CHAPTER XXXIV.
The Princess Anne proclaimed queen 8 March, 1702.
On the day that William died the Lords Spiritual and Temporal met together and, "with the assistance" of the Privy Council, a number of other "principall gentlemen of quality" and the lord mayor, aldermen and citizens of London, proceeded to draw up a document proclaiming the Princess Anne successor to the crown. The day happened to be Sunday; nevertheless on that same afternoon public proclamation of the queen's accession was made at Temple Bar and the Royal Exchange in the presence of the mayor and Court of Aldermen, whilst the sheriffs were despatched to learn when her majesty would be pleased to receive the aldermen.[1879]
The Common Council vote an address, 10 March.
A picture of the queen for the Guildhall and a statue for the Royal Exchange.
Two days later (10 March) the Common Council voted an address condoling with the queen on the death of the late king and congratulating her upon her accession.[1880] The Court of Aldermen resolved to put themselves into "close" mourning, each alderman providing himself with a mourning gown at his own expense, whilst the Chamberlain was instructed to provide similar gowns for the chief officers of the Corporation at the City's expense, as had formerly been done on the demise of Charles II.[1881] They further[pg 611] resolved, with her majesty's permission, to cause her portrait to be painted and to be set up in the Guildhall and a statue of her to be set up at the Royal Exchange. It was found on enquiry that the statues of kings and queens already in the Royal Exchange had been set up at the expense of the companies, except those of William and Mary, which (as we have seen) were erected by order of the Common Council. On the other hand, the pictures of Charles II, James II and of William and Mary had all been paid for by the Chamber. Artists were invited to send in sketches or designs for her majesty's picture; and this having been done, the work was entrusted to Closterman.[1882]
The coronation, 23 April, 1702.
At the coronation, which took place on the 23rd April, the mayor, aldermen and twelve representatives of the principal livery companies were present, care having been taken by the City Remembrancer that their proper places were assigned them both in the Abbey and at the subsequent banquet in Westminster Hall. The civic dignitaries started from the city as early as seven o'clock in the morning in order to be at Westminster Hall by eight a.m. The mayor was provided at the City's expense with the customary gown of crimson velvet for the occasion, the sword-bearer being only a little less resplendent in a gown of damask.[1883]
Parliament contunues notwithstanding demise of the crown, Stat. 7 & 8 Will. III, c. 15.
Before the Revolution it had been the custom for parliament to cease to exist immediately on the demise of the crown. It was held that inasmuch as the king[pg 612] was the head of the parliament, and as the members of a living body could not continue to exist without a head, so a parliament could not continue without a king, but must with the death of the king, ipso facto, itself expire. The inconveniences arising from this had at length become so apparent that an Act had recently been passed permitting a parliament in existence at the demise of the crown to be continued for a period of six months after such demise.[1884] By virtue of this Act the parliament, which had met for the first time on the 30th December, 1701, was allowed to sit, notwithstanding the king's death, until dissolved in July, 1702.
The Tories supplant the Whigs in the new parliament.
The "good" Queen Anne, warmly attached as she was to the Church of England, was naturally inclined towards the Tories in preference to the Whigs, and lost no time in dismissing Somers, Halifax and other Whig ministers of the late king and filling their places with Tories. Her action in this respect influenced the coming elections more especially in the city of London, where a new commission of lieutenancy appointed by the queen had already turned out six colonels of Whiggish proclivities and had put in their place others of a different political character.[1885]
The city members.
Only one of the old Whig members managed to retain his seat, viz., Gilbert Heathcote, who had recently been elected alderman of Walbrook ward in the place[pg 613] of Sir John Moore, deceased, and who may have inherited some of the Tory principles of his predecessor together with the aldermanic gown. There is nothing like office for chastening a man's political opinions. However this may have been, his three colleagues elected to serve with him in the coming parliament were also aldermen of the city and staunch Tories. These were Sir William Pritchard, Sir John Fleet and Sir Francis Child. A scrutiny had been demanded by Clayton, Ashurst and Abney, the defeated candidates, but it failed to disturb the result of the poll.[1886] Clayton was successful in finding a seat for Bletchingley, co. Surrey.[1887]
The queen entertained on lord mayor's day, 29 Oct., 1702.
When Michaelmas-day came round and Sir Samuel Dashwood—a tried Tory who had sat for the city in the only parliament convened under James II, as well as in the first parliament under William and Mary—was elected to the mayoralty chair, the choice of the citizens was highly commended by the lord keeper,[1888] and the queen accepted an invitation to dinner on lord mayor's day. It was proposed to invite both Houses of Parliament to the city on that occasion, but it was found that the accommodation at the Guildhall was insufficient for the purpose.[1889] The cost of the entertainment to her majesty was not thrown on the Chamber, but was discharged by the aldermen, each of them agreeing to subscribe the[pg 614] sum of £25 for the purpose. The entertainment, however, was given on so lavish a scale that these contributions had to be doubled, in addition to which the outgoing as well as the incoming mayor contributed £300 respectively and each of the sheriffs £150. The whole cost of the entertainment amounted to £2,000.[1890] The queen acknowledged the hospitality thus offered by conferring the honour of knighthood upon Francis Dashwood, brother of the lord mayor, Richard Hoare, the goldsmith of Fleet Street, Gilbert Heathcote, the city member, and upon "Mr. Eaton," the linendraper, of Cheapside, from whose house she had witnessed the pageant.[1891]
Public thanksgiving service at St. Paul's, 12 Nov., 1702.
Scarce a fortnight elapsed before the queen again visited the city (12 Nov.), the occasion being a public thanksgiving service in St. Paul's for the successes of Marlborough, Ormond and Rooke. In July Marlborough had opened the campaign against France and Spain, war having been declared against those countries on the 4th May,[1892] and although he had been unable to bring the enemy to a general engagement he had succeeded in reducing several important towns and in cutting off the communications of the French with the Lower Rhine. At sea the English and Dutch combined fleets under the command of Sir George Rooke, with a large number of troops on board under the command of the Duke of Ormond, had succeeded in capturing a rich booty in Vigo Bay.[1893] Both Houses of Parliament attended the service.[pg 615] The order of the procession and the distribution of seats within the cathedral are given in detail in a report laid before the Court of Aldermen (15 Dec.).[1894] The queen, who was attired in purple, and wore her collar and George, was met at Temple Bar by the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs on horseback. The city sword, having been presented to her majesty and restored to the mayor, was carried by him next before her majesty's coach to the cathedral. The streets from St. James' to Temple Bar were lined by the Westminster militia, and from Temple Bar to Ludgate by two regiments of the city trained bands. The balconies and windows were hung with carpets and tapestry. On arriving at St. Paul's her majesty was met at the door by the Peers and escorted to the choir of the cathedral by the Duke of Somerset and the lord chamberlain, the sword of state being borne before her by the Duke of Ormond. The spectacle which presented itself inside St. Paul's on this occasion has scarcely ever been equalled. Opposite the altar, on a throne of state, sat the queen. The Peers were accommodated with seats in the body of the choir, whilst the Commons sat in the stalls and upper galleries on either side. In the two lower galleries next the throne sat the foreign ministers and ladies "of quality." There were two other galleries near the altar, one on the north side and the other on the south side of the church. The latter was occupied by the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, whilst the former was occupied (as usual) by their ladies. The sermon was preached by the Bishop of Exeter. The night was given up to bonfires and illuminations.[1895]
The victory at Blenheim, 2 Aug. (o.s.), 1704.
Two years later the city's minster—now rapidly approaching completion—was again the scene of a similar gathering, the occasion being a thanksgiving service for a signal victory gained by Marlborough over the French and Bavarian forces at Blenheim, near Hochstadt in Germany (2 Aug., o.s.).[1896] The 7th September was set apart as a day of public thanksgiving.[1897] The City in the meanwhile voted (30 Aug.) an address to her majesty[1898] congratulating her on the success that had attended her arms and complimenting her on her judgment in selecting Marlborough for the command, whose courage and conduct had "settled the tottering empire, relieved Savoy, chastised the Elector of Bavaria, and curbed the ambition of the French king." They prayed that her majesty might long live a terror to her enemies, a defence to her injured neighbours and a delight to her subjects. The next day (31 Aug.) the mayor issued his precept to the several livery companies to prepare their rails, stands, banners and other usual "ornaments of triumph" with the view of taking up such position in the street as should be assigned to them.[1899] Several of the companies, viz., the Girdlers, the Scriveners and the Glovers, refused to obey the precept, and were thereupon summoned before the Court of Aldermen to answer for their conduct, whilst others like the Dyers, the Cooks and the Poulterers were excused.[1900] A little difficulty arose touching the seats assigned[pg 617] by the lord chamberlain in St. Paul's to the civic dignitaries, who claimed the right to occupy the seats and places where they usually sat, the more so on this occasion because, parliament not being then in session, the members of neither House were to be in attendance. How matters were eventually arranged does not appear, but the Court of Aldermen up to the last moment were emphatic in their resolution that the lord mayor should insist on keeping his place in the cathedral, and a week later (14 Sept.) appointed a committee to search for precedents as to the place occupied by the mayor and aldermen in processions and their seats in St. Paul's on occasions of any king or queen coming there to hear a sermon.[1901] In other respects everything passed off well.
The Duke of Marlborough at Goldsmiths' Hall, 6 Jan., 1705.
On the morning of the 14th December Marlborough arrived in London, bringing in his train Marshal Tallard and other general officers whom he had made captive at Blenheim. On the 20th an invitation was sent for his grace to dine with the Court of Aldermen and the sheriffs at Goldsmiths' Hall, the residence of Sir Owen Buckingham, the lord mayor, on any day he might name. The invitation having been graciously accepted for the 6th January, the duke was further requested to bring with him what company he pleased, for his grace would find none others there besides the lord mayor, aldermen and sheriffs to entertain him. Each alderman and sheriff was called upon to subscribe the sum of £25 towards defraying the cost of the entertainment.[1902]
On the day appointed the duke was conveyed to the city in one of her majesty's own coaches, accompanied by the Duke of Somerset, the foreign ministers and a large number of the nobility and general officers of the army. At Temple Bar he was met by the city marshal, by whom he was conducted to Goldsmiths' Hall. There a "noble treat" was set out for the guests, "the queen's musick playing all the while, and everything performed in great splendor."[1903] The Common Council acknowledged the great public spirit thus displayed by the Court of Aldermen and the sheriffs by passing an unanimous vote of thanks to them.[1904]
The City's finances, 1702-4.
In the meantime, whilst Marlborough had been so successfully carrying on the work which the late king had set himself to do, the city of London had been busy setting its house in order. The poor were with them in greater numbers than ever. The statute (13 and 14 Chas. II, c. 12) passed in 1662 for the better relief of the poor of the kingdom, authorising the erection of workhouses, necessitated the expenditure of a great deal of money, and a sum amounting to nearly £5,000 had to be periodically raised for the purpose by assessment of the several parishes of the city.[1905] Besides this there was a yearly sum of £8,000 due by the City to the orphans and its other creditors, a sum which exceeded the City's yearly revenue. The consequence was that the City had become greatly in debt. To remedy this state of affairs various methods were resorted to. An attempt was[pg 619] made at the commencement of the present reign to get the queen's sanction for compelling every governor, deputy governor, or committeeman of both the East India companies to take up the freedom of the City. The question was referred to the attorney-general, whose opinion on the matter was duly reported to the Common Council.[1906]
On the 1st July, 1703, another committee was appointed to examine the state of the Chamber, and to consider of ways and means for its supply and for the support of the government of the city. On the 18th August this committee recommended to the Common Council that an exact survey of all the City's estate should be made in each ward by the alderman and his deputy, and that such surveys should be sent to the town clerk so that they might be entered in a book. The court approved of the recommendation, and ordered that it should be carried out "with all expedition imaginable."[1907] The City's markets,[1908] the City's beams[1909] and everything else that could be let on lease were let at improved rentals, and everything that could be sold was sold. On the 4th November (1703) the lord mayor (Sir John Parsons) informed the Common Council that towards the payment of the City's debts his lordship and the two sheriffs had agreed to lay before the court certain papers showing (1) what the several places under the Corporation would sell for, (2) what the lord mayor himself and the sheriffs were willing to take for their share of each place, and (3) what part of the[pg 620] purchase-money might be devoted to the liquidation of the City's debts.[1910]
The schedule is an interesting one as showing the value attached to various offices under the City. Thus a water-bailiff's place would sell for £2,200, a sword-bearer's for £2,500, and that of a clerk of the Chamber for as much as £2,600 (the highest of all), whilst a City solicitor could purchase his place for £1,500, and a City remembrancer could do the same for £1,200. The scheme proposed by the mayor and sheriffs on this occasion affected no less than one hundred and sixty-three places of employment, and was simplicity itself, being nothing more than that they themselves and their successors should forego one-third of the value of any place that became vacant during their year of office, and that this third should be devoted to payment of the City's liabilities. The total value of these purchaseable places amounted to £107,860, one-third of which, viz., £35,953 6s. 8d., would, if this proposal were carried out (and if every place fell vacant within the year), be available for the discharge of the City's debts. In a second schedule were set out certain other places filled chiefly by artificers, who, by their extravagant charges, had contributed (it was said) in no small degree to the City's indebtedness. These were to be excluded from the scheme, much to their disappointment. When any one of them died, surrendered his place or was dismissed from it for just cause, his place was not to be filled up, and the payment of 10s. a week, more or less, which such[pg 621] artificer had been in the habit of receiving from the City, "work or not work," was to cease.
The proposals thus laid before the Common Council met with the approval of the court, and the committee was instructed to embody them in a Bill. A Bill was accordingly drawn up and read the first time on the 4th February, 1704. It passed on the 24th,[1911] and the thanks of the Common Council were returned to the mayor and sheriffs for their generous offers.
Another thanksgiving service at St. Paul's, 23 Aug., 1705.
In March, 1705, Marlborough sailed for Holland to resume the campaign. By July he had succeeded in forcing the French lines which stretched across the country from Namur to Antwerp. For this success another thanksgiving service was held at St. Paul's, and attended by the queen in person (23 Aug.).[1912] Had the general been allowed a free hand by his Dutch allies a decisive battle might have been fought. The Dutch officers refused, however, to co-operate in an attack, and Marlborough had to give way with the best grace he could.
Meeting of the new parliament, 25 Oct., 1705.
During Marlborough's absence the parliament of 1702, which would soon have terminated by efflux of time under the provisions of the Triennial Act, had been dissolved (5 April) and a new one summoned. Once more the political pendulum swung back and a Whig parliament was returned. The Tories rather injured than aided their cause by raising the cry that the Church was in danger, whilst the Whig party was[pg 622] daily increasing in favour not only with the queen, who highly resented such a cry, but also with Marlborough and Godolphin. In the city both parties put up four candidates, but when the poll was declared it was found that all four Whigs had been returned by an overwhelming majority.[1913] One of the results of an understanding arrived at between Marlborough and the Tory leaders with the Whig Junto was a modification of an article in the Act of Settlement, which, after the accession of the House of Hanover, would have otherwise debarred ministers and other placemen from the House of Commons. A compromise was effected whereby only those who enjoyed a pension or office created after the 25th October, 1705, were to be disqualified from sitting in the House, whilst all other offices were declared compatible with a seat if the holder presented himself to his constituents for re-election at the time of his appointment.[1914] This arrangement is still in force, although the necessity of it has long since disappeared.
The victory at Ramillies, 12 May (o.s), 1706.
After a brief stay in England, where he had arrived at the opening of the new year (1706), Marlborough again crossed over to Holland before the spring. A few weeks only elapsed before he gained fresh laurels by another signal defeat of the French[pg 623] at the little village of Ramillies (12 May, o.s.).[1915] On the 24th May the Common Council voted an address to the queen congratulating her majesty on the victory.[1916] The 27th June was set apart as a day of public thanksgiving, for which the City made the usual preparations.[1917] But seeing that these gala days followed so closely on one another the Court of Aldermen resolved that the new crimson velvet gown with which the lord mayor was furnished on these occasions at the City's expense should no longer be appropriated by him, but should be carefully laid up by the hall keeper for future use.[1918] At the humble request of the lord mayor (Sir Thomas Rawlinson) her majesty graciously consented to bestow the trophies and colours recently taken in Flanders upon the City to the intent that they might be hung up in the Guildhall. It was not, however, until the 19th December, when the Duke of Marlborough was sumptuously entertained at Vintners' Hall, that twenty-six standards and sixty-three colours, taken at Ramillies, were brought into the city in great state, there to be displayed on the walls of the Guildhall.[1919]
£250,000 for Prince Eugene, March, 1706.
These successes were not achieved without great expenditure of blood and money. At the close of the previous year (1705) the lord mayor had received an order under the royal sign manual requiring him and the Court of Aldermen to forthwith impress 1,000[pg 624] men—such as had no visible means of subsistence—for service by land or sea,[1920] whilst in the following March (1706) it was found necessary to open a subscription at Mercers' Chapel for furnishing Prince Eugene with £250,000 to assist him in carrying on the campaign in Italy. Notwithstanding the depressed state of the Corporation finances, the city abounded in wealth, and by the close of the first day no less than £160,000 of the whole loan had been underwritten, Sir Gilbert Heathcote, Sir William Scawen, Sir James Bateman and Sir Henry Furnese making themselves each responsible for the sum of £4,000.[1921] With the pecuniary assistance thus afforded him, and with the reinforcements which Marlborough despatched to him from Holland, the prince was enabled to raise the siege of Turin (7 Sept., 1706).
Day of public thanksgiving, 31 Dec., 1706.
It was not long before the crimson velvet gown was again brought into requisition. So great success had attended the allied armies in 1706 that the queen ordered another day of public thanksgiving to be kept on the last day of the year, when she paid another solemn visit to St. Paul's, accompanied by both Houses of Parliament. Strange to say the records of the Court of Aldermen are absolutely silent as to the preparations made for the occasion, but from another source we know them to have been on the same scale as formerly, and we may depend upon it that the crimson velvet gown was there.[1922]
Passage of gunpowder through the city.
The city was at this time in great danger from the passage of large quantities of gunpowder through[pg 625] the streets on its way to the Tower. One can realise the immense risk which the merchant and trader ran in pursuing his regular vocation when one reads that on the 10th July (1706) a cart with iron-bound wheels and laden with twenty-five barrels of gunpowder had been overturned on Fish Street Hill and the gunpowder scattered. Nor was this the only accident that had occurred; the wonder is that the entire city had not been blown up long since, seeing that gunpowder was a commodity dealt in by grocers! The Common Council took the matter up and made a representation to the queen.[1923] Next year a Bill was introduced into the House of Commons by Sir Gilbert Heathcote and Samuel Shepheard, two of the city members, for preventing the dangers arising from bringing or laying up quantities of gunpowder within the city and liberties, but before the Lords and Commons could come to an agreement parliament was prorogued (24 April, 1707).[1924] The municipal authorities were not content to let matters rest here, but prepared a petition to parliament for leave to bring in another Bill. The petition was ordered to lie on the table (24 Feb., 1708),[1925] and in the meantime the citizens had to be satisfied with an undertaking already given by powder-makers not to carry any gunpowder to any wharf or stairs within half a mile of London Bridge.[1926]
The Union with Scotland, 1607.
The Articles of Union between England and Scotland having, after prolonged discussion, been[pg 626] ratified by both the English and Scottish parliaments and received the formal assent of the Crown, a day of public thanksgiving (1 May, 1707) was ordered to be observed for the happy conclusion of the treaty between the two kingdoms. A proclamation had previously been issued (29 April) constituting the existing Houses of Lords and Commons the first parliament of Great Britain for and on the part of England, whilst sixteen peers and forty-five commoners were to be elected to represent Scotland in the same parliament. The first meeting was to take place at Westminster on the 23rd October.[1927] Meanwhile addresses of congratulation to the queen arrived from various parts of the kingdom; but in consequence of the Article of Union declaring the Presbyterian form to be the true Protestant religion, no such address came from the University of Oxford. It was otherwise with the city of London, where Presbyterianism had always been in favour. On the 9th May the Common Council voted an address to her majesty congratulating her upon the happy union of the two kingdoms, a blessing which Heaven (they declared) had reserved for her to accomplish, who was the true and sincere lover of piety, unity and concord.[1928]
France and the Pretender, March, 1708.
The Londoners entertained sincere affection for Queen Anne, and lost no opportunity of showing their loyalty. Such an opportunity presented itself in the spring of the following year (1708), when Scotland was threatened by a French invasion in favour of the Pretender. The citizens hastened to assure her that[pg 627] the French preparations inspired them—her majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects—with no terror. The repeated tenders of their lives and fortunes were (she was asked to believe) not empty words, but they would be ready when occasion offered to demonstrate to the world their unfeigned loyalty in support of her majesty and the maintenance of the Protestant succession against the Pretender and all other enemies at home and abroad.[1929]
Search for Papists and Jacobites in the city, 1708.
Not satisfied with mere assurances of support, parliament proceeded to pass a Bill "for the better security of her majesty's person," by virtue of which the oath of abjuration was to be administered to all suspected persons, and those who refused it were to be at once treated as convict recusants. The Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, and the House of Commons engaged to make good any extra expense her majesty might be put to by reason of this threatened invasion.[1930] On Tuesday, the 30th March, a letter from the Privy Council was read before the Court of Aldermen in which the magistrates of the city were commanded to meet as soon as possible for the purpose of tendering the oath, according to the provisions of the recent Act. The court thereupon gave orders for precepts to be immediately issued to the deputies and common councilmen of the several wards requiring them to return a list in writing under their hands to the town clerk of all disaffected or dangerous persons found in their wards. The returns were to be made before the end of the week.[1931] This could have been no[pg 628] easy matter considering the number of particulars that were to be set out in the return according to the terms of the precept. The deputy and common councilmen of each ward were called upon to distinguish (1) all Papists or reputed Papists, (2) all such as preached in or frequented Jacobite meetings, (3) all non-jurors, i.e., such as had refused to take the oaths appointed to be taken in place of the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, (4) all such as were found guilty of casting aspersions upon her majesty and the government, (5) all persons suspected of holding correspondence with her majesty's enemies abroad, and lastly (6) all spreaders of false and seditious reports. The christian names and surnames of each and all of these, together with their place of abode, were to be returned in less than a week in order that they might be summoned and have the oath tendered to them.[1932]
City parliamentary elections, 1708.
On the 1st April parliament was prorogued; a fortnight later it was dissolved and writs for a new parliament were sent out on the 26th, returnable on the following 8th July.[1933] Although the Whigs again obtained a majority in the country, and although they succeeded before the end of the year in ousting all Tories from the ministry, they were losing ground in the city of London. In November last Withers, the lord mayor, had obtained Clayton's seat (on the latter's decease) in the Tory interest as already mentioned.[1934] He was again returned after a close contest with Sir Samuel Stanier, and with him another Tory in the person of John Ward, who[pg 629] subsequently became an alderman and sat in the first parliament of George I. The other two seats were retained by the Whigs, Ashurst and Heathcote.[1935]
The campaign of 1708.
Before the elections were over news arrived of another victory gained by Marlborough. The French had been utterly defeated at Oudenarde (30 June, o.s.).[1936] The fact that the Common Council allowed some weeks to slip by before voting a congratulatory address to the queen[1937] may possibly be accounted for by the growing strength of the Tory party in the city, with whom the war was never in favour. The victory was followed before the close of the year by the capture of Lille, one of the strongest fortresses in Flanders, and the recovery of Bruges and Ghent, which had fallen into the hands of the French general, Vendôme.[1938]
The death of Prince George of Denmark, 28 Oct., 1708.
The general joy which succeeded the victory of Oudenarde was damped by the somewhat sudden death of Prince George of Denmark, the queen's husband. For some time past the prince had been suffering from asthma, but it was not until Monday, the 25th October, that graver symptoms appeared.[1939] On that day he was attacked with dropsy and hæmorrhage, and the Court of Aldermen thought so seriously of the attack that three days later (28 Oct.)[pg 630] they instructed the City Remembrancer to repair daily to Kensington to enquire after the prince's health.[1940] That same afternoon, however, the prince died, and the City's address, presented to the queen a month later, whilst congratulating her on her victories abroad, condoled with her majesty on the loss she had sustained at home.[1941] The sad event happening so close upon lord mayor's day, when Sir Charles Duncombe was to be sworn into office, the customary pageant on such occasions was foregone, the mayor-elect contenting himself with driving to Westminster Hall attended only by some of his brother aldermen.[1942]
The campaign of 1709.
After a futile attempt to arrange terms for a cessation of hostilities both parties again took the field. Tournay having been reduced by the allies under Marlborough and Eugene, they next proceeded to threaten Mons. In order to protect this stronghold Villars, the French marshal, entrenched himself at Malplaquet. From this post, however, the allies succeeded in driving him after a "very bloody battle," in which the victors lost more men than the defeated (31 Aug., o.s.).[1943] The citizens of London, in an address to the queen, expressed their delight at the prospect of the French king being soon compelled to accept terms.[1944] Tuesday, the 22nd November, was ordered to be observed as a day of public thanksgiving for the victory of "Blaregnies," by which name the battle of Malplaquet was sometimes known.[1945]
Scarcity of corn and bread, 1709.
Before another campaign was opened the ascendancy of the Whigs had passed away. They had rendered themselves the more obnoxious to the citizens by the passing of an Act for the naturalization of foreign Protestants,[1946] the result of which had been to overcrowd the city with needy foreigners at a time when there was a great scarcity of provisions. A cry was raised that the price of corn and bread was being enhanced by the action of forestallers, and the lord mayor was instructed by letter from Sunderland (3 Oct., 1709) to put the law in force against all engrossers, forestallers and regraters of corn. The mayor in reply assured the secretary of state that there were no such engrossers in the city, but that the present dearness was caused by the exportation of large quantities of corn and grain to foreign countries. The city authorities had, moreover, been informed that wheat was selling in the north of England at 40s. a quarter and less. They therefore suggested that government should furnish a sufficient convoy for the purpose of bringing it to London.[1947] The representation as to the evils arising from exportation of corn had the desired effect, for a Bill was shortly afterwards passed limiting such importation,[1948] whilst another Bill was passed for regulating the assize of bread.[1949]
Dr. Sacheverell's sermon, 5 Nov., 1709.
The Court of Aldermen decline to print it, 8 Nov., 1709.
The bitter feeling against the Whigs engendered by their overbearing and dictatorial conduct whenever in power was increased by a sermon preached at St. Paul's on the 5th November before the lord mayor[pg 632] and aldermen by Dr. Sacheverell, a high church Tory. Taking for his text the words of the Apostle, "In perils among false brethren" (2 Cor., xi, 26), the preacher advocated in its entirety the doctrine of non-resistance, condemned every sort of toleration, and attacked with much bitterness the Dissenters. Sir Samuel Garrard, who had but recently entered on his duties as lord mayor (having been elected in place of Sir Jeffery Jeffreys, who had been excused from office on the ground of ill-health),[1950] was himself also a high Tory, and as such was greatly pleased with the sentiments put forth by Sacheverell. He congratulated the preacher on his sermon, and is said to have expressed a hope that it would be printed. If so, it would appear to betoken some doubt in his mind as to his brother aldermen consenting to print such a polemical discourse. As a rule all sermons preached on state occasions before the mayor and aldermen were ordered by the court to be printed as a matter of course, the sum of forty shillings being voted towards the expense. Two sermons recently preached before them, one at St. Paul's and the other in the church of St. Lawrence Jewry, were so ordered (8 Nov.) to be printed by the court; but when on the same day the question was put to them that Dr. Sacheverell should be desired to print his sermon it was negatived.[1951] Sacheverell took no notice of this rebuff, but printed the sermon on his own responsibility and at his own expense, with a prefatory dedication to the mayor.[1952] The sermon was immensely popular with the high church party,[pg 633] and a large number of copies were circulated, much to the disgust of the Whigs.
The sermon brought to the notice of parliament, 13 Dec., 1709.
At length the ministry resolved to take proceedings against the author. On the 13th December a complaint was made to the House of Commons of this sermon, as well as of another sermon of similar character which had been preached by Sacheverell before the judges at the last summer assizes at Derby. After some debate the House resolved that both these sermons were "malicious, scandalous and seditious libels highly reflecting upon her majesty and her government, the late happy revolution, and the Protestant succession as by law established," and ordered that Dr. Henry Sacheverell and Henry Clements, his publisher, should attend at the Bar of the House the next day.
Sacheverell's impeachment ordered, 14 Dec., 1709.
Accordingly the next day (14 Dec.) the doctor and the bookseller appeared. Sacheverell owned that he was the author of the two discourses, and gave an account of what had taken place between himself and the lord mayor; but whilst expressing his regret at having incurred the displeasure of the House, he showed no contrition for the doctrines he had promulgated. The lord mayor, who was present in the House in his capacity as member for Agmondesham, was thereupon asked if he had given any orders for causing the sermon preached at St. Paul's to be printed, but he denied having done so.[1953] The doctor being called upon to retire, the House resolved to impeach him of high crimes and misdemeanours and in the meantime committed him to the custody of the[pg 634] sergeant-at-arms. Application was made a few days later for bail to be allowed, but this the House refused.[1954] It was, however, subsequently granted by the Lords, but at a very high amount, viz., Sacheverell himself in £6,000 and two sureties in £3,000 respectively. One of these sureties was no other than the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, of which Sacheverell was a member.[1955]
His trial in Westminster Hall, 27 Feb., 1710.
It was originally intended that the trial should take place at the Bar of the House of Lords, but as the Commons insisted upon being present as a committee of the whole House, the Lords appointed Westminster Hall to be the place of trial and instructed Sir Christopher Wren to make the necessary preparations as speedily as possible.[1956] The trial commenced on the 27th February and continued for three weeks. Day after day as Sacheverell passed from his lodgings in the Temple to Westminster Hall and home again his coach was besieged by crowds striving to kiss his hand and shouting "Sacheverell and the Church for ever!" So again when the queen, impelled by curiosity, attended the trial, as she did on more than one occasion, shouts were raised as she passed on her way of "God bless your majesty and the Church! we hope your majesty is for Dr. Sacheverell!" Had the mob confined itself to this kind of demonstration little harm had been done. Unfortunately it allowed itself to be carried away by excitement and took to attacking meeting-houses and damaging[pg 635] the property of Dissenters.[1957] The arguments on both sides having at last been concluded, the Lords, by a narrow majority, pronounced Sacheverell guilty. They did not venture, however, to proceed against him with any greater severity than to order his sermons to be burnt at the Exchange by the common hangman, in the presence of the lord mayor and sheriffs, and to prohibit him from preaching for the next three years.[1958] Such a sentence was virtually a victory for the Tories and a defeat of the Whigs. Lord mayor Garrard contrived to escape the humiliation of presiding over the burning of a sermon of which he in his heart approved, and this part of the sentence was carried out in his absence under the supervision of the sheriffs.[1959] The verdict was welcomed in the city with illuminations and bonfires, accompanied with some little tumult and disorder. The queen complained to the Court of Aldermen by letter, and thereupon the court appointed a committee to investigate the recent riots (27 March, 1710). The result was that the ringleaders were arrested and bound over to the sessions.[1960] The streets were flooded with republican pamphlets which the House ordered to be burnt by the common hangman.[1961] Addresses were sent in from all parts of the country, some in favour of the existing parliament, but the majority advocated a speedy dissolution.[1962] The Common Council voted an address (but only by a small majority) in which[pg 636] her majesty was assured of the City's hatred of all "anti-monarchical principles," its continued loyalty to her person and government, its zeal for the Church of England, its tender regard for liberty of conscience and its resolution to maintain the Protestant succession. The address concluded by saying that in obedience to her majesty's commands the civic authorities would do their utmost care to prevent and suppress riotous assemblies.[1963] The address, together with one from the lieutenancy of London, was presented to the queen on the 13th April.[1964]
The fall of the Whigs, 1710.
The queen seized the opportunity afforded her by this outburst of Tory enthusiasm to get rid of the Whig ministry. For some time past she had been anxious to free herself from Marlborough and the domineering influence of his wife. During the trial of Sacheverell Marlborough had been on the continent. In view of the approaching struggle between Whigs and Tories, both parties preferred to be relieved of his presence. To this end Sir Gilbert Heathcote, one of the Whig members for the city, had moved an address to her majesty (16 Feb.) praying she would order the duke to Holland, "where his presence will be equally necessary to assist at the negotiations of peace and to hasten the preparations for an early campaign."[1965] The address, having received the unanimous assent of both Houses, was graciously received by the queen, and Marlborough had set out. In his absence the queen proceeded cautiously to effect her object. One by one the Whigs were removed from office and their places[pg 637] filled up by Tories. Sunderland was the first to go, the seals being transferred to Lord Dartmouth. It was feared in commercial circles that his dismissal betokened a general change of ministry and that a panic would follow. The queen, however, assured Sir Gilbert Heathcote, at that time governor of the Bank of England, that she had no immediate intention of making further changes, but that if any were made she would take care that they should not be prejudicial to the bank or to the common cause.[1966] Notwithstanding the assurances thus given, less than two months elapsed before Godolphin was made to follow Sunderland. After this many of the Whig ministers resigned, whilst others waited to be turned out.
Parliamentary elections, 1710.
The city members.
A few weeks after the dismissal of Godolphin the queen insisted on dissolving parliament, and writs were issued (27 Sept.) for a new House to meet in November.[1967] Harley, who was the queen's chief adviser, having failed in an attempt to form a coalition of Tories and moderate Whigs, placed all his hopes in the result of a general election. Every effort was made to get a Tory majority returned, and with success. Bishop Burnet, whose Whiggish proclivities are apparent in every page of his history, took no pains to disguise his opinions as to the way the elections were generally carried out, and more particularly in the city of London. "While the poll was taken in London," he writes,[1968] "a new commission for the lieutenancy of the city was sent in, by which a great change was made; Tories were put in[pg 638] and Whigs were left out; in a word, the practice and violence now used in elections went far beyond anything that I have ever known in England." If freedom of election was to count for anything, the worthy bishop entertained grave doubts as to the new parliament being a representative parliament at all. Only one of the old members was returned by the city, viz., Sir William Withers. With him were elected another alderman of the city, viz., Sir Richard Hoare, who had been defeated in the Tory interest at the last election, Sir George Newland and John Cass,[1969] who afterwards became an alderman, and who, at his decease, left money for the foundation of a school in the parish of St. Botoph, Aldgate.
The Tory ministry, 1710-1711.
The new House of Commons being strongly Tory, Harley and St. John found themselves compelled to form a purely Tory ministry. On the 27th the queen delivered a speech in person, reflecting, as was supposed, the policy of the new ministry. To carry on the war with the utmost vigour was, she declared, the surest way of procuring a safe and honourable peace for England and her allies, and in February of the following year (1711) Marlborough was despatched for the avowed purpose of carrying this policy into execution, the Commons being called upon to furnish supplies. Yet in the midst of all this Harley commenced opening secret negotiations for a peace with France, regardless of the interests of England's allies. By September (1711) these negotiations had so far progressed that preliminaries for a peace were actually signed, but[pg 639] for fear lest the favourable terms obtained for England should provoke the jealousy of the Dutch a garbled edition of the treaty was specially prepared for the edification of our allies. Such was the political morality of the age!
Act of Parliament for building fifty new churches in and around London, 28 May, 1711.
The High Church party being in power, the queen took the opportunity of enlisting their support for a project she had much at heart. For some time past the want of new churches in the fast increasing suburbs of London had engaged the attention of convocation, by whom the matter had been represented to the queen. Her majesty now commended "so good and pious a work" to the attention of the Commons, a commendation which received additional force from the presentation of petitions from ministers of various parishes in and around London for assistance in carrying out repairs. The Commons showed considerable zeal in the matter, declaring, in their reply to her majesty's address, that neither the long expensive war in which they were engaged nor the pressure of heavy debts should hinder them from granting whatever was necessary.[1970] A Bill was accordingly brought in (18 May) for the purpose of building fifty new churches, computing 4,750 souls to each church, as well as for providing annual sums of money to be expended on the completion of Westminster Abbey and Greenwich Hospital. The cost was to be defrayed by a further duty on coal. By the 28th May the Bill passed the Commons.[1971]
The Occasional Conformity Act, 1711.
In June (1711) parliament was prorogued and did not meet again before December. A compromise[pg 640] was then effected which reflected little credit upon either of the political parties, but secured the passing of the Occasional Conformity Bill, a Bill on which the queen and the high Tories had set their hearts, but which had already been defeated twice by the Lords. The object of the Bill was to inflict penalties upon those Dissenters who, having qualified themselves to sit as common councilmen or as officers in corporations or elsewhere by receiving the Sacrament, afterwards betook themselves to places of worship where the Book of Common Prayer was not used, and where neither the queen nor the Princess Sophia were prayed for.[1972]
Disputed elections of aldermen, 1711-1712.
In September (1711) party spirit ran high in the city, the occasion being the election of an alderman for the ward of Broad Street in the place of Sir Joseph Woolfe, deceased. No less than four candidates were nominated by each side, two out of each four being already aldermen. The Tory or Church party were represented by Sir William Withers and William Lewen, aldermen, Sir George Newland and Sir Robert Dunkley, commoners. The Whigs or Dissenters advocated Sir John Houblon and Sir Samuel Stanier, aldermen, Sir John Scott and Gerrard Conyers, commoners. The wardmote was held at Drapers' Hall, and was presided over by Sir Gilbert Heathcote, the mayor, a strong Whig. It appears from a newspaper of the day[1973] that although the mayor caused the Act of Common Council, setting forth the qualifications of persons who had a right to vote on[pg 641] the occasion, to be read at the wardmote, he refused to make proclamation that those who were not qualified should depart from the hall. The result was that a large number of foreigners and other unqualified persons voted. The lord mayor having declared the show of hands to be in favour of the four Whig candidates, a poll was demanded, which reversed the mayor's decision. A scrutiny was next asked for and allowed, but the mayor steadily refused to express any opinion as to who of the voters were qualified and who were disqualified without first consulting counsel. The result of the scrutiny was declared (27 Oct.) by the mayor to be in favour of all four Whig candidates, and on the following day he made a report to that effect to the Court of Aldermen, who thereupon elected Gerrard Conyers alderman of the ward. The mayor's decision, however, was challenged, and a motion was made in the Queen's Bench for setting it aside as being manifestly wrong and not in accordance with the number of lawful votes. After Heathcote's year of office had expired the assistance of the Common Council was invoked in support of the rights of electors against such arbitrary proceedings as had recently taken place. The court agreed to the necessary legal expenses being defrayed by the Chamber.[1974]
The practice of nominating as many as four candidates for a vacant aldermanry had prevailed since the commencement of the 15th century,[1975] but the[pg 642] inconvenience arising from this practice became so manifest during this last election that the Common Council passed an Act before the result of the election had been declared, abolishing the custom and enacting that henceforth only two candidates should be put in nomination, one an alderman and the other a commoner.[1976] Even this number was found too many, and within three years was reduced to one commoner,[1977] thus reverting to the primitive custom of the city before it was enacted, temp. Richard II, that two (commoners) at least should be nominated for every vacant aldermanry.[1978]
In July, 1712, another dispute arose over the election of an alderman. Sir John Fleet, alderman of the ward of Langbourn, had recently died, and it was necessary to appoint a successor. Four candidates were put up for the post, of whom two were to be selected for nomination to the Court of Aldermen according to the provisions of the recent Act. The wardmote was opened on the 9th July at Pewterers' Hall. Sir Robert Beachcroft, the lord mayor, was himself one of the candidates, the other three being Sir William Withers, alderman, Sir Samuel Clarke and Peter Delmé, commoners. The show of hands being declared to be in favour of Withers and Clarke, two Tories, a poll was demanded on behalf of his lordship and Delmé. The result, however, was the same, and a scrutiny followed. To the great surprise of a large[pg 643] body of the electors, the mayor eventually declared (22 Aug.) the majority of votes to be in favour of himself and Delmé, but like his predecessor he steadily refused to give any explanation as to how he had arrived at that conclusion. Again there appeared to be no remedy but to apply to the Queen's Bench. The Common Council was again appealed to (6 Sept.), but whilst the matter was in course of debate the lord mayor was suddenly taken ill, and the court had to break up before coming to any resolution on the matter. On the 12th November, however, the council agreed to assist the petitioners as before, but refused any assistance to Delmé, who had already been admitted alderman, and was about to be put on his defence.[1979]
The Court of Aldermen charged with obstructing business by not keeping a quorum, 1713.
In 1713 the relations between the Courts of Aldermen and Common Council became still more strained. The latter complained of the city's business being hindered from insufficient Courts of Aldermen, and of a newly elected alderman not having been sworn in on a certain day by reason of there not being a quorum of aldermen present. On the 15th May a joint committee of aldermen and commoners was appointed to enquire into the matter. Six weeks elapsed before the committee was ready with its report. At length, on the 30th June, the committee certified[1980] that having examined the minute books of the Court of Aldermen it had found that between the 24th March and the 15th May last six courts had been summoned to meet, but for want of a quorum[pg 644] only one full court had been held. On the other occasions only seven, eight, nine, ten or twelve aldermen appeared, inclusive of the mayor. The committee also found that the courts were in the habit of meeting between twelve and one o'clock, and reported its opinion that such a late hour for meeting was prejudicial to the citizens and others who had business there.
Touching the other matter which had been referred to them, the committee found that on the 7th May the lord mayor had reported to the Court of Aldermen the nomination and election of Sir William Withers, alderman, and Joseph Lawrence to succeed Sir Owen Buckingham in the aldermanry of the ward of Bishopsgate; that Withers declining to remove, had moved that Lawrence should be called in and sworn, according to the provisions of the Act of 1711 for regulating the elections of aldermen; that thereupon a petition was offered and part of the Act was read; that after some debate Lawrence was sent for and came into court; that upon the Common Sergeant being called in to give his opinion seven of the aldermen withdrew from the court, but one of them presently returned, and after hearing the Common Sergeant deliver his opinion—viz., that notwithstanding any petition the court was bound by the Act to admit and swear in Lawrence—again withdrew, notwithstanding the lord mayor's expressed desire that he should remain; that by this means a full court was not kept (only eleven aldermen being left with the mayor), and so Lawrence, although present, could not be sworn.[1981] The committee's report was ordered to[pg 645] be entered on the Journal and likewise to be forthwith printed and a copy sent to every member of the Common Council.
Visit of Prince Eugene to London, Jan., 1712.
In the meantime the queen had been persuaded to dismiss Marlborough on his return to England (Nov., 1711) from all his offices, and to place the Duke of Ormond, a strong Tory, in command of the English forces in the Netherlands. Negotiations with France were simultaneously pushed on, in spite of a personal visit which Eugene himself paid to London (Jan., 1712) in the hope of obtaining a continuance of English support for carrying on the war. The presence of the illustrious prince was heartily welcomed by the Whigs, by whom he was hospitably entertained. On the 15th January a motion was made in the Court of Aldermen and carried to the effect that the court was prepared to join with as many leading citizens (not exceeding sixty in number) as should be willing in providing an entertainment by private subscription for his highness, provided they first obtained her majesty's permission. Two aldermen were thereupon nominated to wait upon Lord Dartmouth, principal secretary of state, in order to learn her majesty's pleasure. There was nothing unusual in this proceeding. Nevertheless the idea of the prince being publicly entertained in the city was so distasteful to the queen and her government that she found fault with the citizens for daring to approach her with a mere verbal message (she was suffering from gout at the time),[1982] and declined to return an answer to any message which was not brought to her "with the same respect as has always been paid[pg 646] by the city of London to her predecessors."[1983] That there might be no mistake about the matter the queen's answer was sent to the City in writing by Lord Dartmouth. The Court of Aldermen at once appointed a committee to search the City's Records for the purpose of ascertaining how and in what manner messages had been delivered from the court to her majesty and her predecessors, whether they had usually been in writing or only verbal. On the 5th February the committee reported that they found that such messages had been delivered in a variety of ways: sometimes by the lord mayor alone, sometimes by two or three aldermen, and at other times by the recorder and sheriffs only. One instance had been found of a message having been sent by a single sheriff. Not once did they find that a message had been delivered in writing.[1984] It need scarcely be said that under the circumstances all idea of the entertainment was dropt.
In spite of the prince's high character the greatest calumnies were whispered against him behind his back. He was said to be conspiring with Marlborough and the Whigs to raise an insurrection in the streets, fire the city and seize the person of the queen. A general panic prevailed. Even the roysterings of a few drunken revellers calling themselves "Mohocks"[1985]—the successors of the "Roreres" and "Riffleres" of a past age—were looked upon as signs and tokens of some deep laid plot, so that more than ordinary precautions had to be taken, both in the city and elsewhere, to prevent riot.[1986][pg 647] Finding at length that his presence in England did not promote his object the prince, after a stay of some weeks, returned to the Hague.
The Peace of Utrecht, 31 March, 1713.
By the 6th June negotiations with France had so far advanced that the queen went down to the House of Lords to fulfil, as she said, her promise of communicating to her parliament the terms of peace before it was absolutely concluded. What pleased the citizens most in her elaborate speech was the announcement of the steps taken to secure the Protestant succession to the House of Hanover and for protecting British commerce. For these measures they returned to her majesty their hearty thanks, and expressed their sincere hopes that she might speedily finish the good work which had advanced so far notwithstanding "the artful contrivances and envious efforts of a factious and malicious party."[1987] In August a proclamation was made of a suspension of hostilities,[1988] and on the 31st March, 1713, the Peace of Utrecht was signed.
A fortnight later (14 April, 1713) the Common Council voted a congratulatory address to her majesty on the conclusion of the peace with France, but no copy of the address was to be shown to anyone until it had been actually presented.[1989] On the 5th May the lord mayor and Court of Aldermen attended at Temple Bar to assist at the proclamation, whilst Tuesday the 6th July was observed as a day of public thanksgiving at St. Paul's. The queen did not attend the service owing probably to indisposition, and the livery companies were on that account excused attendance.[pg 648] The mayor and aldermen displayed no little anxiety to have their proper seats reserved for them in the cathedral.[1990]
Sacheverell presented to the living of St. Andrew's, Holborn, April, 1713.
Shortly before the conclusion of the peace the term of Sacheverell's suspension expired. His popularity became greater than ever. The queen presented him with the living of St. Andrew's, Holborn, whilst the House of Commons, which had formerly condemned him, now invited him to preach before them.[1991]
The queen's indisposition, Dec., 1713, Feb., 1714.
The days of Queen Anne were now fast drawing to a close. For some time past her health had been failing, and at the close of the year (1713) she was confined to her bed at Windsor. Upon notice of her indisposition being conveyed to the Court of Aldermen they at once instructed the sheriffs and the city remembrancer to proceed to Windsor and enquire after her majesty's health.[1992] The fact that in the event of the queen's death the legal heir, the Electress Sophia, and her son, the Elector of Hanover, were favourable to the Whig party, drove the Tories to make overtures to the Pretender, the queen's brother, who was still living in France, although by the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht Louis had promised to abandon his cause. On the 1st February (1714) the queen wrote to the lord mayor[1993] (Sir Samuel Stanier) informing him that she was recovering her health and hoped soon to return to her "usual residence." She further informed his lordship of her[pg 649] determination to open her parliament on the 16th, according to the notice given by proclamation, and desired him to communicate the same to the Court of Aldermen and to her other loving subjects of the city. Again the sheriffs and remembrancer were instructed to go to Windsor and tender the court's acknowledgments of her majesty's favour and to assure her that they would discountenance to the utmost of their power and put a stop to "those malicious rumours which had been so industriously spread by evil disposed persons to the prejudice of credit and the imminent hazard of public peace and tranquility."[1994] Saturday the 6th was the queen's birthday, and extra precautions were taken in the city to prevent tumult or disorder.[1995] A week later her majesty had so far recovered her health as to meditate returning to town, and the Common Council prepared (12 Feb.) to greet her with a congratulatory address.[1996]
Proclamation for the arrest of the Pretender, 21 June, 1714.
On the 21st June (1714) a royal proclamation was issued offering a reward of £5,000 for the apprehension of the Pretender in case he should effect a landing.[1997] The proclamation afforded the City an opportunity of further testifying its loyalty to the queen and its determination to uphold the Protestant succession as by law established, and at the same time to thank her majesty for passing an Act entitled "An Act to prevent the growth of Schism"—an Act aimed against the Whigs, and which forbade anyone keeping a school without licence from the bishop.[1998]
The death of the queen, 1 Aug., 1714.
On the morning of Friday the 30th July the queen was seized with her last illness. Notification was immediately despatched to the lord mayor, who reported the news to a special Court of Aldermen that afternoon. The Secretary of State, who had written to the mayor, had desired his lordship to take immediate steps to preserve quiet in the city. The court, on being informed of the turn of affairs, despatched the sheriffs, the common cryer and the water bailiff to Kensington to enquire after the queen's health and to assure her majesty that every possible care would be taken to preserve the peace of the city in any event.[1999] Two days later (1 Aug.) Anne was dead.
END OF VOL. II.