City addresses on king's recovery, 19 March, 1789.
Towards the end of February (1789) the king was himself again. The news of his recovery was a cause of sincere joy to the city of London, as well as to the nation at large, however disappointing to those who had built their hopes upon a regency. On the night of the 10th March the whole of London was illuminated. From one extremity of the town to the other and far out into the surrounding suburbs there was one blaze of light. Two days later the Common Council prepared congratulatory addresses to the king and queen. These were presented to their majesties at Kew on the Thursday, the 19th March, and were graciously received, the City on this occasion, in compliance with the king's wishes, who was still far from strong, waiving their right to present the address to him on the throne.[544]
Thanksgiving service at St. Paul's, 23 April, 1789.
A solemn thanksgiving service was held at St. Paul's on Thursday, the 23rd April—St. George's day—and was attended by the king and queen, the royal family, the members of both Houses and great officers of state, as well as by the lord mayor, the aldermen, the sheriffs and members of the Common Council. In carrying out the preparations for the king's reception in the city everything was done with the view of sparing the king all unnecessary exertions.[545] The Earl of Salisbury, in his capacity as lord chamberlain, suggested that if the lord mayor and sheriffs and those aldermen who represented the city in Parliament were to meet the king at Temple Bar and conduct him to St. Paul's it would be more agreeable to his majesty than the attendance of a greater number of persons. For the same reason it was decided that no more than four members of the Common Council should attend. The formal presentation to the king of the City's sword at Temple Bar and of its re-delivery into the hands of William Gill, the lord mayor, was made the subject of a large oil painting, mounted on a screen of six panels, by Ralph Dodd.[546]
Pitt's Bill for excise duty on tobacco, 1789.
As soon as the king's health allowed of Parliament resuming its ordinary course of business Pitt consented to remit the Shop Tax, which had caused so much bad feeling in the city. Scarcely was this done, however, before he again gave umbrage to the citizens by a proposal to transfer the duty on tobacco from the customs to the excise. Walpole had endeavoured to carry out a similar change in 1733, but the opposition he met with was so overpowering that he was obliged to give way. Pitt was more successful. The City withstood his Bill, as it had withstood Walpole's, but in spite of all opposition Pitt's Bill passed, and all subsequent efforts to get it repealed proved futile.[547]
Negotiations for the removal of the Bank guard, 1788-1790.
The king's illness had interrupted negotiations that had been opened for the withdrawal of the guard of soldiers that had been accustomed ever since the Gordon riots, to pass through the city daily for the purpose of protecting the Bank of England. In 1787 a citizen had complained to the Court of Aldermen of his having been pushed off the footway by soldiers of the guard passing to the Bank on the evening of the 5th July; and the Court had thereupon instructed the lord mayor to request the secretary at war to give such directions as he might think proper that the guard might in future march in single file and not two abreast as they hitherto had done.[548]
The secretary at war (Sir George Yonge) had replied that the lord mayor's suggestion would be likely to lead to great inconvenience; that he undertook to promise that the officers of the guards would for their part endeavour to conduct their detachments on the march in a quiet, decent and soldier-like manner, but that from representations that had been made to him by officers commanding the guards as to the treatment the detachments sometimes met with in their passage through the city, he felt bound to ask the lord mayor to take such steps as he might deem fit to prevent any cause of complaint arising in future on either side.[549] This letter had been referred to a committee, with instructions to report their opinion as to the best way of affording sufficient protection to the Bank and at the same time of avoiding the inconveniences complained of. The committee showed no haste in the matter, and it was not until the following May (1788) that they reported in favour of furnishing the Bank with a guard of the city's militia, in place of the detachment of foot guards. The Court of Aldermen on receiving this report wished to know what the directors of the Bank of England thought of the suggestion,[550] but all the answer they got was that if the existing mode of protecting the Bank were discontinued, the directors would not "put the city to the trouble of providing any other." The Court scarcely knew how to treat this answer. At length, after several adjournments, it resolved (21 Oct.) that the lord mayor should write to the secretary at war and request that the guard at the Bank should be withdrawn.[551] Four days later Sir George Yonge informed the lord mayor by letter that the matter had been referred to his majesty's ministers, that the directors of the Bank had been desired to attend Lord Sydney on the subject, and that further information would be given as soon as the king's pleasure should be known.[552]
The king's severe illness served as an excuse for letting the matter drop, and nothing more was done until January, 1790, when Pickett, the lord mayor, on his own responsibility and without any authority from the Court of Aldermen, wrote to Grenville, then secretary of state (having previously solicited an interview with Sir George Yonge), desiring to know the king's pleasure as to the removal of the Bank guard. Grenville replied by asking the lord mayor to specify on what grounds his application was made, and whether the resolution of the Court of Aldermen of the 21st October, 1788 (referred to in his letter), was based on "any legal right or exemption claimed by the City."[553] The secretary was told in reply that no reasons were assigned for the resolution of the Court of Aldermen, nor had any been desired by the late secretary of state when approached on the subject; but the lord mayor volunteered some reasons of his own (27 Jan). He apprehended that "the unnecessary introduction of the military into the civil government of this nation" was unconstitutional. The Bank guard was originally adopted at the time of an extraordinary crisis. It was no longer needed, or if needed, could be more constitutionally furnished by the city's militia. The introduction of the regulars was considered an infringement of the ancient privileges of the City,[554] and their presence was an annoyance to his majesty's peaceable and commercial subjects. This answer of the lord mayor seemed far from satisfactory to the secretary of state as it ignored the question whether the City claimed any privilege. As soon as the mayor satisfied him on this point, he promised to take an early opportunity of consulting the king. The correspondence having been laid before the Court of Aldermen, the Court showed a disposition to let the matter rest. The mayor, however, wrote another letter to Grenville (notwithstanding the Court's request that he should do nothing more without instructions from them), intimating that he would still have to press the withdrawal of the guard as "unconstitutional, unnecessary, and offensive," but its only effect was to draw forth a formal acknowledgment of its receipt by the secretary of state, and there the matter was allowed to drop.[555]