably have been
closed.[133]
[Sidenote: The Pretender enters Derby, 4 Dec., 1745.]
Again fortune favoured England. The prince delayed his march so long,
collecting money and organising his forces, that time was gained
for putting London into a state of defence. A camp was formed at
Finchley[134] to intercept the rebels, and subscription lists were
opened in London and the country for the soldiers who were to be
engaged in the coming winter campaign. The Common Council voted £1,000
to the fund,[135] but England as a whole was strangely apathetic.
Carteret, the late prime minister, who had, on the death of his mother
recently, become Viscount Carteret and Earl Granville, refused to
subscribe anything to the fund, and a similar indifference to the
country's danger was displayed by others of the aristocracy.[136] By
Wednesday, the 4th December, the Pretender had succeeded in evading the
English forces sent to oppose him under the command of Wade and the
Duke of Cumberland and had entered Derby, where he seized all the money
he could lay his hands on, including the subscriptions that had been
raised to oppose him.[137]
[Sidenote: "Black Friday," 6 Dec., 1745.]
The news of the rebels being within 150 miles of the capital reached
London on Friday, the 6th December--"Black Friday," as it came to be
called. The Duke of Newcastle immediately wrote off to the lord mayor
informing him of the fact of the Pretender's forces having already
reached Derby "in their way, as they give out, towards London." The
Duke of Cumberland, the letter went on to say, was making every effort
to intercept the rebels at Northampton, and part of his cavalry would
be there that night and the rest the next day, when the foot soldiers
were also expected. The mayor was desired to take immediate steps, in
the meantime, for the defence of the city, in case the duke failed to
place himself between the rebels and London. The letter having been
communicated to a special Court of Aldermen on Saturday it was resolved
to issue precepts for returns to be made by the following Monday of the
number of coach and saddle horses found in each ward. The trained bands
were to take up their quarters in the Royal Exchange, whilst a portion
of Bridewell Hospital was to serve as a guard-room for the night guard
appointed by the commissioners of lieutenancy. The two city marshals
were to be instructed to visit the night watches in the several wards
and to see that the constables did their duty.[138] All was excitement
and activity. The king prepared to go to the camp at Finchley to take
command of the guards. The weavers of London offered to supply him
with 1,000 men, whilst the lawyers formed themselves into a little
army under the command of Chief Justice Willes, and offered to serve
as a body-guard to the royal family during the king's absence.[139]
Another run was made upon the Bank of England, which again had to
resort to strategem (as in 1720) in order to avert bankruptcy. Instead
of refusing payment the Bank employed agents for the express purpose
of presenting notes which, in order to gain time, were cashed in
sixpences; "and as those who came first were entitled to priority the
agents went out at one door with the specie they had received and
brought it back by another, so that the _bonâ fide_ holders of notes
could never get near enough to present them."[140]
[Sidenote: The Pretender withdraws from Derby.]
Fortunately the crisis was soon over, the Pretender had scarcely
reached Derby before he reluctantly accepted the advice of his
commanders and ordered a retreat. Under the circumstances it was
perhaps the best thing to do. The English armies were gradually closing
in upon him, this country had shown no disposition to rise in his
favour, and the Duke of Cumberland was, as we have seen, hastening
towards Northampton to bar his passage to the capital.
[Sidenote: The Freedom of the City for Duke of Cumberland, 23 Jan.,
1746.]
The citizens were not slow to realise how much they owed to the duke
for their protection, and on the 23rd January (1746) the Common Council
resolved to present him with the Freedom of the City in a gold box,
both for his "magnanimous" behaviour against the rebels, as well as for
his vigilant care in protecting the city "in a late time of imminent
danger."[141]
[Sidenote: Victory of Culloden, 16 April, 1746.]
Some time elapsed before the duke was able to receive the freedom, for
as soon as he was aware that the rebels were in retreat, he hurried
off in pursuit. After defeating General Hawley at Falkirk (17 Jan.,
1746) the rebels retired towards Inverness, but in April they were
brought to bay by the duke at Culloden Moor and utterly defeated. The
duke was a man of violent passions, and his victory was marked with so
much wanton cruelty and bloodshed, that he acquired the name of the
Butcher. This name he never lost, and when it came to his taking up the
Freedom of the City, some one was bold enough to suggest the propriety
of his becoming a member of the Butchers' Company.[142]
[Sidenote: City address to the king, 3 May, 1746.]
Cruel as the duke's conduct had been, it had the effect of crushing
the rebellion. London and the kingdom could once more breathe freely,
and the citizens could follow their commercial pursuits without fear
of further abortive attempts being made to restore the crown to the
Stuarts. Instead of blaming the duke for his drastic measures, they
applauded him and formally thanked the king for giving him the command,
"Permit us, Sir"--they said, addressing his majesty--"to return our
most unfeigned thanks ... for the appointment of his royal highness
the duke to this important service, whose conduct and bravery (so
early conspicuous) have by the blessing of the Almighty produced this
our happy deliverance: a glory reserved for one of your illustrious
family, endowed with those princely qualities which render him amiable
to those under his command, and formidable to his enemies." They, at
the same time assured his majesty that it would be always their firm
resolution, no less than their indispensable duty "to oppose every
attempt of the common disturbers of the peace of Europe" against the
rights of his crown.[143]
[Sidenote: The general election, 1747.]
One effect of the rebellion was to strengthen the hands of the
government. The subscription lists that had been opened during the
crisis were the means of displaying to the world who were Jacobites
and who were not, and when the general election came on in the summer
of 1747 it went hard with those who entertained Jacobite proclivities.
Barnard and Culvert retained their seats for the city, but Slingsby
Bethell and Stephen Theodore Janssen were returned in place of Lambert
and Heathcote. "Both Westminster and Middlesex have elected court
candidates," wrote Walpole to his friend,[144] "and the city of London
is taking the same step, the first time of many years that the two
latter have been whig; but the non-subscribing at the time of the
rebellion, has been most successfully played off upon the Jacobites."
[Sidenote: Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, Oct., 1748.]
The rebellion had also a considerable effect upon the war on the
continent, for the Austrians, deprived of English succour, lost nearly
the whole of their possessions in the Netherlands to France. The
French, however, were unsuccessful in Italy, whilst at sea the English
navy attacked their colonial possessions, and captured the island of
Cape Breton. All parties being ready to come to terms, a peace was
at length concluded (Oct., 1748) at Aix-la-Chapelle on the general
principle of restitution of all conquests.[145]
[Sidenote: The Newcastle administration, 1754-1756.]
From the time when Henry Pelham succeeded Carteret (Nov., 1744)
as Prime Minister, the strife of parties was lulled by the simple
expedient of admitting into office any man capable of rendering himself
dangerous to the government. Pelham's administration thus became
distinguished as the Broad-bottomed Administration. Upon his death in
March, 1754, the era of tranquillity passed away. He was succeeded in
the Premiership by his brother the Duke of Newcastle. Already there was
danger of war with France, as well as opposition at home, but with the
assistance of Charles Fox, Newcastle contrived to get through the year.
Before another twelvemonth had elapsed, however, England was again
threatened with a French invasion.[146]
[Sidenote: The National Militia Bill, 1756.]
On the 11th November (1755) the lords of the council wrote to Slingsby
Bethell, who had just entered upon his mayoralty, instructing him to
call out the whole of the City's militia for immediate service. The
letter was laid before a special Court of Aldermen on Saturday, the
15th, when it was resolved to summon the Commissioners of Lieutenancy
to meet that afternoon, and a special court of Common Council for the
following Tuesday.[147] The Common Council having assembled on the day
named the Lord Mayor communicated to them the contents of the letter he
had received. A motion was thereupon made for applying to Parliament
for a more effectual National Militia Bill, but a debate arose, and
the matter was adjourned for further consideration. On the 25th the
debate was resumed, but upon being put to the vote the motion was lost.
Nevertheless, a Bill for better ordering the militia of the country was
introduced into Parliament the following spring and passed (10 May,
1756), but the City's militia was exempted from the Bill.[148]
[Sidenote: Importation of foreign mercenaries.]
Newcastle was not the man to conduct a great war. A fresh election
had taken place soon after his appointment as first lord of the
treasury, and the result had given the ministry a handsome majority.
Nevertheless, so helpless was he that he could devise no better plan
for saving the country from invasion than by importing Hessian and
Hanoverian mercenaries. Worse than this, his proposal was adopted,
although Pitt left a sick bed on purpose to go down to the House and
solemnly protest against such a course.[149]
[Sidenote: A tax on plate opposed by the City.]
A proposal, made by the chancellor of the exchequer, Sir George
Lyttelton, to impose a tax upon plate, for the purpose of raising
supplies, was reasonable enough, but it met with opposition not only
from Pitt but also from the City,[150] partly on account of the
existing inland duties being already sufficiently heavy and partly
because this particular tax would teach servants to become informers.
At the same time the citizens avowed themselves ready to hazard their
lives and their fortunes in support of the king and the Protestant
succession.[151]
[Sidenote: The loss of Minorca, 1756.]
The threatened invasion was only a trick played by the French king
to draw off attention from the real object of attack--the capture of
Minorca. Owing to dilatoriness on the part of the ministry Byng was
despatched too late to save the island. This loss excited the utmost
indignation. The cry was loud against the government, but louder still
against Byng, who was accused of rank cowardice, if not treachery.
Newcastle was content to make a scapegoat of the admiral, and ordered
him home under arrest to await trial. The feeling of disgust which
prevailed in the city at Byng having withdrawn to Gibraltar without
hazarding a brush with the enemy manifested itself by the display of
a placard at the Royal Exchange advertising _Three kingdoms to be
let_.[152] Whilst Byng awaited his trial, popular clamour, throughout
the country rose to such a pitch that at last war was declared (17
May, 1756). In August the citizens again assured the king of their
readiness to shed their last drop of blood and contribute all that
might be necessary for the defence of the kingdom and colonies, but
they none the less expressed an eager hope that Byng and those who were
responsible for losses in America should be brought to punishment.[153]
[Sidenote: A "representation" to city members, Oct., 1756.]
The recent failures and the general weakness and incapacity of
Newcastle irritated the country to such a degree that the ministry
became frightened, and in October (1756) Fox, who for the last
year had undertaken the duties of the leadership in the House of
Commons, resigned. At this juncture the Common Council again drew up
a "representation" for the guidance of the city's representatives in
parliament.[154] First and foremost they were to insist upon a strict
and impartial parliamentary enquiry into the causes of the recent
disasters at Minorca and in North America, which had rendered the
British name contemptible; and in the next place they were to seize
the earliest opportunity of urging the necessity of establishing a
constitutional militia and of ridding the country of those foreign
mercenaries, whose numbers had been constantly increasing, whose
support had become an intolerable expense, and who claimed to be above
the law of the land. They were to vote for no supplies until this were
done. They were further instructed to endeavour to limit the number of
placemen and pensioners, which of late had so remarkably increased; to
restore at a proper season triennial parliaments, as being the only
means of obtaining a free representative of the people; to keep an eye
on the proper application of public money; and finally to see that
the country did not become involved in continental affairs so as to
threaten its independence.
[Sidenote: Newcastle succeeded by Pitt, Nov., 1756.]
This representation was not without its effect. In November Newcastle
resigned, and Pitt, although nominally only secretary of state under
the Duke of Devonshire, became virtually prime minister. He had not
been many weeks in office before he gratified the City by sending
the Hanoverian and Hessian troops out of the country, as well as by
passing a Bill for re-organising the national militia.
[Sidenote: Execution of Admiral Byng, 14 March, 1757.]
Just as the year was drawing to a close Byng was brought to trial.
Owing to a comparatively recent change that had been made in the
articles of war the court found itself compelled to bring in a
verdict of guilty without any imputation on the personal courage
of the admiral.[155] The extent of his criminality was that he had
failed to do all that might have been done to save Minorca. Pitt, who
was no favourite with the king, was courageous enough to plead for
a royal pardon, but the king turned a deaf ear. The country deemed
itself betrayed, and called for a victim. The timorous Newcastle had
long promised a deputation of citizens that Byng should be speedily
brought to justice. "Oh! indeed he shall be tried immediately, he shall
be hanged directly."[156] The trial had taken place, and although
the court that tried him had shown an unmistakable desire to treat
him with leniency, the City began to show signs of impatience and
clamoured for his death. Papers bearing the words "Shoot Byng, or take
care of your king" are even said to have appeared posted up in the
Royal Exchange.[157] The citizens had their wish. The sentence was
carried out, and Byng was shot on the quarterdeck of the "Monarque" at
Portsmouth (14 March, 1757).
[Sidenote: Civic honours for Pitt and Legge, 24 May, 1757.]
Soon after this Pitt was dismissed. His dismissal was the signal for a
general ebullition in his favour. The Common Council presented both him
and Legge (who had served under him as chancellor of the exchequer)
with the Freedom of the City and gold boxes, in testimony of their
conduct during their "honourable tho' short administration." The City
declared its appreciation of the noble efforts of these ministers "to
stem the general torrent of corruption and revive by their example
the almost extinguished love of virtue and our country," their zeal
in promoting a full and impartial enquiry into the real causes of the
late disasters in America and the Mediterranean, and lastly their
efforts to support the glory and independence of Great Britain, the
true interests of the crown and the rights and liberties of the
subject.[158] The example thus set by the city of London was followed
by other corporations in such quick succession that for some weeks, as
Lady Hervey wittily remarked, "it rained gold boxes."
[Sidenote: Coalition of Pitt and Newcastle, June, 1757.]
The king tried to get Newcastle, with his subservient band of
supporters, to accept office again, but the duke could not make up
his mind whether to resume office or not, and for nearly three months
the country was without any ministry at all. At last a compromise was
arranged in June between Pitt and Newcastle,[159] whereby the former
undertook all affairs of state, leaving to Newcastle the business of
patronage, such as his soul loved. Pitt threw himself heartily into the
war, determined to raise the national spirit. His task, however, was a
difficult one, owing to the incompetency of those he found in command.
Thus, for instance, an attempt to take Rochefort failed through
dissension between Admiral Hawke and General Mordaunt. The Common
Council were on the point of considering the advisability of addressing
the king on the subject, when the mayor informed them that one of the
clerks of the Privy Council had waited on him at the Mansion House to
inform him that directions had already been given for an enquiry into
the cause of the recent miscarriage; and so the matter was allowed to
drop.[160]
[Sidenote: Subscriptions for bounties, 1759-1760.]
Thanks to Pitt's military reforms and to the confidence he inspired,
the remainder of the reign was marked by a series of successes
culminating in the conquest of Canada. In the summer of 1759 the French
again threatened an invasion, but it caused no alarm. A new spirit had
been breathed into the nation and animated both services. The City
resolved to open a subscription list at the Guildhall for encouraging
the enlistment of recruits, and to contribute £1,000 towards the fund.
By way of further encouragement the Freedom of the City was offered
gratuitously to every soldier who should produce to the chamberlain
a testimonial of his good behaviour during his term of service, and
who should wish to be admitted to the privilege of exercising a
trade within the city and liberties. A committee was appointed to
make the necessary arrangements for carrying out the enlistments,
and Pitt was desired to lay these resolutions before his majesty as
an humble testimony of the City's zeal and affection for king and
government.[161] The king commissioned Pitt to thank the City on his
behalf, and to express the satisfaction he felt at this signal proof
of the City's resolution to support the war.[162] The money raised
between August, 1759 and June 1760, amounted to a little over £7,000,
which was distributed in bounties to 1,235 men, enlisted for the term
of the war with France, at five guineas a head. The livery companies
subscribed to the fund: the Grocers' contributing 500 guineas, the
Goldsmiths' and the Fishmongers' respectively £500, the Clothworkers'
£300, and other companies lesser sums. The names of Pitt himself and of
Legge also appear as having each subscribed £100.[163]
[Sidenote: City address in conquest of Canada, 16 Oct., 1760.]
But of all the achievements abroad at this time none caused so much joy
as the capture of Quebec (Sept., 1759). The City once more embraced the
opportunity of presenting a congratulatory address to the king, at the
same time expressing deep regret at the loss of so gallant an officer
as Wolfe.[164] A year later it again offered its congratulations on
the complete conquest of Canada,[165] promising to assist in the
preservation of that valuable acquisition, and "to prosecute the
various and extensive services" of the just and necessary war. Pitt
was delighted with the address. "The address of the city of London,"
he wrote to Grenville, "will speak for itself, and I believe you will
think that it speaks loud enough to be heard at Paris.... How it was
heard at Kensington you need not be told, as the address is big with _a
million in every line_. Were it able to produce an advantageous peace
it would be most happy; next to that, such generous and warm assurances
of supporting the war cannot but give the highest satisfaction to
government."[166] Within ten days of listening to the address the king
died (25 Oct.).
[Sidenote: The City's admiration for Pitt.]
On the last day of the month the first stone was laid of Blackfriars
Bridge. The bridge was originally known as Pitt Bridge, and bore an
inscription in Latin and English testifying the City's affection
for the great statesman who had done so much to restore the ancient
reputation of the British empire,[167] whilst the approach to the
bridge was for some years known as Chatham Place.
FOOTNOTES:
[74] Repertory 131, fo. 285.
[75] _Id._, fos. 287, 289-291.
[76] Journal 57, fos. 154b-155b; Repertory 131, fos. 345-348. For the
next two years the Common Council became practically powerless, the
lord mayor for the time being summoning a court only when he thought
fit. In 1728 the council only met four times, viz., twice in February
and twice in May, after which no court was held until June, 1729. It
was then thought high time to re-enact the old Act of Common Council
_temp._ Richard II, when Brembre was mayor, compelling the mayor for
the time being to summon a Common Council once a quarter at least, and
a Bill for that purpose was brought in and passed.--_Id._, fos. 166b,
174b, 176, 177b, 182, 188b, 197b, 198, 201.
[77] Hervey, Memoirs, i, 88.
[78] Repertory 132, fos. 40-57.
[79] Journal 57, fo. 162. An account of the entertainment, its cost,
etc., is given by Maitland, i, 541-543.
[80] Repertory 132, fos. 10, 16.
[81] _Id._, fo. 9.
[82] Journal 57, fo. 162.
[83] Repertory 132, fo. 381.
[84] Another portrait of Queen Caroline, by the same artist, is
preserved in the National Portrait Gallery, having been transferred
thither from the British Museum in 1879.
[85] Memoirs, vol. i, c. vii.
[86] Journal 57, fos. 274-274b.
[87] Hervey, Memoirs, i, 176-179.
[88] Parl. Hist., viii, 1281-1307; Maitland, i, 558, 559.
[89] Journal 57, fos. 278b-280. On quitting office the lord mayor (John
Barber) received the special thanks of the Common Council for having
afforded them this opportunity of preserving the trade and liberty of
the citizens.--_Id._, fo. 298.
[90] Journal House of Commons, xxii, 108, 109, 112, 113.
[91] Hervey, Memoirs, i, 200-202.
[92] Repertory 138, fos. 243-246. See also the _Daily Courant_, cited
in the _Gentleman's Magazine_, iv, 208.
[93] Repertory 138, fo. 252.
[94] Repertory 139, fo. 2.
[95] Repertory 138, fo. 228; Journal 57, fos. 318-319; Repertory 140,
fo. 254; Journal 57, fos. 375-377.
[96] Memoirs, i, 317.
[97] Journal 57, fo. 319b; Repertory 138, fo. 237.
[98] Repertory 141, fos. 48, 60, 69, 75.
[99] By an article of this treaty England obtained the right of sending
yearly to Panama one ship of 600 tons, and no more, for the purpose
of trading with the Spanish colonists. This restriction was evaded by
putting a fresh cargo on board under cover of the night to take the
place of that which had been discharged the previous day.
[100] Hervey, Memoirs, ii, 484, 485.
[101] Journal 58, fo. 122; Journal House of Commons, xxiii, 248.
[102] Ecclesiasticus, c. xxxviii, v. 33.
[103] Horace Walpole, who always showed intense dislike to anyone
who had opposed his father, Sir Robert, describes Glover as "the
greatest coxcomb and the greatest oaf that ever met in blank verse or
prose."--Walpole to Mann, 3 March, 1742; Letters, i, 136.
[104] According to Maitland (i, 599) Champion was the senior alderman
below the chair. This was not the case. There were two senior to him,
but these, as well as Champion, were set aside by the livery, who
returned Sir John Salter and Sir Robert Godschall to the Court of
Aldermen. The Court selected the first named.--Common Hall Book, No. 7,
fo. 277.
[105] Maitland, i, 600.
[106] Repertory 143, fos. 469-472.
[107] Journal 58, fos. 167-168b.
[108] Walpole to Mann, 12 Nov., 1741.--Letters, i, 89.
[109] The poem is preserved among the Percy Reliques, ii, 397.
[110] Maitland, i, 608.
[111] Common Hall Book, No. 7, fo. 284b.
[112] Repertory 144, fos. 389, 400. Journal 58, fo. 182b.
[113] Maitland, i, 610.
[114] Common Hall Book, No. 7, fo. 285. Repertory 144, fo. 406.
[115] Journal 58, fos. 190-191.
[116] Maitland, i, 611.
[117] He had for some reason been sworn into office before Lord
Cornwallis, the Constable of the Tower, with the same ceremony as if
sworn before the Barons of the Exchequer; and it was expressly provided
that the city's rights and privileges were not to be prejudiced
thereby.--Repertory 145, fo. 151. Common Hall Book No. 7, fo. 288.
[118] Walpole to Mann, 22 Jan., 1742.--Letters, i, 117.
[119] Journal 58, fo. 222b.
[120] Journal House of Commons, xxiv, 49, 111.
[121] Journal House of Commons, xxiv, 231. Journal House of Lords,
xxvi, 138.
[122] Journal 58, fo. 225b. Maitland, i, 624.
[123] Journal 58, fos. 254-256. Maitland, i, 628.
[124] Extract from _Common Sense_ cited by Maitland (i, 630).
[125] Journal House of Commons, xxiv, 568. Journal 58, fo. 307b.
[126] Maitland, i, 633.
[127] Repertory 148, fo. 165.
[128] Walpole to Mann, 1 March.--Letters i, 292.
[129] The same to the same, 5 March.--_Id._ i, 294.
[130] Repertory 148, fo. 230.
[131] Journal 58, fo. 377b.
[132] Journal 58, fos. 378, 383; Repertory 149, fos. 398, 399.
[133] Francis, "History of Bank of England," i, 162.
[134] Hogarth's famous picture of the "March to Finchley" is preserved
in the Foundling Hospital.
[135] Journal 59, fo. 16b.
[136] "I had this morning a subscription book brought me for our
parish. Lord Granville had refused to subscribe. This is in the style
of his friend, Lord Bath, who has absented himself whenever any act of
authority was to be executed against the rebels."--Walpole to Mann, 22
Nov., 1745; Letters, i, 404-405.
[137] Walpole to Mann, 9 Dec., 1745; _Id._, i, 409.
[138] Repertory 150, fos. 40-47.
[139] Walpole to Mann, 9 Dec.; Letters, i, 410.
[140] Francis, "History of Bank of England," i, 161.
[141] Journal 59, fo. 15.
[142] Walpole to Mann, 1 Aug., 1746.--Letters, ii, 43. The Freedom of
the City was conferred on the 6 Aug. Journal 59, fo. 44.
[143] Journal 59, fo. 33.
[144] Walpole to Mann, 3 July, 1747. Letters, ii, 92.
[145] The peace was not proclaimed in the City until the 2 Feb., 1749.
Repertory 153, fo. 138.
[146] "I need not protest to you, I believe that I am serious, and that
an invasion before Christmas will certainly be attempted." Walpole to
Chute, 20 Oct., 1755. Letters, ii, 477.
[147] Repertory 160, fos. 3-5.
[148] Journal 61, fos. 23b-24, 25, 57; Journal House of Commons, xxvii,
523, 600. The City was in the habit of claiming that its militia should
be dealt with by a separate Bill to the rest of the kingdom.
[149] Walpole, "Memoirs of the last ten years of the reign of George
the Second," ii, 30, 31; Journal House of Commons, xxvii, 539.
[150] Journal 61, fos. 49b-52; Walpole, Memoirs, ii, 24-28.
[151] Journal 61, fo. 55b.
[152] Walpole, "Memoirs of George the Second," ii, 68.
[153] Journal 61, fos. 80b-81b.
[154] Journal 61, fos. 114-115b.
[155] Walpole, Memoirs, ii, 121-124.
[156] _Id._ ii, 70.
[157] Walpole to Mann, 3 March, 1757; Letters, iii, 64-66.
[158] Journal 61, fos. 156, 158-158b.
[159] Walpole, Memoirs, ii, 224; Walpole to Mann, 20 June, 1757;
Letters, iii, 83.
[160] Journal 61, fo. 186.
[161] Journal 62, fos. 32b-34.
[162] Journal 62, fo. 35.
[163] _Id._, fos. 113-116.
[164] Journal 62, fos. 37-38.
[165] _Id._, fos. 140, 158b.
[166] Pitt to Grenville, 18 Oct., 1760.--Grenville Correspondence, i,
355.
[167] Journal 62, fos. 161-161b. A lead plate, bearing the inscription
in English, is preserved in the Guildhall Museum.
CHAPTER XXXVII.
[Sidenote: The accession of George III, 1760.]
On the 26th October George III was proclaimed king in the city in
the presence of the mayor and aldermen.[168] The usual addresses
were presented by the Courts of Aldermen and Common Council, special
reference being made by the latter body to the "bloody and expensive
war" in which the country was then engaged. They expressed a hope
that the new king would continue to carry on the war as prudently and
successfully as it had been carried on hitherto, until an end should
be put to it by a firm and honourable peace. The king in reply echoed
this wish of the citizens, and promised to look after their "liberties,
commerce and happiness."[169]
[Sidenote: The fall of Pitt, 1761.]
George had not long been seated on the throne before he began to
display unmistakable signs of a determination to follow the precepts
instilled into his young mind by his mother, the Princess of Wales,
and to "be a king" in fact as well as in name. The six months that
elapsed before Parliament was dissolved[170] were marked with no great
changes, although indications were not wanting of what was likely to
take place. With the dissolution (20 March, 1761), however, important
changes were made in the ministry, and it became clear that the king
was resolved to rule by ministers of his own choosing. Bute, the
particular friend and adviser of the Princess of Wales, was appointed
one of the secretaries of state. His admission into the ministry could
not mean otherwise than sooner or later the dismissal of Pitt, for
on the great question of the day--the war with France--they were in
direct antagonism; and so it turned out. Pitt would gladly have made
peace[171] had not the honour of the country demanded a declaration of
war with Spain as well as with France owing to a secret clause in the
Family Compact which had come to his knowledge. The ministry refused to
declare war, and in the following October Pitt and his brother-in-law,
Earl Temple, resigned. In consideration of his great services a peerage
in her own right was conferred on Pitt's wife, whilst a pension of
£3,000 a year, for three lives, was bestowed on himself.
[Sidenote: His letter to Alderman Beckford, 15 Oct., 1761.]
Pitt's resignation, and more especially his acceptance of a pension,
gave rise to so many slanderous rumours and brought upon him so much
obloquy that he found it necessary to write to his friend, alderman
Beckford, explaining the exact position of affairs:[172] "A difference
of opinion with regard to measures to be taken against Spain, of
the highest importance to the honour of the crown, and to the most
essential national interests, and this founded on what Spain had
already done, not on what that court may further intend to do, was
the cause of my resigning the seals. Lord Temple and I submitted in
writing, and signed by us, our most humble sentiments to his majesty;
which being over-ruled by the united opinion of all the rest of the
king's servants I resigned the seals on Monday, the 5th of the month
(October), in order not to remain responsible for measures which I was
no longer allowed to guide." In the same dignified strain he tells his
friend of the honours bestowed on him by his sovereign, the acceptance
of which had set malicious tongues wagging. "Most gracious marks of his
majesty's approbation of my services followed my resignation. They are
unmerited and unsolicited; and I shall ever be proud to have received
them from the best of sovereigns."
[Sidenote: The City's vote of thanks to Pitt, 22 Oct., 1761.]
The letter was written on the 15th October (1761), and a few days later
(22 Oct.) the Common Council passed a vote of thanks to Pitt by a large
majority--109 votes to 15--acknowledging his many great and eminent
services, and testifying the City's gratitude not only for having
roused "the ancient spirit" of the nation from the pusillanimous state
into which it had fallen, but also for his having greatly extended
the sphere of trade and commerce. In conclusion the Court expressed
its sorrow at "the national loss of so able, so faithful a minister
at this critical conjuncture."[173] Pitt was highly gratified at this
recognition of his services, and in his acknowledgment of the vote paid
the following tribute to the City's loyalty and zeal:--"It will ever
be remembered to the glory of the city of London that through the whole
course of this arduous war that great seat of commerce has generously
set the illustrious example of steady zeal for the dignity of the crown
and of unshaken firmness and magnanimity."[174] This was no mean praise
coming from such a man.
[Sidenote: The king and queen at the Guildhall, 9 Nov., 1761.]
On lord mayor's day the king (following the usual custom of the
sovereign attending the first lord mayor's banquet after his accession)
came into the city and was entertained at the Guildhall, together with
the queen. Pitt also was a guest. He and Temple drove down together in
a carriage and pair, and were received with even greater acclamation
than the king himself. The entertainment was given in the most costly
style, the tables being loaded with "all the delicacies which the
season could furnish or expense procure."[175] It was, however,
unfortunately marred by a violent display of party feeling. Whilst Pitt
was received everywhere with cheers and clapping of hands, his rival,
Bute, was hooted and pelted, and would, it was thought, have come off
still worse had he not taken the precaution of surrounding his carriage
with a strong body of "butchers and bruisers." Beckford was believed
to have been at the bottom of the mischief. It was by his directions
that the Guildhall was packed with Pitt's supporters, and he led the
_claque_ on the arrival of the ex-minister.[176]
Pitt, on the other hand, was blamed for lending himself to such
an ostentatious display, which could not appear otherwise than
disrespectful to the king. Indeed he afterwards owned that he had done
wrong.
[Sidenote: A statue of the king for the Exchange, and pictures of king
and queen for the Guildhall.]
Ten days later (18 Nov.) the Common Council resolved to erect a statue
of the king in the Royal Exchange, and to have pictures painted of the
king and queen for the Guildhall.[177] Their pictures, by Ramsay, now
adorn the walls of the Guildhall Art Gallery.
[Sidenote: Instructions to City members, 22 Oct., 1761.]
The events which immediately followed Pitt's resignation enhanced
his reputation for political foresight, and Bute, who became prime
minister, found himself compelled, as indeed Pitt had predicted, to
declare war against Spain (Jan., 1762). Until this was done the City
was determined to leave him no peace. The Common Council, as was its
wont, drew up instructions for the city members as to the policy they
were to pursue in the coming parliament.[178] They were in the first
place to use their best endeavours to obtain the repeal of a recent
Act for the relief of insolvent debtors, and in the next to keep a
sharp eye on "the distribution of the national treasure," but above
all they were to oppose any attempt made by government to give up
recently acquired possessions, more especially in North America, and
they were to vote any supplies that might be necessary for carrying on
the war with vigour. The "present happy extinction of parties," the
nation's zeal and affection for their "native king," and the increase
of commerce were proofs (the Council declared) of the ability of the
country to carry on the war. Finally the city members were to vote
such supplies as were necessary to place the king above the menaces of
foreign interference, whilst supporting such measures as would conduce
to a safe and honourable peace.[179]
[Sidenote: John Wilkes, M.P. for Aylesbury, 1761.]
The new ministry soon found themselves in direct opposition not only
to the city members but to one who was destined ere long to prove
a veritable thorn in their side. John Wilkes, a man of shamelessly
immoral character, but of undeniable talent, had for the second time
been returned for Aylesbury. His expensive debaucheries had reduced
him to the direst possible straits, and he had taken to a political
career as a possible means of getting himself out of his pecuniary
difficulties. He had at the outset declared himself a staunch supporter
of Pitt, and to Pitt he had more than once looked for some crumb of
patronage to alleviate his distress. As soon as Parliament met Wilkes
seized the opportunity of the debate on the address to pass some
censures on the king's speech, or rather the speech of the king's
minister, although he affected to be ignorant as to which minister
he ought to attribute it. He declared that although the country was
nominally at peace with Spain it was in reality in a state of war,
and that the nation was being kept in the dark by the ministers, who
refused all information. Beckford joined in the debate, urging the
right of the country to "demand peace, sword in hand," and offering to
second Wilkes in moving for the Spanish papers.[180]
[Sidenote: Declaration of war with Spain, Jan., 1762.]
In January (1762) war was declared, and all the papers relative to the
rupture with Spain were laid before Parliament. No sooner was this
done than Wilkes wrote a pamphlet entitled "Observations on the Papers
relative to the Rupture with Spain," in which he vindicated the policy
of Pitt and exposed the folly of the existing ministry in having let
slip the best opportunity that ever offered of crushing Spain beyond
recovery. This was his first political essay, and at once stamped
Wilkes as a political as well as literary writer of no mean order.[181]
[Sidenote: City address on capture of Martinico, etc., 6 April, 1762.]
The success of the war exceeded expectation. One expedition reduced
Cuba, another Manila, whilst Spanish commerce was swept from the sea.
The surrender of the island of St. Lucia and the capture of Martinico
drew forth a congratulatory address to the king from the City, and
once more the citizens were assured of his majesty's desire to promote
their commercial interests.[182] The credit of the war was due to Pitt
for having foreseen the struggle, and for the preparations he had made
accordingly.
[Sidenote: The Peace of Paris, 10 Feb., 1763.]
All this time the thoughts of Bute were fixedly directed towards peace,
and on the 10th February, 1763, the Peace of Paris was signed and an
end put to the Seven Years' War.[183] The peace was distasteful to
the City as well as to the nation at large. The Court of Aldermen, it
is true, congratulated the king on having "happily concluded a very
just and expensive war by a necessary and advantageous peace,"[184]
but the Common Council said nothing. When the peace came to be debated
in the House of Commons it met with strong opposition from Pitt, who
spoke against it for more than three hours, although he was at the
time so ill that he had to be carried down to the House. By practising
a wholesale system of bribery the government managed, nevertheless,
to obtain so large a majority that the Princess of Wales exclaimed in
great exultation "Now my son is really king."
[Sidenote: Resignation of Bute, 8 April, 1763.]
The triumph of the king and his favourite were destined to be
short-lived. An important feature of the budget for the year was a
proposal to impose a tax upon cider. The proposal at once met with the
most determined opposition, not only from the cider counties but also
from the city of London, where anything in the nature of excise was
looked upon with horror. The Common Council raised a strong protest
against any such extension of excise duties at a time when there was
every prospect of a continuation of peace.[185] The Bill eventually
passed, but the unpopularity of Bute increased to such an extent that
he got sick of office and retired (8 April).
[Sidenote: Wilkes and the _North Briton_.]
A few days later (23 April) Parliament was prorogued, the king in his
speech alluding to the late peace as alike honourable to the crown and
beneficial to the people.[186] This gave occasion to Wilkes to make a
violent attack in the next number of his paper, called, in allusion to
Bute, the _North Briton_. Fourty-four numbers had appeared at the time
of Bute's resignation, and although each number had contained matter
more or less libellous no notice had been taken of them. No. 45 was
destined to become famous, for although it was not a whit worse than
any of its predecessors its prosecution was immediately ordered by
Grenville, who had succeeded to the head of affairs. On the last day
of April Wilkes was arrested on a general warrant (_i.e._, a warrant
in which no individual is specified by name) and lodged in the Tower,
whilst his house was ransacked and papers seized. These harsh and
illegal proceedings excited popular feeling and raised Wilkes to the
rank of a political martyr. Crowds flocked daily to visit him in his
confinement, among them being the leaders of the opposition, Temple and
Grafton. Early in May his arrest was pronounced illegal by Pratt, Chief
Justice of the Common Pleas, and he was discharged.
[Sidenote: No. 45 of _North Briton_. burnt at Royal Exchange, 3 Dec.,
1763.]
As soon as Parliament met, which was not until November (1763), Wilkes
complained of the breach of privilege in the seizure of himself and
his papers. He got no sympathy, however, in that quarter, although he
shortly afterwards succeeded in obtaining damages to the extent of
£1,000 against the under-secretary of state in a court of law.[187]
So far from sympathising with Wilkes the House ordered No. 45 of the
_North Briton_ to be burnt by the common hangman at the Royal Exchange
as a false, scandalous, and malicious libel.[188] Saturday, the 3rd
December, was the day appointed for carrying out the order, but
when the sheriffs attended for the purpose and the executioner began
to perform his duty a riot ensued, the magistrates were mobbed, and
the paper rescued from the flames. The Lords thereupon summoned the
sheriffs to give an account of their conduct. One of the sheriffs,
Thomas Harley, a brother of the Earl of Oxford, being a member of the
House of Commons, the permission of that House had to be asked before
his attendance could be enforced. It was left to Harley to do as he
liked; he might attend the Lords "if he thought fit."[189] Harley did
think fit, and on the Tuesday following (6 Dec.) attended with his
brother sheriff and Osmond Cooke, the city marshal. Being called upon
to give an account of what had taken place the previous Saturday,
Harley informed the House to the following effect, viz.: that the
sheriffs had met at the Guildhall at half-past twelve o'clock, and
thence proceeded to Cornhill to carry out the order of Parliament; they
there met the city marshal, who expressed a fear that the order could
not be carried out without military assistance; that, nevertheless, he
was determined, in spite of all opposition, to carry out the order if
possible; that he tried to get to the place in his chariot, but could
not, and so went on foot; that on arrival at the place where the fuel
was prepared he found the wood so wet that it could not take fire, "but
he read the order, and gave the paper with his own hands into the hands
of the executioner, who held it on the lighted torch, which he held in
his hand, till it was burnt, and that he saw it burnt pursuant to the
order." On his return--he went on to say--the window of his carriage
was broken, and he had to take refuge in the Mansion House,[190]
where he found the mayor (William Bridgen, who had recently succeeded
Beckford) doing business as usual.
[Sidenote: The mayor's conduct condemned.]
That the mayor should have shown such sympathy with the mob as not to
lend assistance to the sheriffs in putting down the disturbance roused
the anger of the Duke of Bedford, who broke forth against Bridgen and
the City. "Such behaviour," he said, "in any smaller town would have
forfeited their franchises. The Common Council had long been setting
themselves up against the Parliament, and last year had taken on them
to advise the king to refuse his assent to a law that had passed
through both Houses. He hoped their lordships would resent this insult
and disrespect to their orders."[191]
[Sidenote: Votes of thanks to the sheriffs.]
Harley's statement having been corroborated by the evidence of other
witnesses the Lords were content to ignore the mayor's conduct rather
than enter upon a serious quarrel with the City, and both Houses
concurred in passing votes of thanks to the sheriffs.[192] It was
otherwise with the Common Council. They upheld the conduct of the mayor
and condemned that of the sheriffs; a motion to pass a vote of thanks
to the latter being lost by the casting vote of the mayor, who gave as
his reason for so doing that he looked upon the motion as prejudging
Wilkes's case.[193]
[Sidenote: Lord Sandwich and Wilkes's _Essay on Woman_.]
In the meantime Lord Sandwich, a former friend of Wilkes and his
associate in the debauchery carried on by the so-called monks of
Medmenham, had produced before the House of Lords a copy of an obscene
parody on Pope's _Essay on Man_, which Wilkes had written for the
delectation of his intimate friends, but never intended to publish.
With much difficulty, and not without some treachery, Sandwich had
managed to obtain a copy of this infamous production, and he was
now base enough to produce it in evidence against his recent boon
companion, and to demand his punishment. The House condemned the poem
as a blasphemous libel, but the treachery and hypocrisy displayed by
Sandwich, whose own vices were notorious, raised a storm of public
indignation, and when the _Beggar's Opera_ was shortly afterwards
being performed at Covent Garden, and Macheath exclaimed, in the
words put into his mouth by Gay, "_That Jemmy Twitcher should peach
me, I own surprises me_," the audience were quick to apply the words
to the treacherous earl, who was ever afterwards known as _Jemmy
Twitcher_.[194]
[Sidenote: Wilkes expelled the House, 19 Jan., 1764.]
In January of the next year (1764) Wilkes ought to have appeared
before the House of Commons to answer for his conduct in relation to
publishing No. 45 of the _North Briton_. He had, however, fled to
France after receiving a wound in a duel, and was unable to travel, so
at least the medical certificates which he forwarded to the Speaker
alleged, and so we feel bound to believe, although the House of
Commons evidently entertained some doubts as to the serious nature of
his wound. The matter was debated in his absence, and in the end a
resolution was passed expelling him the House (19 Jan.).[195]
[Sidenote: Sentence of outlawry on Wilkes, 1 Nov., 1764.]
A month later (21 Feb.) Wilkes was found guilty in the King's Bench of
being the author of the offensive _North Briton_ and of the _Essay on
Woman_, and as he failed to appear sentence of outlawry was pronounced
against him in the following November.[196] The same day that judgment
was pronounced in the King's Bench the Common Council passed a vote
of thanks to the city members for their endeavours to obtain a
Parliamentary declaration as to the illegality of general warrants,
whilst it voted Pratt the Freedom of the City, and invited him to
sit for his portrait. The chief justice acknowledged the compliment
paid him by the City--"the most respectable body in the kingdom
after the two Houses of Parliament"[197] as he termed it,--and his
portrait, painted by Sir Joshua Reynolds, and formerly bearing a Latin
inscription ascribed to Dr. Johnson, now hangs in the Guildhall Art
Gallery. The vote of thanks to the city members well nigh cost the City
dear; for when application was shortly afterwards made to Parliament
for pecuniary assistance to help the City to discharge the debt on
Blackfriars Bridge--a debt which had been augmented by the destruction
by fire of a temporary bridge that had been erected--a member rose and
abused the Common Council for its late behaviour, declaring that the
City was entitled to no favour.[198]
[Sidenote: Chatham and the East India Company, 1766.]
Having quarrelled in turn with Grenville and Rockingham, the king
found himself compelled in July, 1766, to resort again to the "Great
Commoner" whom he created Earl of Chatham and made Prime Minister with
the office of Lord Privy Seal. His acceptance of a peerage produced
a general burst of indignation. According to Horace Walpole--who
never misses an opportunity of girding at the City in return for its
treatment of his father--"the city and the mob" (convertible terms in
his estimation), were angry, because in his new position, Pitt would
have less opportunity of "doing jobs" for them than when he was in the
House of Commons.[199] But however this may be, the state of the Prime
Minister's health had before the end of the year rendered him incapable
of "doing jobs" for the City or anybody else, and he left the control
of affairs in the hands of the Duke of Grafton and Charles Townshend.
Before withdrawing, however, he intimated his intention to the House
of bringing in a bill for regulating the East India Company's affairs.
Strange to say, the City failed to grasp the full portent of such a
bill, or to see any danger to themselves in this meditated attack upon
the chartered rights of others. Later on, when Fox introduced his
East India Bill, the City was wider awake. The motion for carrying
out Chatham's plan was not only made by a city alderman, viz.,
Beckford,[200] but the Common Council offered (June, 1767) Townshend,
a supporter of the motion, the Freedom of the City, in recognition
of "his well-tempered zeal in support of the undoubted legislative
authority of the king and parliament of Great Britain over all parts
of his majesty's dominions."[201]
[Sidenote: Wilkes and the Duke of of Grafton.]
In November of this year (1766), Wilkes, who had slipt over to England
in the hope of obtaining the king's pardon, wrote a very submissive
letter to Grafton asking for his mediation. The minister coldly
referred him to Chatham, a proceeding which so galled Wilkes that he
hurried back to the continent for fear of being laid by the heels, and
a year later published what purported to be a second letter to the
Duke of Grafton expressing the greatest disappointment at his Grace's
answer, and inveighing in the strongest possible terms against Chatham
as being an apostate to the cause of liberty.[202]
[Sidenote: Wilkes elected M.P. for Middlesex, 1768.]
When the general election came on in March, 1768, Wilkes again appeared
on the scene, and had the boldness, notwithstanding his outlawry, to
offer himself a candidate for the City. Every day he appeared on the
hustings, and displayed great activity in canvassing for votes, but it
was of no avail.
Not in the least dismayed, this irrepressible demagogue rallied his
forces and declared himself a candidate for the county of Middlesex.
There he was more successful. The election was very riotous; the
streets and highways leading to Brentford were in the hands of the
mob, who would allow no one to pass without a blue cockade in his hat
inscribed with the name of Wilkes, and the number 45. "It was not
safe to pass through Piccadilly; and every family was forced to put
out lights; the windows of unilluminated houses were demolished. The
coach glasses of such as did not huzza for _Wilkes_ and _liberty_
were broken, and many chariots and coaches were spoiled by the mob
scratching them with the favourite 45." This was the description of
the scene by an eye-witness. In the city matters were no better. The
windows of the Mansion House were smashed, Harley, the mayor, being
known to be no favourite of Wilkes. The trained bands were called out,
but proved insufficient to cope with the multitude, but at length peace
was restored with the aid of a military force from the Tower.[203]
The result of the poll was that Sir William Beauchamp Porter, who had
represented the county for over 20 years was turned out, and Wilkes
elected in his place.
[Sidenote: Committed to the King's Bench, 27 April, 1768.]
Determined to take the bull by the horns Wilkes now voluntarily
surrendered himself to the King's Bench and demanded to have the former
judgments against him reversed on technical grounds. It was decided,
however, that nothing could be done in this direction until he was in
legal custody by process of outlawry. A writ of _capias utlegatum_
was accordingly taken out, but for some time the sheriffs' officers
hesitated to execute it, so popular had he become, and the mayor had
to discharge some of them for neglect of duty. At length he was taken
into custody and committed to the King's Bench prison (27 April).
When he left the Court the mob stopt his coach on Westminster Bridge,
took out the horses, and themselves drew him as far as Cornhill. They
insisted that he should not go to prison, but were at last, persuaded
to disperse, and Wilkes quietly made his way to the King's Bench Prison
and there surrendered himself.[204]
[Sidenote: The king's letter to Lord North, 25 April, 1768.]
Throughout the whole business the prosecution had shown a great want of
resolution and decision, everyone trying to throw the _onus_ upon the
shoulders of someone else. The same indecision manifested itself in the
Cabinet as to whether or not Wilkes should be allowed to take his seat.
It was otherwise with the king, however. He had fully made up his mind
that Wilkes ought to be expelled the House. Two days before Wilkes's
committal he wrote to Lord North: "I think it highly proper to apprise
you that the expulsion of Mr. Wilkes appears to be very essential, and
must be effected; and that I make no doubt, when you lay this affair
with your usual precision before the meeting of the gentlemen of the
House of Commons this evening, it will meet with the required unanimity
and vigour.... If there is any man capable of forgetting his criminal
writings I think his speech in the Court of King's Bench on Wednesday
last reason enough for to go as far as possible to expel him; for he
declared 'Number 45' a paper that the author ought to _glory in_, and
the blasphemous poem a mere _ludicrous production_."[205]
[Sidenote: Riots at the King's Bench Prison.]
So long as Wilkes remained in the King's Bench, the neighbourhood was
a constant scene of rioting, and on Tuesday, the 10th May, when the
new Parliament met, the mob threatened to release him by force and
carry him triumphantly to Westminster. His outlawry had been argued
by his friend Glynn on the previous Saturday, but Lord Mansfield had
postponed giving judgment until the next term, and Wilkes had thus been
prevented taking his seat. Hence the display of feeling on the part
of the mob, which at length became so violent that the Riot Act was
read, the military fired, and a young man was shot. This roused their
indignation the more, and there was more bloodshed; but at last peace
was restored.[206]
[Sidenote: The Lords pass a vote of thanks to the mayor, 12 May, 1768.]
The conduct of Harley--the aristocratic lord mayor--during the
disturbance was so much approved that a motion was made in the House of
Lords two days after Parliament had assembled to petition the king to
confer some mark of royal favour upon him, but the motion was lost. The
House, however, instructed the chancellor to convey to Harley a vote
of thanks on their behalf for his efforts to preserve the peace of the
city.[207]
[Sidenote: Sentence pronounced against Wilkes, 18 June, 1768.]
On the 8th June Wilkes again appeared in Westminster Hall, when he
succeeded in getting his outlawry reversed. Ten days later, however, he
was condemned to pay a fine of £500 and to suffer imprisonment for ten
months for having written the offensive number of the _North Briton_,
and to pay another fine of similar amount and to suffer a further term
of twelve months imprisonment for his _Essay on Woman_. As if this
were not punishment enough he was ordered to find security for his
good behaviour for seven years, himself being bound in £1,000 and two
sureties in £500 each. Still Wilkes had something to thank his judges
for. They had spared him the pillory.[208]
[Sidenote: Wilkes elected alderman, Jan., 1769.]
Notwithstanding his imprisonment Wilkes was as irrepressible as ever,
and he nearly succeeded in setting both Houses by the ears over the
hard usage he had received. His colleague in the representation of
Middlesex having died, he nominated his friend and counsel, Glynn, for
the vacant seat, and got him in. Early in the following year (1769) he
contrived to get himself returned alderman of the Ward of Farringdon
Without, the rival candidate being forced to retire from the poll
for fear of raising disturbances in the ward--"even the constables
in the city were almost to a man devoted to Wilkes."[209] The Court
of Aldermen, however, refused to admit him, and ordered another
election.[210] This time he was returned unopposed. Still the Court
hesitated to admit him until they had been furnished with copies of the
proceedings against him in the King's Bench, and at length resolved to
take the opinion of counsel upon the following questions, viz.: (1)
whether the election of Wilkes was a valid election; (2) whether he was
entitled by law to be admitted by the court by virtue or in pursuance
of that election.[211]
[Sidenote: Opinions of counsel.]
The case as settled by the Court of Aldermen and submitted to counsel
is set out _in extenso_ in the minutes of the court held on the 25th
April,[212] when the opinions of the several counsel were read. The
attorney and solicitor general as well as Yorke, Glynn, and Leigh gave
it as their opinion, that the judgments pronounced against Wilkes did
not render him by law incapable of being elected an alderman of the
city, and that he might be admitted into office, but they expressed
a doubt whether the Court of Aldermen could be forced to admit him.
On the other hand, the Recorder and the Common Sergeant as well as
Fletcher Norton (who gave a separate opinion) declared Wilkes's
election, in their opinion, to be invalid. Had it been valid, the
Recorder and Common Sergeant believed there was no other objection to
his being admitted except the impossibility of his attending the Court
of Aldermen for the purpose; but Norton was of opinion that the crimes
of which Wilkes had been convicted were a sufficient justification
for the court to refuse to admit him, over and above his incapacity
at the present time to attend to the duties of the office.[213] Under
the circumstances it was deemed best to keep the aldermanry open until
Wilkes regained his liberty.
[Sidenote: Wilkes again expelled the House, 3 Feb., 1769.]
In the meanwhile Wilkes had appealed to both Houses against the
sentence passed on him. He demanded to be heard at the Bar of the
House of Lords in defence of his writings, but this was denied him,
and the writs of error which he had brought were argued by his
counsel, Glynn and Davenport. This was on the 16th January (1769). On
the 27th, the day that he was returned unopposed as Alderman of the
ward of Farringdon Without, he was brought before the Commons, but
nothing urged either by himself or his counsel could move them in his
favour and on the 3rd February, they for the second time voted his
expulsion.[214]
[Sidenote: Elected the second time for Middlesex, 16 Feb., 1769.]
No sooner had the House passed this resolution than Wilkes announced
his intention of again standing for Middlesex, and on the 16th
February, he was again returned without any opposition. On this
occasion he was proposed by two members of parliament who were shortly
to become his brother aldermen, viz., Townshend and Sawbridge. Again
the House declared his election void, and himself to be incapable of
sitting in the existing parliament.[215]
[Sidenote: Returned the third time, 16 March. 1769.]
Not a whit abashed Wilkes again offered himself as a candidate, his
only opponent being Charles Dingley. Upon the day of the election
(16 March), Dingley, who had on a previous occasion come to blows
with Reynolds, Wilkes's election agent, and had come off second best,
received such rough handling that he was obliged to retire and leave
the field to Wilkes, who was returned unopposed. The election was for
the third time declared void, and a fresh writ issued.[216]
[Sidenote: Returned the fourth time, 12 April, 1769]
The struggle began to be very serious. Whilst loyal addresses poured in
from various parts of the country, the City held aloof, and the conduct
of Samuel Turner, the lord mayor, who was a zealous Wilkite received
a distinct mark of approval from the Common Council.[217] In the
meantime a number of rich and influential men--among whom were Horne
the vicar of Brentford, who loved to mix himself up in political and
municipal matters, Townshend, Sawbridge, Oliver and others--had formed
themselves into a society for the purpose of helping Wilkes to pay his
fines and other liabilities and of supporting him and his cause. The
society came to be known as the Supporters of the Bill of Rights.[218]
The freeholders of Middlesex met at Mile End, and unanimously resolved
in spite of all opposition to stand by the representative of their
choice; whilst a procession of merchants and tradesmen on their way to
St. James's with a loyal address was roughly treated by the mob and
broken up.[219] It required a man of some courage to oppose Wilkes
at the forthcoming election, and he was found in Colonel Luttrell,
an Irishman, whose father was a devoted adherent of Lord Bute. So
desperate, however, did Luttrell's case appear that his life was
specially insured for the occasion.[220] Two other candidates stood,
but the election really lay between Wilkes and Luttrell, the first
being nominated by Townshend, and the latter by Stephen Fox, Lord
Holland's son. The polling took place on the 12th April, when Wilkes
was for the fourth time returned by an overwhelming majority. A huge
crowd immediately made its way to the King's Bench Prison with colours
flying and bands playing, to congratulate him upon his success. When
the result of the election was reported to the House, they not only
rejected Wilkes, but declared Luttrell to be elected, and ordered the
return to be amended accordingly.[221]
[Sidenote: Remonstrance of the livery, 24 June, 1769.]
Such a proceeding on the part of parliament raised a grave
constitutional question, and caused great commotion in the city. If it
lay with parliament of its own mere motion, and without the authority
of an Act, to deprive electors of their right of choosing their own
representatives, the livery of London would suffer with the rest of the
kingdom. The matter was warmly taken up by _Junius_, who strenuously
condemned this usurpation by parliament.[222] The mayor was asked to
summon a Common Hall "for the purpose of taking the sense of the livery
of London on the measures proper to be pursued by them in the present
alarming situation of public affairs." Turner declined to act in the
matter on his own responsibility, and referred the petition to the
Common Council who told him not to accede to the request (5 May).[223]
Thus thrown on their own resources the livery resolved at their
ordinary meeting on the following Midsummer Day when Townshend and
Sawbridge were chosen sheriffs, to petition the king himself against
the arbitrary action of the government. A petition to this effect had
been drawn up by some of the livery previous to the meeting of the
Common Hall. It purported to come from "the lord mayor, commonalty
and livery of the city of London," but upon the lord mayor objecting
to this, the title was changed to "the humble petition of the livery
of the city of London in Common Hall assembled." The petitioners did
not mince words. The king's ministers were charged with peculation,
and with illegally issuing general warrants. They had violently seized
persons and papers, and after defeating and insulting the law on
various occasions, had wrested from the people, the last sacred right
they had left, viz., "the right of election, by the unprecedented
seating a candidate notoriously set up and chosen by themselves."
Deprived of all hope of parliamentary redress, the petitioners turned
to the king, reminding him that it was for the purpose of redress
alone, and for such occasions as the present, that so great and
extensive powers had been entrusted to the crown.[224]
[Sidenote: Lord Holland's letter to the mayor, 9 July, 1769.]
Among the ministers whom the livery charged with peculation was Lord
Holland, to whom they had made special reference (although not actually
mentioning his name) as "a public defaulter of unaccounted millions."
Stung to the quick at this imputation, Lord Holland wrote a letter to
the lord mayor (9 July), complaining of the aspersion and referring him
for the falsehood of the accusation to Beckford, whom he had satisfied
(he said) as to the injustice of it.[225] Turner contented himself
with a curt reply that he was not answerable for the contents of the
petition. There was no love lost between Lord Holland and the citizens.
According to the words put into his mouth by Gray, the poet, he would
gladly have seen it reduced by fire and sword:--
"Purg'd by the sword, and purified by fire,
Then had we seen proud London's hated walls:
Owls would have hooted in St. Peter's choir,
And foxes stunk and litter'd in St. Paul's."
[Sidenote: Beckford elected mayor for the second time, 10 Oct., 1769.]
The address had been ordered to be presented by the lord mayor, the
sheriffs, and three of the city's members, but months passed by and
no reply was vouchsafed. The livery got impatient. Their attack on
the ministry was strengthened by the re-appearance of Chatham,[226]
after a prolonged illness, whilst their own position received material
support by Beckford consenting for the second time to occupy the
mayoralty chair. "I cannot resist the importunate request of my
fellow citizens"--he wrote from his house in Soho Square, the 12th
October,[227]--"their desires have overcome resolutions that I once
thought were fixed and determined. The feeble efforts of a worn out
man to serve them can never answer their sanguine expectations. I will
do my best, and will sacrifice ease and retirement, the chief comfort
of old age, to their wishes. I _do_ accept the office of lord mayor.
I shall hope for the assistance of your Lordship and my brethren the
Court of Aldermen. The advantage and good effects of their advice were
experienced on many occasions in my late mayoralty." Their position
would have been still more strengthened, had similar petitions been
sent in from other parts of the country, but London's example was not
in this case followed.[228]
[Sidenote: Resolutions of the livery, 10 Oct., 1769.]
On the day that the result of the poll was declared (10 Oct.) in favour
of Beckford as mayor for the ensuing year the livery passed several
resolutions. The first was that the outgoing lord mayor (Turner) should
be asked if he had received any answer to the recent petition. Secondly
that he should be called upon to produce Lord Holland's letter. They
in the next place publicly named Lord Holland as the paymaster to
whom they had referred in their petition as "a public defaulter of
unaccounted millions," and insisted upon a parliamentary enquiry into
his accounts. Should he be found such a defaulter as they alleged, it
was the duty of the city's representatives in Parliament to move for
his impeachment. These resolutions they ordered to be placed on record,
as part of the proceedings in relation to the election of a mayor, and
a copy of them was to be sent to each of the city's members.[229]
[Sidenote: Another address of the livery, 6 March, 1770.]
Here matters were allowed to rest until the following March (1770),
when the livery sought the assistance of the Common Council to get
Beckford to summon a Common Hall for the purpose of taking further
measures to secure their rights and privileges.[230] Why they did
not make a direct application to the mayor himself, as was the usual
practice, is not clear. The Court, after some hesitation, acceded
to their request, and a Common Hall was summoned accordingly.
Another address, remonstrance and petition was thereupon drawn
up (6 March).[231] "A bolder declaration, both against king and
Parliament"--Walpole writes to his friend[232]--was never seen. The
majority of the Court of Aldermen would have formally disavowed it,
but Beckford, who presided, refused to allow a motion to that effect
to be moved until the City's Records had been searched with the view
of determining the several powers of the Courts of Aldermen and Common
Council, and of the livery in Common Hall assembled.[233] After
referring to their former petition remaining still unanswered, the
petitioners proceeded to inveigh against Parliament and the ministry
for having deprived the people of their just rights. The majority in
the House (they said) had "done a deed more ruinous in its consequences
than the levying of ship-money by Charles the First or the dispensing
power assumed by James the Second." They told the king to his face that
the House of Commons as then constituted did not only fail to represent
the people, but it was "corruptly subservient" to his own ministers,
and they called upon his majesty on that account to dissolve the
Parliament and dismiss those ministers who had advised him badly.
[Sidenote: The remonstrance approved by _Junius_.]
This language was bold, but it conveyed no more than the truth. Its
truthfulness, no less than its boldness, attracted _Junius_, who thus
wrote approvingly of the attitude taken up by London: "The city of
London hath given an example which, I doubt not, will be followed by
the whole kingdom. The noble spirit of the metropolis is the life-blood
of the state, collected at the heart; from that point it circulates,
with health and vigour, through every artery of the constitution....
The city of London have expressed their sentiments with freedom and
firmness; they have spoken truth boldly; and in whatever light their
remonstrance may be represented by courtiers, I defy the most subtle
lawyer in this country to point out a single instance in which they
have exceeded the truth. Even that assertion, which we are told is most
offensive to Parliament, in the theory of the English constitution is
strictly true. If any part of the representative body be not chosen by
the people that part vitiates the whole."[234] Adopting the words of
the remonstrance, he declared that the principle on which the Middlesex
election had been determined was more pernicious in its effects than
either the levying of ship-money by Charles I or the suspending power
claimed by his son.
[Sidenote: Condemned by Goldsmiths, Weavers and Grocers.]
On the other hand several of the livery companies themselves, viz.: the
Goldsmiths, the Weavers, and the Grocers, had declared the remonstrance
to be indecent and disrespectful, and forbade the members of their
respective liveries to attend any Common Hall in future (except
for purposes of election) without express leave of their Courts of
Assistants. The authority of the mayor and aldermen over the livery
companies was thus openly defied. On learning of these resolutions
Beckford summoned a Common Hall to meet on the 12th April to consider
what course to take, but his precept was ignored by the recalcitrant
companies. Such disobedience was hitherto unheard of, and the matter
was reported to the livery committee, appointed the 28th September,
1769.[235] This committee was afterwards united with a committee of the
Common Council, and after due consideration the question of the rights
of the livery was submitted to counsel.[236] The result will be seen in
the next chapter.
[Sidenote: The king hesitates to receive the address.]
Unlike the former address, this was invested with a corporate character
by being ordered to be presented by the lord mayor, the city members,
the Court of Aldermen, the sheriffs and the Common Council. In due
course the sheriffs attended (6 March), to learn when the king would
be pleased to receive the address. They were told they had come at
an improper time, and must deliver their message on a court day. By
treating them in this manner the king hoped to hear no more of the
matter; it was--he told Lord Weymouth--the most likely means of putting
an end to "this stuff." He desired, however, that the opinion of Lord
Mansfield should be taken as to whether the sheriffs could claim to
be received "as on occasions that they addressed the crown."[237]
On the following day the sheriffs again presented themselves. After
the levée was over they were admitted to the closet, but not before
some questions had been asked as to the nature of the address to
be presented. Sheriff Townshend having made his formal request the
king replied that as the case was "entirely new" he would take time
to consider it, and would send an answer by one of his principal
secretaries of state. The question to be decided was whether the
address ought to be treated as coming from the citizens of London in
their corporate capacity or as only proceeding from a comparatively
small body of them, viz., the livery. If the former, it would, in
accordance with custom, be received by the king on the throne; if the
latter, the king would receive it at a levée or in any other manner he
might think fit. In order, therefore, to discover the precise nature
of the address the king directed Lord Weymouth to make the necessary
enquiries. Lord Weymouth accordingly wrote (8 March) to the sheriffs
asking in what manner the address was authenticated and what was the
nature of the assembly by which it had been adopted as it appeared to
be "entirely new."[238] Instead of answering the letter the sheriffs
the next day (9 March) again put in an appearance at St. James's,
accompanied by the Remembrancer. Being asked whether they came "with
a fresh message or with a message?" they answered "with a message."
The secretaries of state then appeared, and Lord Weymouth asked the
sheriffs if they had received his letter, and whether they came in
consequence of it or on any fresh business? They replied that they had
received his letter and had come in consequence of it. The following
dialogue is recorded as having then taken place:--
_Lord Weymouth_: "Would it not be more proper to send an answer in
writing through me?"
_The Sheriffs_: "We act ministerially. As sheriffs of London we have a
right to an audience, and cannot communicate to any other person than
the king the subject of our message."
_Lord Weymouth_: "I do not dispute your right to an audience, but
would it not be better and more accurate to give your message to me in
writing?"
_The Sheriffs_: "We know the value and consequence of the citizen's
right to apply immediately to the king, and not to a third person,
and we do not mean that any of their rights and privileges should be
betrayed by our means."
[Sidenote: Sheriff Townshend's speech to the king, 9 March, 1770.]
At last the king consented to see them, and Sheriff Townshend then
addressed his majesty in the following terms:--
"When we had last the honour to appear before your majesty, your
majesty was graciously pleased to promise an answer by one of your
majesty's principal secretaries of state; but we had yesterday
questions proposed to us by Lord Weymouth. In answer to which we
beg leave humbly to inform your majesty that the application we
make to your majesty we make as sheriffs of the city of London by
the direction of the livery in Common Hall legally assembled. The
address, remonstrance and petition to be presented to your majesty, by
their chief magistrate, is the act of the citizens of London in their
greatest court, and is ordered by them to be properly authenticated as
their act."[239]
[Sidenote: The king consults Lord North.]
To this the king vouchsafed no further reply than that he would take
time to consider the matter. The next day (10 March) he wrote to
Lord North: "The more I reflect on the present remonstrance from the
livery the more I am desirous it should receive an answer, otherwise
this bone of contention will never end; I therefore am thoroughly of
opinion that, as the sheriffs (though falsely) have insinuated that
it is properly authenticated, that the least inconvenience will be
receiving them on the throne."[240] All that the minister could do
to help the king out of his difficulty was to instance cases where
only "a certain number" were allowed to attend, but the king was not
satisfied, and expressed himself as being still of opinion that under
the circumstances he had better receive the address on the throne.[241]
[Sidenote: The king's reply, 14 March, 1770.]
Accordingly it was decided to receive it in that manner on Wednesday,
the 14th.[242] Having listened with composure, distasteful as the
address was, the king read an answer in which, after declaring his
readiness ever to listen to the complaints of his subjects, he
expressed concern at finding that any of them had been so misled
as to offer an address at once disrespectful to himself, injurious
to Parliament and irreconcilable with the principles of the
constitution.[243]
[Sidenote: Parliament and the remonstrance, 15-19 March, 1770.]
The next day (15 March) the House of Commons resolved to pray the king
that he would be pleased to lay the remonstrance and his answer before
the House. The king at once gave his consent, but the ministry betrayed
the greatest timidity. "The fright at court continues"--wrote Calcraft
to Chatham (17 March)--"and they are not only puzzled, but undetermined
what to do with the remonstrance, now it is got to parliament. The only
resolution taken is to be most temperate and avoid either expulsion or
commitment seeing the lord mayor and sheriffs court it." Again "the
ministers dread a resolution of the Common Hall against the advisers of
the strong words in his majesty's answer."[244] After long debate the
House contented themselves (19 March) with passing a resolution to the
effect that the document was an "unwarrantable and dangerous petition"
as well as a gross abuse of the right of petitioning the king.[245]
[Sidenote: Entertainment at Mansion House, 22 March, 1770.]
In the meantime Beckford, who with the two sheriffs, Townshend and
Sawbridge, and with Alderman Trecothick avowed their share in the
remonstrance, had issued invitations to a banquet at the Mansion House
to "a very numerous though a select number of persons" of both houses
of parliament. He had previously taken the precaution of sounding
Lord Rockingham, and in doing so had used the good offices of his
friend Lord Chatham. The entertainment would afford a good opportunity
(thought the mayor), for obtaining some guarantee of the future policy
of the Opposition whenever they should come into power, and he and
Horne had devised a plan for getting the guests to sign a formal
document committing them definitely to certain reforms. Such a document
Horne afterwards declared himself to have actually drawn up "in terms
so cautious and precise as to leave no room for future quibble and
evasion."[246] This device becoming known, Chatham wrote to say that
in the opinion of himself, Lord Rockingham and Lord Temple, "no new
matters should be opened or agitated at or after the convivium"[247]
which was fixed for Thursday, the 22nd March,--the eve of the day on
which both Houses were to present an address to the king touching the
remonstrance. The entertainment was one of the most magnificent ever
given by a private individual. The members were escorted to the city by
the livery of London on horseback through the crowded streets. Those
who failed to illuminate their houses ran the risk of having their
windows broken.[248] Chatham was prevented from attending by an attack
of his old enemy the gout.[249] Magnificent as was the entertainment
from a social point of view, from a political it was money thrown away.
[Sidenote: Wilkes regains his liberty, 17 April, 1770.]
Wilkes's term of imprisonment was now fast drawing to a close. His
release was looked forward to by his friends with great joy, by his
enemies with no little fear and concern. In November last (1769),
his spirits and the spirits of his party had been raised by a jury
awarding him no less a sum than £4,000 by way of damages in his long
protracted action against Lord Halifax,[250] by whose orders his papers
had been seized. Nevertheless his second fine of £500 remained yet
unpaid.[251] On the 17th April (1770) Wilkes regained his liberty, and
in order to prevent disturbance slipped away into the country, to the
house of his friend Reynolds, for a few days. On his return he was
immediately sworn in as alderman of the ward of Farringdon Without (24
April).[252] At the outset of his new career Wilkes behaved with the
greatest propriety. "I don't know whether Wilkes is subdued by his
imprisonment"--wrote Walpole to his friend--"or waits for the rising of
parliament, to take the field; or whether his dignity of alderman has
dulled him into prudence and the love of feasting; but hitherto he has
done nothing but go to city-banquets and sermons, and sit at Guildhall
as a sober magistrate."[253]
[Sidenote: A remonstrance by Common Council, 14 May, 1770.]
On the 14th May, he was nominated a member of the committee appointed
by the Common Council to draw up another humble address, remonstrance
and petition to the king, "touching the violated right of election,
and the applications of the livery of London, and his majesty's answer
thereupon." An address was accordingly drawn up--"much less hot than
the former"--calling upon the king to dissolve parliament and dismiss
his ministers.[254] It was adopted by the Common Council by a large
majority (viz. 98 votes to 46). At first the king was disposed not to
receive it at all. "I suppose this is another remonstrance" he wrote to
North, after telling the sheriffs to call again "if so I think it ought
not to have any answer."[255] After seeing a draft of it, however, he
changed his mind. He acknowledged that it was less offensive than he
had been given to understand, but he thought "the whole performance"
required no more than "a short dry answer."[256]
[Sidenote: The king's reply, 23 May, 1770.]
In the ordinary course the presentation would have been made by the
Recorder on behalf of the citizens. Eyre, however, refused to attend on
this occasion,[257] so that the address may possibly have been read by
the lord mayor himself. The king's reply was even briefer than usual.
He would (he said) have been wanting to the public and to himself had
he not expressed dissatisfaction at the former address. He declared his
sentiments to be unchanged, and he declined to use his prerogative in a
manner which might be dangerous to the constitution of the kingdom.[258]
[Sidenote: Beckford's memorable speech.]
It was now that Beckford made that memorable speech with which his
name will ever be associated (although claimed by Horne Tooke as
his composition), and which was afterwards inscribed, by order of
the Common Council, upon the pediment of his statue erected in the
Guildhall.[259] Deeming the king's answer unsatisfactory the mayor, to
the surprise of all present, and contrary to all form and precedent,
again stept forward, and, addressing the king, besought his majesty to
allow him--the mayor of the king's loyal city of London--to express
on behalf of his fellow citizens their sorrow at having incurred his
majesty's displeasure. He assured the king that there were no subjects
"more faithful, more dutiful, or more affectionate" than the citizens,
and he denounced the man who should attempt to alienate the king's
affection from his subjects in general, and from the city of London
in particular, as an enemy to the king and constitution. Even Walpole
allowed that the speech was "wondrous loyal and respectful," if a
trifle disconcerting. The king was so much taken by surprise that he
hesitated whether to stay or withdraw. He decided on the former, and
remained until Beckford had finished, when he immediately got up and
retired without a word. Chatham was immensely pleased at the spirit
displayed by Beckford on this occasion, and wrote to tell him so:
"The _spirit of Old England_ spoke that never-to-be-forgotten day."
His letter concludes with the following enthusiastic passage: "Adieu,
then for the present (to call you by the most honourable of titles)
_true Lord Mayor of London_; that is, _first_ magistrate of the
_first_ city of the world! I mean to tell you only a plain truth when
I say your lordship's mayoralty will be revered till the constitution
is destroyed and forgotten."[260] Beckford, in his reply, justified
his conduct. "What I spoke in the king's presence was uttered in
the language of truth, and with that humility and submission which
become a subject speaking to his lawful king: at least I endeavoured
to behave properly and decently; but I am inclined to believe that I
was mistaken, for the language of the court is that my deportment was
impudent, insolent and unprecedented. God forgive them all!"[261]
[Sidenote: Vote of thanks to Beckford for his speech, 25 May.]
When the matter came to be reported to the Common Council (25 May) two
aldermen, viz., Rossiter and Harley, objected to Beckford having made
a speech to the king without instructions from the Common Council,
whilst Wilkes and the two sheriffs, Townshend and Sawbridge, upheld
his conduct. The Court then desired Beckford to state what he had said
to his majesty. Thereupon the speech was produced and read, and this
being done a formal vote of thanks was passed to the mayor for having
presented the remonstrance, and "for his vindicating at the foot of the
throne the loyalty and affection of the citizens of London."[262]
[Sidenote: Vote of thanks to Chatham, 14 May, 1770.]
The same motive which prompted Beckford's action in March last on the
occasion of his magnificent entertainment to the Opposition had in the
meanwhile incited the Common Council to a similar indiscretion. On the
14th May--the day that the last remonstrance was prepared--the Court
passed a vote of thanks to Chatham for the zeal he had shown in support
of the rights of election and petition, as well as for his "declaration
that his endeavours shall hereafter be used that Parliaments may be
restored to their original purity by shortening their duration and
introducing a more full and equal representation."[263] Here the
wish was distinctly father to the thought. Chatham had made no such
declaration. The vote was nothing more or less than an attempt to "fix"
Chatham to a definite policy of reform just as Beckford had previously
tried to fix Rockingham and his party. Chatham was not to be thus
caught, and in his acknowledgment of the vote he declared that as to
any assurance he was supposed to have given that he was in favour of
shorter Parliaments there had been some misapprehension. With all
deference to the sentiments of the City he felt bound to say that he
could not recommend triennial Parliaments as a remedy for venality
in elections. He would not, however, oppose any measure for their
introduction if the country showed itself unmistakably in favour of
them.[264]
[Sidenote: The last days of Beckford.]
On the 30th May, Beckford again appeared at court at the head of a
deputation from the city to present a formal address of congratulation
from the Common Council on the birth of another princess. The address
had been passed unanimously by the Council, although Wilkes declared it
was no time for such compliments. The deputation met with some little
opposition on its way to St. James's, the gates at Temple Bar being
suddenly closed by the mob before the whole of the civic party had
passed through, and they were not admitted into the presence chamber,
until the lord mayor had promised not to repeat his former offence of
making a speech.[265] The next day Beckford laid the first stone of
the new gaol of Newgate.[266] This was his last appearance in public.
He had recently caught a chill whilst at Fonthill, and this had been
aggravated by his hasty return to town in order to attend to his
mayoralty duties, and the excitement consequent thereto. For some years
past he had not enjoyed good health, and age began to tell upon him.
Even his first mayoralty in 1762-3, he entered upon with reluctance,
and the day before his election had gone so far as to petition the
Court of Aldermen to be discharged from his aldermanry on the score
of ill-health.[267] He was, as we have seen, still more reluctant to
undertake a second year of office, and only consented to do so after
pressing solicitation. On the 12th June, he was so ill from rheumatic
fever that he was unable to attend a Court of Aldermen, and on the 21st
he died.[268]
FOOTNOTES:
[168] Repertory 164, fos. 367-369.
[169] Repertory 164, fos. 370, 379; Journal 62, fos. 159, 162. This
address of the Common Council, as well as similar addresses from
1760 downwards, will be found in a volume printed by order of the
Corporation in 1865.
[170] Parliament was dissolved 20 March (1761), and a new Parliament
summoned for May. Of the old city members three out of the four were
again returned: but the place of Barnard, now getting advanced in
years, was taken by Thomas Harley, a brother of the Earl of Oxford.
[171] When, speaking on the address, Alderman Beckford proposed to push
the war with more vigour than formerly, Pitt is recorded as having
fired up and to have asked his friend what new piece of extravagance he
wished for?--Walpole, "Memoirs of the reign of George III," i, 24.
[172] Chatham Correspondence, ii, 158.
[173] Journal 62, fos. 298, 299.
[174] Journal 62, fo. 302.
[175] A schedule of the different "services" at the various tables and
particulars of the cost (£6,898 5_s._ 4_d._) of the entertainment are
entered on record.--Journal 62, fos. 337-340b.
[176] Walpole, "Memoirs of reign of George III," i. 89, 90; Walpole to
Mann.--Letters, iii, 459.
[177] Journal 62, fo. 303.
[178] _Id._, fos. 298b-299.
[179] Horace Walpole was indignant at the Common Council presuming
to speak on behalf of the City of London, and to "usurp the right of
making peace and war." At the same time he could not shut his eyes to
the fact that the City held the purse-strings, and that without its
assistance supplies would run short.--Walpole to Conway, 26 Oct., 1761.
The same to Horace Mann, 14 Nov.--Letters, iii, 457, 459.
[180] Walpole, Memoirs, i, 91-93.
[181] Almon, "Correspondence of Wilkes," i, 65, 66.
[182] Journal 62, fos. 330b, 334b.
[183] Repertory 167, fo. 184.
[184] Repertory 167, fos. 280, 286, 291.
[185] Journal 62, fos. 72-73b, 75-76, 87b-88b, 131-131b, 134-134b
[186] Journal House of Commons, xxix, 666.
[187] Walpole, Memoirs, i, 332.
[188] Journal House of Commons, xxix, 668, 685.
[189] Journal House of Commons, xxix, 690.
[190] Journal House of Lords, xxx, 437.
[191] Walpole, Memoirs, i, 331; see also Grenville Papers, ii, 235.
[192] Journal House of Lords, xxx, 438; Journal House of Commons, xxix,
698.
[193] Journal 63, fo. 146b; Grenville Papers, ii, 237.
[194] Walpole, Memoirs, i, 309-314.
[195] Journal House of Commons, xxix, 723.
[196] Walpole, Memoirs, i, 385, ii, 35.
[197] Journal 63, fos. 166-167, 171.
[198] Walpole, Memoirs, i, 391.
[199] Walpole to Mann, 1 Aug., 1766. Letters, v, 8. "The city of
London"--he writes elsewhere--"had intended to celebrate Mr. Pitt's
return to employment, and lamps for an illumination had been placed
round the Monument. But no sooner did they hear of his new dignity,
than the festival was counter-ordered." Memoirs, ii, 359.
[200] Walpole. Memoirs, ii, 394.
[201] Journal 64, fos. 142b, 204. Before the freedom could be
conferred, Townshend had died (4 Sept.).
[202] The letter is dated from Paris, 12 Dec., 1767. Almon's Life of
Wilkes, iii, 184.
[203] Walpole. Memoirs, iii, 186-188. Walpole to Mann, 31 March, 1768.
Letters, v, 91-93. The City offered a reward of £50 for the capture and
conviction of the ringleaders. Journal 64, fos. 247b, 248.
[204] Walpole to Mann, 23 April, 1768.--Letters, v, 98; Walpole,
Memoirs, iii, 199.
[205] The king to Lord North, 25 April, 1768.--"Correspondence of
George III with Lord North" (W. Bodham Donne), i, 2.
[206] Walpole to Mann, 6 June, 1768.--Letters, v, 101; Walpole,
Memoirs, iii, 204-206.
[207] Journal House of Lords, xxxii, 152.
[208] Walpole to Mann, 22 June, 1768.--Letters, v, 110; Walpole,
Memoirs, iii, 228, 229.
[209] Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 297.
[210] Repertory 173, fos. 91-94, 114, 115.
[211] Repertory 173, fos. 140-142, 153-155.
[212] Repertory 173, fos. 264-314.
[213] _Id._, fos. 315-318.
[214] Journal House of Commons, xxxii, 178. Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 292,
298, 313-319, 324-325, 327.
[215] Journal House of Commons, xxxii, 228, 229.
[216] Annual Register, xii, 80, 82
[217] Journal 64, fo. 341b. Several wards met and drew up instructions
to the Common Council not to allow of an address to the king, "as
calculated to countenance the unconstitutional measures of the present
administration, rather than to express duty and affection to the best
of kings."--Annual Register, xii, 88.
[218] Annual Register, xii, 75. Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 339.
[219] Annual Register, xii, 82, 84.
[220] Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 353.
[221] Journal House of Commons, xxxii, 386, 387.
[222] "The arbitrary appointment of Mr. Luttrell"--he wrote to the Duke
of Grafton (8 July)--"invades the foundation of the laws themselves, as
it manifestly transfers the right of legislation from those whom the
people have chosen to those whom they have rejected. With a succession
of such appointments, we may soon see a House of Commons collected in
the choice of which the other towns and counties of England will have
as little share as the devoted county of Middlesex."--Letters of Junius
(Woodfall), i, 509.
[223] Journal 64, fo. 344b.
[224] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 146b-147b. The petition is printed
in a small volume of "city petitions, addresses and remonstrances,"
(1778), preserved in the Guildhall Library.
[225] Beckford denied this--Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 380.
[226] "That the moment of his [Chatham's] appearance, _i.e._, so
immediately after the petition of the livery of London set on foot and
presented by his friend Alderman Beckford, has a hostile look, cannot
be doubted."--Walpole to Mann, 19 July, 1769. Letters, v, 177.
[227] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 148b.
[228] "London, for the first time in its life, has not dictated to
England. Essex and Hertfordshire have refused to petition; Wiltshire
and Worcester say they will petition, and Yorkshire probably
will."--Walpole to Mann, 19 July, 1769. Letters, v, 177.
[229] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 149.
[230] Journal 65, fos. 62b-63b.
[231] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 152-153.
[232] Walpole to Mann, 15 March, 1770.--Letters, v, 229.
[233] Repertory 174, fos. 155, 156.
[234] Junius to the printer of the _Public Advertiser_, 19 March,
1770.--Letters of Junius (Woodfall), ii, 115.
[235] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 154.
[236] Journal 65, fos. 118b, 125.
[237] The king to Lord Weymouth, 6 March, 1770.--Jesse, Memoirs of
George III, i, 490-491.
[238] Lord Weymouth to the sheriffs of London, 8 March, 1770.--Cal.
Home Office Papers (1770-1772), p. 20.
[239] Gentleman's Magazine, xl, 111-112.
[240] The editor of the correspondence between the king and Lord
North gives the date of this letter as the 20th March--a mistake,
probably, for the 10th--as the remonstrance was presented on the
14th.--Correspondence, i, 20.
[241] The King to Lord North, 11 March, 1770.--Correspondence, i, 17-18.
[242] Lord Weymouth to the sheriffs, 12 March, 1770.--Gentleman's
Magazine, xl, 112.
[243] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 153b.
[244] Chatham correspondence, iii, 429, 430.
[245] Journal House of Commons, xxxii, 810.
[246] Horne to Junius, 31 July, 1771. Letters of Junius, ii, 298, 299.
[247] Chatham to Beckford, 10 March, 1770.--Chatham correspondence,
iii, 431, note.
[248] Annual Register, xiii, 82, 83. Walpole to Mann, 23 March, 1770.
Letters, v, 232. Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 115.
[249] "A real or political fit of the gout."--Walpole.
[250] Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 395. Annual Register, xii, 150.
[251] Annual Register, xiii, 80.
[252] Repertory 174, fo. 184.
[253] Walpole to Mann, 6 May, 1770. Letters, v, 235.
[254] Journal 65, fos. 80-82. Walpole to Mann, 24 May, 1770, Letters,
v, 238. It is supposed that Chatham had a hand in drawing it up. It is
certain, at least, that he approved of it, and that he and Beckford
were intimate friends at the time.--Walpole, Memoirs of reign of George
III, iv, 153.
[255] The king to Lord North, 14 May, 1770.--Correspondence, i, 26.
[256] The same to the same, 19 May, 1770.--Correspondence, i, 27.
[257] An order was thereupon made that the services of Eyre as a
standing counsel for the city should in future be dispensed with.
Two years later his connection with the city was severed and his
conduct rewarded by his being created one of the barons of the
exchequer.--Journal 65, fos. 117b, 121; Repertory 176, fo. 458.
[258] Journal 65, fo. 83.
[259] Journal 65, fo. 92. Horne Tooke was accustomed to exclaim "that
he could not be deemed a vain man, as he had obtained statues for
others, but never for himself!"--Stephen, Memoirs of Horne Tooke, i,
151, 157.
[260] Chatham to the Lord Mayor, 25 May, 1770.--Chatham Correspondence,
iii, 462.
[261] Beckford to Chatham, 25 May, 1770.--Chatham Correspondence, iii,
463.
[262] Journal 65, fos. 83-84; Gentleman's Magazine, vol. xl. (where the
date of the Common Council is given as the 28 May).
[263] Journal 65, fo. 82b.
[264] Journal 65, fos. 82b, 94. A year later he held more decided views
as to the advantage of short Parliaments. Writing to Earl Temple on
the 17th April, 1771, he remarks: "Allow a speculator in a great chair
to add that a plan for more equal representation by additional knights
of the shire seems highly seasonable, and to shorten the duration of
Parliaments not less so. If your lordship should approve, could Lord
Lyttleton's caution be brought to take these ideas, we should take
possession of strong ground, let who will decline to follow us. One
line of men, I am assured, will zealously support, and a respectable
weight of law, _si quid novisti rectius istis candidus imperti_."
This extract was read at a Common Council held the 13th April, 1780,
and was ordered to be entered on the Journal of the Court.--Chatham
Correspondence, iv, 155, note.--Journal 68, fo. 52.
[265] Annual Register, xiii, 111.
[266] Annual Register, xiii, 112.
[267] Repertory 166, fo. 358.
[268] Repertory 174, fo. 276. Annual Register, xiii, 119.
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
[Sidenote: Barlow Trecothick mayor, June-Sept., 1770.]
Upon Beckford's decease Trecothick was elected mayor for the remainder
of the year. It was no easy matter for the successor of one of
the wealthiest and most hospitable of mayors to avoid invidious
comparison, and at the close of his short term of office Trecothick
was satirised by Wilkes for not maintaining the City's reputation for
hospitality.[269] Trecothick was also out of favour with Wilkes for
having officially backed press warrants, the legality of which was
much disputed at the time. The mayor, however, justified his conduct
in this respect to the livery when they met at Michaelmas, and his
speech was very favourably received.[270] Wilkes on the other hand was
so strenuously opposed to press warrants that he went so far as to
release a man who had been pressed for the navy, although he had been
taken by virtue of a warrant from the Lords of the Admiralty, backed by
Trecothick.[271]
[Sidenote: Brass Crosby elected mayor, 29 Sept., 1770.]
When Michaelmas arrived, the livery refused to re-elect Trecothick--as
indeed Wilkes had foretold. Bankes was again passed over, and Brass
Crosby chosen mayor for the ensuing year. In character he was scarcely
less spirited and patriotic than Beckford, and he was made to suffer
in consequence. Very early in his mayoralty (21 Nov.) it fell to his
lot to carry up another address and remonstrance to the king for the
dissolution of parliament, and to listen to a curt refusal.[272]
[Sidenote: Opinion touching press warrants.]
In consequence of Wilkes's opposition to pressing for the king's
service, a system then constantly practised owing to the necessities of
the time, the new mayor, one of his most steady adherents, consulted
Lord Chatham on the legality of press warrants. Chatham advised him
to take the opinion of counsel on the matter, and this he accordingly
did, with the result that whilst he was advised that press warrants,
however objectionable, were legal, the lord mayor could not legally
be compelled to sign them. At the same time counsel left it to
the mayor's consideration "whether for the peace of the city, and
preservation of the subject, he would not conform to the practice of
most of his predecessors on such occasions." This decision being deemed
unsatisfactory, the City preferred to bestow premiums on voluntary
recruits, and the same course was taken by other towns.[273]
[Sidenote: The freedom of reporting parliamentary debates, 1771.]
It is, however, for the conspicuous part he took in the struggle
for the liberty of the press that Brass Crosby is best remembered.
Great jealousy had always existed in parliament as to reports of
debates held there, and the Commons had comparatively of recent date
(28 Feb., 1729) passed a resolution to the effect that it was an
indignity, and a breach of privilege, for anyone "to give in written or
printed newspapers" any account of the proceedings of the house.[274]
Notwithstanding this resolution, reports of debates continued to appear
in the public press, but always with an affectation of secrecy.
[Sidenote: The arrest of Wheble and Miller, 15 March, 1771.]
A scheme was now set on foot by Wilkes for embroiling the House of
Commons with the City. At his instigation certain printers in the city
commenced to publish the debates without any attempt at disguise,
printing the name of each speaker in full. Such a proceeding had always
been deemed a distinct breach of privilege. Some members of the House
speedily took offence, and the printers were ordered to attend. As
they refused to obey the summons, they were ordered into custody. This
was precisely what Wilkes had aimed at. On the 15th March, a printer
named John Wheble was apprehended by virtue of a proclamation, and was
carried before Wilkes, the sitting alderman, who immediately discharged
him, after binding him over to prosecute the man who had taken him,
for illegal arrest. The same evening a messenger of the House of
Commons attempted to arrest Miller, the printer of the _Evening Post_,
under warrant of the Speaker; but the messenger himself was taken
into custody on a charge of assaulting a freeman of the city, and
carried before the lord mayor and aldermen Wilkes and Oliver. These
magistrates declared the warrant to be illegal, not having been backed
by a magistrate of the city, and released Miller. They at the same time
bound over the messenger of the House of Commons to appear to answer a
charge of assaulting a citizen of London.[275]
[Sidenote: The king's letter to Lord North, 17 March, 1771.]
The king was furious at the authority of parliament being thus openly
defied by the civic magistrates, and wrote to Lord North (17 March) to
say that unless Crosby and Oliver were not committed forthwith to the
Tower by the House of Commons its authority would be annihilated;--"You
know very well I was averse to meddling with the printers, but
now there is no retracting, the honour of the Commons must be
supported."[276]
[Sidenote: His recognizance expunged by order of the House, 20 March,
1771.]
The House was no less indignant at being flouted by the City, than
the king, and not only called upon Crosby and Oliver, who were
members,[277] to answer for their conduct from their places, but s
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/45759