The lord mayor's letter having been submitted to the Lords of the Council, the President replied, three days later (20 June), that in the opinion of their lordships the matter had been fully explained in his letter of the 15th. With regard, however, to the alleged impracticability of executing the Orders of Council of the 9th instant without the assistance of the inhabitants of the several wards who had armed themselves, the Council was of opinion that in times of danger "a reasonable number of inhabitants, armed according to the nature and circumstances of the case, may attend the peace-officers, as assistants to them, for the preservation of the public peace, until the danger be over." He concluded by reminding the aldermen that the privilege enjoyed by subjects of carrying arms under the Bill of Rights (to which they had referred in the mayor's last letter) did not extend to mustering and arraying armed bodies without the king's permission.[474] The next day (21 June) the Duke of Richmond moved in the Lords that the adjutant-general's orders contravened the Bill of Rights, but the motion was negatived without a division.[475]
Another letter to Lord Bathurst, 24 June, 1780.
Still the Court of Aldermen were far from being satisfied. They foresaw that difficulties were likely to arise in the execution of their duty if the military were to be allowed to act independently. They desired, therefore, the lord mayor once more to address the President of the Council with the view of getting the order of the adjutant-general respecting the military acting without previous directions from the civil magistrates, withdrawn. Accordingly on the 24th June Kennet wrote again to this effect,[476] but the only answer vouchsafed to this was the passing of a Bill of Indemnity for the acts of the military.[477] It was useless, therefore, for the Court of Aldermen to proceed further in the matter, and they had the wisdom to ignore a series of propositions which one of their number introduced later on (18 July) touching the rights of the citizens to bear arms and the noninterference of the military powers.[478]
Speech of Wilkes in the House, 19 June, 1780.
When Parliament resumed its sitting on the 19th Wilkes, who had displayed great zeal during the riots, not only made an attack on the lord mayor for not having taken proper precautions to prevent their occurrence in the city, but he declared that the petition drawn up and approved by the Common Council on the 8th had been improperly procured, having been moved in the Court after many of the members had gone home under the impression that business was over. He next proceeded to attack his former friend and colleague, Alderman Bull, who (he said) had not only omitted to take steps to quell the rioters, but had allowed the constables of his wards to "wear the ensigns of riot in their hats," and had been seen leaving the House of Commons arm-in-arm with Lord George Gordon himself. Bull could only reply that it was true that constables of his ward had worn the cockades, but he had made four of them remove them.[479] Permission was eventually given for bringing in a Bill for securing the Protestant religion.
City address to the king on late riots, 28 July, 1780.
On the 8th July a motion was made in the Common Council for presenting an address to the king "expressing the grateful thanks of this Court for his majesty's care and attention to the citizens of London in granting them such aid as became necessary to subdue the late dangerous riots, they being too formidable for the control of the civil authority." To this the previous question was moved and lost, and the original motion was at length carried, but when it came to nominating four aldermen and eight commoners to draw up the address, there were not found sufficient aldermen present, and the matter had to be postponed.[480] It was eventually passed on the 24th, and presented on the 28th, when the king made a suitable reply.[481]
City claims for damages during the riots.
The riots over, and the ringleaders (all except Lord George Gordon himself) brought to justice, it remained to pay the costs. To make good all the damages involved much time and expenditure. The new gaol at Newgate on which so much money had been spent, and which was approaching completion at the outbreak of the riots, was completely "gutted," only the external walls being left standing. The keeper's house was demolished, and much damage done to the neighbouring Sessions House. For all this the City sent in claims for compensation,[482] and in course of time succeeded in getting from Parliament three several sums of £10,000 to assist in defraying the expense of rebuilding Newgate.[483] The cost of maintaining the military force quartered in the city during the riots was no slight one, and had to be provided for by the Common Council. One ward alone, that of Farringdon Within, sent in a bill exceeding £350 for victuals supplied to a party of light horse quartered at the Oxford Arms in Warwick Lane, and the Sessions House, to a detachment of foot guards quartered in St. Paul's, and several companies of militia at Christchurch, Newgate.[484] There were, moreover, legal expenses incurred by the City in defending actions brought against the sheriffs by various inhabitants of the city for damage done to houses.[485]