[510] Journal 68, fos. 298, 317. Considerable additions having been made to the picture as originally designed, a further sum of 300 guineas was voted to the artist, on condition, however, that he repaid Alderman Boydell the sum of 200 guineas which the worthy alderman had advanced to enable him to proceed to Germany for the purpose of painting certain portraits of Hanoverian officers for his picture. Copley objected to the Common Council taking cognisance of what was a private pecuniary transaction, and declined to pay Boydell out of the sum voted by the City. Thereupon the Common Council rescinded its vote, and paid 200 guineas to Boydell direct. This was in March, 1794. Five years later Copley changed his mood, and petitioned the Court for the other 100 guineas and for the return of the sketch of his picture. Both requests were granted.—Journal 70, fo. 259; Journal 74, fos. 63, 164b, 221; Journal 75, fo. 108; Journal 79, fo. 33. In 1817 this picture was lent to the British Institution for exhibition.—Journal 91, fo. 89b.
[511] The picture is so large, measuring over 24 feet in length, that it necessitated certain structural alterations in the old Council Chamber, where it was originally placed in 1793, at a cost of £300.—Journal 73, fo. 309b.
[512] Journal 68, fos. 307-307b, 310-310b.
[513] Repertory 187, fos. 310, 311.
[CHAPTER XLI.]
The City and Fox's East India Bill, 1783.
Vide Printed addresses.
Before the preliminaries of peace became converted into definite treaties, the Shelburne ministry had been forced to give way to a coalition with Fox and North as secretaries of state, and the Duke of Portland as nominal head. The new ministry found little favour with the City, firstly on account of its Stamp Act—imposing a duty upon all receipts for sums of forty shillings and upwards—which the citizens (wrongly, as it turned out) believed would be a hindrance to trade;[514] and secondly on account of Fox's attack on the chartered rights of the East India Company. If Fox's East India Bill were passed, what, they asked, was to become of their own chartered rights and privileges? Every corporation in the kingdom was solemnly warned of the consequences to themselves if the Bill were allowed to pass. "Our property and charter are invaded, look to your own" was the message the Company sent, together with a copy of Fox's Bill, to every borough in the country. The Bill passed the Commons, but when it came before the Lords the king declared himself so strongly against it that it was thrown out, and before the close of the year (1783) the ministers were suddenly and somewhat unceremoniously dismissed. For the first time in history we find the City unanimously supporting the king in the exercise of his prerogative. The Common Council hastened to assure his majesty that his faithful citizens had "lately beheld with infinite concern the progress of a measure which equally tended to encroach on the rights of your majesty's crown, to annihilate the chartered rights of the East India Company, and to raise a new power unknown to this free government and highly inimical to its safety. [As the dangerous measure was warmly supported by your majesty's late ministers, we heartily rejoice in their dismission, and humbly thank your majesty for exerting your prerogative in a manner so salutary and constitutional.">[ Finally they assured the king that as the prerogatives of his majesty's high office were intended for the good of the people, the citizens of London would always support the constitutional exercise of them to the utmost of their power. In other words, the king might always look to the City for support so long as he was content to exercise his prerogative for the preservation of "parliamentary engagements" and chartered rights.[515] The livery and the Common Council, so long opposed to each other, became allies again, and the former body passed a formal vote of thanks at a special Common Hall (13 Feb., 1784) to the representative body of the City for the address they had carried up to the throne "thereby setting an example to the whole kingdom."[516] Truly, as Macaulay remarks, "the successors of the old Roundheads had turned courtiers." Not content with thanking the Common Council for its attitude in the matter, the livery passed resolutions of their own in support of the just prerogative of the crown, the privileges of Parliament and the rights of the people, whilst they ordered that the city members should be instructed to advance in every way the business of the House, and particularly by the granting of supplies.[517]
Pitt's struggle with the Coalition, 1783-1784.
Fox's East India Bill had been strongly opposed by Pitt, who at the early age of twenty-three had been Chancellor of the Exchequer and leader of the House of Commons under the Shelburne ministry. It was to this youth that the king now appealed for assistance, and although the task of forming a ministry of any stability was almost beyond hope, Pitt undertook the struggle. As it was useless to look for any support in the Commons he chose his cabinet entirely from the Upper House, reserving for himself the post of First Commissioner of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer. Even before Pitt was able to take his seat as prime minister (a new election being necessary on his accepting office), it was evident that the Opposition intended to show him no pity or favour. It was not until the 12th January (1784)—the day that the House re-assembled after the Christmas recess—that he made his first appearance as prime minister. He came prepared with an India Bill, similar in most respects to that which he afterwards succeeded in carrying, but the Bill was now rejected although by a small majority. For weeks he struggled against the violent attacks of the Opposition, refusing either to resign or to dissolve Parliament until he could take his opponents at a disadvantage.