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.]
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]
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]
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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
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.
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]
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.
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]
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]
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.
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]
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.
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]
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.
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]
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]
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]
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 10s. 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]
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."
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.
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.
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."
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]
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.
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.
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]
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]
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]
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.
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.
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.
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."
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]
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]
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.
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.]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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.
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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
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.
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]
"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]
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]
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.
"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]
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]
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]
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.
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]
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.
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]
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]
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.
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]
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.
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]
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]
"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]
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.
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]
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]
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]
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."
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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.
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.
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).
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."
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]
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]
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.).
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.]
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]
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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]
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]
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]
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.
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."
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).
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.
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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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."
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]
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]
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.
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.
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.
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."
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]
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]
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]
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]
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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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 5s. 4d.) 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.]
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]
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]
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]
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.
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]
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]
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 sent for the clerk of the Justice Room at the Mansion House and ordered him in their presence to expunge the entry of the recognizance by which their messenger had been bound over to appear at the next Quarter Sessions to answer for his assault on Miller.[278]
Crosby and Oliver before the House, 19 March, 1771.
In the meantime Crosby, who was suffering from a severe attack of gout, had attended in his place (19 March). Early in the morning handbills were distributed in the city informing the inhabitants that it was the intention of the mayor to attend Parliament that afternoon—"even though he should be obliged to be carried in a litter"—to uphold their rights and privileges, and calling upon them to escort him home on his return from Westminster. Here is a description of what took place taken from a contemporary newspaper;[279] "At two o'clock in the afternoon the right hon. the lord mayor set out from the Mansion House in a coach to attend the House of Commons, in pursuance of a summons, to answer for his conduct on Friday last. His lordship appeared very feeble and infirm, but in good spirits. Mr. Alderman Oliver and his lordship's chaplain, Mr. Evans, were in the same coach. A prodigious crowd of the better sort were at the Mansion House and in the streets near it, who testified their approbation by repeated huzzas, which were continued quite from the Mansion House to the House of Commons. On his arrival there one universal shout was heard for near three minutes; and the people during the whole passage to the House called out to the lord mayor as the people's friend, the guardian of the city's rights and the nation's liberties." Walpole minimises the display, and tells his friend that although thousands of handbills were dispersed to invite the mob to escort the mayor, not a hundred attended.[280] Having taken his seat in the House Crosby justified his conduct by the oath that he had taken on entering upon his mayoralty to preserve the liberties of the citizens, and desired to be heard by counsel.[281] Before his examination had proceeded far he was taken so seriously ill that he had to ask leave to go home. This was accorded, and "about five o'clock his lordship returned home, attended by a great number of people; and the populace took the horses out of the carriage at St. Paul's, and drew the coach to the Mansion House." The enquiry stood adjourned until Friday (22 March). In the meantime, leave having been given to him to appear by counsel, albeit with certain reservations, a committee was appointed to employ such counsel on his behalf as they should think fit, with power to draw on the Chamber to the extent of £500.[282] When Friday came the Speaker informed the House that he had received a letter from the lord mayor to the effect that he (Crosby) was so ill that he could not leave home, but that he would attend in his place as soon as his health permitted. Another adjournment was therefore made until the following Monday (25 March), and Oliver's defence was appointed for the same day.[283]
Crosby and Oliver again before the House, 25 March, 1771.
By Monday the lord mayor had sufficiently recovered to attend the House. At two o'clock in the afternoon he again set out in his coach accompanied, as before, by Oliver. Crowds again escorted them to Westminster, and the approaches to the House were so densely thronged that the Speaker gave orders to have them cleared. Even Walpole acknowledges this.[284] After the orders of the day for their attendance had been read Crosby explained how it was that no counsel appeared on his behalf. In the first place the restrictions that the House had placed upon the appearance of counsel—viz., that they should only be heard upon such points as did not controvert the privileges of the House—was such as to prevent counsel speaking on many points material to his defence; and secondly the counsel whom he could depend upon, and whom he wished to employ, were on circuit. He therefore made his own defence. It was now ten o'clock at night, and the exertion he had undergone had rendered him so weak that he again had to ask leave to withdraw, promising to abide by the judgment of the House. On his return to the city he met with another ovation, his coach being drawn by the people all the way to the Mansion House.[285]
Crosby adjudged guilty of breach of privilege.
After Crosby's withdrawal the debate was continued. It was moved that the lord mayor's discharging of Miller out of custody, and his having held the messenger of the House to bail, was a breach of privilege. To this was moved the previous question, but after long debate it was rejected and the original motion passed, order being given for the lord mayor to attend on the following Wednesday, if his health permitted.[286]
Oliver committed to the Tower, 25 March, 1771.
Notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, the House called upon Oliver. The alderman, however, did not detain them long. He declined to call witnesses or to say anything in his defence, beyond asserting that he had acted according to his duty, oath, and conscience. Again there was a long debate lasting until three o'clock in the morning, when the House resolved to send him to the Tower. The division was a small one, many members having already gone home in disgust. Oliver was allowed to go to his house in Fenchurch Street for a few hours before being removed to the Tower by the sergeant-at-arms.[287]
Speech of Alderman Townshend.
During the debate, Alderman Townshend appeared in the House looking very pale, having risen from a sickbed—"his hair lank, and his face swathed with linen, having had his jaw laid open for an inflammation"—and after commenting severely upon the arbitrary action of the House in erasing a record entered in the lord mayor's book, proceeded to twit the government with its obsequiousness to female caprice and boldly declared their arbitrary measures to be due to the baneful influence of the Princess Dowager of Wales.[288] Such a declaration was not only in bad taste, but contrary to Parliamentary usage. Nevertheless it was placidly listened to and only received a tardy and weak denial from Lord North—a sign that the House felt the insecurity of its position.
"A table" to be provided for Oliver at City's expense, 26 March, 1771.
On Tuesday (26 March) a Common Council sat, summoned by Trecothick, who had been appointed (12 March), to act as locum tenens of the lord mayor during his "absence or illness." After transacting several matters of business, the court resolved unanimously "that during the confinement of Mr. Alderman Oliver in the Tower of London a table be provided for him at the expense of this city, under the direction and management of the committee appointed at the last court to assist the lord mayor and the Aldermen Wilkes and Oliver in their defence on the charge brought against them by the House of Commons."[289]
Chatham's opinion on Oliver's committal.
The committal of Oliver was only one of a series of blunders of which Parliament had been guilty since the arrest of the printers. The position of affairs was clearly defined in letters written by Chatham at the time. "The state of the business seems to me clearly this: the discharge of Miller, taken under the Speaker's warrant, I think contrary to the established jurisdiction of the House, with regard to printers of their proceedings and debates; but I hold also as fully, that in a conflict of jurisdiction, the lord mayor and city magistrates, acting under an oath of office and their charter, cannot be proceeded against criminally by the House, without the highest injustice and oppression." Again:—"the House becomes flagrantly unjust and tyrannical, the moment it proceeds criminally against magistrates standing for a jurisdiction they are bound to maintain, in a conflict of respectable rights." He goes on to say that "nothing appears to me more distinct, than declaring their right to jurisdiction, with regard to printers of their proceedings and debates, and punishing their member, and in him his constituents, for what he has done in discharge of his oath and conscience as a magistrate."[290]
The opinion of Junius.
This view was also strenuously supported by Junius,[291] who was emphatic that "as magistrates," Crosby and Oliver "had nothing to regard but the obligation of their oaths, and the execution of the laws. If they were convinced that the Speaker's warrant was not a legal authority to the messenger, it necessarily followed that, when he was charged upon oath with a breach of the peace, they must hold him to bail. They had no option."
Crosby again attends the House, 27 March, 1771.
On Wednesday (27 March), Crosby again attended in his place, as directed, to hear the decision of the House in his case. He was accompanied as before by an "amazing number of people" anxious to learn the issue; "guards, both horse and foot, were ordered to be in readiness, in case any tumult should arise. The city was all in motion; and by its acclamations testified its satisfaction with his conduct." Although he arrived at the House early in the afternoon, it was past eight o'clock in evening before the House was ready to take his business into consideration. Meanwhile the approaches to the House were in the hands of the mob who threatened many of the members with violence. Lord North, in particular, was made the object of a violent attack. His coach was demolished and he himself narrowly escaped being killed. Others, and among them Charles Fox, who had made himself especially obnoxious to the citizens by speaking of Oliver as an "assassin of the constitution," were also insulted, but not so outrageously.[292] The justices confessed to the House their inability to read the Riot Act, and declared that the constables were powerless. The sheriffs of London—William Baker and Richard Martin—being members of the House,[293] were thereupon desired to go themselves and endeavour to disperse the crowd,[294] and at their intervention peace was at length restored.
Is committed to the Tower.
The House being now prepared to proceed with the chief business of the day, a motion was made for committing the lord mayor to the custody of the sergeant-at-arms, instead of sending him to the gloomier quarters of the Tower, on account of his ill-health. Crosby, however, at once desired that no such favour might be shown him; he was quite prepared, he said, to join his honourable friend in the Tower. An amendment was accordingly moved that he should be committed to the Tower, and this was carried by 202 votes to 39.[295] It was now past midnight. Crosby returned to the Mansion House for a short rest, and at four o'clock in the morning sent for a hackney coach and drove to the Tower.
Letter of Alderman Oliver from the Tower, 29 March, 1771.
A few hours later the Common Council resolved to furnish him with a "table" at the City's expense, as they had previously done for Oliver. Both prisoners acknowledged with gratitude the favour thus shown to them by their fellow citizens, and both promised solemnly to continue their efforts to maintain the rights and privileges of the City, but the lord mayor declined the offer to furnish his table during his incarceration, as he did not wish to put the City to any additional expense on his account.[296] Oliver's letter contained some very caustic remarks upon the attitude of the government towards the City. "The last ten years have afforded the city of London, in particular, every instance of neglect, unkindness, insult and injury; their petitions have been rejected, slighted, ridiculed; their property unjustly conveyed to others; their charters violated;[297] their laws contemned; their magistrates imprisoned. The power that consumes us has the plainest and most odious marks of despotism, abject abroad and insolent at home. Whether our rights will in the end be peaceably re-established or whether this violence will be pursued is more than I can certainly declare, but this I will venture to say for myself that they must either change their laws or the magistrates, for my adherence to my duty shall be invariably the same, regardless of consequences."[298]
Supporters of the government beheaded in effigy, April, 1771.
The temper of the populace at witnessing "the new and extraordinary spectacle of the lord mayor of the city of London and one of its principal magistrates being committed prisoners to the Tower," vented itself in a very characteristic manner. On the 1st April a great mob proceeded to Tower Hill following a hearse and two carts, in which were figures representing the princess dowager, Lord Bute, the Speaker, and both the Foxes. The figures were beheaded by a chimney sweeper, after mock prayers, and then burnt. A like ceremony took place a few days later with figures of Lord Halifax, Lord Barrington, Alderman Harley, Colonel Luttrell, nicknamed "the usurper," Lord Sandwich, otherwise known as "Jemmy Twitcher," Colonel Onslow, who had been made so furious because a newspaper had called him "Cocking George," and De Grey, the attorney-general. Their supposed dying speeches were, to the intense amusement of the multitude, hawked about the streets.[299]
The contest won.
Wilkes, who had been no less an offender (if offence there was) in holding the Speaker's warrant to be illegal, got off scot free. Three times was he summoned to the bar of the House to answer for his conduct, and three times he refused to obey unless the House would acknowledge him as member for Middlesex. Ministers preferred to leave him unmolested, resorting even to a subterfuge in order to allow him to escape. It is true that, like Lord Shaftesbury in the reign of Charles II, he had removed for safety from his house in Westminster to lodgings in the city, but few can doubt his readiness, if need be, to share the fate of his brother aldermen in so good a cause. In the words of Junius, he was already a "wounded soldier" in the cause of liberty, and could point to "real prosecutions, real penalties, real imprisonment,"[300] and he deserves at least a part of the reward of the victory thus gained for the freedom of the press.
Crosby and Oliver regain their liberty, 8 May, 1771.
More than one attempt was made by the committee appointed for the defence of Crosby and Oliver to obtain their release on writs of Habeas Corpus, but in vain. They remained therefore in confinement, receiving a constant succession of friends and supporters, including Edmund Burke and the Dukes of Manchester and Portland, until set free by the prorogation of Parliament on the 8th May. The Common Council had, in anticipation of that event, resolved (3 May) to go in procession in their gowns, accompanied by the city officers to escort them from the Tower to the Mansion House.[301] As Crosby and Oliver emerged from the Tower gate they were welcomed with a salute of twenty-one guns by the Artillery Company, and carried, amid universal shouts of joy, to the Mansion House, from the balcony of which they bowed their acknowledgments. In the evening the city was illuminated.
Another address and remonstrance of the livery, 24 June, 1771.
Even after their release the Common Council remained dissatisfied, and determined to take counsel's opinion as to the possibility of testing the legality of the action of Parliament. Counsel having given an adverse opinion it was resolved to let the matter rest until the meeting of the livery on Midsummer-day.[302] As soon as the livery were informed how matters stood they drew up another address and remonstrance calling upon the king to dissolve Parliament. This time it was their intention to attend the presentation of the address in a body, clad in their livery gowns.[303] The king, however, objected to receiving so large a number, and the lord mayor was informed that only the number "allowed by law" would be permitted to attend.[304] The livery had to give way, and the address was presented in the manner prescribed by the king. The answer they got was short and sharp; the king contenting himself with expressing his concern that a part of his subjects should have been so misled and deluded as to renew a request with which he had repeatedly declared that he could not comply.[305]
Election of Wilkes and Bull, sheriffs, 3 July, 1771.
The more important business transacted at this Common Hall was the election of sheriffs for the ensuing year. Wilkes had declared his intention of standing, and had asked Oliver—at that time a prisoner in the Tower—if he intended doing the same, regardless of the claims of senior aldermen. Oliver hesitated as to the course he should pursue, but finally wrote to Wilkes (11 April, 1771) expressing a determination not to serve with him, inasmuch as their political aims were not identical. Wilkes little relished this rebuff, and took exception to the propriety of Oliver's reply; as for himself, he said, "I am ready to serve the office of sheriff with you, sir, or any other gentleman given me by the livery as a colleague, should they think proper to elect me."[306] The election was watched with great interest by the king, who was afraid that Wilkes might succeed in getting elected, although supported only by "a small, though desperate," part of the livery, and he wrote to Lord North expressing a hope that no effort might be wanting to secure the election of Plumbe and Kirkman, the two senior aldermen who had not served.[307] He was doomed to disappointment. The livery declared for Wilkes and Frederick Bull, a creature of Wilkes, and a poll was demanded. This lasted several days, and on the 3rd July the result showed a large majority in their favour, and they were declared duly elected. Oliver came out at the bottom of the poll.[308]
The activity of court interference in this election was revealed by an unhappy contretemps. A letter which "Jack" Robinson, Lord North's secretary, had sent to Benjamin Smith, a partner of Alderman Nash, an "opulent grocer" of Cannon Street, urging him to "push the poll" with as many friends as possible, was carried by mistake to another Smith, of Budge Row, a Wilkite, who immediately published it with an affidavit as to its authenticity. The result was, as might be expected, the greater discomfiture of the ministerial candidates.[309]
Walpole was no less struck with the irrepressibility of Wilkes's character than annoyed at his being elected to an office which would bring him into close contact with the king;—"Wilkes is another Phœnix revived from his own ashes. He was sunk—it was over with him; but the ministers too precipitately hurrying to bury him alive, blew up the embers, and he is again as formidable as ever; and what will seem worse he must go into the very closet whenever the city sends him there with a message.... Wilkes in prison is chosen member of Parliament and then alderman of London. His colleagues betray him, desert him, expose him, and he becomes sheriff of London."[310] Walpole's fears as to Wilkes's personal demeanour in office were groundless. As an alderman of the city he might have made himself sufficiently obnoxious at court had he so pleased, but he knew himself to be no persona grata to the king, and on that account was careful to keep out of his sight. That he knew how to behave on occasion is shown by his conduct during his mayoralty, when he surprised everybody, the king included, by his agreeable manner.
Wilkes and the shrievalty.
Although determined to act with propriety in his personal relationships, Wilkes was no less determined to make himself as obnoxious to the king and his ministers as he well could in his official capacity as sheriff. "I will skirmish with the great almost every day in some way or other," he wrote to Junius. Again, with reference to the House of Lords, he informs his friend that "the sheriff means the attack."[311] A few days previous to his entering upon his duties he and his colleague, Bull, made a bid for popularity by a spirited act. The presence of the military at executions had been resented the previous year, and now in a short letter addressed to the livery they announced their determination to follow the example set by their predecessors in office and not to allow soldiers to attend: "We are determined to follow so meritorious an example, and as that melancholy part of our office will commence in a very few days we take this opportunity of declaring that as the constitution has entrusted us with the whole power of the county, we will not, during our sheriffalty, suffer any part of the army to interfere or even to attend, as on many former occasions, on the pretence of aiding or assisting the civil magistrate.... The magistrate, with the assistance of those in his jurisdiction, is by experience known to be strong enough to enforce all legal commands, without the aid of a standing army." Junius thought this letter "very proper and well drawn."[312]
Another proceeding on the part of Wilkes failed however to meet with like approval. The 25th October being the anniversary of the king's accession, there was to be a thanksgiving service at St. Paul's which the sheriffs in the ordinary course of their duties would be expected to attend. Wilkes took it into his head that he would prefer not to go "in a ginger-bread chariot to yawn through a dull sermon." He accordingly prepared a letter to the lord mayor, asking that he might be allowed to sit at Old Bailey instead of taking part in what he called a "vain parade" on the anniversary of the accession of a prince, whose government was so unpopular. Before sending this missive he submitted it to Junius.[313] The latter thought it "more spirited than judicious," and suggested that it was impolitic, to say the least, for "a grave sheriff" to mark his entrance into office with a direct outrage to the king, for outrage it was. He advises his friend to "consider the matter coolly," but in case Wilkes persisted, he sent him a more temperate form of letter.[314] The advice thus given was followed, and Wilkes abandoned his intention.
Letter of Junius to Wilkes, 21 Aug., 1771.
Wilkes had thus advanced another step in civic life, in spite of an unfortunate habit he had of quarrelling with his best friends. He had disgusted, or had himself thrown over, Horne, Sawbridge, Townshend and Oliver, all of whom were members with him of the society known as the Supporters of the Bill of Rights, and all had contributed towards relieving him of his pecuniary difficulties. Townshend and Horne had recently joined forces "to wrest the city out of Wilkes's hands," and Horne had done his best in a quiet way to prevent Wilkes being returned as sheriff, although he denied taking any part in the election.[315] He even ridiculed the idea in a letter to Wilkes (10 July), commencing "Give you joy, Sir,[316] the parson of Brentford is at length defeated. He no longer rules with an absolute sway over the city of London."[317] Wilkes was now to receive support from a quarter least expected. Hitherto, the redoubtable Junius had treated Wilkes with little more than contempt.[318] He was now to become one of his warmest supporters. It was not that Junius entertained any great respect for Wilkes; it was enough that Wilkes was opposed to the ministry, and that he promised to be "a thorn in the king's side."[319] On the 21st August, about noon, Wilkes received a mysterious letter,[320] the writer of which proved to be Junius himself. After assuring Wilkes of his willingness to support him so long as he (Wilkes) depended only upon public favour and made common cause with the people, Junius comes to the real purport of his letter. He was especially anxious that Sawbridge should be chosen mayor at the coming election on Michaelmas-day, and he uses all his art of persuasion upon Wilkes to get him to support Sawbridge's candidature. He repudiates all idea of self-interest in wishing to see Sawbridge in the mayoralty chair in place of Crosby, who was reported to be seeking a second year of office. "By all that's honourable I mean nothing but the cause"—his letter concluded—"and I may defy your keenest penetration to assign a satisfactory reason why Junius, whoever he be, should have a personal interest in giving the mayoralty to Mr. Sawbridge, rather than to Mr. Crosby."
The reply of Wilkes, 12 Sept., 1771.
The letter was very flattering, and Wilkes was pleased. "I am satisfied that Junius now means me well,"—he wrote in reply (12 Sept.)—"and I wish to merit more than his regard, his friendship," but with his usual independence he declined to desert Brass Crosby, to whom he had promised his support before the arrival of Junius's letter. He was even prepared to do a little juggling in order to support Crosby's re-election. "To make Crosby mayor, it is necessary to return to the Court of Aldermen another man so obnoxious that it is impossible for them to elect him. Bridgen I take to be this man. While he presided in the city, he treated them with insolence, was exceedingly rude and scurrilous to them personally, starved them at the few entertainments he gave, and pocketed the city cash.[321]" Even if Bridgen were re-elected by any chance, Crosby would probably be appointed his locum tenens (Wilkes proceeded to point out), and so in any event all would be well. As for Sawbridge, little good could come of a reconciliation, "I allow him honest, but think he has more mulishness than understanding, more understanding than candour." Sawbridge moreover had already declared, that if he were chosen mayor at the next election he would pay fine rather than serve, "because Townshend ought to be mayor"—a declaration which Wilkes characterises as bordering on insanity.[322]
The correspondence thus commenced in so warm and friendly a manner was continued for several months. Finding himself unable to prevail upon Wilkes to become reconciled with Sawbridge, Junius contented himself with warning him at all hazards not to allow a "ministerial alderman" to be elected into the mayoralty chair, and begging that if after a fair canvas of the livery it was found that Bridgen had no chance of being returned, he would give up the point at once, and let Sawbridge be returned with Crosby—"a more likely way, in my judgment, to make Crosby lord mayor."[323]
The election of Nash, Mayor, 8 Oct., 1771.
When the election came on, Bridgen was not even nominated. The choice of the livery was declared to have fallen on Sawbridge and Crosby. Thereupon a poll was demanded on behalf of Bankes, Nash, Hallifax and Townshend. Whilst the poll was proceeding Junius issued an impassioned address to the livery calling upon them to set aside Nash—to whom he refers as the senior alderman below the chair, which Nash was not[324]—and to return Crosby and Sawbridge, men who were ready to execute the extraordinary as well as the ordinary duties of the mayoralty, who would grant Common Halls whenever necessary, carry up remonstrances to the king, and not be afraid to face the House of Commons or to suffer imprisonment. Of Nash's private character he declared he knew nothing, but as a public man he knew him to have done everything in his power to destroy the freedom of popular election in the city, and to have distinguished himself by thwarting the livery. He concludes his address by apologising for his passionate language.—"The subject comes home to us all. It is the language of my heart."[325] The efforts of Junius were of little avail. On the 8th October, the result of the poll was declared, and Nash and Sawbridge being returned (the former by a large majority), the Court of Aldermen selected Nash to be mayor for the ensuing year. The "ministerial candidate" had got in. During the election Wilkes and his brother aldermen, Townshend and Sawbridge, were frequently at loggerheads, whilst Nash was so grievously assaulted on his way to the Guildhall that his life was in danger.[326]
Gifts of plate to Crosby, Wilkes and Oliver.
Upon Crosby's quitting office the Common Council passed him a vote of thanks for the courage he had displayed in refusing to back press warrants, and for his conduct in respect of the arrest of Miller. Early in the following year he was voted a silver cup of the value of £200, whilst Wilkes and Oliver were presented with other cups each of the value of £100. A proposal that a piece of plate of the value of £400 should be provided at the City's expense and inscribed in honour of these champions of the City's liberties, to form a part of the City's plate, was not adopted.[327]
Nash refuses to summon a Common Hall, Feb., 1772.
Nash had not long been mayor before he came into collision both with the livery and the Common Council. When a requisition was made to him in February, 1772, to summon a Common Hall for the purpose of instructing the city members to support Sawbridge in one of his many attempts to obtain triennial parliaments, he refused to do so on the ground that by an order of the livery of Midsummer-day last, the question of the rights of the livery was about to be decided in a court of law, informations having been laid against those companies who had refused to obey the mayor's precept.[328] He thought that in the meantime it would be well to suspend the exercise of his prerogative, more especially as most matters of importance connected with the city could be settled by the Common Council, which he professed himself always ready to call when necessity required. Not satisfied with his reply the livery held an informal meeting at the Half Moon Tavern in Cheapside, and persuaded a number of members of the Common Council to make a written application to the mayor to summon a court on the 18th February, for the purpose of considering the request of the livery. The mayor agreed to summon a court but declined to allow the application of the livery to be placed on the paper of business. A Common Council was eventually summoned for the 20th, when the several applications of the livery and of the members of the court having been read, a motion was made that the Common Council should give instructions to the city members to support Sawbridge's bill. This motion being lost, another was made and carried, desiring the lord mayor to summon a Common Hall for the same purpose. Thereupon Nash addressed the court in these words:—"I am very sorry this question has been put, I cannot grant your request for the reasons given in my former answer to the livery to which I refer you." After passing a resolution that such members of the court as were also members of parliament, should be requested to support every measure tending to shorten the duration of parliaments, the court proceeded to consider whether it should not on its own responsibility issue precepts for a Common Hall. It was at length decided to leave this question to a committee.[329] Junius was very disgusted at Nash's conduct. "What an abandoned prostituted idiot is your lord mayor,"—is the choice expression he makes use of to Woodfall, his printer. Again, "the shameful mismanagement which brought him into office, gave me the first and unconquerable disgust."[330] In the following May the committee just mentioned recommended that counsel's opinion should be taken on the matter referred to them, but by this time Sawbridge's motion had been rejected, and all immediate necessity for an extraordinary Common Hall had passed away.[331] When Nash quitted office, this refusal of his to summon a Common Hall was remembered against him, and the customary vote of thanks was denied him.[332]
Instructions of livery to city members, re short parliaments, 24 June, 1772.
Matters remained as they were until Midsummer-day, when the livery took the opportunity of a meeting of Common Hall to draw up instructions to the city members to support Sawbridge and short parliaments. The terms of the address were scarcely such as a member of Parliament of the present day would tolerate from his constituents:—"When we made choice of you, sirs, to transact our business in Parliament we considered all of you to be possessed of fortune sufficient to render you independent; but such is the depravity of the present age that the more wealthy seem the easiest to be corrupted. Altho' some of you may have approved yourselves worthy of the confidence reposed in you, yet others, we are sorry to be obliged to observe, have been deficient in their duty. It becomes necessary, therefore, that we should exercise our indisputable right of instructing you, our representatives." All the oppression under which the country had suffered for the last thirteen years were due (they said) to long parliaments. As for the existing House they had not a good word to say. What (they asked) was to be thought of a House "which, devoid of all decency, could force the poor timid servant of a corporation to erase a judicial record—an House that could even punish two members of its own body in a most arbitrary manner for acting with integrity in a judicial capacity, nay! for adhering to their charters and their oaths, and virtuously administering justice!" Experience had taught them that what had been intended as a bulwark of their liberties had become a mere engine of oppression. A worthy alderman of the city (they declared in conclusion) had realised the danger of septennial parliaments, and had more than once endeavoured to shorten their duration, but unfortunately he had not received the support he deserved. As Sawbridge would no doubt renew his motion in the coming winter they insisted that each member should "afford him all possible support in order to restore us to our antient right of annually electing our representatives in Parliament."[333] Brave words, these! but all to little purpose. The Septennial Act outlived this and many another effort to obtain its repeal, and remains in force to this day.
Townshend elected mayor, 24 Oct., 1772.
The election of a mayor to succeed Nash was keenly contested. Bankes, Hallifax and Shakespeare were the senior aldermen below the chair, but these were set aside by the livery in favour of Wilkes and Townshend. A poll was demanded, and the business of taking the poll lasted until the 8th October. The king was in a great state of excitement, and was kept posted up by Lord North with each day's proceedings. "I trust by your account of this day's poll," he wrote to the minister (3 Oct.),[334] "that there can be no doubt that it will end favourably; the mob being less quiet this day is a proof that to [sic] riot, not numbers, the patriots alone can draw advantage." Again on the 5th October, when the voice of the city was evidently in favour of Wilkes, he writes: "The unpromising appearance of this day's poll does not in the least surprise me, knowing that Wilkes is not bound by any tyes, therefore would poll non-freemen rather than lose the election." He fancied that if Wilkes failed to get returned as one of the two to be submitted to the Court of Aldermen for selection he would not be allowed to stand again,[335] but here the king was in error. His hopes were damped by Wilkes being returned at the head of the poll, followed closely by Townshend, their respective votes being 2,301 and 2,278.[336] Although Townshend and Wilkes were at the time personal enemies, yet many of Wilkes's friends were induced to give Townshend their second votes, in order to prevent a "court candidate" being successful. This at least is Horace Walpole's account, who declares that Townshend "disdained to canvass or even to attend the election," and that without the assistance of Wilkes's supporters he would have had "scarce any votes." On the other hand we must remember that, intense as was the personal animosity at this time between Townshend and Wilkes, both of them had one and the same political object in view, viz., the overthrow of the government, and Townshend must have added considerably to his popularity in the city by his recent refusal to pay his land tax on the plea that the Parliament which had ordained it was no true Parliament owing to the exclusion of Wilkes and intrusion of Luttrell.[337] The king's only remaining hope was that the result of the poll might be upset by a scrutiny demanded on behalf of Hallifax and Shakespeare. "I hope the scrutiny will be conducted with great exactness," he again writes to Lord North (6 Oct.), at the same time expressing a doubt as to whether such a thing was to be expected from Oliver and Watkin Lewes, who had succeeded Wilkes and Bull in the shrievalty. If these did their duty he felt sure it would go hard with Wilkes, whose "little regard to true votes" would soon be exposed, and "do him great injury, even among his admirers."[338]
Again the king was doomed to disappointment. The scrutiny, according to the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Common Hall preserved at the Guildhall, continued until the 24th day of the month, when the votes for each candidate were declared to be exactly the same as before, and Wilkes and Townshend being returned to the Court of Aldermen for their selection of one, that body chose Townshend to be mayor for the ensuing year. According to Walpole[339] the scrutiny was not proceeded with, and Wilkes was certain of being elected (Townshend being expected to withdraw in his favour) had not alderman and sheriff Oliver, his former friend, brought about his defeat by hastily collecting a Court of Aldermen before the Wilkite aldermen could take their seats, and getting Townshend named lord mayor. Such a proceeding on the part of Oliver is scarcely probable, if, indeed possible, and receives no corroboration from the City's record of what took place.[340]
Riot at the Guildhall on lord mayor's day, 9 Nov., 1772.
On lord mayor's day the partisans of Wilkes, smarting at their defeat, raised a riot at night outside the Guildhall, where a ball was being held. The assistance of the Artillery Company had to be called in, and they remained on duty all night. The new lord mayor, who was somewhat hot-headed, "proposed to sally out with drawn swords and fall on the mob," but was restrained. He, however, caused some of the rioters to be seized and committed to Newgate, and declared that he would bring home the riot to Wilkes. The whole city was now, and had been for some time, so split up into factions that even a vote of thanks to the Artillery Company for striving to keep order was with difficulty passed.[341] "A headstrong, self-willed spirit has sunk the City into nothing," wrote Chatham at the beginning of the year.[342] The government could afford to look upon Wilkes's disappointment and the unpopularity of Townshend with complacency, the real damage was to the nation, which, to use the words of Walpole, "saw those who would have gone farthest to stem the encroachments of the crown divided and warring each other."[343]
Resolution of Court of Aldermen re short parliaments, 16 Feb., 1773.
Following in the steps of Sawbridge, his brother alderman and colleague during his shrievalty, Townshend introduced a motion before the Court of Aldermen on the 16th February (1773) to the effect "that a frequent appeal to the constituent part of the people by short parliaments is their undoubted right and the only means by which they can enjoy or maintain their right of a real representation."[344] Wilkes was the only alderman who raised any objection to the motion. He would willingly have given his vote against it, if only to spite Townshend, but he dared not do so. The motion was therefore carried unanimously.[345]
Another remonstrance of the livery, 11 March, 1773.
Three weeks later (11 March) a special Common Hall was summoned for the purpose of drawing up another remonstrance to the king, and of pledging the livery and the city members to use their utmost endeavours to obtain shorter parliaments. This new remonstrance—a "flagrant piece of impertinence," as the king styled it in a letter to Lord North (13 March)[346]—was said to have been the work of Wilkes, who drafted it in such terms that his enemy the lord mayor "would be undone at St. James's if he presented it, and stoned by the people if he did not."[347] It was resolved that the remonstrance should be presented by the mayor, the city members, the aldermen, the sheriffs and ten of the livery in their gowns, attended by the Recorder and city officers.[348] Wilkes showed considerable shrewdness in declining to attend, excusing himself on the ground that he knew himself to be personally disliked by the king. He would, he said, willingly have attended had he been sheriff, but now that he was only an alderman there was no reason for him to thrust himself where he was not wanted. "I am not used to go into any gentleman's house who does not wish to see me."[349] Even the livery seemed to shrink from having a hand in presenting so disreputable an address, for only eight of them attended at St. James's.
The king's reply, 26 March.
The document was presented to the king on Friday, the 26th March. It was (presumably) received on the throne, although the Common Council do not appear to have been present to give it a corporate character. A copy of it had previously reached the king's hands, and he had made up his mind, as he told Lord North,[350] that a "dry answer, rather bordering on contempt than anger," was the most suitable reply to make to a representation at once "the most violent, insolent and licentious ever presented." The answer he actually returned was more than "dry," and the deputation was dismissed with his majesty declaring that their petition was so void of foundation, and withal so disrespectful, that "I am convinced you do not yourselves seriously imagine it can be complied with."[351]
Wilkes again claims his seat, 26 April, 1773.
A month later an opportunity was afforded Wilkes of again claiming his seat in Parliament. War with France seemed imminent, and a call of the House[352] was moved for the 26th April. The sheriffs of London[353] thereupon sent a summons to Wilkes (not Luttrell) as member for Middlesex, and informed the Speaker of what they had done. Wilkes also wrote a bold letter to the Speaker asserting his right. On the day of the call Wilkes went to the crown office and demanded his writ, which was refused him by the deputy-clerk. Thence he proceeded to Westminster, attended by his friends and supporters. The guards were held in readiness, but there was no disturbance. Glynn—recently appointed Recorder of London—moved that Wilkes should be heard at the bar of the House as to his complaint against the deputy-clerk, and the motion was seconded by Sawbridge. The House was in no mood, however, to meet one who had so often worsted them, and the motion was rejected by 227 votes to 124.[354]
The powers of the livery defined, 1773.
When Midsummer-day (1773) came round Plumbe and Kirkman were for the fourth time rejected for the shrievalty in favour of Plomer and Sayre. Plomer paid fine and Lee was elected in his place. The livery being determined more than ever to win their independence and to break away from the authority of the mayor, took the opportunity of their meeting together to consult the new Recorder upon the question "whether the livery of London legally assembled in Common Hall, either on this or any other day, have not a right to enter upon any matter of public grievance they may think proper?" Glynn at once replied that they had an undoubted right, and that it was "beyond dispute that the right is inherent in them."[355] This important dictum negativing, as it did, a decision of Glynn's predecessor,[356] was afterwards used by Wilkes with effect in his famous letter to Lord Hertford (2 May, 1775).
Plumbe's case.
The aspirations of the livery were (at least for a time) damped by the decision given a few weeks later in a case known as "Plumbe's case." It will be remembered that in 1770 certain livery companies had objected to the tone of a recent remonstrance, and had in consequence passed resolutions forbidding their members to attend Common Halls except for the purpose of elections. A joint committee of the livery and the Common Council had thereupon been appointed to take counsel's opinion upon the rights of the livery.[357] Among the counsel consulted on the question was Glynn, and he and his brethren had given it as their opinion (June, 1771) that the mayor for the time being might legally summon a Common Hall; that it was the duty of those livery companies to whom precepts were sent by the mayor to execute those precepts, and that a wilful refusal was punishable by disfranchisement, the procedure being by way of information filed by the common sergeant in the mayor's court. Informations had accordingly been filed against the masters or wardens of the several companies of Goldsmiths, Weavers and Grocers by order of Common Hall,[358] but only one, viz., that against Alderman Plumbe, of the Goldsmiths, was proceeded with. The question was tried before a jury on the 14th July of this year (1773) with the result that Plumbe was convicted and adjudged to be disfranchised.[359]
Counsel's opinion on the powers of Common Hall.
The powers of the livery were further defined in a legal opinion delivered about this time by the Recorder and Common Sergeant on the questions (1) Whether the lord mayor, aldermen and livery of London in Common Hall assembled could do any corporate act except under the powers given them by Acts of Parliament; (2) Whether an order of the livery in Common Hall to the Town Clerk to affix his signature to such a document as the last remonstrance would be a sufficient justification for him in a court of law in case of a criminal prosecution; and lastly (3) Whether individuals signing such a remonstrance be liable to a prosecution of libel? To the first two questions counsel made the following answer;—"From the best information wee can get of the usage and constitution of the City the Common Hall is not empowered to do any act strictly corporate not having the direction of the City Seal. They can do no act that binds the estate of the City or that effects the admission or removal of any of its members." Then, referring to the former opinion of the Recorder just mentioned, they proceeded to say;—"wee did in concurrence with Mr. Solicitor-General and Mr. Dunning upon consideration give an opinion that a Common Hall was a lawful assembly vested with legal powers. Wee find that opinion warranted by Lord Coke's authority, and therefore without more research and enquiry than can now be made, wee cannot alter our opinion." They were further of opinion "that no Act of Common Hall can endanger the Charters or Franchises of the city, and wee think that the right of petitioning a necessary consequence of a lawful assembly." As a result of their answer to the first question they believed that the Town Clerk, being by office the clerk of a legally convened meeting of the Common Hall, would not render himself criminally liable by giving his signature to the acts and resolutions of that assembly. As to the question of libel, that depended upon a variety of circumstances, but in their private opinion counsel believed that no one presenting the late remonstrance could be treated legally as a criminal.[360]
Bull, mayor, elected M.P. for the City, Dec., 1773.
At Michaelmas, Wilkes again put up for the mayoralty, but although he was again returned at the head of the poll he was again rejected by the Court of Aldermen in favour of his friend Bull.[361] Before the end of the year Bull was also chosen member for the City in the place of Ladbroke, who had died. A petition was laid before Parliament against his election, and in favour of his opponent, John Roberts, a court candidate, but was afterwards withdrawn.[362] The king had at one time expressed himself to North as thinking it best not to offer any opposition to Bull's election as member for the city, unless there was a good hope of success. "If Alderman Bull can be with success opposed, I should think it eligible; but if that is not pretty certain it is best not to interfere."[363] On learning, however, that Roberts, a former director of the East India Company, was about to stand he wished him success.[364] Previous to his election Bull signed an engagement (formulated by the livery at their meeting in March), to use his best endeavours to shorten the duration of parliaments; to exclude pensioners and placemen from the House; to establish a fair and equal representation of the people in Parliament; and to redress the grievances and secure the constitutional rights of his fellow subjects in Great Britain, Ireland and America. He also solemnly promised not to accept from the crown or its ministers any place, pension, contract, title, gratuity or emolument whatsoever.[365]
England and the American colonies, 1765-1774.
It was during Bull's mayoralty that the relations between England and her American colonies became so strained that in 1775 the two countries were at open war. For the past ten years the colonies had displayed more or less resistance to the British government. In 1765 the Stamp Act was passed, and in the following year it had to be repealed. The irritation caused by its imposition remained, however, and the colonists began to ignore the authority of British Acts of Parliament. In 1767 another Act was passed by Parliament imposing import duties in America upon certain articles, and among them upon tea; but the Act was rendered from the outset almost a dead letter through the resistance offered to the execution of its provisions. Matters were not improved by the repeal of all the duties, except that on tea, three years later (1770), more especially when the Americans learnt that Lord North openly acknowledged that he retained the tea duty, not on account of its value, but simply in order to assert the right of England to tax her colonies. The crisis came in 1773, when the tea-ships lying in Boston harbour were attacked, and their cargo flung into the sea. In September of the following year (1774) all the American colonies agreed to combine in stopping commercial intercourse with Great Britain until their grievances were redressed.
The city and the Quebec Bill, 1774.
In the meantime a Bill had passed the Lords, and been sent down to the Commons, giving a constitution to Canada. The City presented a strong petition against the Bill (3 June) as unduly favouring the Roman Catholics, and begged the king to withhold his assent after the Bill had passed both Houses.[366] It was to no purpose. The country generally, and the clergy of the Established Church more particularly, showed great indifference,[367] and the Bill became law. The mayor received a letter of thanks from the Protestant settlers in Quebec, through Francis Maseres, (Cursitor Baron) for what the City had done in the matter; and the City thus encouraged resolved to continue its efforts and endeavour to get the Act repealed as soon as possible.[368] The king was strongly of opinion that the agitation in the City was merely got up "just to make a noise" at the coming elections in Common Hall,[369] and Walpole appears to have been much of the same opinion. He believed it was a move on the part of Wilkes in order to carry the election of sheriffs. By getting two friends appointed sheriffs he would be in a position to get Reynolds, his own attorney and election agent, appointed under-sheriff, and so "be more sure of the returning officer against the general election," which was fast approaching.[370] If this were so his scheme was frustrated for his nominees failed to get elected.
Wilkes elected mayor, 8 Oct., 1774.
His star nevertheless was soon to be again in the ascendant. At the next election to the mayoralty, he was not only again returned at the head of the poll, but second to him was Bull, his friend, and actual mayor. The other candidates who went to the poll were James Esdaile and Brackley Kennet, both of them senior to Wilkes. Hallifax and Shakespeare, the senior of all did not even go to the poll. Sawbridge who was next below Wilkes did not press his candidature, as the latter—according to Walpole—"had regained him by promising to bring him into parliament for the city." According to the same authority Wilkes "made" Bull decline the chair a second time, and hence it came to pass that when these two were returned to the Court of Aldermen, eleven voted for Wilkes, whilst only two, viz., Townshend and Oliver, voted for Bull. "Thus, after so much persecution of the court, after so many attempts on his life, after a long imprisonment in a goal, after all his crimes and indiscretions, did this extraordinary man, of more extraordinary fortune, attain the highest office in so grave and important a city as the capital of England."[371] That night Alderman Harley, an old opponent of Wilkes, had his windows broken, and the culprit was carried before Wilkes himself.[372]
Takes his seat as M.P. for Middlesex, Nov., 1774.
Nor did his success end here. The mayoralty election was still pending when parliament was dissolved (30 Sept.), and writs issued for a new one to meet on the 29th November. Wilkes was again returned for Middlesex and with him his friend, Glynn, the Recorder. The popularity of Wilkes was indeed now so great that he was believed to be capable of carrying no less than twelve seats. Prior to their election both candidates signed an undertaking to use their best endeavours to shorten the duration of parliaments, remove placemen and pensioners from the House, advocate the repeal of the Quebec Act, and generally to follow the line of policy adopted by the livery of London, and recently accepted by Bull.[373] When the City elections came on, Bull and Oliver kept their seats, although Oliver declined to enter into any engagement. Wilkes kept his promise with Sawbridge (if any were really given), and Sawbridge was returned together with Wilkes's own brother-in-law, George Hayley. The irrepressible demagogue was at last allowed to take his seat without any opposition. Had he been permitted to have done so five years before, he would probably have sunk into insignificance, but now he "forced his way triumphantly, and came vested with the insignia of the first magistracy in England, and supported by half a dozen members of his own nomination."[374] His triumph was complete in 1782, when he succeeded in getting the House to stultify itself by rescinding its proceedings touching the Middlesex elections.[375] In the dogged persistence with which he fought the House of Commons and finally came off victorious, he reminds us of no one so much as of the late Charles Bradlaugh, member for Northampton; in other respects the two characters will not bear comparison.
FOOTNOTES:
[269] See Annals of the Mayoralty of the Right Hon. Barlow Trecothick, Esq., ascribed to Wilkes, printed in Stephens's Memoirs of John Horne Tooke, i, 191, note.
[270] Annual Register, xiii, 161, 162.
[271] Id., xiii, 157.
[272] Journal 65, fos. 140 seq. The king was very angry at having to receive more of this "stuff." "The idea of a fresh address, remonstrance and petition is so extremely absurd, and considering the time I may add puerile, that it deserves contempt."—The king to Lord North, 15 Nov., 1770.—Correspondence, i, 39.
[273] Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 196, 197.
[274] Journal House of Commons, xxi, 238.
[275] Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 278, 287-289.
[276] Correspondence, i, 64.
[277] Crosby sat for Honiton, whilst Oliver had succeeded Beckford as one of the members for the city. Wilkes was also summoned to attend, but not as a member. He therefore disobeyed the summons, informing the Speaker by letter that when admitted to his seat for Middlesex he would attend, but not before.—Gentleman's Magazine, xli, 140; Annual Register, xiv, 188.
[278] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 275.
[279] Annual Register, xiv, 83.
[280] Walpole to Mann, 22 March.—Letters, v, 286.
[281] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 269.
[282] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 275; Journal 65, fo. 210.
[283] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 279, 280.
[284] "Last night, when I went to bed at half-an-hour after twelve, I had just been told that all the avenues to the House were blockaded, and had beaten back the peace-officers who had been summoned, for it was toute autre chose yesterday when the lord mayor went to the House from what it had been the first day." Walpole to Mann, 26 March, 1771.—Letters, v, 291.
[285] Annual Register, xiv, 84; Gentleman's Magazine, xli, 141.
[286] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 283-285.
[287] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 285, 286. Walpole to Mann, 26 March, 1771, Letters, v, 291. Calcraft to Chatham, 26 March; Barré to the same, 26 March, Chatham Correspondence, iv, 125-127, 131-133. Walpole, Memoirs of reign of George III, iv, 299, 300.
[288] Barré to Chatham, 26 March.—Chatham Correspondence, iv, 134. Gentleman's Magazine, xli, 170. Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 300, 301.
[289] Journal 65, fos. 212-212b.
[290] Chatham to Calcraft, 26 March, 1771; The same to Barré. 26 March.—Chatham Correspondence, iv, 129-130, 136-137.
[291] Letters of Junius, iii, 376.
[292] Annual Register, xiv, 85. Gentleman's Magazine, xli, 141. Calcraft to Chatham, 28 March, 1771.—Chatham Correspondence, iv, 138-140. Walpole to Mann, 30 March.—Letters, v, 292. Walpole Memoirs, iv, 292.
[293] Baker sat for Plympton Earls, co. Devon, and Martin for Gatton, co. Surrey.
[294] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 289.
[295] Id., ibid.
[296] Journal 65, fos. 213, 214, 214b.
[297] Referring to Bills in Parliament for embanking the Thames for the purpose of building Adelphi Terrace, which was deemed to encroach upon the City's rights of conservancy.—Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 173.
[298] Journal 65, fo. 214b.
[299] Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 307; The Middlesex Journal, 2 April, 1771; The London Chronicle, 2-6 April.
[300] Junius to the Public Advertiser, 13 Aug., 1771; Woodfall, Letters of Junius, ii, 307.
[301] Journal 65, fo. 222.
[302] Id., fo. 226.
[303] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 165.
[304] Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 328. The number "allowed by law" appears to have been ten.
[305] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 167.
[306] The London Chronicle, 13-16 April, 1771.
[307] The king to Lord North, 26 June, 1771.—Correspondence, i. 76.
[308] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 161, 161b.
[309] Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 328. The letter will be found printed in Woodfall's Letters of Junius, ii, 252, 253, note.
[310] Walpole to Mann, 6 July, 1771.—Letters, v, 313.
[311] Wilkes to Junius, 12 Sept. and 17 Oct., 1771.—Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i, 299, 323.
[312] Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i, 322.
[313] Wilkes to Junius, 17 Oct., 1771. Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i, 323-325.
[314] Junius to Wilkes, 21 Oct., 1771.—Letters of Junius, i, 325-328.
[315] Horne to Junius, 13 July, 1771. Id., ii, 259.
[316] A hit at Wilkes's connection with the city. It was usual at one time for the chamberlain thus to address a recipient of the honorary freedom of the city. The expression went out of use, but was revived by Wilkes when he became chamberlain.
[317] Horne to Wilkes, 10 July.—Stephens, Memoirs of John Horne Tooke, i, 310.
[318] "Mr. Wilkes, if not persecuted, will soon be forgotten."—Junius to the Duke of Grafton, 24 April, 1769. Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i, 478.
[319] Junius to Horne, 24 July, 1771. Id., ii, 267.
[320] The letter was placed in Wilkes's hand by a chairman, who said he brought it from a gentleman he had met in the Strand. Id., i, 263, note.
[321] It is strange to find Wilkes giving this character of a mayor, who had shown him great partiality at the time that No. 45 of the North Briton was ordered to be burnt at the Royal Exchange—and who in other respects displayed a distinct democratic tendency. Can it be possible that Wilkes was hood-winking Junius, and that he would have been equally pleased to have seen either Bridgen or Crosby in the mayoralty chair?
[322] Wilkes to Junius, 12 Sept., 1771.—Woodfall, i, 297-304.
[323] Junius to Wilkes, 18 Sept., 1771.—Woodfall, i, 307-308.
[324] Both Sir Henry Bankes and Richard Peers were senior to Nash, and both were nominated at the election.—Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 166.
[325] Woodfall, Letters of Junius, ii, 338-344.
[326] Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 346.
[327] Journal 65, fos. 250, 253. Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 165.
[328] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 162-163.
[329] Journal 65, fos. 278b-280b.
[330] Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i, 250.
[331] Journal 65, fos. 289b, 290. Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 553. Walpole, Journal of reign of George III, i, 26, 42.
[332] Journal 65, fo. 311.
[333] These instructions were not entered on record until the following Midsummer-day (1773).—Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 176b, 177.
[334] Correspondence, i, 110.
[335] Ibid.
[336] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 171b.
[337] Townshend even allowed his goods to be seized rather than pay the tax, and then brought an action for trespass. The case had come on for hearing in June last, when Lord Mansfield, finding that counsel for the plaintiff wanted the court to retry the judgment of the House of Commons touching the case of the Middlesex election, stopt the case, and ordered the jury to find for the defendant.—Walpole, "Journal of the reign of George III," i, 124-126.
[338] Correspondence, i, 112.
[339] Journal of the reign of George III, i, 164.
[340] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 171b.
[341] Journal 65, fo. 311b.
[342] Chatham to Shelburne, 10 Jan., 1772.—Chatham Correspondence, iv, 187.
[343] "Journal of the reign of George III," i, 164, 165.
[344] Repertory 177, fo. 164.
[345] Walpole, Journal, i, 184, 185.
[346] Correspondence, i, 125.
[347] Walpole, Journal, i, 188, 189.
[348] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 175b.
[349] Walpole, Journal, i, 192.
[350] The king to Lord North, 13 March, 1773.—Correspondence, i, 125.
[351] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 176b.
[352] This was something in the nature of a "whip," the custom being for the Speaker to send notice to the sheriffs to summon all their members to attend on a certain day.
[353] Watkin Lewes and Oliver.
[354] Journal House of Commons, xxxiv, 283; Walpole, Journal, i, 194-197.
[355] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 176b.
[356] Gentleman's Magazine, xliii, 300.
[357] Supra, p. 94.
[358] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 162-163.
[359] This judgment was reversed in 1775, and from that day to this the lord mayor has been unable to compel the attendance of the livery at Common Hall.—Journal 66, fos. 36b, 349b-350b. See also "Case of Mr. Alderman Plumbe" (Guildhall Library) where the judgments of the several judges in error are set out with comments by James Roberts, the city solicitor.
[360] This opinion was ordered to be entered in the Repertory of the Court of Aldermen (19 Oct., 1773).—Repertory 177, fos. 439-445.
[361] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 178. The contest was so equal that Wilkes only lost the election by the casting vote of Townshend.—Walpole, Journal, i, 262.
[362] Walpole, Journal, i, 275, 297, 301, 325; Gentleman's Magazine, xliv, 291.
[363] The king to North, 31 Oct., 1773.—Correspondence, i, 153.
[364] The same to the same, 12 Nov., 1773.—Id., i, 155-156.
[365] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 183.
[366] Journal 66, fos. 105b-106; Journal House of Commons, xxxiv, 765, 803; Gentleman's Magazine, xliv, 247, 283.
[367] Walpole, Journal, i, 376, 377.
[368] Journal 66, fos. 170-172, 178, 179.
[369] The king to Lord North, 18 June, 1774.—Correspondence, i, 192.
[370] Walpole, Journal, i, 380-382.
[371] Walpole, Journal, i, 420.
[372] Gentleman's Magazine, xliv, 491.
[373] Gentleman's Magazine, xliv, 444.
[374] Walpole, Journal, i, 427.
[375] Journal House of Commons, xxxviii, 977.
[CHAPTER XXXIX.]
Wilkes and the Court of Aldermen.
Wilkes had not long occupied the mayoralty chair before he came into serious collision with the Court of Aldermen. In November (1774) an election of an alderman for the Ward of Bridge Within took place, and John Hart, one of the sheriffs, was returned at the head of the poll, defeating his opponent, William Neate, by four votes. A scrutiny was demanded, and, in spite of an objection raised by Hart on technical grounds, was allowed to proceed. Whilst the scrutiny was proceeding Hart appeared before the Court of Aldermen and claimed to be admitted to his seat. Neate was also in attendance, but the Court declined to hear him. Wilkes thereupon adjourned the Court until after the result of the scrutiny was known. On the 24th November the votes were cast up in the presence of Wilkes and his predecessor in office (under whom the original wardmote for the election had been held), when there appeared 95 votes for Neate, as against 84 for Hart. The result of the poll was thus reversed. Nevertheless, when the Court of Aldermen met the next day they insisted upon Wilkes putting the question for Hart to be called in and sworn, whilst they persistently refused to hear Neate or his attorney, Reynolds—Wilkes's own friend and election agent. This he positively refused to do, and the matter was allowed to stand over, both parties having in the meantime applied to the King's Bench for writs of mandamus.[376]
Comments of the Public Advertiser, 28 Nov., 1774.
The proceedings of the aldermen were published in the Public Advertiser of the 28th November, and were severely commented upon, whilst the action of Wilkes was highly approved of. "The spirit of injustice and violence which influenced the proceedings of the Court of Aldermen on Tuesday"—it was reported—"predominated stronger on Friday by the arrival of Mr. Harley. One of the candidates for the vacant aldermanship of Bridge Within, William Neate, Esq., was refused to be heard, and likewise his agent, Mr. John Reynolds. Mr. Houston, the attorney who officiated at the wardmote, was not suffered to make his report of the election. Mr. Alderman Kirkman acquainted the Court that he had been served with a mandamus from the Court of King's Bench to swear in Mr. Neate, but no attention was paid to him. Mr. Townshend and Mr. Oliver insisted on the swearing in of Mr. Hart immediately, and Mr. Harley's natural violence and rage were brought in aid to the intemperate and unjust spirit of the other two aldermen. The lord mayor, however, had too much firmness to yield to an act of palpable partiality and injustice, and prevented the disgrace, which otherwise that Court would have received, by repeatedly refusing to put the question."[377] The whole passage reads very much as if inspired by Wilkes himself; but whether this were so or not, Wilkes entered his protest against a resolution of the Court that the paragraph was injurious to the honour of the Court and "not founded in truth," because he apprehended that it was "founded in truth."
Refusal by Wilkes to put a question reflecting upon himself, 29 Nov., 1774.
Before the aldermen again met (29 Nov.) the city solicitor, acting (apparently) upon instructions from Wilkes, had defended Hart's mandamus, and at the next Court that officer was severely questioned on the matter, and was told that the Court would not allow him his costs. A motion was at the same time made to the effect that the lord mayor having refused to put a question which the Court of Aldermen was competent to decide, had violated the right of election in the freemen of the city, as represented in that Court. It was, of course, the business of Wilkes to put this question, but unlike Trevor, the Speaker, who stultified himself before the House of Commons in 1695, Wilkes positively declined, telling his brother aldermen that he thanked God he was "not quite idiot enough" for that.[378] A week later (6 Dec.) the Court passed a resolution to the effect that Neate had not been duly elected, and Wilkes again protested. The Court thereupon proposed to swear in Hart, but Wilkes again refused to put the question for the reason that the parties had not been heard.[379] Matters were thus brought to a deadlock. At length—on the 17th January, 1775—the Court put itself in order by hearing Neate, and immediately afterwards passed a resolution for calling in and swearing Hart. Wilkes no longer raised any objection, and Hart was sworn.[380] Hart did not long enjoy his victory, for by a judgment of the King's Bench, pronounced in Easter term, 1776, he was excluded from intermeddling with the aldermanry, and on the 18th June Thomas Wooldridge (not Neate) was admitted in his place.[381] As between Wilkes and the Court of Aldermen the honours certainly lay with the former, and he did not hesitate to tell the Court that he intended to pursue the same line of conduct throughout his year of office in spite of all the Court might think or do;—"I declared that I never would put a question to decide the merits of a cause before this Court until both the parties had been heard. The Court at last consented that Mr. Neate should be heard, and only after he had been heard did I put the question.... The same line of truth and impartiality I will steadily pursue thro' the whole course of my mayoralty, regardless of any resolutions of this Court which are repugnant to the great principles of justice or the fair rights of the chief magistrate."[382]
The new Parliament and the American colonies, 1775.
The result of the recent general election proved to be in favour of the ministry, and distinctly anti-American. The nation had declared for war, and nothing that the City could do was of any avail to prevent it. As soon as Parliament met (19 Jan., 1775) Chatham went down to the Lords and urged the advisability of addressing the king for the removal of the troops from Boston as a conciliatory measure. He was determined, he said, not to let the matter rest, but would labour to bring the country to a sense of the impending danger:—"I wish, my lords, not to lose a day in this urgent, pressing crisis; an hour now lost in allaying ferments in America may produce years of calamity; for my own part, I will not desert, for a moment, the conduct of this weighty business from the first to the last, unless nailed to my bed by the extremity of sickness. I will give it unremitted attention; I will knock at the door of this sleeping and confounded ministry, and will rouse them to a sense of their impending danger."[383] The citizens of London were among the few who supported Chatham at this momentous crisis in the country's history, and they despatched the Town Clerk to the earl's country seat with an address of thanks, which was acknowledged in very flattering terms.[384] So far from showing any disposition to conciliate the colonies by withdrawing troops and repealing obnoxious Acts, the new House proceeded to consider a Bill for cutting off the inhabitants of Massachusetts and other parts from the Newfoundland fishery. To this the Common Council at once entered their protest, both before the Lords and Commons. It was not to be supposed, they plainly told Parliament, that a great number of men, naturally hardy and brave, would quietly submit to a law which would reduce them to the verge of famine.[385] The warning was to no purpose. The Bill passed.[386]
Remonstrance of livery, 5 April, 1775.
At length matters looked so serious that the livery of London met in Common Hall on the 5th April and drew up a respectful but solemn warning to the king himself against the fatal policy pursued by his ministers towards America. The measures which the government had recently adopted were declared to be "big with all consequences which can alarm a free and commercial people." They inflicted (said the livery) a deep and perhaps fatal wound to commerce; they ruined manufactures; they reduced the revenue and increased the taxes; and they alienated the colonists. Here, as ever, commercial interests were placed by the citizens in the foreground. But commercial interests did not form the sole motive for this remonstrance. The City's own liberties were at stake if the liberties of the subject in any part of the kingdom were infringed;—"Your petitioners conceive the liberties of the whole to be inevitably connected with those of every part of an empire, founded on the common rights of mankind. They cannot, therefore, observe without the greatest concern and alarm the constitution fundamentally violated in any part of your majesty's dominions. They esteem it an essential, unalterable principle of liberty, the source and security of all constitutional rights that no part of the dominion can be taxed without being represented."[387] The livery resolved that this address or remonstrance should be presented by the lord mayor, the city members, the Court of Aldermen (not the Common Council) and the sheriffs, and that they themselves should also attend the presentation in a body (and not by deputation, as in 1771 and 1773). Having settled this business, they next proceeded to pass votes of thanks to the Lords and Commons who had opposed "the impolitic and inhuman Bill for prohibiting the people of New England from the Newfoundland fishery, and for their opposition to other arbitrary, cruel and anti-commercial measures" against their fellow subjects in America. They also thanked Chatham and Burke for the plan they had proposed for conciliating the American colonies; and lastly, they passed a vote of thanks to such of the Commons as had recently voted on Wilkes's oft repeated motion for expunging the resolutions of the late Parliament respecting Wilkes and the Middlesex election.[388]
The King's reply, 10 April, 1775.
Notwithstanding the absence of the Common Council and the inordinate number of the livery that had expressed their intention of being present, the king submitted, rather than risk a contest with the City with Wilkes in the mayoralty chair. With Wilkes's personal behaviour at court the king was agreeably surprised, and owned that he had never seen "so well-bred a lord mayor."[389] The conduct of the mayor, however, took nothing off the asperity of the king's reply. He expressed the "utmost astonishment" that any of his subjects should be capable of encouraging the rebellious spirit which had displayed itself in some of the colonies in North America. As to the Parliament, which the livery had recently characterised as a "formidable instrument of arbitrary power," instead of being the guardian of liberty, he declared that he had every confidence in it and intended to carry out its measures.
Letter from the lord chamberlain to Wilkes, 11 April, 1775.
The next day (11 April) the Earl of Hertford, the lord chamberlain, wrote to Wilkes by the king's command, giving him notice that in future his majesty would not receive on the throne any address, remonstrance or petition except from the body corporate of the City.
The lord mayor's reply, 2 May, 1775.
The lord chamberlain's letter drew forth a long and spirited reply from Wilkes[390] as to the legal position of Common Halls and the powers and rights of the livery, in which he refers Lord Hertford to the opinions of counsel delivered in 1771 and 1773.[391] He reminds his lordship that the claim which he was making on behalf of the livery of London to the right of presenting addresses to the king on his throne was of no little importance, and not to be lightly abandoned or set aside;—"When his majesty receives on the throne any address it is read by the proper officer to the king in the presence of the petitioners. They have the satisfaction of knowing that their sovereign has heard their complaints. They receive an answer. If the same address is presented at a levée, or in any other mode, no answer is given. A suspicion may arise that the address is never heard or read, because it is only received, and immediately delivered to the lord in waiting." It was on the throne (the letter continued) that the king and his predecessors had constantly received addresses of the livery, and "on the most exact research" not a single instance had been found to the contrary. Wilkes concluded by expressing his fears lest the unfavourable answer the king had returned to the remonstrance should be considered by the American colonies as a fresh mark of the king's anger towards them, as well as of his displeasure against the faithful citizens of London. The livery would comfort themselves with the assurance of the king's sense of justice, which would sooner or later restore them to royal favour; but the Americans might be driven to despair unless by the merciful interposition of Providence the hearts of ministers were turned. Wilkes took care that his letter received the necessary publicity.[392]
Appeal from New York to the City, 5 May, 1775.
The warning came too late; open hostilities had already commenced. The attitude of the colonies towards the mother-country was clearly defined in a letter addressed to the City of London by the committee of Association of New York on the 5th May.[393] All the horrors of a civil war, the letter protested, would never compel America to submit to taxation by authority of Parliament, although it was perfectly ready to make voluntary contributions "as Englishmen" to assist the king if properly requisitioned. The writers appealed to the City of London, well knowing its attachment to the cause of justice and liberty, and they concluded their letter with an expression of confidence that it would use its utmost exertions "to restore union, mutual confidence and peace to the whole empire." The letter was laid before the Common Council on Friday, the 23rd June, when it was ordered to be printed, and a copy to be sent to every member of the Court.[394]
Proceedings of Common Hall, 24 June, 1775.
The next day being Midsummer-day the livery met as usual in Common Hall for the purpose of electing sheriffs and other officers. Alderman Hayley, the brother-in-law of Wilkes, was one of the sheriffs elected and Alderman Newnham the other. The ordinary business of the day having been got through Wilkes formally reported to the Common Hall the king's reply to the last address of the livery, and next proceeded to lay before them Lord Hertford's letter and his own reply. These having been read the Town Clerk was ordered to enter both letters in the City's Records, and a vote of thanks was passed to Wilkes "for his very able, judicious and spirited defence of the rights and privileges of the livery." The livery next proceeded to pass a resolution condemning the conduct of those ministers who had advised the king not to receive in future on the throne any address, remonstrance or petition from the livery of London, as being subversive of the right of the subject to petition the throne, and as calculated to alienate the minds of Englishmen from the Hanoverian succession. Then turning from their own grievances to those of America they passed a vote of thanks to the Earl of Effingham for his courageous conduct in throwing up his commission in the army rather than draw his sword against the lives and liberties of his fellow subjects, and next proceeded to prepare another remonstrance to the king on the American war.[395]
This new remonstrance was, if possible, stronger and more plain spoken than any yet presented. The king was told that the power which he and his ministers claimed to exercise over the colonies, under the specious name of "dignity," was nothing less than "despotism," and that as the livery of London would not suffer any man, or any body of men, to establish arbitrary power over themselves, so they would not acquiesce in an attempt to force it upon any of their fellow subjects. They did not hesitate to declare that the majority of the members of that Parliament, in which the king had recently avowed he placed entire confidence, were "notoriously bribed to betray their constituents and their country."[396] Notwithstanding Lord Hertford's recent letter, they insisted upon the king receiving their address upon the throne, and intimated their intention of attending the presentation in a body. This was more than the king could stand, and he determined to put his foot down. The address not being an address of the Corporation of London, he expressed his intention of receiving it at his next levée, and when objection was raised by the sheriffs to this course, he told them that he was judge where to receive it.[397] This decision being reported to the livery they resolved (4 July) to publish their remonstrance, and not to present it. They at the same time passed a number of resolutions condemning the king's advisers, and ordered the sheriffs to place in the king's own hands a copy of these resolutions as well as of those passed on Midsummer-day, signed by the Town Clerk.[398]
City Address to the king for cessation of hostilities, 7 July, 1775.
On Friday, the 7th July, the Common Council took into consideration the letter from New York, which had been read to the Court on the 23rd June, and which had by this time been printed and circulated among the members of the Council, as ordered. A motion was thereupon made that a humble address and petition should be presented from the Court to his majesty praying him to suspend hostilities in America, and adopt such conciliatory measures as might restore union, confidence and peace to the whole Empire. The motion was carried, but only by a majority of fifteen; and the address having been drawn up by a committee appointed for the purpose, was in due course read and approved.[399] It is clear that the Common Council was half-hearted in the matter. According to Walpole, it only voted the address in order to satisfy the Americans who had appealed to London.[400] No doubt Court influence had been at work;—"If the Common Council can on Friday be prevented from taking any step with regard to the rebellion in America"—wrote the king to Lord North—"it would be desirable," at the same time he comforted himself with the thought that anything that the Common Council might do would have but little real effect.[401]
The king's reply, 14 July, 1775.
The king received the address on the throne with becoming dignity, and returned for answer that it was a duty he owed his faithful subjects to enforce respect for the constitutional authority of the kingdom on those of his American subjects who had openly resisted it. This answer appears to have had considerable effect upon the Common Council, for when, a week later, a motion was made to send a reply to the letter from New York, together with a copy of the City's late address, and the king's answer, the motion was lost.[402]
Address of the livery to electors of Great Britain, 29 Sept., 1775.
On Michaelmas-day, when his successor in the mayoralty chair was chosen by the livery, Wilkes, who had recently refused to countenance by his presence the proclamation of the Americans as rebels (23 Aug.),[403] produced a letter he had received from the Congress at Philadelphia appealing to the city of London, as the "patron of liberty," to mediate for the restoration of peace. Thereupon an address to the electors of Great Britain (prepared at a previous meeting of the livery held at the Half Moon tavern in Cheapside) calling upon them to assist the livery to bring to justice the authors of the evils that had arisen in this country and America was also produced and read. The document pointed to the increase of national debt and the decrease of national resources that must supervene if a ruinous and expensive war was to be undertaken against the American colonies. What was the object of the war? It could not be the security of England's commerce, for that was not in danger; neither could it be to bring the colonies into due subordination to the mother-country, for the colonies themselves had repeatedly and solemnly acknowledged their subordination and submission to England. It appeared, then, that the object of the war was nothing else than to establish the arbitrary power of the crown over their fellow subjects in America—a measure which would greatly endanger the constitution at home and increase the number of placemen and pensioners. All that the colonies asked for was peace, liberty and safety. They had pledged themselves to be ready and willing in time of war to show their loyalty to the king and to assist him with money and men to the utmost of their ability. What more could in justice be required? They had recently made a final appeal in the hope that the effusion of blood might be stayed, but to this appeal no answer had been vouchsafed. "This, gentlemen," the address continued, "is the alarming state of America, which fills us with anxiety and apprehensions. We lament the blood that has been already shed; we deplore the fate of those brave men who are devoted to hazard their lives—not against the enemies of the British name, but against the friends of the prosperity and glory of Great Britain; we feel for the honour of the British arms, sullied—not by the misbehaviour of those who bore them, but by the misconduct of the ministers who employed them to the oppression of their fellow subjects; we are alarmed at the immediate, insupportable expense and the probable consequences of a war which, we are convinced, originates in violence and injustice, and must end in ruin. These are the sentiments, gentlemen," concluded this impassionate address, "which we take the liberty of communicating to you as the reasons upon which we have acted; trusting that if they meet with your approbation you will co-operate with us in endeavouring to bring the authors of those evils to the justice of their country." This "decent but very strong address," as Walpole called it,[404] was at once adopted as "the address of the lord mayor, aldermen and livery of London in Common Hall assembled," and was ordered to be published in the papers.[405]
Petitions of Common Council in favour of peace, 25 Oct., 1775.
The day before Parliament re-assembled in October the Common Council backed up the livery and prepared addresses to both Houses in favour of a cessation of hostilities; but the nation was so distinctly in favour of war that the City could avail nothing, and its petitions were ordered to lie on the table.[406]
Arrest of Sayre, an ex-sheriff of London, Oct., 1775.
The tension of men's minds at this crisis was so great that all kinds of rumours gained credit, and a certain comical element was introduced in the midst of the prevailing gloom. A young American officer named Richardson, who was confined in the Tower, solemnly declared on oath that Stephen Sayre, an ex-sheriff of London, had paid him a visit and privately offered him a large sum of money to assist in seizing the Tower. This was only a part of the conspiracy. The king himself was to be seized on his way to the House of Lords and forced to call a new Parliament. Everybody, except the ministers, laughed at the folly of such a charge. A council was summoned, and by order of the Earl of Rochfort, secretary of state, Sayre was arrested and—in compliment to the City, so it was said—committed to the Tower. He was, however, shortly released.[407]
Proceedings of Parliament, Oct.-Nov., 1775.
Parliament met on the 26th without any disturbance, and the king in his address showed a determination to prosecute the war with vigour. Sawbridge, who had been elected successor to Wilkes in the mayoralty chair, took occasion to compare the conduct of Lord Effingham with that of Lord George Germaine, formerly Lord Sackville, who had behaved so discreditably at the battle of Minden in 1759, and who had recently accepted office under the ministry. The one had thrown up his commission rather than engage in civil war, whilst the other "had turned pale at the head of squadrons."[408] In the last week of November, Alderman Oliver, in accordance with a resolution of the livery of London of the 4th July, moved the House to address his majesty, that he might be pleased to inform the Commons who were the advisers of the several measures so obnoxious to the American Colonies. The motion, however, found but little support except from Wilkes and Sawbridge, and upon being pressed to a division, was lost by an overwhelming majority.[409]
Expenses of Wilkes's mayoralty.
At the close of Wilkes's mayoralty he received the thanks of the City for the splendour and hospitality that had marked his year of office, as well as for "his vigilant and steady attachment to, and his very able vindication of the constitutional rights of his fellow subjects."[410] It would never have done for one who had so severely taken Trecothick to task for failing to maintain the City's reputation for hospitality, to have himself been deficient in that respect, whilst occupying the mayoralty chair; but setting this aside, Wilkes was naturally prone to lavish expenditure whether in or out of office. The result was that the close of his mayoralty found him in serious pecuniary difficulties. The lord mayors of that day derived their income from various sources, among them, being the sale of those places under the Corporation which happened to fall vacant during their year of office.[411] No two mayors therefore enjoyed precisely the same income, whilst their expenditure was then, as now, only limited by their individual tastes, or the length of their private purses. Wilkes's receipts during his year of office had amounted to £4,889 os. 6½d., whereas his expenditure had been no less than £8,226 13s.[412] He was therefore out of pocket to the amount of nearly £3,500, or perhaps we ought rather to say that he would have been out of pocket to that extent, had he actually disbursed the money. This he had not done, for the simple reason that he had none to disburse.
Wilkes a candidate for the Chamberlainship, 1776-1778.
His impecuniosity led him to consider seriously the advisability of becoming a candidate for one or other of the more lucrative posts in the gift of the citizens. Hitherto he had been averse to taking such a course, but matters had now come to such a pass that when the Chamberlainship of the City happened to fall vacant in February, 1776, through the resignation of Sir Stephen Janssen, he followed the advice of his friends, and became a candidate for the post. He was unsuccessful, however, being defeated by Benjamin Hopkins, a brother alderman. This being an interim election, Hopkins had again to seek the suffrages of the livery at Midsummer. Wilkes again opposed him, and was again defeated; this time by a crushing majority. Here it would have been well if he had rested satisfied, and not offered any further opposition when his more successful rival offered himself annually for re-election, the appointment being virtually during good behaviour. He was not, however, a man to let any scruples of delicacy stand in his way, and, moreover, he was being sorely pressed by creditors. Accordingly, he offered himself as a candidate, in opposition to Hopkins, at Midsummer, 1777, and again in 1778, but on both occasions he was defeated.[413]
His creditors appeal to Common Council, Oct., 1777.
In the meantime his creditors had again and again applied to him for the discharge of his mayoralty debts, but could obtain no satisfaction, beyond a cool assurance that he had expended the whole of the allowance made him by the City in executing the duties of the mayoralty; that their claims exceeded this allowance and he could not therefore discharge them! Was ever impertinence more sublime? Any other man they would have had laid by the heels, without further ado, but Wilkes they feared to touch. After much patience and long suffering, they made so bold as to appeal to the Common Council. This was in October, 1777. Someone suggested the bestowal of an annuity of £500 upon Wilkes for his public services, but the City wisely decided that the granting of any annuity to him, or the payment of his debts whether contracted in or out of office, would establish a bad precedent.[414]
Wilkes elected Chamberlain. Nov., 1779.
At Midsummer, 1779, Hopkins offered himself, as usual, to the livery for re-election to the Chamberlainship, and this time he was returned unopposed. Wilkes had at last seen the futility of continuing the struggle. Possibly the state of Hopkins's health may have had something to do with Wilkes's withdrawal. This, however, is only conjecture. All that we know is that in the following November Hopkins died, and his rival at last succeeded in obtaining the much coveted post.[415] This post—described by Wilkes himself as one of "profit, patronage and extensive usefulness, with rank and dignity," and sufficient, after the payment of his debts, to gratify every wish he could form at the age of fifty-three[416]—he continued to fill with credit to the City (as his friend Dr. Johnson predicted he would) until the day of his death (26 Dec., 1797), no one being found bold enough ever to oppose his annual re-election.
The Freedom of the City to Dr. Richard Price, 14 March, 1776.
Early in 1776 England and America were startled by the appearance of a small treatise entitled "Observations on the nature of civil liberty, the principles of government and the justice and policy of the war in America." The writer was Dr. Richard Price, a Dissenting minister, who had devoted much of his leisure to the consideration of questions of public interest, and more especially finance. The demand for his latest work was so great that it outran the supply. The Freedom of the City in a gold box was voted the author,[417] and two years later he received an invitation to become a citizen of the United States, ample provision being promised him for the rest of his life if he would go to America and undertake the regulation of the finances of that country. The offer was, however, declined on the score of old age.
City address and king's reply, 22 March, 1776.
The day that the Common Council voted Dr. Price the Freedom of the City (14 March, 1776) it resolved once more to address the king with the view, if possible, of obtaining the postponement of any further military operations until America had had an opportunity of definitely refusing such just and honourable terms as this country was willing to offer. If this were done, England would free herself of any taint or suspicion of injustice and oppression, whilst the refusal of the colonies would then become rebellion. The king's reply was brief. He avoided giving a direct answer to the City's proposal, but contented himself with expressing his deep concern at the misery which the colonies had brought upon themselves, and his readiness to extend mercy and clemency as soon as the "existing rebellion was at an end."[418]
Declaration of Independence, 4 July, 1776.
The king's answer shows how little he was acquainted with the real feeling of the colonists at this time. With them it was no longer a question of clemency or redress. The idea of a total separation from the mother-country had already taken shape. France had shown a disposition to assist them, and thus avenge herself on England for the Seven Years' war; but with or without France the colonies were bent on separation, and on the 4th July the Declaration of Independence was signed.
Refusal of Sawbridge and Hallifax to back press warrants, 1776-1777.
In anticipation of France openly declaring war against England, the government caused warrants to be issued for pressing seamen. These were executed with great cruelty, and met with much opposition. When Parliament met on the last day of October, Wilkes took the opportunity of an amendment being moved to the address to inveigh against press warrants, as well as against the "savage and piratical, as well as unjust, war" into which the country had been plunged by the king's ministers. He told the House that the press-gangs did not dare enter the City, knowing full well the character of Sawbridge, the lord mayor.[419] "It is certain," he said, "that no pressing has at this time been carried on in the city of London or its liberties. No press-gangs have dared to make their appearance in that jurisdiction.... The city has hitherto remained in perfect tranquility by the vigilance, intrepidity and noble love of liberty which are conspicuous in its present worthy chief magistrate."[420] Sir Thomas Hallifax, who succeeded Sawbridge in the mayoralty chair,[421] was equally stern in refusing to back press warrants in the City, and on two occasions received a formal vote of thanks for so doing from the Common Council, the first time being in February (1777) and the second when he quitted office.[422]
The City refuses to countenance the war.
In 1777 the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended against all Americans, and in 1778 public subscriptions were set on foot in support of the war. The City did all it could to prevent the suspension of Habeas Corpus, and absolutely refused to subscribe to any bounties or to in any way countenance, or be instrumental in, the continuation of the war.[423] The king expressed to Lord North the mortification he felt at the City's attitude;—"I feared the city was not yet enough returned to sobriety to be persuaded heartily to support the cause, and therefore think the friends of government would have acted wiser in adopting a public subscription unattended with the mortifying circumstance of a defeat in the Corporation."[424]
City address, 13 March, 1778.
At last the ministers themselves began to show a change of front, and conciliatory measures were introduced and passed.[425] Whilst the consideration of these measures was pending, the Common Council drew up another address to the king exhorting him to give effect to those concessions which they feared might have been granted too late.[426]
Announcement of alliance between France and America, 13 March, 1778.
The fears entertained by the citizens were well founded. On the very day that their address was presented, the French ambassador delivered to Lord Weymouth a declaration that the king of France had entered into a treaty of commerce and amity with the Independent States of America, and that any attempt to interfere with that commerce between those two countries would be resented by his master. A few days later Benjamin Franklin was formally received at Versailles as ambassador for the United States of America.[427] In the face of this new danger, both Houses rallied round the throne, with vows of support in maintaining the honour and dignity of the crown and nation, although in both Houses there were not wanting those who were in favour of petitioning the king for the removal of those ministers who had brought about all the mischief. The insulting message sent by France touching interruption of commerce with America, had in fact rather strengthened the ministry than otherwise, and a proposal in the Court of Aldermen to summon a Common Hall for the purpose of agitating for their removal fell flat.[428]
The death of Chatham, 11 May, 1778.
Chatham now became one of the foremost advocates for the maintenance of the supremacy of Great Britain over its dependencies, however opposed he had been to the fatal policy that brought the country to such a crisis; and it was to him that Lord North, who had long wished to withdraw from the ministry, advised the king to apply for aid. Even if the king had been willing to trust Chatham, which he was not, the state of the Earl's health would scarcely have allowed him to accept a position of such responsibility. His days were in fact numbered. On Tuesday, the 7th April, he unexpectedly appeared in the House of Lords, having risen from a sick bed with the sole object of opposing a motion of the Duke of Richmond, virtually conceding the independence of the American Colonies. When the Duke had finished his speech, Chatham, slowly and with difficulty, rose from his seat. In words that at first were scarcely audible he explained that ill-health had prevented him from attending, at so important a crisis, to his parliamentary duties. He had that day made an effort, almost beyond his strength, to attend the House where, perhaps he might never speak again, and to express his indignation at the suggestion that had been made of yielding up the sovereignty of America. "My lords," he said, "I rejoice that the grave has not closed upon me: that I am still alive to lift up my voice against the dismemberment of the ancient and most noble monarchy," and he concluded a spirited and affecting speech by exhorting his countrymen to make an effort to maintain their supremacy [that supremacy to which he himself had contributed so much] and, if they fell, to fall like men.[429] Even as he spoke, his words began to falter, and on rising to make a second speech, he staggered and fell back in a fit of apoplexy. To all appearance he was in a dying state. He rallied however, but only for a few weeks, and on the 11th May he died.
His funeral, 9 June, 1778.
The City lost no time in petitioning Parliament that the remains of the statesman "whose vigour and counsels had so much contributed to the protection and extension of its commerce," might rest in St. Paul's, and the Lord Chamberlain was asked to give timely notice of the funeral in order that the Common Council might pay their last token of respect. The Chamberlain promised to accede to this request, but the City's petition to Parliament met with no further notice than an order that it should lie on the table.[430] Having failed in this direction the City determined to approach the king himself on the subject, and a "remarkably decent and respectful" address was prepared for the purpose in the Common Council.[431] Unfortunately the City had incurred the king's displeasure not only on account of its recent addresses, but also for the respect and affection it had always entertained towards Chatham, who for years had been the object of his special aversion. When asked to name a day for the reception of the address, the first question was as to its nature. He was afraid of having to listen to more "stuff." His curiosity, however, on the point was not gratified. The sheriff (Clarke) respectfully declined to inform him of the nature of the address, and for his "prudent conduct" was rewarded with the thanks of the Common Council.[432]
At length Friday, the 5th June, was appointed for receiving the address. By that time arrangements had been made for the interment to take place in Westminster Abbey, and the king notified the citizens of the fact in a somewhat dry and ungracious manner.[433] Although the ceremony was fixed for the 9th no notice had been sent to the City, notwithstanding the Lord Chamberlain's promise. The Common Council therefore, finding themselves thus trifled with, rescinded their resolution to attend.[434] Indeed the attitude taken up by the king and his ministers throughout the whole business was singularly childish and undignified.
The City's monument to Chatham.
The citizens, on the other hand, though prevented from showing their respect at the grave-side of the deceased statesman, were resolved to erect a memorial to one who, when in power, had never (as they declared) allowed them to return from the throne dissatisfied. A sculptured monument by Bacon, with an inscription from the pen of the great Edmund Burke, was in due course erected in the Guildhall, for the express purpose that citizens might "never meet for the transaction of their affairs without being reminded that the means by which Providence raises a nation to greatness are the virtues infused into great men; and that to withhold from those virtues, either of the living or the dead, the tribute of esteem and veneration, is to deny themselves the means of happiness and honour."
FOOTNOTES:
[376] Repertory 179, fos. 10-14, 17-20, 54-65.
[377] Id., fos. 24-25.
[378] Repertory 179, fo. 24.
[379] Id., fos. 65-68.
[380] Id., fos. 96, 97.
[381] Repertory 180, fos. 288-294.
[382] Repertory 179, fo. 194.
[383] Chatham Correspondence iv, 378, note.
[384] Journal 66, fos. 179, 181b.
[385] Journal 66, fos. 185-185b, 188b-190, 191-192.
[386] Journal House of Commons, xxxv, 182, 241; Journal House of Lords, xxxiv, 365.
[387] On the 7th March a pamphlet had been published entitled "Taxation no Tyranny; an Answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American Congress,"—from the pen of Dr. Johnson.—Boswell's Life of Johnson (Napier), ii, 289.
[388] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 186b-188.
[389] Walpole, Journal i, 484. Wilkes's winning manner was never more conspicuous than when, a year later (15 May, 1776), he first met Dr. Johnson at dinner. The story how he succeeded in completely winning over the learned lexicographer who had hitherto looked upon Wilkes as little more than a low demagogue, is admirably told in Boswell's Life (iii, 108-117). They afterwards became very good friends, and Johnson was fain to confess that "Jack was a scholar" and "Jack had the manners of a gentleman," and that "although Jack had always been at him, he would do Jack a kindness rather than not."—(Id., iii, 208.)
[390] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 189b-191.
[391] See Plumbe's case. Supra pp. 138, 139.
[392] Walpole's Journal i, 487. It is printed in the Gentleman's Magazine, xlv, 220-222, and in the Volume of Addresses, etc. (ed. 1778) in the Guildhall Library.
[393] Journal 66, fos. 236-237b.
[394] Journal 66, fo. 238.
[395] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 188b-191.
[396] Id., fos. 191-192.
[397] Walpole, Journal i, 495.
[398] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 192b, 193.
[399] Journal 66, fos. 239b-240b.
[400] "They could not help doing it, to satisfy the Americans on their address to them."—Walpole, Journal i, 496.
[401] The king to Lord North, 5 July, 1775.—Correspondence i, 253.
[402] Journal 66, fo. 241.
[403] Walpole, Journal i, 500; Gentleman's Magazine xlv, 405.
[404] Walpole, Journal i, 503.
[405] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 193b-195b.
[406] Journal 66, fos. 259b-260b; Walpole, Journal i, 501, 502; Journal House of Commons, xxxv, 405; Journal House of Lords, xxxiv, 489.
[407] Walpole, Journal i, 508, 509; Walpole to Mann, 28 Oct., 1775; Letters vi, 277; Annual Register xviii, 167, 239-243.
[408] Walpole, Journal i, 523.
[409] Journal House of Commons, xxxv, 462. Walpole, Journal i, 524.
[410] Journal 66, fo. 261b.
[411] In November, 1776, an alteration was made in this respect, and it was ordained that for the future the sum of £1,000 should be paid to each mayor in lieu of the sale of offices. Journal 67, fo. 8b.
[412] Journal 67, fo. 9. The respective amounts of receipts and expenditure by some of his more immediate predecessors in office, are recorded as having been as follows:—
| Receipts. | Payments. | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1768. | Turner | £5,731 | 5 | 10 | £7,749 | 12 | 4. |
| 1770. | Crosby | 4,251 | 11 | 6 | 6,685 | 10 | 11. |
| 1772. | Townshend | 3,896 | 0 | 0 | 7,592 | 16 | 9. |
| 1773. | Bull | 5,647 | 13 | 8 | 9,293 | 10 | 0. |
[413] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 199, 200, 205-205b, 211.
[414] Journal 67, fos. 85b, 100.
[415] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 217b.
[416] Almon, Wilkes's Correspondence v, 37.
[417] Journal 66, fos. 296, 354.
[418] Journal 66, fos. 296-297, 299b.
[419] Walpole, Journal ii, 77.
[420] Parliamentary History, vol. xviii, cols. 1,402, 1,403. Notwithstanding Wilkes's statement, instances are recorded of men having been pressed in the City; but their instant discharge was demanded.—Journal 67, fos. 12b-13, 43-43b.
[421] On coming into office Hallifax invited the ministers to his banquet. They had not been asked to the lord mayor's banquet for the last seven years.—Walpole, Journal ii, 84.
[422] Journal 67, fos. 42b, 95.
[423] Journal 67, fos. 42, 107.
[424] The king to Lord North, 17 Jan., 1778.—Correspondence ii, 122.
[425] Walpole, Journal ii, 222, 223.
[426] Journal 67, fos. 126-8.
[427] Walpole, Journal ii, 223.
[428] Repertory 182, fo. 184.
[429] Parliamentary History xix, 1,022, 1,023.
[430] Journal 67, fos. 137b-138b, 149b. Journal House of Commons, xxxvi, 990.
[431] Journal 67, fo. 148.
[432] Journal 67, fo. 150; Annual Register xxi, 243.
[433] Journal 67, fo. 149b.
[434] Id., fo. 150.
[CHAPTER XL.]
Court martial of Admiral Keppel, Jan., 1779.
The extension of the sphere of war owing to the French alliance with America brought great difficulties to the ministry. A powerful fleet under Keppel was sent into the Channel, and in July engaged the French fleet off Ushant, but the action was indecisive, and both fleets retired, the one to Brest, and the other to Plymouth. Keppel had signalled Sir Hugh Palliser, his second in command, to bear up with his squadron, and renew the action, but Palliser's ship was much crippled, and he was either unable or unwilling to comply. Mutual recriminations followed, and as both admirals were in Parliament and political adversaries, Keppel being in Opposition, whilst Palliser was a Lord of the Admiralty, the charges led to a fierce Parliamentary war, and eventually Keppel had to submit to a court martial. The trial took place at Portsmouth, and lasted over a month. The result was anxiously awaited by the City and the country. At length, late in the evening of the 11th February (1779), a courier brought the news that Keppel had been honourably acquitted. The whole of London was at once one blaze of illuminations. Palliser had to make his escape out of Portsmouth for fear of violence, and a house in Pall Mall once occupied by him was completely gutted by the mob and its contents burnt in St. James's Square. The gates of the Admiralty were taken off their hinges. Lord Sandwich had his windows smashed, so had Lord North, and greater damage would have been done but for the interference of the military.
Vote of thanks and Freedom of City to Keppel, 12 Feb., 1779.
The next day (12 Feb.) the Common Council passed a vote of thanks to Keppel "for his spirited behaviour on the 27th of July last in his attack on the French fleet, for his glorious and gallant efforts to renew the engagement in the afternoon of that day, efforts rendered unsuccessful thro' the want of obedience to his orders by the Vice-Admiral of the Blue."[435] They further voted him the Freedom of the City in a box of heart of oak, in testimony of the respect and gratitude which they entertained of his long and faithful services to his country.[436] That night the illuminations were repeated, but stringent measures were taken to prevent tumult.[437] The vote of thanks was conveyed to the admiral without delay, but circumstances prevented the Freedom being conferred on him until the following December. On the first occasion, Keppel was entertained with a few of his most intimate friends at the London Tavern;[438] on the second the admiral entertained a deputation from the Common Council at his own house in Audley Square. He and Lord Howe had by that time become so disgusted with the government that they had signified their intention of withdrawing their services from the navy so long as the ministers remained in power;[439] but he assured his guests that his zeal for the public good had in no wise abated, notwithstanding his withdrawal from the command of the fleet.[440] The friendly attitude of the City towards Keppel could not have been otherwise than distasteful to the king who looked upon "poor" Palliser as an ill-used man, and had even suggested his appointment to the command of the North American fleet until the recent affair had blown over.[441]
Spain declares war, 17 June, 1779.
The situation in which ministers found themselves was daily becoming more difficult, when Spain rendered it worse by allying herself (June, 1779) with France and America against Great Britain. North had again and again intimated his readiness to resign, but the king would not hear of it, and the minister yielded to his master's stronger will and consented to remain in office against his own convictions. With this increase of danger Parliament again rallied round the throne, and voted loyal addresses. At the same time the leading Whig lords protested against the affairs of the country being left in the hands of a ministry that had proved itself so incapable;—"In such a situation a change of system appears to us to be our indispensable duty to advise."[442] This too was the opinion of a large body of citizens, but the Common Council declined to hamper the king with another address on the subject.[443]
Economical reform.
The country for the most part was in favour of prosecuting the war with vigour, notwithstanding the addition of a fresh enemy. At the same time there was increasing dissatisfaction at the national expenditure and the excessive use of court influence over Parliament. The Opposition took advantage of this feeling, and in December motions were brought before the House of Lords in favour of economical reform. These were rejected, and the further consideration of the matter was postponed until the 8th February (1780). The Common Council sympathised with the Dukes of Devonshire, Grafton, Manchester, Portland and other Whig lords in their endeavours to promote reform, and passed them a vote of thanks. The Corporation was convinced that the cause of all the existing trouble lay in the "enormous and undue influence of the crown," and promised them support. Each of the lords wrote to acknowledge the vote of thanks, and their answers were given a wide circulation.[444]
Committees of Association, 1779.
Before the question came on again the country had become thoroughly roused. Committees of Association—as they were called—sprang up in all directions, their object being to impress upon Parliament the necessity of economy and the abolition of sinecures. Petitions flowed in from all parts. Yorkshire took the lead, but was closely followed by London.[445] The day that the City's petition was laid before the House (11 Feb.) Burke introduced a Bill for carrying out economical reform, but the measure had to be abandoned owing to the opposition it met with in committee.[446]
Dunning's motion, 6 April, 1780.
Although Burke's Bill had failed to pass, the movement continued to gain force both in and out of Parliament, and on the 6th April Dunning moved his famous resolution that "it is the opinion of this committee that the influence of the crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished." This resolution, with but a slight variation, was, after a hot debate, carried by a majority of eighteen.[447] It was followed by two other resolutions in the same direction, one (moved also by Dunning) to the effect that it was competent for the House to reform the Civil List, the other (moved by Thomas Pitt) that it was the duty of the House to remedy the abuses mentioned in the petitions. Both were carried, and the movers were accorded the thanks of the City (which they in due course acknowledged[448]), but when it came to taking further action on these resolutions the House raised so many objections that all thought of carrying them into effect had to be abandoned.
The City's letter to Lord Shelburne, 7 April, 1780.
As time went on the Committees of Association, not content with their legitimate work—the work for which they were originally established—viz., economical reform, took upon themselves to push parliamentary reform, a matter on which the country was not as yet agreed. The City approved of their action, having long been anxious to see a recurrence to short parliaments and a change made in the mode of representation, but in other places the new departure caused alarm. In Wiltshire, Lord Shelburne's county, the Association had been disavowed[449] owing to its recent action, and his lordship had in consequence written a letter to the county upholding the Association. Soon after this Shelburne was wounded in a duel, and upon his recovery the City took the opportunity of sending him a letter of congratulation, and at the same time of testifying their appreciation of his letter to the county of Wilts;—"The noble and manly proof which your lordship has given in your letter to the county of Wilts of your decided concurrence in the undoubted right of the people to short parliaments and the necessity of a more equal representation cannot but increase our regard, esteem and confidence; and your lordship in your further prosecution of those great constitutional objects may depend on the most firm and determined support of the city of London."[450]
Lord Shelburne's reply, 12 April, 1780.
The earl in reply assured the Common Council that the support of the City of London was the most honourable incentive he was capable of feeling, as well as the strongest preservative against despondency. As regards the proposals for shortening the duration of parliaments and a more equitable representation, which the counties, cities and boroughs of England were combining to obtain, they would certainly meet his zealous concurrence whenever they should appear "to be the public sense." Without wishing to influence others, he was bound at so critical a juncture to confess that his own opinion was in favour of both proposals.[451]
The City accepts a Form of Association, 13 April, 1780.