The death of Queen Mary, 28 Dec, 1694.
In December of this year (1694)—soon after his return from an unsuccessful campaign—William suffered an irreparable loss by the death of the queen. The old adage touching an ill wind received a curious exemplification at Queen Mary's death, for although that event sent down the stock of the Bank of England three per cent., it benefited the East India Company by causing a rapid rise in the price of muslin, a commodity of which we are told that company happened to possess a large quantity.[1809] The Court of Aldermen put themselves into mourning,[1810] whilst the Common Council voted an address of condolence to the king and ordered statues ("effigies") of both king and queen to be erected at the Royal[pg 588] Exchange.[1811] The king followed the advice given to him by the city fathers not to suffer too much "resentment" over his recent loss, and diverted himself by practising shooting on horseback in Richmond Park whilst his dead wife was still above ground.[1812]
The queen's funeral, 5 March, 1695.
The funeral did not take place until the 6th March (1695). In anticipation of that event the Court of Aldermen had some time since (18 Jan.) appointed a committee to consider of the right and title of the lord mayor, aldermen and sheriffs of the city to their mourning and their places in the funeral procession, as also of the mourning due to the several officers of the city. Four days later (22 Jan.) the committee reported[1813] to the effect that they had found from the records of the city that it had been the custom for the lord mayor, aldermen, recorder, sheriffs and the principal and other officers of the city to have mourning allowed them by the Crown at the public interments of kings and queens, but as to the places and precedency of the lord mayor and aldermen on those occasions the committee had only found one instance of a funeral procession, and that was at the funeral of Henry VII, when it appeared that the aldermen walked "next after the knights and before the great chaplains of dignitys and the knights of the garter being noe lords." The lord mayor (the report went on to say) was not named in the procession, but at the mass and offering at the interment it appeared that the lord mayor, with his[pg 589] mace in hand, offered next after the lord chamberlain, and the aldermen who had been mayors offered next to the knights of the garter and before the knights of the body, after whom came those aldermen who had not been lord mayor.[1814] The committee concluded their report by recommending that a deputation should wait upon the Privy Council and assert the right of the Court of Aldermen to mourning. The representation thereupon made had the desired effect and the usual mourning was allowed by warrant (29 Jan.).[1815] The citizens marked their respect for the late queen by shutting up their shops on the day of the funeral.[1816]
Discovery of corrupt practices, 1695.
The session of 1695 of William's first parliament was signalised by the discovery of a system of wholesale corruption. That every man had his price was scarcely less true in William's day than it was in the later age of Sir Robert Walpole. The discovery of one delinquent guilty of receiving money for services, real or supposed, quickly led to another, until suspicion turned upon the City of London itself. A rumour rapidly gained ground to the effect that the funds of the City as well as those of the East India Company had been largely employed in winning the favour of men in power, and the name of Sir John Trevor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, was mentioned among others.
The Speaker convicted of bribery.
On the 7th March the House appointed a committee to investigate the matter, with power to send for persons and papers.[1817] On the 12th the committee reported to the House that they had discovered an[pg 590] order of a committee appointed by the Corporation for the purpose of seeing the Orphans' Bill through parliament, dated the 12th February, 1694, authorising the payment of 1,000 guineas to the Speaker, Sir John Trevor, as soon as the Bill should pass. This order, they said, was signed by every member of the committee except Sir James Houblon and Mr. Deputy Ayres, and was endorsed to the effect that the money had been delivered and paid to the Hon. Sir John Trevor on the 22nd June, 1694, in the presence of Sir Robert Clayton and Sir James Houblon, brother of Sir John.[1818] When summoned to account for his having refused to sign the order of the committee whilst allowing himself to witness the actual payment of the money to the Speaker, Sir James excused himself by saying that he had accompanied Sir Robert Clayton, at the latter's request, professedly for the purpose of thanking the Speaker for his pains about the Orphans' Bill; that this being done, the Chamberlain, who had gone with them, pulled out a note or bill which he handed to the Speaker, but as to the nature of the note or bill Houblon declared himself to have been ignorant until subsequently informed by the Chamberlain. Other[pg 591] members of the Corporation Committee also gave evidence as to the warrant for payment of the money having been originally made out with a blank space left for the name of the payee. The report further declared that sums of money had been paid to Paul Godrell, clerk of the House of Commons, to the city solicitor, the solicitor-general and the chairman of the Corporation Committee in respect of the Orphans' Bill, whilst the orphans themselves had been prevailed upon to give security for the payment of five per cent. on their whole property to certain other parties who professed to be able to render valuable services in the event of the Bill being passed.[1819]
The Speaker expelled the House, 16 March, 1695.
By the time that the reading of the committee's report to the House was finished it was growing dusk, and candles were called for. A resolution was then moved and put to the house by Trevor himself, that the Speaker, by receiving a gratuity of 1,000 guineas from the city of London after passing of the Orphans' Bill, had been guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour. The resolution was passed, and four days later (16 March) Trevor was expelled the House.[1820]