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.