FACSIMILE OF WRIT AND RETURN
London and the Kingdom
A HISTORY
DERIVED MAINLY FROM THE ARCHIVES AT GUILDHALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON.
BY
REGINALD R. SHARPE, D.C.L.,
RECORDS CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK OF THE CITY OF LONDON; EDITOR OF "CALENDAR OF WILLS ENROLLED IN THE COURT OF HUSTING," ETC.
IN THREE VOLUMES.
VOL. III.
PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE CORPORATION UNDER THE DIRECTION
OF THE LIBRARY COMMITTEE.
LONDON
LONGMANS, GREEN & Co.
AND NEW YORK: 15 EAST 16TH STREET.
1895.
All rights reserved.
London:
Printed by Blades, East & Blades,
23, Abchurch Lane, E.C.
[CONTENTS.]
CHAPTER XXXV.
Accession of George I.—The Old Pretender.—Impeachment of Ministers.—Tory re-action.—End of Jacobite Rebellion.—The King's Picture and Statue.—The Septennial Act.—Trial of the Earl of Oxford.—Disputed Elections.—The right of the City to discharge law costs incurred in Elections over the Chamber, questioned.—Paying "Scot" defined.—An Alderman insulted by the Military.—The South Sea Company.—Supremacy of Walpole.—Fears of another Jacobite rising.—The Election Act, II George I, c. 18.—Death of the King.
Page [1]
CHAPTER XXXVI.
Accession of George II.—Walpole and the Queen.—Dissenters and the Corporation and Test Acts.—Walpole's Excise Bill.—Unpopularity of Billers, Mayor.—Disputes with Spain.—Jenkin's ear.—The Spanish Convention.—"Leonidas" Glover.—War with Spain declared.—Capture of Porto Bello.—George Heathcote.—The Aldermanic Veto again.—Resignation of Walpole.—War declared with France.—The Young Pretender.—"Black Friday."—The Victory of Culloden.—City Address.—Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.—The Newcastle Administration.—The National Militia Bill.—A tax on Plate.—The loss of Minorca.—Newcastle succeeded by Pitt.—Execution of Byng.—Civic honours for Pitt and Legge.—Coalition of Pitt and Newcastle.—Conquest of Canada.
Page [31]
CHAPTER XXXVII.
Accession of George III.—The fall of Pitt.—Alderman Beckford.—Unpopularity of Bute.—The King and Queen at the Guildhall.—John Wilkes.—War with Spain.—The Peace of Paris.—Resignation of Bute.—Wilkes and the "North Briton."—No. 45 burnt at the Royal Exchange.—Conduct of the Lord Mayor.—Wilkes's "Essay on Woman."—Wilkes Expelled the House.—Is outlawed.—Pitt created Earl of Chatham, proposes to bring in an East India Bill.—Wilkes's letters to the Duke of Grafton, is elected M.P. for Middlesex.—Committed to the King's Bench.—Sentence pronounced.—Wilkes elected Alderman.—Again expelled the House.—Is thrice elected for Middlesex and thrice rejected.—Colonel Luttrell usurps his Seat.—Remonstrance of the Livery.—The City and Lord Holland.—Beckford's second Mayoralty.—Another remonstrance of the Livery.—The remonstrance approved by "Junius."—Condemned by the Goldsmiths, Weavers and Grocers.—The King hesitates to receive it as being "entirely new."—Consults Lord North.—Consents to receive it on the Throne.—The remonstrance condemned by Parliament.—Beckford entertains the Opposition at the Mansion House.—Wilkes regains his liberty.—City address to the King.—Beckford's famous Speech.—Chatham's approval.—Vote of thanks to Chatham.—Beckford's death.
Page [66]
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
Brass Crosby, Mayor.—The legality of Press Warrants.—The Freedom of the Press.—The Messenger of the House of Commons arrested in the City.—His recognizance ordered to be expunged.—Crosby and Oliver before the House.—Committed to the Tower.—Chatham's opinion as to the conduct of the civic magistrates.— Bitter feeling against the Ministry.—Crosby and Oliver regain their liberty.—Another remonstrance of the Livery.—Received on the Throne.—Wilkes and Bull, Sheriffs.—Wilkes and Junius join forces.— Parson Horne.—Nash elected Mayor.—Refuses to summon a Common Hall.—Sawbridge and Short Parliaments.—Townshend elected Mayor.—Riot at the Guildhall.—Address of the Livery in favour of Short Parliaments.—Wilkes declines to attend its presentation.— Claims his seat in the House.—The Recorder's opinion touching the rights of the Livery in Common Hall.—Plumbe's case.—Alderman Bull elected M.P. for the City.—England and America.—The Quebec Bill.—Wilkes elected Mayor.—Takes his seat as Member for Middlesex.
Page [106]
CHAPTER XXXIX.
Wilkes and his brother Aldermen.—Chatham and the City deprecate England's policy towards America.—The King notifies his intention of receiving no more Addresses of the Livery on the Throne.—Wilkes and the Lord Chamberlain.—New York appeals to London.—An Address of the Livery not received.—Address of the Common Council received in usual manner.—Address of the Livery to the Electors of Great Britain.—Ex-Sheriff Sayre committed to the Tower.—Expenses of Wilkes's Mayoralty.—Wilkes and the Chamberlainship.—Doctor Richard Price.—The Declaration of Independence.—The City and Press Warrants.—Alliance between France and America.—The Death of Chatham.—His Funeral.—His Monument in the Guildhall.
Page [146]
CHAPTER XL.
Court Martial of Admiral Keppel.—The Freedom of the City conferred on Keppel.—Spain declares war.—Economical Reform.—Committees of Association.—Dunning's Motion.—The City accepts a Form of Association.—Sir George Savile's Act.—The Gordon Riots.—The City's petition for repeal of Savile's Act.—Dispute between Civic and Military Authorities.—Wilkes attacks the Lord Mayor in a violent speech in the House.—The City's claim for damages arising out of the Riots.—A New Parliament.—Alderman Bull and the Livery.—Another remonstrance of the Livery not received.—The fall of North's Ministry.—The City's congratulations to the King.—The first step taken towards Parliamentary Reform.—Alderman Harley.—The younger Pitt.—Rodney's Victory.—The relief of Gibraltar.—The Peace of Paris.
Page [172]
CHAPTER XLI.
Fox's East India Bill.—Pitt and the Coalition.—The City and Pitt.—Pitt's East India Bill.—The Reform Bill.—The City and the Shop Tax.—The Convention with France.—The City and the Slave trade.—Pitt's Regency Bill.—Thanksgiving service at St. Paul's for the King's recovery.—Pitt's Excise Bill for duty on tobacco.—The Military Guard of the Bank of England.—The French Revolution.—France declares war.—The Battle of the first of June.—Riots in the City.—Great scarcity of wheat.—Standard wheaten bread.—Assault on the King.—Negotiations for Peace.—Pitt's Loyalty Loan.—Foreign subsidies.—Suspension of cash payments by Bank of England.—Another remonstrance of the Livery not received.—The Mutiny at the Nore.—Duncan's victory off Camperdown.—Pitt mobbed in the City.—Military associations in the City.—The Battle of the Nile.—Pitt's Income Tax Bill.—Royal review of City volunteers.—Capture of the Dutch fleet.—French overtures for peace declined.—The Livery protest against the prolongation of the war.—The Act of Union.—Bread riots in the City.—Conduct of Harvey Combe, Mayor.—Pitt resigns.—Battle of Copenhagen.—Peace of Amiens.
Page [204]
CHAPTER XLII.
Resumption of hostilities.—Pitt recommends the fortifying of London.—Renewal of the Income Tax.—Nelson takes offence at the City.—Addington gives place to Pitt.—Volunteer review at Blackheath.—Pitt's Additional Force Bill.—The City claims to be treated in a separate Bill.—Artillery practice in Finsbury Fields.—The French camp at Boulogne.—Disgrace of Lord Melville.—The Battle of Trafalgar.—Nelson's funeral.—His monument in the Guildhall.—Death of Pitt.—The Ministry of all the Talents.—The fall of the Ministry.—The Duke of Portland.—The Berlin Decree.—The Peninsular War.—The Convention of Cintra.—The Scandal of the Duke of York.—The Walcheren Expedition.—The King's Jubilee.—The City urges an enquiry into the cause of recent failures.—Another remonstrance of the Livery not received.—The City opposes Wellington's annuity.—Sir Francis Burdett committed to the Tower.—Riots in the City.—Petition of the Livery to Parliament.—Petition dismissed.—Another Petition.—Ordered to lie on the table.—The King seriously ill.—The Regency Bill.—The Freedom of the City declined by the Prince Regent.—An address of the Livery to the Regent not received.—Assassination of Spencer Perceval.—Battle of Salamanca.—The Shannon and the Chesapeake.—Treaty of Paris.—The Freedom of the City conferred on Wellington.—The City and the Slave trade.—The Battle of Waterloo.
Page [251]
CHAPTER XLIII.
The City opposes renewal of Income Tax.—Agricultural depression.—The First Corn Law.—Another address of the Livery not received.—Vagrants in the City.—The Spa Fields Riot.—Matthew Wood, Mayor.—City address to Regent on state of affairs.—Outrage on the Regent.—The City urges Parliamentary Reform.—The trial of Hone.—Parliamentary Elections.—The Manchester Massacre or "Peterloo."—The Six Acts.—Tumultuous proceedings in Common Hall.—Conduct of Sheriff Parkins.—Accession of George IV.—Addresses of sympathy to Queen Caroline.—The Queen's trial.—Matthew Wood at Brandenburgh House.—The Queen presents her portrait to the City.—The Queen attends at St. Paul's.—The City urges the dismissal of the King's Ministers.—The Queen's death.—Disgraceful scene at her funeral.—Riots at Knightsbridge.—Sheriff Waithman assaulted.—The City and the Holy Alliance.—Wild speculation followed by great distress.
Page [292]
CHAPTER XLIV.
The Repeal of Corporation and Test Acts.—The Catholic Emancipation Bill.—Accession of William IV.—The King's visit to the City postponed for fear of riot.—Resolutions respecting Reform.—Introduction of the first Reform Bill.—The Bill approved by the City.—The Bill withdrawn and Parliament dissolved.—The Bill re-introduced.—Passes the Commons, rejected by the Lords.—City address and King's reply.—Political Unions formed.—Sir John Key re-elected Mayor.—The Freedom of the City voted to lords Grey and Althorp.—Resignation of the Ministry.—The City expresses dissatisfaction.—The Ministry recalled.—The Reform Bill passed.—The rights of the Livery saved.—Grand Entertainment at the Guildhall.—A retrospect.—The Enfranchisement of Jews.—The City's public spirit.—The abolition of Coal and Wine Dues.—The City and the Port of London.
Page [326]
[CHAPTER XXXV.]
George I proclaimed king, 1 Aug., 1714.
Like her predecessor on the throne, Queen Anne died on a Sunday. A proclamation was immediately drawn up by the lords spiritual and temporal, assisted by the members of the Privy Council and the lord mayor, aldermen and citizens of London, announcing the accession of Prince George, the Elector of Hanover, and that same afternoon he was duly proclaimed at Temple Bar and elsewhere. The proclamation does not appear on this occasion to have borne the signature of the lord mayor or any of the aldermen.[1]
City addresses to the new king.
Some weeks elapsed before George arrived in England. Meanwhile the Common Council prepared an address which the lords justices, who held the reins of government until the king's arrival, transmitted to his majesty. The address was graciously received, and the king, who knew little or no English, sent word by the lords justices that the City might count upon his support. Both the Common Council and the Court of Aldermen were desirous of presenting addresses to the king in person soon after his arrival.[2]
The reception of George I by the City, 20 Sept., 1714.
The 20th September being the day fixed for the king's passage through the city to St. James's Palace great preparations were made to give him a befitting reception. It was decided to adopt the same measures as those taken for the reception of William III in 1697, after the conclusion of the Peace of Ryswick but with this exception, viz., that members of the Common Council should take the place in the procession of those who had either served or fined for sheriff.[3] The earl marshal, however, ruled that the common councilmen of London should neither ride nor march in the procession. The court thereupon appealed to the lords justices, but the result is not recorded.[4] On the day appointed the mayor and aldermen took up their station at the court-house on St. Margaret's Hill in Southwark. Cushions from the Bridge House were borrowed for the occasion, and the open space before the court-house was fenced with rail to prevent crowding.[5] His lordship was provided with a new crimson velvet gown, the city marshal's men with new liveries, and the city trumpeters with new cloaks.[6] The conduits ran with claret furnished by order of the Court of Aldermen. The erection of balcony stands was discouraged for fear of accidents, and for the same reason the firing of guns or padreros under the piazza of the Royal Exchange was forbidden.[7] At St. Margaret's Hill the king was welcomed by the Recorder, who read a congratulatory address on behalf of the citizens, after which the procession moved on towards the city, the Recorder taking up his position immediately in front of the mayor,[8] who rode bareheaded with the city sword in his hand.
Precautions against the Pretender.
Three days later (23 Sept.) the whole of the Common Council proceeded to St. James' to present their congratulations to the king on his safe arrival, and to assure him of their loyalty.[9] This assurance was opportune, for the country was being flooded with pamphlets advocating the claim of Prince James Edward, better known as the Pretender, to the throne, and a reward had been offered for the capture of the prince should he attempt to set foot in any of his majesty's dominions.[10] When Humphreys entered on his mayoralty in the following October he made himself especially active in putting a stop to the spread of seditious literature in the city, and for his services in this respect was heartily thanked by Secretary Townsend.[11]
The king attends the lord mayor's banquet, 29 Oct., 1714.
On the 20th October the king was crowned,[12] and on the 29th, according to custom, he attended the lord mayor's banquet. The lord mayor was called upon to contribute the sum of £300, and each of the sheriffs the sum of £150 towards defraying the cost of the entertainment. The rest of the expenses were paid out of the Chamber.[13] So pleased was the king with the entertainment that he conferred a baronetcy upon the lord mayor. He also bestowed the sum of £1,000 for the relief of poor debtors.[14]
Thanksgiving service at St. Paul's, 20 Jan., 1715.
By the end of the year all immediate danger appeared to have passed away, and Thursday, the 20th January, 1715, was appointed to be kept as a day of solemn thanksgiving for the king's peaceful accession.[15] Once more the majestic but gloomy walls of St. Paul's contained a brilliant assembly of worshippers. King George attended the service accompanied by the royal family, and there, too, were the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs of the city seated in their accustomed places in the lower gallery on the south side of the altar, their wives and ladies being accommodated in the opposite gallery.[16]
General Election, 1715.
In the meanwhile the statutory period of six months—during which the parliament existing at the time of the demise of the crown was to continue to sit—had elapsed, and the last parliament of Queen Anne had been dissolved (13 Jan.), a new one being summoned to meet in March. Riots such as had occurred at previous elections were strongly deprecated by royal proclamation (11 Jan.), and a reward of £500 was offered for the discovery of the printer or publisher of a paper intituled "English advice to the freeholders of England," which had been freely circulated for the purpose of advocating the Pretender's claims.[17] The elections, which were hotly contested, resulted in the Whigs—the party already in power—obtaining a large majority. The City returned two aldermen, viz.: Sir John Ward, who had sat in the parliament of 1708 in the Tory interest, and Sir Thomas Scawen;[18] and two commoners, viz.: Robert Heysham and Peter Godfrey, of whom little is known. As delegates of the City, they were to carry out the City's instructions given to them under twenty-one heads. They were more particularly to cause an enquiry to be made as to the manner in which the Peace of Utrecht had been brought about.[19]
Impeachment of late Ministers, March, 1715.
Similar instructions were drawn up by electors in other parts of the country, and so well were they carried out that as soon as the Houses met preparations were made to impeach Harley, Bolingbroke and the Duke of Ormond, for the part they had taken in the secret agreements made with the French during the negotiations for peace. Bolingbroke and Ormond immediately took fright and fled to France, where the former entered the service of the Pretender as secretary of state. Oxford, who alone stayed at home and faced the storm, was forthwith committed to the Tower.
Tory re-action.
Such high-handed proceedings on the part of the triumphant Whigs led to a Tory re-action. In spite of all precautions[20] riots broke out in the city on the 28th May, when the king's birthday was being kept with bonfires and illuminations. The next day (29 May), being the anniversary of the restoration of Charles II, there were more bonfires, and those who refused to light up their houses had their windows broken. A patrol of life guards was insulted and made to join in the cry "High Church and Ormond!" A print of King William III was publicly burnt in Smithfield, and the mob carried everything before them until stopt in Cheapside by ward constables and dispersed.[21]
Jacobite Conspiracy, July, 1715.
The Jacobites took advantage of the general disaffection that prevailed to push forward the conspiracy which had been set on foot at the close of the last reign. Ormond had up to the moment of his flight been busily engaged in organising it in England, while Bolingbroke had been no less busy in endeavouring to obtain the assistance of France. On the 20th July the king announced to the new parliament that he had received information of a projected invasion by the Pretender, which was abetted and encouraged by disaffected persons in this country.[22] Three days later (23 July) a similar announcement was made to the lord mayor by letter from secretary Townshend.
The City's loyal address.
Notwithstanding the recent riots to which the aggressive policy of the whigs had given rise, the respectable citizen remained true Hanoverian and staunch supporter of the established church. The municipal body were proud of the part they had taken in bringing about the "glorious" Revolution, and in later years took occasion more than once to remind George the Third that the House of Hanover owed its accession to the crown of England in no small measure to the citizens of London. As soon as the secretary's letter was communicated to the Common Council, they immediately drew up a loyal address, in which they assured the king that they entertained the utmost abhorrence and detestation of all who encouraged either openly or secretly the hopes of the Pretender, and promised their adherence to his majesty's person and government against the Pretender and all other enemies to the king at home and abroad.[23]
Precautionary measures.
An Act known in those days as the Proclamation Act, but better known at the present day as the Riot Act, investing magistrates with the power of compelling any number of persons exceeding twelve to disperse on pain of being held guilty of felony without benefit of clergy was passed (20 July, 1715),[24] whilst another Act authorising the appointment of commissioners for tendering the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, as well as the abjuration oath to all suspected persons, was passed a month later (20 Aug).[25] Pursuant to this last Act, commissioners were afterwards (5 Dec.) appointed for the purpose of administering the oaths in each city ward. The names of recusants were to be returned to the next quarter sessions and there enrolled.[26] Nor were the municipal authorities idle. The anniversary of the king's coronation (20 Oct.) was to have been celebrated in the city by a solemn procession with "effigies of several persons," and money had been collected for the purpose of defraying expenses. The mayor, however, hearing of this, issued a precept to the effect that although the promoters of the scheme might well have intended thereby to show their affection to his majesty's person and government "yet at this time, when the nation is alarmed by a rebellion, it is not thought convenient to be permitted, lest under that pretence many disaffected persons might gather together and raise tumults to the endangering of the public peace." The constables were accordingly instructed to prevent any meeting for the purpose, and to prevent all bonfires and illuminations.[27]
End of Jacobite rebellion, Feb., 1716.
These precautionary measures were taken not a whit too soon. The Earl of Mar, who had undertaken the organization of an insurrection in Scotland in favour of the Pretender, had already made himself complete master of that country as far as the Forth. He was, however, soon afterwards (13 Nov.) defeated by the Earl of Argyle at Sheriffmuir near Stirling, and although the Pretender himself appeared in Scotland before the close of the year, not another blow was struck, and in the following February (1716) Prince James stole back to France, leaving his army to shift for itself.
City address. 11 May, 1716.
The rebellion being thus put down, the Common Council unanimously resolved (11 May, 1716) to present another address to the king, in which after offering their congratulations upon the failure of the rebels to depose and murder his majesty, and to subvert the Church and State, they declared their resolution (1) as friends to monarchy to promote true zeal and loyalty towards his majesty's person, (2) as members of the Church of England to act up to its principles by submitting to the powers that be, and (3) by all possible means to prevent discord and support the Protestant succession. To this the king returned a gracious answer, and expressed his conviction that the example set by the City would have a good effect upon the nation.[28]
The king's statue and picture.
The Council at the same time resolved to set up a statue of the king at the Royal Exchange as well as his picture in the Guildhall. The royal assent having been asked and obtained, Sir Godfrey Kneller was sent for to paint the portrait. Considerable delay took place in the execution of the work,[29] but the picture was at last completed and is still believed to grace the walls of the members' reading room at the Guildhall, although in 1779 it was reported to be so much decayed and torn as to be incapable of repair.[30] The statue, if ever set up at the Royal Exchange, probably shared the fate of other statues erected there, and was destroyed in the fire of 1838.
Thanksgiving service at St. Paul's, 7 June, 1716.
Thursday, the 7th June (1716), was ordered by royal proclamation (8 May) to be kept as a day of public thanksgiving for the suppression of the rebellion. A sermon was preached at St. Paul's on the occasion. The members of the livery companies were desired to attend in their best gowns and hoods, at nine o'clock in the morning; this early hour being probably fixed so as not unduly to interfere with the business of the day.[31]
The Septennial Act, April, 1716.
One of the immediate effects of the rebellion was the repeal of the Triennial Act (passed Dec., 1694), limiting the duration of parliament to three years. According to the provisions of this Act a new parliament would have to be elected in 1718. The Whigs were afraid, however, to face the country and risk the return of a Jacobite majority. The ministers therefore proposed and parliament agreed that the existing parliament should continue for a term of seven instead of three years—a somewhat arbitrary proceeding on their part and only to be justified by the exigency of the time. The Septennial Act[32] was only intended as a temporary measure, but it has been found to work so well that it continues to this day to regulate the duration of parliaments, notwithstanding repeated efforts made by the City in general and by Alderman Sawbridge in particular to get it repealed.
The King and the Prince of Wales.
A few weeks later, parliament was prorogued (26 June, 1716) and the king paid a visit—often repeated during his reign—to his beloved Hanover, leaving his son, the Prince of Wales, as guardian of the realm and his lieutenant. Between father and son there was never any love lost, there was a sort of hereditary family quarrel, which in this case was brought to a climax in November of the following year over the christening of a babe. The court became split up into two distinct parts. The prince was ordered to quit St. James's and those who paid court to the prince and princess were for ever banished from the king's presence.[33]
Trial of the Earl of Oxford, June, 1717.
After remaining a prisoner in the Tower for nearly two years, the Earl of Oxford was at length, at his own request, brought to trial. The 13th June (1717) was originally fixed as the day on which he was to appear at Westminster Hall, but this was afterwards changed to the 24th by desire of the House of Commons, who wished to put off the trial as long as possible. The lord mayor and sheriffs being directed by the House of Lords to take precautions for guarding the city's gates and preventing an unnecessary concourse of people resorting to Westminster, it was resolved to place double watch in the ward of Farringdon Without during the trial "as was done in the tryal of my Lord Winton and the like cases."[34] Fortunately for the earl, a dispute arose between the two houses on a question of procedure. The Commons were glad of the opportunity of backing out and declined to appear as his accusers, and the Lords thereupon ordered his discharge.[35]
Act for quieting and establishing corporations (5 Geo. i, c. 6) 1718.
For many years past the Corporation Act of 1661, had not been strictly enforced in the city. Such negligence laid the citizens open to pains and penalties. It was therefore deemed advisable towards the end of the next year (1718) to address the king on the subject and a petition was drawn up by the Court of Aldermen setting forth the apprehension of the petitioners of being "disquieted in the execution of their offices by pretence of not subscribing a declaration against the Solemn League and Covenant at the time of their admission into their respective offices" according to the Statute. Such subscription they submitted had been generally disused, and the Act in that particular, disregarded. Nevertheless, the petitioners had behaved themselves in their offices with all duty and affection to his majesty and the government. They humbly prayed therefore that His Majesty would take such order as should effectually quiet their minds and enable them "to proceed with cheerfulness in the execution of their respective duties."[36] This petition was received very graciously by the king, who looked upon it as a mark of the City's trust and confidence in him. "I shall be glad"—he said—"not only for your sakes, but my own, if any defects which may touch the rights of my good subjects are discovered in my time, since that will furnish me with means of giving you and all my people an indisputable proof of my tenderness for their privileges, and how unwilling I shall ever be to take advantage of their mistakes."[37] His Majesty's assurance thus given was quickly followed by the passing of an Act for the purpose of relieving the City of London and other boroughs of any disabilities for their neglect in subscribing the prescribed declaration.[38]
Disputed election in Tower Ward, 1717 1719.
The reign of George I was marked not only with repeated disputes between the Court of Aldermen and the Common Council, but also with disputes over different municipal elections, until in 1725 matters were to a certain extent accommodated by the passing of the Election Act, 11 George I, c. 18. It had been the custom of the City, whenever the ruling of an alderman at a wardmote had been disputed, to defend the alderman's action when brought before a court of law at the City's expense. The legality of this proceeding was now questioned. In December, 1717, when the annual elections for the Common Council came on, there had been a disputed election in Tower Ward, and the ruling of Alderman Sir Charles Peers had been called in question by Peter Bolton and Edward Bridgen, two unsuccessful candidates. The dispute engaged the attention of the Common Council and the law courts for a whole twelvemonth, the expenses of the aldermen being defrayed by the City. In February, 1719, it reached the House of Lords, but before the matter came on for hearing a compromise was effected, the City agreeing to pay taxed costs.
The reason for this sudden change of attitude on the part of the City is doubtless to be found in a resolution of the House of Lords (17 Feb., 1719) to appoint a committee to examine and report what sums of money the City had expended out of its own chamber on this and similar causes, and what jurisdiction the Common Council exercised over elections of its members. The committee was authorized to carry its investigations as far back as they deemed proper, and to send for persons, papers and records. On the 17th April the committee made its report to the House. The Town Clerk and the City Chamberlain had attended the committee with the necessary warrants and minutes of proceedings, and it had been found that a sum of £2,827 10s. had been paid out of the City's cash for carrying on causes and suits at law relating to the elections of Aldermen and Common Councilmen since the 8th November, 1711.[39] As regards the claim of the Common Council to hear and determine matters in connection with elections of its own members, the committee found that it was based upon a resolution of the Court of the 9th January, 1641,[40] which resolution had been disclaimed (with many others) by Act of Common Council of 1683.[41]
Resolution of the House thereon.
The report having been read, the House passed a resolution to the effect that in maintaining suits at law between citizen and citizen in cases of disputed elections, the Common Council had "abused their trust, and been guilty of great partiality, and of a gross mismanagement of the city treasure, and a violation of the freedom of elections in the city."
A protest entered.
So scathing an indictment against the City was not allowed to pass unchallenged. Sixteen peers entered a vigorous protest on the several grounds: (1) that no evidence had been taken on oath, and that without such evidence they conceived that so heavy a censure ought not to be passed on any individual, much less on so important a body as the Common Council of the city, which had done good service on pressing occasions; (2) that the Common Council had not had due notice given them; (3) that the resolution of the House might be construed as prejudging matters which might come before the House judicially; and lastly (4) that had the Common Council been heard they might have shown that the money had been expended in defence of their ancient rights and privileges, and in order to prevent any encroachment thereon.[42] That the dissentient Lords had reason on their side there can be little doubt. Nevertheless, some writers[43] whilst setting out in full the committee's report, as well as the returns made by the Chamberlain of money expended by the City on election suits, and the resolution of the House thereon, have entirely ignored the fact that a solemn protest was made against such resolution, and the reasons which urged the dissentients to make such protest.
What is "paying Scot?"
In the meantime another disputed election had taken place. This time it concerned an alderman. The mayor had reported the case to the Court of Aldermen the day that the Lords appointed their committee to investigate the City's law costs. The case was shortly this. On the 9th January a wardmote had been held at Cordwainers' Hall, for the purpose of electing an alderman for the ward of Bread Street, in the place of Sir Richard Hoare, deceased. The show of hands for the respective candidates—Robert Baylis and Richard Brocas, both of them members of the Grocers' Company—had been so equal that the mayor had been unable to declare which had the majority. A poll had therefore been demanded, the result being declared by the mayor to be in favour of Brocas, and thereupon a scrutiny had taken place, with the same result.[44] The whole question turned upon the qualification of certain voters. Did they or did they not pay Scot, and in what did "paying Scot" consist? The matter having been argued before the Court of Aldermen by counsel on behalf of each candidate, the Court came to the conclusion that paying Scot was "a general contribution to all public taxes," and at the same time declared Baylis to be duly elected.[45] The Common Council then attempted to interfere, but the Court of Aldermen would brook no invasion of their rights,[46] and although litigation continued well into the next year (1720) Baylis retained his seat in the Court.
An insult offered to an alderman on Lord Mayor's Day, 29 Oct., 1720.
On Lord Mayor's day (29 Oct.) 1720, an incident occurred worthy of a passing notice. From particulars laid before the Court of Aldermen (10 Jan., 1721) by a committee appointed to investigate the matter,[47] it appears that when the members of the Court of Aldermen were riding in their coaches towards the Three Cranes on the banks of the river, thence to attend the new lord mayor (Sir John Fryer) in his barge to Westminster, a certain ensign in the Second Regiment of the Guards—Thomas Hockenhull or Hocknell by name—who was in charge of a detachment of soldiers on their way to the Tower, thought fit to break through the aldermen's procession, and to bring Sir John Ward's coach to a sudden standstill, his horses being struck over the head by the soldiers' muskets. The affront was too serious to be passed over, and Sir John reported the matter to Secretary Craggs, who forwarded the alderman's letter to the Secretary at War, and at the same time expressed regret that such an incident should have happened.[48] Later on the officer himself appeared before the Court of Aldermen bearing a letter from Sir George Treby to Alderman Ward to the effect that the officer had already received a reprimand, and would (he hoped) make a suitable apology. A written apology was read to the Court of Aldermen in which Hockenhull pleaded ignorance as to whose coach it was that had been stopped, and endeavoured to throw the blame on two of his soldiers, who he declared to be "a little in liquor." The officer being called in offered to make submission and to beg pardon, but the Court was not in the humour to accept his apology, and so the matter rested until the following January (1721), when upon Sir George Treby's intercession and Hockenhull's submission the Court agreed to pass the matter over. The Secretary at War was at the same time desired "that for the future the route for the Guards marching to and from the Tower may be as usual through Watling Street, and not through the high streets of this city."
The South Sea Company, 1711-1720.
Sir John Fryer had been elected mayor at one of the most critical times in the history either of London or the kingdom, for his election took place just at the time of the bursting of the great South Sea bubble. The South Sea Company had been formed in 1711 by Harley, with the view of carrying on such trade with Spanish America as Spain might be willing to allow in the treaty which was then expected. When the Treaty of Utrecht was concluded Spain was found to have conceded the right of trading with America, but only to a limited extent. Nevertheless the idea got abroad that the company was possessed of a very valuable monopoly, and that the trade with Spanish America would enrich all who took part in it. Accordingly the shares of the company were eagerly bought, and in a few years the institution began to rival the Bank of England itself. Early in 1720, when a scheme was propounded for lessening the National Debt, the company was in a position to outbid the Bank in buying up government annuities, and holders of such annuities were found only too ready to exchange them for shares in the company. The company next invited the public to subscribe new capital, and upwards of £5,000,000 were subscribed in an incredibly short space of time. The wildest speculation prevailed. Bogus companies sprang up in all directions, and no matter how ridiculous the purpose might be for which they were avowedly started, they always found subscribers. Men of all ranks, ages, and professions, nay! women also flocked to Threadneedle Street (where stood the South Sea House) or to Change Alley, and the very streets were blocked with desks and clerks, and converted into counting-houses. The whole nation suddenly became stock-jobbers. Swift, writing of the ruin worked by the mad speculation of the day, thus characterises Change Alley, the centre of all the mischief:
"There is a gulf where thousands fell
Here all the bold adventurers came,
A narrow sound, though deep as hell;
'Change Alley is the dreadful name."
The South Sea Company continued to maintain its pre-eminent position, and the value of its shares continued to rise until, in August, a £100 share was worth £1,000.
At last it brought about its own ruin in a way little anticipated. In an evil hour the directors commenced proceedings against the unlicensed, and therefore illegal, companies which had interfered with the great company's more legitimate business. The result was disastrous. One fraud after another was exposed. The nation suddenly recovered its senses. A panic arose as bubble after bubble burst. By the end of September, South Sea stock had fallen from £1,000 to £150, and at last, after an abortive effort to obtain assistance from the Bank of England, this biggest bubble of all collapsed, bringing thousands to beggary. Even the Bank of England itself experienced difficulty in maintaining its credit during the panic, and was compelled once more to resort to stratagem. Payments were made in silver, and chiefly to persons who were in league with the bank, and who no sooner received their money than they brought it back. The money had of course to be re-counted, and by this means time was gained, and time at such a crisis, and to such an institution, meant literally money. On Michaelmas-day the Bank according to the custom prevailing was closed, and when it opened again, the public alarm had subsided.[49]
Thomas Guy and his hospital.
A few—a very few—of those who had speculated in South Sea stock kept their heads, and got out before the bubble burst. Among these was Thomas Guy, the founder of Guy's Hospital, at that time carrying on business as a bookseller at the corner of Lombard Street and Cornhill—the "lucky corner." He made a large fortune by buying stock at a low price and selling before the crash came, and right good use did he make of his money, for at his death he endowed the hospital called by his name with a sum exceeding £200,000.
Parliamentary enquiry, Jan., 1721.
As is not unusual in such cases, there was a universal endeavour to fasten the guilt upon others than the rash speculators themselves. An outcry was raised, not only against the directors of the company, but also against the ministry. Nothing would suffice but a Parliamentary enquiry into the affairs of the company. This was granted, and early in the following year the Lords commenced an open investigation, whilst the Commons appointed a committee of secrecy. The Lords had scarcely entered upon their investigation before it was discovered that the secretary of the company had made his escape to the continent. Thereupon the Commons gave orders for all ports to be watched in order to prevent the directors of the company following his example. Any director holding office under Government was dismissed. Two members of the House, who were also directors, were expelled the House and taken into custody. These were Jacob Sawbridge, the grandfather of Alderman John Sawbridge, of whom we shall hear more later on, and Sir Theodore Janssen, the father of Stephen Theodore Janssen who, after serving the City in Parliament and in the Mayoralty chair, became the City's Chamberlain. Other directors were also taken into custody and their papers seized.
The Sword-blade Company.
Jacob Sawbridge was a member of the firm of Turner, Caswall and Company, commonly known as the Sword-blade Company, carrying on business as goldsmiths in Birchin Lane. Sir George Caswall, one of the partners, was member for Leominster, and was serving as Sheriff the year of the South Sea Bubble. His firm had acted as cashiers of the South Sea Company, and like many similar firms of goldsmiths, had advanced large sums upon the company's stock. The committee of secrecy appointed by the House of Commons soon discovered that Sir George had been guilty of tampering with the firm's books in order to shield Charles Stanhope. For this he was expelled the House and committed to the Tower, whilst his firm was made to surrender its illgotten gains to the extent of a quarter of a million sterling.[50]
Parliament and the South Sea Company.
All the directors were forced to send in inventories of their respective estates to the Parliamentary Committee. These were confiscated for the benefit of their dupes, their owners being allowed some small portion of their former wealth to keep them from starvation. Peculation and dishonesty were not confined to the city. Peers of the realm and cabinet ministers were charged with receiving large bribes either in money or stock. The Earl of Sunderland, first commissioner of the Treasury, was reported by the committee of investigation to have received £50,000 stock without any consideration whatsoever, and although the House of Commons refused to find him guilty,[51] the Earl felt compelled to give up his post. Craggs, who was Secretary of State, and Aislabie, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to mention others, were convicted by the House of receiving similar bribes.[52] Craggs died of an attack of small-pox, pending the enquiry, but he left a large estate, and this was confiscated for the relief of sufferers. Aislabie was expelled the House, and committed to the Tower. Among the directors who were thus made to feel the heavy hand of Parliament was Edward Gibbon, grandfather of the great historian of the "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." Out of an estate of £60,000, Parliament allowed him to retain no more than £10,000. That the action of Parliament towards the directors was afterwards condemned by the historian as arbitrary and unjust, and only to be excused by the most imperious necessity, need not therefore cause surprise.[53]
The action of Parliament upheld by the City.
The city fathers, on the other hand, upheld the action of Parliament, and urged it to take further measures to alleviate the prevalent distress by presenting to the House the following petition (3 April)[54]:—
"Your peticoners think it their duty most humbly to represent to this Honoble House the present state of the City of London (so considerable a part of the kingdom) now filled with numberless objects of grief and compassion (the sad effects of the mismanagemts avarice and fatal contrivances of the late Directors of the South Sea Company, their aiders, abettors and confederates in the destruccõn of their country.)
"Nor is it the case of this great city alone your peticoners lament, but the general decay of trade manufactures and of public creditt, whereof this Honoble House have been alwaies so extreamly tender, as also of the honour of the British name and nacõn.
"Your peticoners beg leave to return their most humble thanks to this Honoble House for the great pains they have taken to releive the unhappy sufferers by compelling the offenders to make restitucõn as likewise for their continued applicacõn to lay open this whole scene of guilt, notwithstanding the industrious artificers of such sharers in the common plunder as have endeavoured to obstruct the deteccõn of fraud and corrupcõn, and your peticoners doubt not but the same fortitude, impartiality and public spirit wherewith this Honoble House have hitherto acted will still animate them in pursuit of those truly great and noble ends.
"We are too sensible"—the petitioners went on to say—"of the load of public debts not to wish that all proper methods may be taken to lessen them, and it is an infinite concern to us that the paiment of a great summe towards them (which was expected from the success of the late scheme) is now rendered extreamly difficult, if not impracticable, and yet is a cloud hanging over the heads of the present unfortunate Proprietors of the South Sea Company, and a great damp to public credit.
"We will not presume," they said in conclusion, "to mention in what manner releif may be given in this arduous affair, but humbly submit it to the serious consideracõn of this Honoble House."
This petition was followed by others in the same strain from different parts of the country, and conduced to the passing of a Bill which, besides appropriating the sum of £2,000,000 out of the private property of the directors for the relief of sufferers, remitted a sum of £7,000,000 due by the Company to the Government, and made an equitable division of the remainder of the Company's capital among the proprietors.[55]
Supremacy of Walpole.
These measures were greatly, if not exclusively, due to Walpole, the great financier of the day, and one of the few who had not allowed themselves to become involved in the affairs of the South Sea Company. The recent disclosures led to his becoming first lord of the treasury, and chancellor of the exchequer, with his brother-in-law Townshend as secretary of state. In March, 1722, the first septennial Parliament came to an end, and again the Whigs were returned by an overwhelming majority.[56] Walpole thus found himself absolute master of the field, and this position he continued to maintain for twenty years.
Jacobite Conspiracy, 1722.
In the meanwhile the birth of an heir[57] to the Pretender (1721) had raised the hopes of the Jacobites, who were only waiting for a fitting opportunity to renew their attack upon the House of Hanover. The confusion which followed the bursting of the South Sea Bubble seemed to afford them the opportunity they desired. Again the aid of France was invoked. Not only did the Regent refuse assistance, however, but he informed the English minister in Paris of the conspiracy that was on foot. Thus it was that on the 8th May (1722) Townshend informed the Lord Mayor (Sir William Stewart) by letter[58] that the king had the best of grounds for believing that another plot was being prepared in favour of the Pretender, but that as the plot was unsupported by any foreign power, and the king had been forewarned, there would be little to fear. At the same time the king looked to the mayor and his fellow magistrates to secure the city.
City address to the king, 9 May, 1722.
The letter being the next day brought to the notice of the Court of Aldermen, that body prepared a loyal address to the king and presented it to him the same evening.[59] In acknowledging the address the king assured the deputation that his interests and the interests of the City were inseparable, that he would do all in his power to maintain public credit and protect the City's privileges and estate as well as uphold the religion, laws and liberties of the kingdom. An order was issued the same day by the Privy Council for putting into execution the laws against papists, reputed papists and non-jurors, as well as against riots and tumults.[60] In addition to this the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended for a whole year, the longest time on record, and throughout the summer troops were kept encamped ready for any emergency. Some of the chief conspirators in England, among them being Atterbury, Bishop of Rochester, were placed under arrest. Had not the conspiracy been timely discovered and precautions taken the whole kingdom "and particularly the City of London"—as George told the new parliament when, after frequent prorogations, it met in October—might have become involved in blood and confusion.[61] As matters turned out, the conspiracy proved a complete failure.
Bill for regulating elections in the city, Jan., 1725.
Whilst Walpole continued to pursue his policy of peace and increased in influence year by year, the City found itself constantly involved in disputed elections. At one time it was an election of an alderman, at another a member of the Common Council, at another an election of a sheriff. At length matters arrived at such a pitch that a petition from the citizens at large was presented to the House of Commons (16 Dec., 1724)[62] setting forth that, at elections by the liverymen of the city, numbers of people voted who had no right to vote; that at wardmote elections non-freemen claimed the right to vote on the ground that they contributed to the charges of their respective wards, refusing at the same time to qualify as voters by taking up the freedom of the city because they would thereby restrict their right of testamentary disposition of their estate;[63] that the Court of Aldermen had decided (as we have just seen) that payment of scot was a general contribution to all the public taxes and charges upon the city and inhabitants thereof—a decision which had not met with the favour of the Common Council, and that thus fresh causes of dissension between these two bodies had recently arisen. The petitioners prayed therefore "the relief of the House for preserving the liberties and peace and quieting the minds of the citizens and for punishing all intruders upon their rights and privileges, and settling their elections upon a just and lasting foundation." In answer to this prayer the House gave leave for the introduction of a Bill "for regulating elections within the City of London, and for preserving the peace, good order and government of the said City."
Bill supported by majority of Aldermen.
After the Bill had been brought in (27 Jan., 1725), two petitions were laid before the House; one purporting to come from "the major part of the Aldermen of the city," the other from the Common Council.[64] The former, which was in favour of the Bill, had been previously submitted to the Court of Aldermen; but upon the question being proposed that the petition should be the petition of the Court, the lord mayor (Sir George Merttins) declined to put the question on the ground that it would not be consistent with his honour to let his name be inserted in that petition, when already a petition had been presented to parliament in the name of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Commons in Common Council assembled.[65] The aldermen's petition drew attention more particularly to a clause in the Bill touching the right of passing Acts or By-laws by the Common Council. It declared that the right of the aldermen to veto such proceedings had never been questioned until the time of the civil war, and not afterwards until quite recently; it further stated that the aldermen had lately (20 Feb., 1724), by their recorder, proposed to the Common Council a settlement of all disputes by reference either to the judges of the High Court or the parliament; but the offer had been declined.[66]
Bill opposed by Common Council.
The petition of the Common Council was against the Bill as being destructive to many of the rights and privileges which they and their fellow citizens enjoyed by ancient charters.[67] The Bill passed its second reading on the 6th of February, after which both parties were heard by counsel. When the Bill was before the committee, several petitions against it were presented from Livery Companies of the city. On the 19th March it was read a third time and passed the Commons.[68] In the passage of the Bill through the Lower House it had been strenuously opposed by three out of the four members for the city, viz: Francis Child, Richard Lockwood and John Barnard. For their services in this respect the Common Council passed (22 March) them a formal vote of thanks. The Court at the same time prepared to oppose the Bill in the Lords.[69]
Election Act, 11 Geo. i. c, 18, 1725.
When the Bill was carried up to the Lords, petitions from "the major part of the aldermen" and from the Common Council were again presented, as well as another petition subscribed by certain freemen who objected to parts of the Bill.[70] The passage of the Bill through the Upper House was nevertheless expeditious; on the 1st April it was read a second time and committed, and on the 13th, it was passed with some amendments, but not without a protest being formally entered by dissentient lords.[71] On the 20th the Bill received the royal assent.
There are three clauses in the Act of special interest. First, the clause (No. ix), which prescribes the nature of the charges embraced in the term "payment of scot;" secondly, the clause (No. xv), which confirms to the Aldermen of the city their right to negative Acts of the Common Council;[72] and thirdly, the clause (No. xvii) abolishing the custom of the City restraining citizens and freemen from disposing of the whole of their personal estates by will.
Death of George I, 11 June, 1727.
Just when the reign of George I was drawing to an unexpected close, it seemed as if England was on the point of becoming involved in a European War. The emperor and the king of Spain had laid aside their quarrels and become united in a confederacy against France and England. Unless Gibraltar were ceded by England, another invasion of the Pretender might be shortly expected. The citizens were highly incensed at the thought of their trade being periodically put in jeopardy by Jacobite risings, and they hastened to assure the king once more of their determination to sacrifice their lives and fortunes in defence of the constitution both in church and state against all enemies whatsoever.[73] Thanks to the pacific tendencies of Walpole and the diplomatic skill of Townshend, hostilities were averted, and George was able to set out for his customary visit to Hanover, where he had been in the habit of spending a portion of each year. Before his journey was completed, however, he was seized with apoplexy and died in his coach, near Osnabrück (11 June).
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Journal 56, fo. 130b; Repertory 118, fo. 357.
[2] Journal 56, fos. 132b, 150; Repertory 118, fo. 363.
[3] Journal 56, fos. 133-134b.
[4] Journal 56, fo. 150; Repertory 118, fo. 394.
[5] Repertory 118, fos. 389-391.
[6] Id., fos. 368, 369, 384.
[7] Repertory 118, fos. 377, 381.
[8] This "indulgence" was granted by the lords justices, but was not to be drawn into precedent.—Id., fo. 395.
[9] Journal 56, fo. 150b.
[10] Proclamation dated 15 Sept., 1714.—Id. fo. 135b.
[11] Repertory 119, fo. 8.
[12] The City put in its customary claims, and the masters and wardens of the principal livery companies were appointed to assist the lord mayor in his duties.—Repertory 118, fos. 382-383.
[13] Journal 56, fos. 151b, 161b, 181b.
[14] Maitland, i, 517.
[15] Proclamation dated 6 Dec., 1714.—Journal 56, fo. 139b.
[16] Repertory 119, fos. 79-81.
[17] Journal 56, fo. 147b.
[18] Both aldermen had been knighted by George soon after his landing.—Maitland, i, 517.
[19] Maitland, i, 518.
[20] Journal 56, fo. 164.
[21] Rapin's Hist. of England (continuation by Tindal), v, 424, 425.
[22] Journal House of Commons, xviii, 232.
[23] Journal 56, fos. 194b-195.
[24] Stat. 1 Geo., i, c. 5. Journal House of Commons, xviii, 232.
[25] Stat. 1 Geo., i, c. 13. "An Act for the further security of his majesty's person and government ... and for extinguishing the hopes of the pretended Prince of Wales...." Id., xviii, 279.
[26] Repertory 120, fos. 50-70. Rolls of quarter sessions of this period containing the signatures of those who had not previously subscribed to the oaths are preserved at the Guildhall.
[27] Repertory 119, fo. 386. Journal 56, fo. 203.
[28] Journal 56, fos. 217, 217b, 218b.
[29] Id., fos. 217b, 218b, 270b. Journal 57, fo. 3b.
[30] Journal 67, fo. 267.
[31] Journal 56, fos. 216b, 218.
[32] Stat. 1, Geo. i, c. 38.
[33] Rapin, History of England (contd. by Tindal) iv, 550.
[34] Repertory 121, fos. 250, 265, George Seton, the 5th Earl of Winton, had joined the rising of 1715. He was taken at Preston, and being brought to trial was condemned to death. He managed, however, to make his escape from the Tower and fled to France.
[35] Rapin iv, 541-545.
[36] Repertory 123, fo. 17.
[37] Id., 123, fo. 19.
[38] Journal House of Commons, xix, 47.
[39] Journal House of Lords, xxi, 72, 145-147.
[40] A mistake for 19th Jan., 1641-2. See Journal 40, fo. 16.
[41] Journal 50, fo. 32b.
[42] Journal House of Lords, xxi, 148, 149.
[43] See Maitland i, 521-525; Noorthouck, 312.
[44] Repertory 123, fos. 210-215.
[45] Repertory 123, fos. 223, 242.
[46] Journal 57, fo. 22b; Repertory 123, fo. 401.
[47] Repertory 125, fos. 149-156.
[48] Letter from Secretary Craggs to Alderman Ward "at his house upon Lambeth Hill," 8 Nov., 1720. Repertory 125, fo. 151.
[49] Macleod, "Rise and Progress of Banking in England," ii, 55.
[50] Journal House of Commons, xix, 476.
[51] Id., xix, 482.
[52] Id., xix, 472-473, 532.
[53] Gibbon, Miscellaneous Works, i, 16-18.
[54] Journal 57, fo. 85. Journal House of Commons, xix, 502.
[55] Rapin v. 645.—Journal House of Lords, xxi, 584.
[56] Only one of the old members (viz., Peter Godfrey) was returned for the City, the remaining seats being gained by Francis Child, of the banking firm, who in the next Parliament sat for Middlesex, Richard Lockwood and John Barnard, who afterwards became Lord Mayor and one of Walpole's strongest opponents.
[57] Charles Edward Stuart, better known as the young Pretender.
[58] Repertory 126, fo. 344.
[59] Id., fos. 344-352. The address as well as the king's reply are set out by Maitland (i, 531-532).
[60] Repertory 126, fo. 355.
[61] Journal House of Commons, xx, 11.
[62] Journal House of Commons, xx, 363.
[63] By the custom of the City a freeman disposing by will of his personal estate was obliged to leave his wife one-third of that estate, and to his children, if any, another third.
[64] Journal House of Commons, xx, 383, 387, 389.
[65] Repertory 129, fo. 123.
[66] Repertory 128, fos. 149-150, 204. Journal 57, fo. 110.
[67] Journal 57, fos. 119b. 120.
[68] Journal House of Commons, xx, 403, 426, 462.
[69] Journal 57, fos. 121, 121b.
[70] Journal House of Lords, xxii, 472, 474, 483. Journal 57, fo. 121. Repertory 129, fo. 218.
[71] Journal House of Lords, xxii, 499, 500. During the debate in committee, a proposal had been made to ask the opinion of the judges whether the Bill repealed any of the privileges, customs, or liberties of the City restored to them or preserved by the Act passed in 2 William and Mary for reversing the judgment on the Quo Warranto and for restoring the City its ancient rights and privileges. The proposal was negatived; but 16 lords entered a formal protest against rejecting it, whilst 25 lords protested against passing the Bill.
[72] This clause was repealed by Stat. 19, Geo. ii, c. 8. On the 24 April, 1746, the Common Council passed a general vote of thanks to the lord mayor and Aldermen who had assisted in bringing about the repeal of a clause which had been "productive of great jealousies and discontents and might, if continued, have proved subversive of the rights and liberties of the citizens of London."—Journal 59, fo. 29b.
[73] Journal 57, fo. 149b.
[CHAPTER XXXVI.]
King George II proclaimed, 15 June, 1727.
On the 15th June, 1727, the Court of Aldermen were informed by Sir John Eyles, the lord mayor, that he had received an order of council dated from Leicester House (the residence of the Prince of Wales) for his lordship and the Court to attend at eleven o'clock the next morning at Temple Bar for the purpose of proclaiming King George II. The Court thereupon agreed to be present, and instructed the lord mayor to see that they were allowed to follow in the procession immediately after the lords of the council.[74] Proclamation having been duly made the mayor and aldermen, accompanied by the Recorder, waited upon the king with an address, and afterwards proceeded to pay their compliments to the queen.[75] Another address had been drawn up by a joint committee of aldermen and common councilmen on behalf of the Common Council. But when it was submitted for approval the aldermen insisted upon exercising their right of veto—recently confirmed by parliamentary authority—and as they and the commons failed to agree on the several clauses of the address it had to be abandoned altogether. The mayor was asked to summon another court, "in pursuance to common usage and ancient right," to consider another address, but after consultation with the aldermen he declined to accede to the request.[76]
The king's coronation, 11 Oct., 1727.
The coronation did not take place until October. The ceremony was one of far greater splendour than that of George I, such pageants being "as pleasing to the son as they were irksome to the father."[77] The City put in its customary claims, which were duly allowed. The manner in which these claims were made, as set out in a report made to the Court of Aldermen by the city Remembrancer, whose duty it was to make them, was shortly this. Having first obtained the names of the masters of the twelve superior companies, he put in two claims—written on parchment, and stamped with a treble sixpenny stamp—for the usual services in attendance upon the king and queen. The claims being allowed, he obtained certificates to that effect, and on presenting them at the lord great chamberlain's office he received warrants to the master of the king's jewel office for two gold cups, each weighing 21 ozs. One of these, the king's cup, he conveyed to the lord mayor; the other, the queen's cup, he left until after the ceremony, "for note"—says he—"they were not nor are they used to be carryed down to Westminster Hall to be made use of on that solemnity." The coronation over, the Remembrancer applied for and received from the Clerk of the Crown a copy of the judgments on the several claims.[78]
The lord mayor's banquet, 28 Oct., 1727.
According to custom the king attended the first lord mayor's banquet after his accession. He was accompanied by the queen, the royal family, the great officers of state, and a large number of the nobility.[79] The entertainment was signalised by what appears to have been a barefaced attempt at extortion on the part of the king's own cup-bearer who made a claim on the City for a silver cup (or its value) by way of fee. The matter having been brought to the notice of the Court of Aldermen, the Town Clerk was instructed to search the city's Records for precedents, and upon his reporting that he had failed to find one the claim was dismissed.[80] The new king, like his father, ordered £1,000 to be paid to the sheriff for the relief of insolvent debtors.[81]
Portraits of king and queen.
The day that the king was invited to the lord mayor's banquet the Common Council resolved to set up his statue at the Royal Exchange.[82] Eventually they commissioned Charles Jervas, an Irish painter and pupil of Kneller, to paint portraits both of the king and queen for the Guildhall. Jervas had been originally apprenticed to a frame maker, and this may account for the anxiety he displayed to put the portraits into better frames than was usual. To do this he asked for and obtained the consent of the Court of Aldermen.[83] The pictures now hang in the members' reading room at the Guildhall.[84]
Walpole and the queen.
For a short time after the king's accession it appeared as if Walpole's ascendancy was to be suddenly cut short. The minister was fortunate, however, in winning over the queen to his interests, and her influence, combined with his own masterful tact, turned the scale in his favour, and he was allowed to remain at the head of affairs. Before long he succeeded in gaining the entire confidence of the king himself, but during the lifetime of the queen it was chiefly to her that the minister turned in times of difficulty. She was a woman of considerable ability, and thoroughly appreciated Walpole, and together they were able to avoid many political pitfalls and to persistently carry out that policy of peace which characterised the whole of this reign.
Dissenters and the Corporation and Test Acts, 1730.
Thus it was that in 1730, when the government was placed in an unpleasant dilemma over an attempt that was being made by Dissenters throughout the country to obtain the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts Walpole took counsel with the queen, and these two laid a plan with Hoadley, Bishop of Salisbury, for getting the Dissenters to postpone bringing their petition before parliament. The plan as we learn from Lord Hervey,[85] who had every means of making himself acquainted with the inner workings of the Court of George II, was this. Hoadley, in whom the Dissenters placed much confidence as an avowed advocate of ecclesiastical as well as civil liberty, was to do all he could to persuade them to postpone, at least for a short time, their petition to parliament, whilst Walpole was to see that the committee of London Dissenters, which was to be chosen to confer with government, should comprise none but creatures of his own. The scheme succeeded entirely. The Dissenters were hoodwinked. The packed committee went through the form of an interview with the ministers, and in due course reported to the general assembly of Dissenters that the time was inopportune for petitioning parliament. The general body agreed, and the ministry was thus saved.
The City and Walpole's Excise Bill, 1733.
Although it was chiefly as a financier that the great minister, under whom England enjoyed an unexampled period of peace and prosperity, excelled, it was a financial reform that nearly brought him to ruin three years later. This was his famous Excise Bill. In a hasty desire to curry favour with the landowners by reducing the Land Tax Walpole proposed to establish a new system of levying duties on tobacco and wine. The tax itself was not new, but only the manner of levying it. Hitherto the duty on wine and tobacco had been payable on importation. The new proposal was that these commodities should be allowed to lie in bonded warehouses duty free until taken out for home consumption, when their sale was to be restricted to shops licensed for the purpose. In other words the customs' duties on these commodities were to be changed into excise duties, a form of taxation especially hateful in those days, as seeming to infringe the rights of the subject by giving revenue officers the right of entering and searching houses at any hour without further warrant. The City and the country were up in arms, and the city members of parliament were instructed to oppose the Bill for reasons set out in writing and delivered into their hands.[86]
Walpole delayed bringing in the Bill as long as he could in hopes that the clamour against it—"epidemic madness," as Hervey called it—might subside. Neither London nor the kingdom, however, would listen to reason, and the universal cry was No slavery—no excise—no wooden shoes![87] When the Bill was at last introduced (14 March) it met with violent opposition, and more particularly from two of the city members, viz., Sir John Barnard and Micaiah Perry. During the debate the doors of the House were besieged by such a noisy crowd that Walpole in an unguarded moment characterised the mob as "sturdy beggars." This at once brought Barnard to his feet, and although there was at first a disposition not to hear him, as he had already spoken to the Bill, the House was prevailed upon to give him a second hearing, owing to his position as a representative of "the greatest and richest city in Europe," and a city greatly interested in the issues of the debate. Barnard thereupon took Walpole severely to task for the expression he had let drop. "The honourable gentleman," said he, "talks of sturdy beggars; I do not know what sort of people may be now at the door, because I have not lately been out of the House, but I believe they are the same sort of people that were there when I came last into the House, and then I can assure you that I saw none but such as deserve the name of sturdy beggars as little as the honourable gentleman himself, or any gentleman whatever." Sturdy beggars or not (he declared in conclusion) they could not legally be prevented from coming down to the House. After some further debate Walpole gained the day, and on the 4th April the Bill was read a first time.[88]
Before the Bill came on for its second reading a copy of it had been laid before the Common Council (9 April), and a petition had thereupon been drawn up and presented to the House asking that the City might be heard by counsel against the Bill.[89] After long debate the prayer of the petition was refused, but only by a bare majority of seventeen.[90] By this time the clamour had become so great, even the army showing signs of disaffection, that Walpole, true to his principle of expediency, the key-note of his policy, resolved to purchase peace by concession. He postponed the further consideration of the Bill (11 April) for a period of two months, and afterwards withdrew it altogether. On leaving the House the day that the motion for postponement was carried the minister was mobbed. The affair was little more than an "accidental scuffle," but it was studiously represented to parliament as "a deep-laid scheme for assassination." Resolutions were passed condemning in strong terms all actors and abettors of the outrage, and the city members were especially directed to carry copies to the lord mayor for publication within his jurisdiction—the City being considered as the real author of all the mischief.[91]
Mayoralty of Sir William Billers, 1733-1734.
The defeat of the Bill was received with extravagant joy, and in 1734 it was proposed to celebrate its anniversary in the city with bonfires. For this purpose subscriptions were invited through the medium of the press. The mayor, Sir William Billers, on learning this consulted the Court of Aldermen as to what was best to be done under the circumstances, and by their advice he issued his precept for a special watch to be kept, and for the arrest of all persons attempting to make bonfires or to create disorder.[92] Notwithstanding this precaution a riot broke out, and Billers not only had his windows broken, on account of his obnoxious precept, but was himself pelted with dirt and stones, whilst patrolling the streets in company with the Swordbearer. Insult was added to injury by the newspapers of the day holding him up as having himself been the real cause of all the disorder. The Court of Aldermen, on the other hand, accorded him a hearty vote of thanks for the courage he had displayed.[93] On going out of office Billers again became an object of attack, the mob pelting him with all kinds of filth and endeavouring to smash his coach. The Court of Aldermen were so indignant at this outrage that they offered a reward of £50 for every offender brought to justice.[94]
Royal
marriages,
1734 and 1736
In 1734 the princess royal was married to the Prince of Orange, and two years later the Prince of Wales married the Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha. On both occasions the City presented congratulatory addresses.[95] Lord Hervey, the king's vice-chamberlain, was highly indignant at the first address because of the reference it made to King William III. But if the City sinned in this respect it sinned in good company, for Oxford University and other corporate bodies made similar allusions. "The city of London," wrote Hervey,[96] "the University of Oxford, and several other disaffected towns and incorporated bodies took the opportunity of the princess royal's marriage to say the most impertinent things to the king, under the pretence of complimental addresses, that ironical zeal and couched satire could put together. The tenor of them all was to express their satisfaction in this match from remembering how much this country was indebted to a prince who bore the title of Orange, declaring their gratitude to his memory, and intimating as plainly as they dared, how much they wished this man might follow the example of his great ancestor, and one time or other depose his father-in-law in the same manner that King William had deposed his." Happily the king took a more sensible view of the address, and vouchsafed a gracious reply. So far from being offended at the City's allusion to William of Orange he was pleased. "It is a great pleasure to me," he said, "to see this great metropolis remember with so much gratitude the deliverance of these kingdoms from popery and slavery by my great predecessor King William."[97] Soon after the marriage of the Prince of Wales he was presented with the Freedom of the City in a gold box, having previously been admitted a member of the Saddlers' Company.[98]
Disputes between England and Spain in the West Indies.
For nearly twenty years England had enjoyed uninterrupted peace at home and abroad. The last action in which an English force had been engaged had taken place in the summer of 1718, when Admiral Byng defeated a Spanish fleet off Cape Passaro. Since then trade had been flourishing, and the city merchant had been busily sending cargoes of English merchandise across the sea to the West Indies, paying little regard to the restrictions imposed on them by the provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht.[99]
Jenkin's ear, 1738.
Spain on the other hand insisted upon the right of search, and their coastguards had often seized English vessels suspected of smuggling, and were sometimes reported as having brutally ill-used their crews.[100] Matters were fast tending to an open rupture when the episode of Jenkin's ear roused an intense desire for war both in the city and the country generally. The story is well known. Jenkin was master of a small trading vessel which seven years before had been overhauled by a Spanish guarda-costa. Irritated at finding nothing contraband on board the Spanish commander is said to have cut off one of Jenkin's ears, bidding him carry it to the king. Jenkin took advantage of the prevalent feeling against Spain to exhibit his ear wrapt in cotton wool, and when asked as to his feelings at the time of the outrage declared that he had commended his soul to God and his cause to his country. This clap-trap story—it is shrewdly suspected that Jenkin lost his ear in the pillory—had the desired effect. Popular indignation was roused, and the nation clamoured for war.
The City and the Spanish Convention, 1739.
To all this Walpole turned a deaf ear, and instead of proclaiming war opened negotiations for peace. A Convention with Spain was agreed to, but as it left the question as to right of search still unsettled, great opposition was displayed, both in and out of parliament, to its ratification. The minister was in the greatest straits. His best friend and supporter, the queen, had recently died, and the king, freed from the peaceful influence of his wife, as well as the City, were urging war. It was not often that the Londoners called for war, they were too interested in commercial pursuits not to appreciate to the full the blessings of peace. But on this occasion the City felt bound to make a strong representation to parliament as to "the fatal consequences of leaving the freedom of navigation any longer in suspense and uncertainty." They had too much reason to fear (they said) that if the right claimed by Spain of searching British ships at sea were admitted in any degree "the trade of his majesty's subjects to America will become so precarious as to depend in a great measure upon the indulgence and justice of the Spaniards, of both which they have given us for some years past such specimens as we humbly think this nation can have no cause to be satisfied with."[101] The citizens were probably right, although they were held up to much ridicule for venturing to give advice upon affairs of state. During the debate on the convention, lists of the members of the Common Council, with their respective trades or companies, were scattered abroad, and to these lists were appended texts from scripture to the effect that however useful such men might be in a city "they shall not be sought for in public council."[102]
"Leonidas" Glover.
One citizen in particular distinguished himself by advocating war in a poem of greater length than merit. This was Richard Glover,[103] known as "Leonidas" Glover (from another poem he wrote bearing that title), author of "London, or the Progress of Commerce," in which he reminds the citizens of their former prowess at Newbury, and asks—
"Shall we be now more timid, when behold,
The blackening storm now gathers round our heads
And England's angry genius sounds to arms?"
Besides being an "eminent Hamburgh merchant" and a writer of verse, Glover took an active part in city elections, and was a strong upholder of the rights of the livery. On Michaelmas-day, when Sir George Champion, who sat for Aylesbury, was put in nomination for the mayoralty and rejected chiefly, if not wholly, on account of his having voted for the Convention,[104] Glover was asked to move a vote of thanks to the city members, for having opposed the Convention. This he did in a spirited speech, in which he referred to Champion's chance of election to the mayoralty as being in all probability for ever lost, a prediction which proved true.[105]
War declared with Spain, 19 Oct., 1739.
Although the Convention was carried, it became apparent that either war must be declared or Walpole resign. The minister's love of power overcame his convictions, and he allowed himself to be dragged into a war which he felt at the time to be unjustifiable and foreboding of evil. The declaration of war which was made in October was welcomed with peals of bells from London churches. "They ring their bells now," said he, "before long they will be wringing their hands." When the outgoing mayor received instructions from the Duke of Newcastle to assist at the proclamation of war according to custom, he demurred on the ground that the town clerk had been unable to find a precedent for the Court of Aldermen attending a proclamation of war; but upon the Duke referring him to what had taken place when war was declared in 1718 against Spain, the objection was withdrawn. A question next arose as to the place the civic authorities should occupy in the procession, and the Remembrancer was instructed to make enquiries on the point both at the secretary's office and the Heralds' College. The information gathered by him proving unsatisfactory, the Court of Aldermen took it upon themselves to decide that the civic party should fall in immediately after Garter King-at-Arms. This order, however, was not carried out, for the Horse Guards thrust themselves into the procession in front of the municipal officers.[106]
Capture of Porto Bello, Nov., 1739.
At the outset of the war fortune favoured British arms, and in November, Admiral Vernon succeeded in surprising and capturing the town of Porto Bello, situate on the Isthmus of Darien (Panama). The City was delighted and presented the king with the usual congratulatory address.[107] Such a feat the citizens declared would not only serve to show that the maritime power of the country, although allowed to lie dormant so long, was still capable of vindicating the honour of the crown, but also gave promise of future successes, and they assured the king that he might depend upon them to contribute towards the support of a war so necessary for the protection of their long injured trade.
"Admiral Hosier's Ghost."
As for Vernon, he became a popular idol with the citizens, who continued to look upon his single success whilst they turned a blind eye to his many subsequent failures. Not only was he presented with the Freedom of the City in a gold box, but his birthday was for some years kept with general rejoicing.[108] His capture of Porto Bello was made the subject of a poem by Glover—his one readable ballad—under the title of "Admiral Hosier's Ghost," in which Vernon's good fortune is compared with the ill-luck which attended Hosier's expedition to the West Indies in 1726, when, doomed to inaction by orders from home, that gallant officer saw the greater part of his men swept off by disease, and he himself died subsequently of a broken heart.[109]
Heathcote discharged Mayor by Common Council, Oct., 1740.
When Michaelmas-day again came round Glover was again to the fore. It was customary for the livery to hold a preliminary meeting either at the London Tavern or some company's hall before they met in Common Hall. On this occasion the meeting was held in Vintners' Hall, and Glover took the chair. The business of the day having been opened by a speech from the chairman, in which he referred to the rejection of Sir George Champion the previous year, and exhorted them to choose a mayor for the year ensuing who would be agreeable to the majority of the citizens, the livery proceeded to choose Sir Robert Godschall and George Heathcote, although they were not the senior aldermen below the chair.[110] There names were accordingly submitted to the full body of the livery assembled in Common Hall on Michaelmas-day and were accepted.[111] It now became the duty of the Court of Aldermen to select one of these two to be mayor for the year ensuing. Godschall was the senior, and Heathcote particularly desired not to be chosen on the plea of ill-health, and because he had so recently served sheriff. Nevertheless the choice of the aldermen was declared to be for Heathcote, although he repeated his request not to serve. A Common Council was thereupon summoned to consider the matter, and it was eventually resolved that Heathcote should be discharged without fine.[112]
Humphrey Parsons re-elected Mayor, Oct., 1740.
This necessitated the summoning another Common Hall, and another accordingly met on the 14th October. A preliminary meeting of the livery took place, as before, at Vintners' Hall, and again Glover was in the chair. The action of the Court of Aldermen in thus passing over Godschall merely because the livery had refused to nominate Champion, was strongly condemned by the chairman, who no less strongly eulogised the action of Heathcote for refusing to serve—a refusal which emanated, according to the speaker, not from ill-health, but from a determination not to fill the place of the rejected Godschall.[113] When the election came on in Common Hall the livery returned Godschall for the third time, and with him Humphrey Parsons who had served mayor ten years before. Again Godschall was passed over by the Court of Aldermen, and Parsons was called to the mayoralty chair for the second time, although by the bare majority of one vote.[114]
The Common Council were desirous (22 Oct.) of passing a vote of thanks to Parsons for again accepting a laborious and expensive office, "and thereby endeavouring in some measure to restore the peace and tranquility of this city which has been greatly disturbed by a late extraordinary and unusual proceeding." A A long debate arose, some of the aldermen present insisting upon their right of a negative voice in the matter; and upon the question being put to them, the words in italics were vetoed by twelve aldermen to one.[115] Those aldermen who had previously voted for Godschall and a large number of the Common Council had already got up and left the Court.[116]
A general election, 1741.
In 1741 a general election took place. Parsons, who had sat in the last two Parliaments with Sir John Barnard, had, in the meantime, died during his mayoralty, and had been succeeded in the civic chair by Daniel Lambert.[117] Barnard retained his seat, and with him were returned the new mayor, and Aldermen Godschall and Heathcote. The ministry still retained a majority in the House, but it was not always to be depended upon.
City petitions to parliament, Jan., 1742.
Early in the following year two petitions were laid before Parliament complaining of the manner in which the trade of the country was being ruined owing to insufficiency of convoys. One petition—drafted by Glover—was from merchants of the city, and was presented to Parliament by Godschall,[118] who had at last succeeded in becoming mayor; and the other was from the Common Council of the city, and was presented by the sheriffs.[119] Both petitions were referred to a committee of the whole House, with Godschall in the chair, and in due course the House instructed the lord mayor and Sir John Barnard to prepare a Bill for the better protecting and securing the trade and navigation of the kingdom in time of war.[120]
Death of Godschall, mayor, June, 1742.
A Bill was accordingly prepared, which passed rapidly through the Commons but was thrown out by the Lords.[121] This was almost the last parliamentary business on which Godschall was engaged, for he died during his mayoralty in the following June.
Resignation of Walpole, 17 Feb., 1742.
Whilst these petitions were under consideration the ministry suffered a defeat over an election petition, and Walpole resigned (17 Feb.). With the great "corrupter" removed the City hoped for great things. The Common Council had, previously (10 Feb.) made a "representation" to the city members urging them to promote a Place Bill and a Pension Bill, as well as the repeal of the Septennial Act, and so secure the constitution "against all future attempts either of open or secret corruption or of any undue influence whatsoever."[122]
The City and the new ministry.
After some difficulty a new ministry was formed in which Carteret soon became the leading man. The City continued to look for the execution of the long-wished-for reforms, but looked in vain. It was the old story. Men who when out of office breathed the spirit of patriotism and virtue were anything but virtuous and patriotic in office. Again were the city members urged by another "representation" to press forward certain measures and not to vote supplies until the government showed some signs of moving in the direction required.[123] The example of the City was followed in other places, and copies of the "representation" were freely circulated in all parts of the country. The newspapers of the day, whilst lamenting the condition into which the country had fallen through "the iniquitous administration of the late corrupter," expressed their confidence that the example set by London—"the source and fountain head of all our wealth and trade"—would continue to have, as it had already had, its proper influence both within and without doors.[124]
France and the Young Pretender, 1743.
When Carteret came into power, Europe was distracted with the war of the Austrian succession, and before long England was drawn into the vortex. Whilst France embraced the cause of the Elector of Bavaria, England supported Maria Theresa. In June, 1743, the French army was defeated at Dettingen, when, for the last time, a king of England appeared in the field of battle at the head of his men, and bore himself right royally. Louis retaliated by promising assistance to Charles Edward Stuart, known in history as the Young Pretender, who meditated an invasion of England to claim the crown.
War declared against France, 29 March, 1744.
Information of the project having been communicated to Parliament (15 Feb., 1744), both Houses concurred in an address of loyalty to the king, promising him their utmost support, and the next day the Common Council voted a similar address.[125] The deputation which waited upon his majesty with the City's address met with a gracious reception, and the king conferred the honour of knighthood upon the mayor (Robert Westley), the recorder (Simon Urling), two aldermen, (viz., Daniel Lambert and Robert Willimot), and the two sheriffs, Robert Ladbroke and William Calvert,[126] the latter of whom had succeeded to Godschall's seat in Parliament as one of the members for the city. Before the end of the month the lord mayor was informed by letter from the Privy Council that extensive preparations were being made at Dunkirk, in concert with disaffected persons in this country, for an invasion, and it behoved his lordship to put into operation the Acts against papists and non-jurors.[127] The aspect of affairs began to look black indeed. "If they still attempt the invasion," wrote Walpole to his friend, "it must be a bloody war."[128] The danger that seemed so imminent passed away owing to a violent storm which destroyed the French transports, and England was thus again saved from foreign invasion by the difficulties of the channel passage.[129] Nevertheless on the 29th March, war was declared against France.[130]
The Pretender in Scotland, 1745.
Though bitterly disappointed at the failure of this expedition the prince did not lose courage, but resolved in the following year (1745) to cross over to Scotland unsupported by France, and to trust to the loyalty of his friends there. Landing in the western highlands with a mere handful of followers he gradually drew to his side a small force, and on the 19th August set up his standard in Glenfinnan. On the 4th September the Duke of Newcastle (brother of Pelham, who had recently succeeded Carteret in the premiership) informed the lord mayor by letter of the Pretender having set up his standard and of his then being on his way to Perth or Edinburgh. The king was assured, he said, that the mayor would do his utmost to preserve the peace and the security of the city.[131] Both the Common Council and the Court of Aldermen presented addresses to the king in testimony of their loyalty to the constitution of Church and State, and both bodies in return received assurances of royal favour and promises of protection for their trade and commerce.[132] The London merchant and trader had been the greatest gainers by the Revolution and the policy of peace pursued by Walpole. It would have been base ingratitude, if nothing else, had the City acted otherwise at this important crisis. Dr. Gardiner points out that it was much the same in Scotland, and that the traders there, having profited by the Union, were to a man staunch Hanoverians.
The Pretender's march to Derby.
On the 17th September the prince entered Edinburgh and took up his quarters at Holyrood House. A few days later he succeeded in defeating an English force under Sir John Cope at Preston Pans, and thus encouraged he prepared to cross the border and to appeal to England for support. The news caused a run upon the Bank of England, and had it not been for the praiseworthy promptitude of the leading London merchants who met and passed a formal resolution pledging themselves to support the credit of the bank's notes, its doors would probably have been closed.[133]
The Pretender enters Derby, 4 Dec., 1745.
Again fortune favoured England. The prince delayed his march so long, collecting money and organising his forces, that time was gained for putting London into a state of defence. A camp was formed at Finchley[134] to intercept the rebels, and subscription lists were opened in London and the country for the soldiers who were to be engaged in the coming winter campaign. The Common Council voted £1,000 to the fund,[135] but England as a whole was strangely apathetic. Carteret, the late prime minister, who had, on the death of his mother recently, become Viscount Carteret and Earl Granville, refused to subscribe anything to the fund, and a similar indifference to the country's danger was displayed by others of the aristocracy.[136] By Wednesday, the 4th December, the Pretender had succeeded in evading the English forces sent to oppose him under the command of Wade and the Duke of Cumberland and had entered Derby, where he seized all the money he could lay his hands on, including the subscriptions that had been raised to oppose him.[137]
"Black Friday," 6 Dec., 1745.
The news of the rebels being within 150 miles of the capital reached London on Friday, the 6th December—"Black Friday," as it came to be called. The Duke of Newcastle immediately wrote off to the lord mayor informing him of the fact of the Pretender's forces having already reached Derby "in their way, as they give out, towards London." The Duke of Cumberland, the letter went on to say, was making every effort to intercept the rebels at Northampton, and part of his cavalry would be there that night and the rest the next day, when the foot soldiers were also expected. The mayor was desired to take immediate steps, in the meantime, for the defence of the city, in case the duke failed to place himself between the rebels and London. The letter having been communicated to a special Court of Aldermen on Saturday it was resolved to issue precepts for returns to be made by the following Monday of the number of coach and saddle horses found in each ward. The trained bands were to take up their quarters in the Royal Exchange, whilst a portion of Bridewell Hospital was to serve as a guard-room for the night guard appointed by the commissioners of lieutenancy. The two city marshals were to be instructed to visit the night watches in the several wards and to see that the constables did their duty.[138] All was excitement and activity. The king prepared to go to the camp at Finchley to take command of the guards. The weavers of London offered to supply him with 1,000 men, whilst the lawyers formed themselves into a little army under the command of Chief Justice Willes, and offered to serve as a body-guard to the royal family during the king's absence.[139] Another run was made upon the Bank of England, which again had to resort to strategem (as in 1720) in order to avert bankruptcy. Instead of refusing payment the Bank employed agents for the express purpose of presenting notes which, in order to gain time, were cashed in sixpences; "and as those who came first were entitled to priority the agents went out at one door with the specie they had received and brought it back by another, so that the bonâ fide holders of notes could never get near enough to present them."[140]
The Pretender withdraws from Derby.
Fortunately the crisis was soon over, the Pretender had scarcely reached Derby before he reluctantly accepted the advice of his commanders and ordered a retreat. Under the circumstances it was perhaps the best thing to do. The English armies were gradually closing in upon him, this country had shown no disposition to rise in his favour, and the Duke of Cumberland was, as we have seen, hastening towards Northampton to bar his passage to the capital.
The Freedom of the City for Duke of Cumberland, 23 Jan., 1746.
The citizens were not slow to realise how much they owed to the duke for their protection, and on the 23rd January (1746) the Common Council resolved to present him with the Freedom of the City in a gold box, both for his "magnanimous" behaviour against the rebels, as well as for his vigilant care in protecting the city "in a late time of imminent danger."[141]
Victory of Culloden, 16 April, 1746.
Some time elapsed before the duke was able to receive the freedom, for as soon as he was aware that the rebels were in retreat, he hurried off in pursuit. After defeating General Hawley at Falkirk (17 Jan., 1746) the rebels retired towards Inverness, but in April they were brought to bay by the duke at Culloden Moor and utterly defeated. The duke was a man of violent passions, and his victory was marked with so much wanton cruelty and bloodshed, that he acquired the name of the Butcher. This name he never lost, and when it came to his taking up the Freedom of the City, some one was bold enough to suggest the propriety of his becoming a member of the Butchers' Company.[142]
City address to the king, 3 May, 1746.
Cruel as the duke's conduct had been, it had the effect of crushing the rebellion. London and the kingdom could once more breathe freely, and the citizens could follow their commercial pursuits without fear of further abortive attempts being made to restore the crown to the Stuarts. Instead of blaming the duke for his drastic measures, they applauded him and formally thanked the king for giving him the command, "Permit us, Sir"—they said, addressing his majesty—"to return our most unfeigned thanks ... for the appointment of his royal highness the duke to this important service, whose conduct and bravery (so early conspicuous) have by the blessing of the Almighty produced this our happy deliverance: a glory reserved for one of your illustrious family, endowed with those princely qualities which render him amiable to those under his command, and formidable to his enemies." They, at the same time assured his majesty that it would be always their firm resolution, no less than their indispensable duty "to oppose every attempt of the common disturbers of the peace of Europe" against the rights of his crown.[143]
The general election, 1747.
One effect of the rebellion was to strengthen the hands of the government. The subscription lists that had been opened during the crisis were the means of displaying to the world who were Jacobites and who were not, and when the general election came on in the summer of 1747 it went hard with those who entertained Jacobite proclivities. Barnard and Culvert retained their seats for the city, but Slingsby Bethell and Stephen Theodore Janssen were returned in place of Lambert and Heathcote. "Both Westminster and Middlesex have elected court candidates," wrote Walpole to his friend,[144] "and the city of London is taking the same step, the first time of many years that the two latter have been whig; but the non-subscribing at the time of the rebellion, has been most successfully played off upon the Jacobites."
Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, Oct., 1748.
The rebellion had also a considerable effect upon the war on the continent, for the Austrians, deprived of English succour, lost nearly the whole of their possessions in the Netherlands to France. The French, however, were unsuccessful in Italy, whilst at sea the English navy attacked their colonial possessions, and captured the island of Cape Breton. All parties being ready to come to terms, a peace was at length concluded (Oct., 1748) at Aix-la-Chapelle on the general principle of restitution of all conquests.[145]
The Newcastle administration, 1754-1756.
From the time when Henry Pelham succeeded Carteret (Nov., 1744) as Prime Minister, the strife of parties was lulled by the simple expedient of admitting into office any man capable of rendering himself dangerous to the government. Pelham's administration thus became distinguished as the Broad-bottomed Administration. Upon his death in March, 1754, the era of tranquillity passed away. He was succeeded in the Premiership by his brother the Duke of Newcastle. Already there was danger of war with France, as well as opposition at home, but with the assistance of Charles Fox, Newcastle contrived to get through the year. Before another twelvemonth had elapsed, however, England was again threatened with a French invasion.[146]