The jubilee over, the City drew up and agreed to an address to the king complaining that no proper enquiry had been made into the circumstances under which the Convention of Cintra had been signed, as his majesty had promised, and urging another enquiry into the causes of the recent Walcheren disaster. The address was agreed to at a special Court of Common Council held on the 5th December. On the 13th, however, this address was set aside, and another and more temperate address substituted for it.[681]

The king's reply, 20 Dec.

Upon the latter address being presented to the king, a short, dry answer was returned, such as he was accustomed to give when displeased. He had not judged it necessary, he told the citizens, to direct any military enquiry into the conduct of the commanders of the expedition at sea and on shore; but it rested with parliament to ask for such information or to take such measures as they thought best for the public good.[682]

Address of the livery, 14 Dec., 1809.

Before the presentation of the City's address a special meeting of the livery took place (14 Dec.), when the original address agreed to by the Common Council and afterwards discarded was adopted by the livery as their own, and ordered to be presented to the king at the next public levée. Then followed another of those unseemly wrangles we have had so often to record. When the sheriffs proceeded to carry out the wishes of the livery they found that for some years past no public levée had been held owing to the king's failing eyesight, and when asked to do as all others did—with the exception of the corporation of London and the two Universities—and to leave the address with the principal secretary of state, who would in due course lay it before the king, they refused.

Resolution of the livery, 9 Jan., 1810.

The matter being reported to the livery (9 Jan., 1810), they proceeded forthwith to draw up resolutions condemning the king's advisers, and these the sheriffs were ordered to deliver "into his majesty's hands." The secretary of state very naturally objected to trouble the king any further in the matter, as there was, in reality, no difference between presenting an address and presenting resolutions. At the same time, he signified his willingness to lay a copy of the resolutions before the king in the manner adopted since the cessation of public levées. This offer was refused. An attempt was then made to have the document presented at a private levée, and the sheriffs wrote a joint letter to the secretary of state informing him of their intention of attending for the purpose at the next private levée, unless it should be his majesty's pleasure to receive them at some other time and place. To this the secretary replied that no one was admitted to private levées without the king's permission; that he had laid their letter before the king and that his majesty saw no reason for drawing a distinction between the resolutions and the address; that had the sheriffs been deputed by the body corporate of London, his majesty would have received them differently, but he could not receive them at the levée or elsewhere for the purpose of presenting proceedings not adopted at any meeting of the corporation as such, without allowing others the same privilege, and thereby exposing himself to that personal inconvenience which the discontinuance of public levées was intended to prevent. Thus baffled, the livery had to content themselves with entering a formal protest against what they still believed to be a "flagrant violation of city rights."[683]

The City opposes proposed Wellington's annuity, Feb., 1810.

A few weeks later (23 Feb.) when a Bill was before the House for granting an annuity to Wellesley (recently created Viscount Wellington for his victory at Talavera) the Common Council took the matter up and complained to Parliament of the recent failure of the livery to get their address received by the king owing to the misconduct of his majesty's ministers, who had "placed a barrier between the king and the people," and whose conduct was now aggravated by the proposal respecting Wellington, made "in defiance of public opinion." Whilst petitioning against the Bill the City assured the House that they did so from no motives of economy, but from a sense that, notwithstanding Wellington's indisputable valour, his military conduct was not deserving national remuneration. What were the facts? That in the short period of his service in Europe, not amounting to two years, they had seen his gallant efforts in Portugal lead only to the "disgraceful and scandalous" Convention of Cintra; while in Spain, notwithstanding his defeat of the French at Talavera, he had been compelled to retreat and leave his sick and wounded to the care of the enemy. No enquiry had been made into either of these campaigns, although it was but due to the nation that a most rigid investigation as to why so much valour should have been uselessly and unprofitably displayed should first take place before the nation's pecuniary resources should be thus applied. In India Wellington had received ample remuneration for his services, and at home he had held valuable appointments. As for making provision for his family, none had been made for the family of Sir John Moore, who had so nobly died.[684] This attitude of the City towards the Bill becomes the more intelligible when we consider that Wellington at that time had many enemies, both in and out of Parliament, and that his military genius had not yet awakened recognition. When, a year later, it was found that, owing to his skill, his patient self-reliance (for he received but little encouragement from the government at home) and his foresight, not a single French soldier remained in Portugal, the City, like the rest of the nation, were ready to acknowledge his "consummate ability, fortitude and perseverance," and presented him with the Freedom and a sword of honour, despatching at the same time the sum of £1,000 for the relief of poor Portuguese.[685]

Sir Francis Burdett committed to the Tower, 9 April, 1810.