Chapter XXXVIII
[Sidenote: Barlow Trecothick mayor, June-Sept., 1770.]
Upon Beckford's decease Trecothick was elected mayor for the remainder of the year. It was no easy matter for the successor of one of the wealthiest and most hospitable of mayors to avoid invidious comparison, and at the close of his short term of office Trecothick was satirised by Wilkes for not maintaining the City's reputation for hospitality.[269] Trecothick was also out of favour with Wilkes for having officially backed press warrants, the legality of which was much disputed at the time. The mayor, however, justified his conduct in this respect to the livery when they met at Michaelmas, and his speech was very favourably received.[270] Wilkes on the other hand was so strenuously opposed to press warrants that he went so far as to release a man who had been pressed for the navy, although he had been taken by virtue of a warrant from the Lords of the Admiralty, backed by Trecothick.[271]
[Sidenote: Brass Crosby elected mayor, 29 Sept., 1770.]
When Michaelmas arrived, the livery refused to re-elect Trecothick--as indeed Wilkes had foretold. Bankes was again passed over, and Brass Crosby chosen mayor for the ensuing year. In character he was scarcely less spirited and patriotic than Beckford, and he was made to suffer in consequence. Very early in his mayoralty (21 Nov.) it fell to his lot to carry up another address and remonstrance to the king for the dissolution of parliament, and to listen to a curt refusal.[272]
[Sidenote: Opinion touching press warrants.]
In consequence of Wilkes's opposition to pressing for the king's service, a system then constantly practised owing to the necessities of the time, the new mayor, one of his most steady adherents, consulted Lord Chatham on the legality of press warrants. Chatham advised him to take the opinion of counsel on the matter, and this he accordingly did, with the result that whilst he was advised that press warrants, however objectionable, were legal, the lord mayor could not legally be compelled to sign them. At the same time counsel left it to the mayor's consideration "whether for the peace of the city, and preservation of the subject, he would not conform to the practice of most of his predecessors on such occasions." This decision being deemed unsatisfactory, the City preferred to bestow premiums on voluntary recruits, and the same course was taken by other towns.[273]
[Sidenote: The freedom of reporting parliamentary debates, 1771.]
It is, however, for the conspicuous part he took in the struggle for the liberty of the press that Brass Crosby is best remembered. Great jealousy had always existed in parliament as to reports of debates held there, and the Commons had comparatively of recent date (28 Feb., 1729) passed a resolution to the effect that it was an indignity, and a breach of privilege, for anyone "to give in written or printed newspapers" any account of the proceedings of the house.[274] Notwithstanding this resolution, reports of debates continued to appear in the public press, but always with an affectation of secrecy.
[Sidenote: The arrest of Wheble and Miller, 15 March, 1771.]
A scheme was now set on foot by Wilkes for embroiling the House of Commons with the City. At his instigation certain printers in the city commenced to publish the debates without any attempt at disguise, printing the name of each speaker in full. Such a proceeding had always been deemed a distinct breach of privilege. Some members of the House speedily took offence, and the printers were ordered to attend. As they refused to obey the summons, they were ordered into custody. This was precisely what Wilkes had aimed at. On the 15th March, a printer named John Wheble was apprehended by virtue of a proclamation, and was carried before Wilkes, the sitting alderman, who immediately discharged him, after binding him over to prosecute the man who had taken him, for illegal arrest. The same evening a messenger of the House of Commons attempted to arrest Miller, the printer of the Evening Post, under warrant of the Speaker; but the messenger himself was taken into custody on a charge of assaulting a freeman of the city, and carried before the lord mayor and aldermen Wilkes and Oliver. These magistrates declared the warrant to be illegal, not having been backed by a magistrate of the city, and released Miller. They at the same time bound over the messenger of the House of Commons to appear to answer a charge of assaulting a citizen of London.[275]
[Sidenote: The king's letter to Lord North, 17 March, 1771.]
The king was furious at the authority of parliament being thus openly defied by the civic magistrates, and wrote to Lord North (17 March) to say that unless Crosby and Oliver were not committed forthwith to the Tower by the House of Commons its authority would be annihilated;--"You know very well I was averse to meddling with the printers, but now there is no retracting, the honour of the Commons must be supported."[276]
[Sidenote: His recognizance expunged by order of the House, 20 March, 1771.]
The House was no less indignant at being flouted by the City, than the king, and not only called upon Crosby and Oliver, who were members,[277] to answer for their conduct from their places, but sent for the clerk of the Justice Room at the Mansion House and ordered him in their presence to expunge the entry of the recognizance by which their messenger had been bound over to appear at the next Quarter Sessions to answer for his assault on Miller.[278]
[Sidenote: Crosby and Oliver before the House, 19 March, 1771.]
In the meantime Crosby, who was suffering from a severe attack of gout, had attended in his place (19 March). Early in the morning handbills were distributed in the city informing the inhabitants that it was the intention of the mayor to attend Parliament that afternoon--"even though he should be obliged to be carried in a litter"--to uphold their rights and privileges, and calling upon them to escort him home on his return from Westminster. Here is a description of what took place taken from a contemporary newspaper;[279] "At two o'clock in the afternoon the right hon. the lord mayor set out from the Mansion House in a coach to attend the House of Commons, in pursuance of a summons, to answer for his conduct on Friday last. His lordship appeared very feeble and infirm, but in good spirits. Mr. Alderman Oliver and his lordship's chaplain, Mr. Evans, were in the same coach. A prodigious crowd of the better sort were at the Mansion House and in the streets near it, who testified their approbation by repeated huzzas, which were continued quite from the Mansion House to the House of Commons. On his arrival there one universal shout was heard for near three minutes; and the people during the whole passage to the House called out to the lord mayor as the people's friend, the guardian of the city's rights and the nation's liberties." Walpole minimises the display, and tells his friend that although thousands of handbills were dispersed to invite the mob to escort the mayor, not a hundred attended.[280] Having taken his seat in the House Crosby justified his conduct by the oath that he had taken on entering upon his mayoralty to preserve the liberties of the citizens, and desired to be heard by counsel.[281] Before his examination had proceeded far he was taken so seriously ill that he had to ask leave to go home. This was accorded, and "about five o'clock his lordship returned home, attended by a great number of people; and the populace took the horses out of the carriage at St. Paul's, and drew the coach to the Mansion House." The enquiry stood adjourned until Friday (22 March). In the meantime, leave having been given to him to appear by counsel, albeit with certain reservations, a committee was appointed to employ such counsel on his behalf as they should think fit, with power to draw on the Chamber to the extent of £500.[282] When Friday came the Speaker informed the House that he had received a letter from the lord mayor to the effect that he (Crosby) was so ill that he could not leave home, but that he would attend in his place as soon as his health permitted. Another adjournment was therefore made until the following Monday (25 March), and Oliver's defence was appointed for the same day.[283]
[Sidenote: Crosby and Oliver again before the House, 25 March, 1771.]
By Monday the lord mayor had sufficiently recovered to attend the House. At two o'clock in the afternoon he again set out in his coach accompanied, as before, by Oliver. Crowds again escorted them to Westminster, and the approaches to the House were so densely thronged that the Speaker gave orders to have them cleared. Even Walpole acknowledges this.[284] After the orders of the day for their attendance had been read Crosby explained how it was that no counsel appeared on his behalf. In the first place the restrictions that the House had placed upon the appearance of counsel--viz., that they should only be heard upon such points as did not controvert the privileges of the House--was such as to prevent counsel speaking on many points material to his defence; and secondly the counsel whom he could depend upon, and whom he wished to employ, were on circuit. He therefore made his own defence. It was now ten o'clock at night, and the exertion he had undergone had rendered him so weak that he again had to ask leave to withdraw, promising to abide by the judgment of the House. On his return to the city he met with another ovation, his coach being drawn by the people all the way to the Mansion House.[285]
[Sidenote: Crosby adjudged guilty of breach of privilege.]
After Crosby's withdrawal the debate was continued. It was moved that the lord mayor's discharging of Miller out of custody, and his having held the messenger of the House to bail, was a breach of privilege. To this was moved the previous question, but after long debate it was rejected and the original motion passed, order being given for the lord mayor to attend on the following Wednesday, if his health permitted.[286]
[Sidenote: Oliver committed to the Tower, 25 March, 1771.]
Notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, the House called upon Oliver. The alderman, however, did not detain them long. He declined to call witnesses or to say anything in his defence, beyond asserting that he had acted according to his duty, oath, and conscience. Again there was a long debate lasting until three o'clock in the morning, when the House resolved to send him to the Tower. The division was a small one, many members having already gone home in disgust. Oliver was allowed to go to his house in Fenchurch Street for a few hours before being removed to the Tower by the sergeant-at-arms.[287]
[Sidenote: Speech of Alderman Townshend.]
During the debate, Alderman Townshend appeared in the House looking very pale, having risen from a sickbed--"his hair lank, and his face swathed with linen, having had his jaw laid open for an inflammation"--and after commenting severely upon the arbitrary action of the House in erasing a record entered in the lord mayor's book, proceeded to twit the government with its obsequiousness to female caprice and boldly declared their arbitrary measures to be due to the baneful influence of the Princess Dowager of Wales.[288] Such a declaration was not only in bad taste, but contrary to Parliamentary usage. Nevertheless it was placidly listened to and only received a tardy and weak denial from Lord North--a sign that the House felt the insecurity of its position.
[Sidenote: "A table" to be provided for Oliver at City's expense, 26 March, 1771.]
On Tuesday (26 March) a Common Council sat, summoned by Trecothick, who had been appointed (12 March), to act as locum tenens of the lord mayor during his "absence or illness." After transacting several matters of business, the court resolved unanimously "that during the confinement of Mr. Alderman Oliver in the Tower of London a table be provided for him at the expense of this city, under the direction and management of the committee appointed at the last court to assist the lord mayor and the Aldermen Wilkes and Oliver in their defence on the charge brought against them by the House of Commons."[289]
[Sidenote: Chatham's opinion on Oliver's committal.]
The committal of Oliver was only one of a series of blunders of which Parliament had been guilty since the arrest of the printers. The position of affairs was clearly defined in letters written by Chatham at the time. "The state of the business seems to me clearly this: the discharge of Miller, taken under the Speaker's warrant, I think contrary to the established jurisdiction of the House, with regard to printers of their proceedings and debates; but I hold also as fully, that in a conflict of jurisdiction, the lord mayor and city magistrates, acting under an oath of office and their charter, cannot be proceeded against criminally by the House, without the highest injustice and oppression." Again:--"the House becomes flagrantly unjust and tyrannical, the moment it proceeds criminally against magistrates standing for a jurisdiction they are bound to maintain, in a conflict of respectable rights." He goes on to say that "nothing appears to me more distinct, than declaring their right to jurisdiction, with regard to printers of their proceedings and debates, and punishing their member, and in him his constituents, for what he has done in discharge of his oath and conscience as a magistrate."[290]
[Sidenote: The opinion of Junius.]
This view was also strenuously supported by Junius,[291] who was emphatic that "as magistrates," Crosby and Oliver "had nothing to regard but the obligation of their oaths, and the execution of the laws. If they were convinced that the Speaker's warrant was not a legal authority to the messenger, it necessarily followed that, when he was charged upon oath with a breach of the peace, they must hold him to bail. They had no option."
[Sidenote: Crosby again attends the House, 27 March, 1771.]
On Wednesday (27 March), Crosby again attended in his place, as directed, to hear the decision of the House in his case. He was accompanied as before by an "amazing number of people" anxious to learn the issue; "guards, both horse and foot, were ordered to be in readiness, in case any tumult should arise. The city was all in motion; and by its acclamations testified its satisfaction with his conduct." Although he arrived at the House early in the afternoon, it was past eight o'clock in evening before the House was ready to take his business into consideration. Meanwhile the approaches to the House were in the hands of the mob who threatened many of the members with violence. Lord North, in particular, was made the object of a violent attack. His coach was demolished and he himself narrowly escaped being killed. Others, and among them Charles Fox, who had made himself especially obnoxious to the citizens by speaking of Oliver as an "assassin of the constitution," were also insulted, but not so outrageously.[292] The justices confessed to the House their inability to read the Riot Act, and declared that the constables were powerless. The sheriffs of London--William Baker and Richard Martin--being members of the House,[293] were thereupon desired to go themselves and endeavour to disperse the crowd,[294] and at their intervention peace was at length restored.
[Sidenote: Is committed to the Tower.]
The House being now prepared to proceed with the chief business of the day, a motion was made for committing the lord mayor to the custody of the sergeant-at-arms, instead of sending him to the gloomier quarters of the Tower, on account of his ill-health. Crosby, however, at once desired that no such favour might be shown him; he was quite prepared, he said, to join his honourable friend in the Tower. An amendment was accordingly moved that he should be committed to the Tower, and this was carried by 202 votes to 39.[295] It was now past midnight. Crosby returned to the Mansion House for a short rest, and at four o'clock in the morning sent for a hackney coach and drove to the Tower.
[Sidenote: Letter of Alderman Oliver from the Tower, 29 March, 1771.]
A few hours later the Common Council resolved to furnish him with a "table" at the City's expense, as they had previously done for Oliver. Both prisoners acknowledged with gratitude the favour thus shown to them by their fellow citizens, and both promised solemnly to continue their efforts to maintain the rights and privileges of the City, but the lord mayor declined the offer to furnish his table during his incarceration, as he did not wish to put the City to any additional expense on his account.[296] Oliver's letter contained some very caustic remarks upon the attitude of the government towards the City. "The last ten years have afforded the city of London, in particular, every instance of neglect, unkindness, insult and injury; their petitions have been rejected, slighted, ridiculed; their property unjustly conveyed to others; their charters violated;[297] their laws contemned; their magistrates imprisoned. The power that consumes us has the plainest and most odious marks of despotism, abject abroad and insolent at home. Whether our rights will in the end be peaceably re-established or whether this violence will be pursued is more than I can certainly declare, but this I will venture to say for myself that they must either change their laws or the magistrates, for my adherence to my duty shall be invariably the same, regardless of consequences."[298]
[Sidenote: Supporters of the government beheaded in effigy, April, 1771.]
The temper of the populace at witnessing "the new and extraordinary spectacle of the lord mayor of the city of London and one of its principal magistrates being committed prisoners to the Tower," vented itself in a very characteristic manner. On the 1st April a great mob proceeded to Tower Hill following a hearse and two carts, in which were figures representing the princess dowager, Lord Bute, the Speaker, and both the Foxes. The figures were beheaded by a chimney sweeper, after mock prayers, and then burnt. A like ceremony took place a few days later with figures of Lord Halifax, Lord Barrington, Alderman Harley, Colonel Luttrell, nicknamed "the usurper," Lord Sandwich, otherwise known as "Jemmy Twitcher," Colonel Onslow, who had been made so furious because a newspaper had called him "Cocking George," and De Grey, the attorney-general. Their supposed dying speeches were, to the intense amusement of the multitude, hawked about the streets.[299]
[Sidenote: The contest won.]
Wilkes, who had been no less an offender (if offence there was) in holding the Speaker's warrant to be illegal, got off scot free. Three times was he summoned to the bar of the House to answer for his conduct, and three times he refused to obey unless the House would acknowledge him as member for Middlesex. Ministers preferred to leave him unmolested, resorting even to a subterfuge in order to allow him to escape. It is true that, like Lord Shaftesbury in the reign of Charles II, he had removed for safety from his house in Westminster to lodgings in the city, but few can doubt his readiness, if need be, to share the fate of his brother aldermen in so good a cause. In the words of Junius, he was already a "wounded soldier" in the cause of liberty, and could point to "real prosecutions, real penalties, real imprisonment,"[300] and he deserves at least a part of the reward of the victory thus gained for the freedom of the press.
[Sidenote: Crosby and Oliver regain their liberty, 8 May, 1771.]
More than one attempt was made by the committee appointed for the defence of Crosby and Oliver to obtain their release on writs of Habeas Corpus, but in vain. They remained therefore in confinement, receiving a constant succession of friends and supporters, including Edmund Burke and the Dukes of Manchester and Portland, until set free by the prorogation of Parliament on the 8th May. The Common Council had, in anticipation of that event, resolved (3 May) to go in procession in their gowns, accompanied by the city officers to escort them from the Tower to the Mansion House.[301] As Crosby and Oliver emerged from the Tower gate they were welcomed with a salute of twenty-one guns by the Artillery Company, and carried, amid universal shouts of joy, to the Mansion House, from the balcony of which they bowed their acknowledgments. In the evening the city was illuminated.
[Sidenote: Another address and remonstrance of the livery, 24 June, 1771.]
Even after their release the Common Council remained dissatisfied, and determined to take counsel's opinion as to the possibility of testing the legality of the action of Parliament. Counsel having given an adverse opinion it was resolved to let the matter rest until the meeting of the livery on Midsummer-day.[302] As soon as the livery were informed how matters stood they drew up another address and remonstrance calling upon the king to dissolve Parliament. This time it was their intention to attend the presentation of the address in a body, clad in their livery gowns.[303] The king, however, objected to receiving so large a number, and the lord mayor was informed that only the number "allowed by law" would be permitted to attend.[304] The livery had to give way, and the address was presented in the manner prescribed by the king. The answer they got was short and sharp; the king contenting himself with expressing his concern that a part of his subjects should have been so misled and deluded as to renew a request with which he had repeatedly declared that he could not comply.[305]
[Sidenote: Election of Wilkes and Bull, sheriffs, 3 July, 1771.]
The more important business transacted at this Common Hall was the election of sheriffs for the ensuing year. Wilkes had declared his intention of standing, and had asked Oliver--at that time a prisoner in the Tower--if he intended doing the same, regardless of the claims of senior aldermen. Oliver hesitated as to the course he should pursue, but finally wrote to Wilkes (11 April, 1771) expressing a determination not to serve with him, inasmuch as their political aims were not identical. Wilkes little relished this rebuff, and took exception to the propriety of Oliver's reply; as for himself, he said, "I am ready to serve the office of sheriff with you, sir, or any other gentleman given me by the livery as a colleague, should they think proper to elect me."[306] The election was watched with great interest by the king, who was afraid that Wilkes might succeed in getting elected, although supported only by "a small, though desperate," part of the livery, and he wrote to Lord North expressing a hope that no effort might be wanting to secure the election of Plumbe and Kirkman, the two senior aldermen who had not served.[307] He was doomed to disappointment. The livery declared for Wilkes and Frederick Bull, a creature of Wilkes, and a poll was demanded. This lasted several days, and on the 3rd July the result showed a large majority in their favour, and they were declared duly elected. Oliver came out at the bottom of the poll.[308]
The activity of court interference in this election was revealed by an unhappy contretemps. A letter which "Jack" Robinson, Lord North's secretary, had sent to Benjamin Smith, a partner of Alderman Nash, an "opulent grocer" of Cannon Street, urging him to "push the poll" with as many friends as possible, was carried by mistake to another Smith, of Budge Row, a Wilkite, who immediately published it with an affidavit as to its authenticity. The result was, as might be expected, the greater discomfiture of the ministerial candidates.[309]
Walpole was no less struck with the irrepressibility of Wilkes's character than annoyed at his being elected to an office which would bring him into close contact with the king;--"Wilkes is another Phoenix revived from his own ashes. He was sunk--it was over with him; but the ministers too precipitately hurrying to bury him alive, blew up the embers, and he is again as formidable as ever; and what will seem worse he must go into the very closet whenever the city sends him there with a message.... Wilkes in prison is chosen member of Parliament and then alderman of London. His colleagues betray him, desert him, expose him, and he becomes sheriff of London."[310] Walpole's fears as to Wilkes's personal demeanour in office were groundless. As an alderman of the city he might have made himself sufficiently obnoxious at court had he so pleased, but he knew himself to be no persona grata to the king, and on that account was careful to keep out of his sight. That he knew how to behave on occasion is shown by his conduct during his mayoralty, when he surprised everybody, the king included, by his agreeable manner.
[Sidenote: Wilkes and the shrievalty.]
Although determined to act with propriety in his personal relationships, Wilkes was no less determined to make himself as obnoxious to the king and his ministers as he well could in his official capacity as sheriff. "I will skirmish with the great almost every day in some way or other," he wrote to Junius. Again, with reference to the House of Lords, he informs his friend that "the sheriff means the attack."[311] A few days previous to his entering upon his duties he and his colleague, Bull, made a bid for popularity by a spirited act. The presence of the military at executions had been resented the previous year, and now in a short letter addressed to the livery they announced their determination to follow the example set by their predecessors in office and not to allow soldiers to attend: "We are determined to follow so meritorious an example, and as that melancholy part of our office will commence in a very few days we take this opportunity of declaring that as the constitution has entrusted us with the whole power of the county, we will not, during our sheriffalty, suffer any part of the army to interfere or even to attend, as on many former occasions, on the pretence of aiding or assisting the civil magistrate.... The magistrate, with the assistance of those in his jurisdiction, is by experience known to be strong enough to enforce all legal commands, without the aid of a standing army." Junius thought this letter "very proper and well drawn."[312]
Another proceeding on the part of Wilkes failed however to meet with like approval. The 25th October being the anniversary of the king's accession, there was to be a thanksgiving service at St. Paul's which the sheriffs in the ordinary course of their duties would be expected to attend. Wilkes took it into his head that he would prefer not to go "in a ginger-bread chariot to yawn through a dull sermon." He accordingly prepared a letter to the lord mayor, asking that he might be allowed to sit at Old Bailey instead of taking part in what he called a "vain parade" on the anniversary of the accession of a prince, whose government was so unpopular. Before sending this missive he submitted it to Junius.[313] The latter thought it "more spirited than judicious," and suggested that it was impolitic, to say the least, for "a grave sheriff" to mark his entrance into office with a direct outrage to the king, for outrage it was. He advises his friend to "consider the matter coolly," but in case Wilkes persisted, he sent him a more temperate form of letter.[314] The advice thus given was followed, and Wilkes abandoned his intention.
[Sidenote: Letter of Junius to Wilkes, 21 Aug., 1771.]
Wilkes had thus advanced another step in civic life, in spite of an unfortunate habit he had of quarrelling with his best friends. He had disgusted, or had himself thrown over, Horne, Sawbridge, Townshend and Oliver, all of whom were members with him of the society known as the Supporters of the Bill of Rights, and all had contributed towards relieving him of his pecuniary difficulties. Townshend and Horne had recently joined forces "to wrest the city out of Wilkes's hands," and Horne had done his best in a quiet way to prevent Wilkes being returned as sheriff, although he denied taking any part in the election.[315] He even ridiculed the idea in a letter to Wilkes (10 July), commencing "Give you joy, Sir,[316] the parson of Brentford is at length defeated. He no longer rules with an absolute sway over the city of London."[317] Wilkes was now to receive support from a quarter least expected. Hitherto, the redoubtable Junius had treated Wilkes with little more than contempt.[318] He was now to become one of his warmest supporters. It was not that Junius entertained any great respect for Wilkes; it was enough that Wilkes was opposed to the ministry, and that he promised to be "a thorn in the king's side."[319] On the 21st August, about noon, Wilkes received a mysterious letter,[320] the writer of which proved to be Junius himself. After assuring Wilkes of his willingness to support him so long as he (Wilkes) depended only upon public favour and made common cause with the people, Junius comes to the real purport of his letter. He was especially anxious that Sawbridge should be chosen mayor at the coming election on Michaelmas-day, and he uses all his art of persuasion upon Wilkes to get him to support Sawbridge's candidature. He repudiates all idea of self-interest in wishing to see Sawbridge in the mayoralty chair in place of Crosby, who was reported to be seeking a second year of office. "By all that's honourable I mean nothing but the cause"--his letter concluded--"and I may defy your keenest penetration to assign a satisfactory reason why Junius, whoever he be, should have a personal interest in giving the mayoralty to Mr. Sawbridge, rather than to Mr. Crosby."
[Sidenote: The reply of Wilkes, 12 Sept., 1771.]
The letter was very flattering, and Wilkes was pleased. "I am satisfied that Junius now means me well,"--he wrote in reply (12 Sept.)--"and I wish to merit more than his regard, his friendship," but with his usual independence he declined to desert Brass Crosby, to whom he had promised his support before the arrival of Junius's letter. He was even prepared to do a little juggling in order to support Crosby's re-election. "To make Crosby mayor, it is necessary to return to the Court of Aldermen another man so obnoxious that it is impossible for them to elect him. Bridgen I take to be this man. While he presided in the city, he treated them with insolence, was exceedingly rude and scurrilous to them personally, starved them at the few entertainments he gave, and pocketed the city cash.[321]" Even if Bridgen were re-elected by any chance, Crosby would probably be appointed his locum tenens (Wilkes proceeded to point out), and so in any event all would be well. As for Sawbridge, little good could come of a reconciliation, "I allow him honest, but think he has more mulishness than understanding, more understanding than candour." Sawbridge moreover had already declared, that if he were chosen mayor at the next election he would pay fine rather than serve, "because Townshend ought to be mayor"--a declaration which Wilkes characterises as bordering on insanity.[322]
The correspondence thus commenced in so warm and friendly a manner was continued for several months. Finding himself unable to prevail upon Wilkes to become reconciled with Sawbridge, Junius contented himself with warning him at all hazards not to allow a "ministerial alderman" to be elected into the mayoralty chair, and begging that if after a fair canvas of the livery it was found that Bridgen had no chance of being returned, he would give up the point at once, and let Sawbridge be returned with Crosby--"a more likely way, in my judgment, to make Crosby lord mayor."[323]
[Sidenote: The election of Nash, Mayor, 8 Oct., 1771.]
When the election came on, Bridgen was not even nominated. The choice of the livery was declared to have fallen on Sawbridge and Crosby. Thereupon a poll was demanded on behalf of Bankes, Nash, Hallifax and Townshend. Whilst the poll was proceeding Junius issued an impassioned address to the livery calling upon them to set aside Nash--to whom he refers as the senior alderman below the chair, which Nash was not[324]--and to return Crosby and Sawbridge, men who were ready to execute the extraordinary as well as the ordinary duties of the mayoralty, who would grant Common Halls whenever necessary, carry up remonstrances to the king, and not be afraid to face the House of Commons or to suffer imprisonment. Of Nash's private character he declared he knew nothing, but as a public man he knew him to have done everything in his power to destroy the freedom of popular election in the city, and to have distinguished himself by thwarting the livery. He concludes his address by apologising for his passionate language.--"The subject comes home to us all. It is the language of my heart."[325] The efforts of Junius were of little avail. On the 8th October, the result of the poll was declared, and Nash and Sawbridge being returned (the former by a large majority), the Court of Aldermen selected Nash to be mayor for the ensuing year. The "ministerial candidate" had got in. During the election Wilkes and his brother aldermen, Townshend and Sawbridge, were frequently at loggerheads, whilst Nash was so grievously assaulted on his way to the Guildhall that his life was in danger.[326]
[Sidenote: Gifts of plate to Crosby, Wilkes and Oliver.]
Upon Crosby's quitting office the Common Council passed him a vote of thanks for the courage he had displayed in refusing to back press warrants, and for his conduct in respect of the arrest of Miller. Early in the following year he was voted a silver cup of the value of £200, whilst Wilkes and Oliver were presented with other cups each of the value of £100. A proposal that a piece of plate of the value of £400 should be provided at the City's expense and inscribed in honour of these champions of the City's liberties, to form a part of the City's plate, was not adopted.[327]
[Sidenote: Nash refuses to summon a Common Hall, Feb., 1772.]
Nash had not long been mayor before he came into collision both with the livery and the Common Council. When a requisition was made to him in February, 1772, to summon a Common Hall for the purpose of instructing the city members to support Sawbridge in one of his many attempts to obtain triennial parliaments, he refused to do so on the ground that by an order of the livery of Midsummer-day last, the question of the rights of the livery was about to be decided in a court of law, informations having been laid against those companies who had refused to obey the mayor's precept.[328] He thought that in the meantime it would be well to suspend the exercise of his prerogative, more especially as most matters of importance connected with the city could be settled by the Common Council, which he professed himself always ready to call when necessity required. Not satisfied with his reply the livery held an informal meeting at the Half Moon Tavern in Cheapside, and persuaded a number of members of the Common Council to make a written application to the mayor to summon a court on the 18th February, for the purpose of considering the request of the livery. The mayor agreed to summon a court but declined to allow the application of the livery to be placed on the paper of business. A Common Council was eventually summoned for the 20th, when the several applications of the livery and of the members of the court having been read, a motion was made that the Common Council should give instructions to the city members to support Sawbridge's bill. This motion being lost, another was made and carried, desiring the lord mayor to summon a Common Hall for the same purpose. Thereupon Nash addressed the court in these words:--"I am very sorry this question has been put, I cannot grant your request for the reasons given in my former answer to the livery to which I refer you." After passing a resolution that such members of the court as were also members of parliament, should be requested to support every measure tending to shorten the duration of parliaments, the court proceeded to consider whether it should not on its own responsibility issue precepts for a Common Hall. It was at length decided to leave this question to a committee.[329] Junius was very disgusted at Nash's conduct. "What an abandoned prostituted idiot is your lord mayor,"--is the choice expression he makes use of to Woodfall, his printer. Again, "the shameful mismanagement which brought him into office, gave me the first and unconquerable disgust."[330] In the following May the committee just mentioned recommended that counsel's opinion should be taken on the matter referred to them, but by this time Sawbridge's motion had been rejected, and all immediate necessity for an extraordinary Common Hall had passed away.[331] When Nash quitted office, this refusal of his to summon a Common Hall was remembered against him, and the customary vote of thanks was denied him.[332]
[Sidenote: Instructions of livery to city members, re short parliaments, 24 June, 1772.]
Matters remained as they were until Midsummer-day, when the livery took the opportunity of a meeting of Common Hall to draw up instructions to the city members to support Sawbridge and short parliaments. The terms of the address were scarcely such as a member of Parliament of the present day would tolerate from his constituents:--"When we made choice of you, sirs, to transact our business in Parliament we considered all of you to be possessed of fortune sufficient to render you independent; but such is the depravity of the present age that the more wealthy seem the easiest to be corrupted. Altho' some of you may have approved yourselves worthy of the confidence reposed in you, yet others, we are sorry to be obliged to observe, have been deficient in their duty. It becomes necessary, therefore, that we should exercise our indisputable right of instructing you, our representatives." All the oppression under which the country had suffered for the last thirteen years were due (they said) to long parliaments. As for the existing House they had not a good word to say. What (they asked) was to be thought of a House "which, devoid of all decency, could force the poor timid servant of a corporation to erase a judicial record--an House that could even punish two members of its own body in a most arbitrary manner for acting with integrity in a judicial capacity, nay! for adhering to their charters and their oaths, and virtuously administering justice!" Experience had taught them that what had been intended as a bulwark of their liberties had become a mere engine of oppression. A worthy alderman of the city (they declared in conclusion) had realised the danger of septennial parliaments, and had more than once endeavoured to shorten their duration, but unfortunately he had not received the support he deserved. As Sawbridge would no doubt renew his motion in the coming winter they insisted that each member should "afford him all possible support in order to restore us to our antient right of annually electing our representatives in Parliament."[333] Brave words, these! but all to little purpose. The Septennial Act outlived this and many another effort to obtain its repeal, and remains in force to this day.
[Sidenote: Townshend elected mayor, 24 Oct., 1772.]
The election of a mayor to succeed Nash was keenly contested. Bankes, Hallifax and Shakespeare were the senior aldermen below the chair, but these were set aside by the livery in favour of Wilkes and Townshend. A poll was demanded, and the business of taking the poll lasted until the 8th October. The king was in a great state of excitement, and was kept posted up by Lord North with each day's proceedings. "I trust by your account of this day's poll," he wrote to the minister (3 Oct.),[334] "that there can be no doubt that it will end favourably; the mob being less quiet this day is a proof that to [sic] riot, not numbers, the patriots alone can draw advantage." Again on the 5th October, when the voice of the city was evidently in favour of Wilkes, he writes: "The unpromising appearance of this day's poll does not in the least surprise me, knowing that Wilkes is not bound by any tyes, therefore would poll non-freemen rather than lose the election." He fancied that if Wilkes failed to get returned as one of the two to be submitted to the Court of Aldermen for selection he would not be allowed to stand again,[335] but here the king was in error. His hopes were damped by Wilkes being returned at the head of the poll, followed closely by Townshend, their respective votes being 2,301 and 2,278.[336] Although Townshend and Wilkes were at the time personal enemies, yet many of Wilkes's friends were induced to give Townshend their second votes, in order to prevent a "court candidate" being successful. This at least is Horace Walpole's account, who declares that Townshend "disdained to canvass or even to attend the election," and that without the assistance of Wilkes's supporters he would have had "scarce any votes." On the other hand we must remember that, intense as was the personal animosity at this time between Townshend and Wilkes, both of them had one and the same political object in view, viz., the overthrow of the government, and Townshend must have added considerably to his popularity in the city by his recent refusal to pay his land tax on the plea that the Parliament which had ordained it was no true Parliament owing to the exclusion of Wilkes and intrusion of Luttrell.[337] The king's only remaining hope was that the result of the poll might be upset by a scrutiny demanded on behalf of Hallifax and Shakespeare. "I hope the scrutiny will be conducted with great exactness," he again writes to Lord North (6 Oct.), at the same time expressing a doubt as to whether such a thing was to be expected from Oliver and Watkin Lewes, who had succeeded Wilkes and Bull in the shrievalty. If these did their duty he felt sure it would go hard with Wilkes, whose "little regard to true votes" would soon be exposed, and "do him great injury, even among his admirers."[338]
Again the king was doomed to disappointment. The scrutiny, according to the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Common Hall preserved at the Guildhall, continued until the 24th day of the month, when the votes for each candidate were declared to be exactly the same as before, and Wilkes and Townshend being returned to the Court of Aldermen for their selection of one, that body chose Townshend to be mayor for the ensuing year. According to Walpole[339] the scrutiny was not proceeded with, and Wilkes was certain of being elected (Townshend being expected to withdraw in his favour) had not alderman and sheriff Oliver, his former friend, brought about his defeat by hastily collecting a Court of Aldermen before the Wilkite aldermen could take their seats, and getting Townshend named lord mayor. Such a proceeding on the part of Oliver is scarcely probable, if, indeed possible, and receives no corroboration from the City's record of what took place.[340]
[Sidenote: Riot at the Guildhall on lord mayor's day, 9 Nov., 1772.]
On lord mayor's day the partisans of Wilkes, smarting at their defeat, raised a riot at night outside the Guildhall, where a ball was being held. The assistance of the Artillery Company had to be called in, and they remained on duty all night. The new lord mayor, who was somewhat hot-headed, "proposed to sally out with drawn swords and fall on the mob," but was restrained. He, however, caused some of the rioters to be seized and committed to Newgate, and declared that he would bring home the riot to Wilkes. The whole city was now, and had been for some time, so split up into factions that even a vote of thanks to the Artillery Company for striving to keep order was with difficulty passed.[341] "A headstrong, self-willed spirit has sunk the City into nothing," wrote Chatham at the beginning of the year.[342] The government could afford to look upon Wilkes's disappointment and the unpopularity of Townshend with complacency, the real damage was to the nation, which, to use the words of Walpole, "saw those who would have gone farthest to stem the encroachments of the crown divided and warring each other."[343]
[Sidenote: Resolution of Court of Aldermen re short parliaments, 16 Feb., 1773.]
Following in the steps of Sawbridge, his brother alderman and colleague during his shrievalty, Townshend introduced a motion before the Court of Aldermen on the 16th February (1773) to the effect "that a frequent appeal to the constituent part of the people by short parliaments is their undoubted right and the only means by which they can enjoy or maintain their right of a real representation."[344] Wilkes was the only alderman who raised any objection to the motion. He would willingly have given his vote against it, if only to spite Townshend, but he dared not do so. The motion was therefore carried unanimously.[345]
[Sidenote: Another remonstrance of the livery, 11 March, 1773.]
Three weeks later (11 March) a special Common Hall was summoned for the purpose of drawing up another remonstrance to the king, and of pledging the livery and the city members to use their utmost endeavours to obtain shorter parliaments. This new remonstrance--a "flagrant piece of impertinence," as the king styled it in a letter to Lord North (13 March)[346]--was said to have been the work of Wilkes, who drafted it in such terms that his enemy the lord mayor "would be undone at St. James's if he presented it, and stoned by the people if he did not."[347] It was resolved that the remonstrance should be presented by the mayor, the city members, the aldermen, the sheriffs and ten of the livery in their gowns, attended by the Recorder and city officers.[348] Wilkes showed considerable shrewdness in declining to attend, excusing himself on the ground that he knew himself to be personally disliked by the king. He would, he said, willingly have attended had he been sheriff, but now that he was only an alderman there was no reason for him to thrust himself where he was not wanted. "I am not used to go into any gentleman's house who does not wish to see me."[349] Even the livery seemed to shrink from having a hand in presenting so disreputable an address, for only eight of them attended at St. James's.
[Sidenote: The king's reply, 26 March.]
The document was presented to the king on Friday, the 26th March. It was (presumably) received on the throne, although the Common Council do not appear to have been present to give it a corporate character. A copy of it had previously reached the king's hands, and he had made up his mind, as he told Lord North,[350] that a "dry answer, rather bordering on contempt than anger," was the most suitable reply to make to a representation at once "the most violent, insolent and licentious ever presented." The answer he actually returned was more than "dry," and the deputation was dismissed with his majesty declaring that their petition was so void of foundation, and withal so disrespectful, that "I am convinced you do not yourselves seriously imagine it can be complied with."[351]
[Sidenote: Wilkes again claims his seat, 26 April, 1773.]
A month later an opportunity was afforded Wilkes of again claiming his seat in Parliament. War with France seemed imminent, and a call of the House[352] was moved for the 26th April. The sheriffs of London[353] thereupon sent a summons to Wilkes (not Luttrell) as member for Middlesex, and informed the Speaker of what they had done. Wilkes also wrote a bold letter to the Speaker asserting his right. On the day of the call Wilkes went to the crown office and demanded his writ, which was refused him by the deputy-clerk. Thence he proceeded to Westminster, attended by his friends and supporters. The guards were held in readiness, but there was no disturbance. Glynn--recently appointed Recorder of London--moved that Wilkes should be heard at the bar of the House as to his complaint against the deputy-clerk, and the motion was seconded by Sawbridge. The House was in no mood, however, to meet one who had so often worsted them, and the motion was rejected by 227 votes to 124.[354]
[Sidenote: The powers of the livery defined, 1773.]
When Midsummer-day (1773) came round Plumbe and Kirkman were for the fourth time rejected for the shrievalty in favour of Plomer and Sayre. Plomer paid fine and Lee was elected in his place. The livery being determined more than ever to win their independence and to break away from the authority of the mayor, took the opportunity of their meeting together to consult the new Recorder upon the question "whether the livery of London legally assembled in Common Hall, either on this or any other day, have not a right to enter upon any matter of public grievance they may think proper?" Glynn at once replied that they had an undoubted right, and that it was "beyond dispute that the right is inherent in them."[355] This important dictum negativing, as it did, a decision of Glynn's predecessor,[356] was afterwards used by Wilkes with effect in his famous letter to Lord Hertford (2 May, 1775).
[Sidenote: Plumbe's case.]
The aspirations of the livery were (at least for a time) damped by the decision given a few weeks later in a case known as "Plumbe's case." It will be remembered that in 1770 certain livery companies had objected to the tone of a recent remonstrance, and had in consequence passed resolutions forbidding their members to attend Common Halls except for the purpose of elections. A joint committee of the livery and the Common Council had thereupon been appointed to take counsel's opinion upon the rights of the livery.[357] Among the counsel consulted on the question was Glynn, and he and his brethren had given it as their opinion (June, 1771) that the mayor for the time being might legally summon a Common Hall; that it was the duty of those livery companies to whom precepts were sent by the mayor to execute those precepts, and that a wilful refusal was punishable by disfranchisement, the procedure being by way of information filed by the common sergeant in the mayor's court. Informations had accordingly been filed against the masters or wardens of the several companies of Goldsmiths, Weavers and Grocers by order of Common Hall,[358] but only one, viz., that against Alderman Plumbe, of the Goldsmiths, was proceeded with. The question was tried before a jury on the 14th July of this year (1773) with the result that Plumbe was convicted and adjudged to be disfranchised.[359]
[Sidenote: Counsel's opinion on the powers of Common Hall.]
The powers of the livery were further defined in a legal opinion delivered about this time by the Recorder and Common Sergeant on the questions (1) Whether the lord mayor, aldermen and livery of London in Common Hall assembled could do any corporate act except under the powers given them by Acts of Parliament; (2) Whether an order of the livery in Common Hall to the Town Clerk to affix his signature to such a document as the last remonstrance would be a sufficient justification for him in a court of law in case of a criminal prosecution; and lastly (3) Whether individuals signing such a remonstrance be liable to a prosecution of libel? To the first two questions counsel made the following answer;--"From the best information wee can get of the usage and constitution of the City the Common Hall is not empowered to do any act strictly corporate not having the direction of the City Seal. They can do no act that binds the estate of the City or that effects the admission or removal of any of its members." Then, referring to the former opinion of the Recorder just mentioned, they proceeded to say;--"wee did in concurrence with Mr. Solicitor-General and Mr. Dunning upon consideration give an opinion that a Common Hall was a lawful assembly vested with legal powers. Wee find that opinion warranted by Lord Coke's authority, and therefore without more research and enquiry than can now be made, wee cannot alter our opinion." They were further of opinion "that no Act of Common Hall can endanger the Charters or Franchises of the city, and wee think that the right of petitioning a necessary consequence of a lawful assembly." As a result of their answer to the first question they believed that the Town Clerk, being by office the clerk of a legally convened meeting of the Common Hall, would not render himself criminally liable by giving his signature to the acts and resolutions of that assembly. As to the question of libel, that depended upon a variety of circumstances, but in their private opinion counsel believed that no one presenting the late remonstrance could be treated legally as a criminal.[360]
[Sidenote: Bull, mayor, elected M.P. for the City, Dec., 1773.]
At Michaelmas, Wilkes again put up for the mayoralty, but although he was again returned at the head of the poll he was again rejected by the Court of Aldermen in favour of his friend Bull.[361] Before the end of the year Bull was also chosen member for the City in the place of Ladbroke, who had died. A petition was laid before Parliament against his election, and in favour of his opponent, John Roberts, a court candidate, but was afterwards withdrawn.[362] The king had at one time expressed himself to North as thinking it best not to offer any opposition to Bull's election as member for the city, unless there was a good hope of success. "If Alderman Bull can be with success opposed, I should think it eligible; but if that is not pretty certain it is best not to interfere."[363] On learning, however, that Roberts, a former director of the East India Company, was about to stand he wished him success.[364] Previous to his election Bull signed an engagement (formulated by the livery at their meeting in March), to use his best endeavours to shorten the duration of parliaments; to exclude pensioners and placemen from the House; to establish a fair and equal representation of the people in Parliament; and to redress the grievances and secure the constitutional rights of his fellow subjects in Great Britain, Ireland and America. He also solemnly promised not to accept from the crown or its ministers any place, pension, contract, title, gratuity or emolument whatsoever.[365]
[Sidenote: England and the American colonies, 1765-1774.]
It was during Bull's mayoralty that the relations between England and her American colonies became so strained that in 1775 the two countries were at open war. For the past ten years the colonies had displayed more or less resistance to the British government. In 1765 the Stamp Act was passed, and in the following year it had to be repealed. The irritation caused by its imposition remained, however, and the colonists began to ignore the authority of British Acts of Parliament. In 1767 another Act was passed by Parliament imposing import duties in America upon certain articles, and among them upon tea; but the Act was rendered from the outset almost a dead letter through the resistance offered to the execution of its provisions. Matters were not improved by the repeal of all the duties, except that on tea, three years later (1770), more especially when the Americans learnt that Lord North openly acknowledged that he retained the tea duty, not on account of its value, but simply in order to assert the right of England to tax her colonies. The crisis came in 1773, when the tea-ships lying in Boston harbour were attacked, and their cargo flung into the sea. In September of the following year (1774) all the American colonies agreed to combine in stopping commercial intercourse with Great Britain until their grievances were redressed.
[Sidenote: The city and the Quebec Bill, 1774.]
In the meantime a Bill had passed the Lords, and been sent down to the Commons, giving a constitution to Canada. The City presented a strong petition against the Bill (3 June) as unduly favouring the Roman Catholics, and begged the king to withhold his assent after the Bill had passed both Houses.[366] It was to no purpose. The country generally, and the clergy of the Established Church more particularly, showed great indifference,[367] and the Bill became law. The mayor received a letter of thanks from the Protestant settlers in Quebec, through Francis Maseres, (Cursitor Baron) for what the City had done in the matter; and the City thus encouraged resolved to continue its efforts and endeavour to get the Act repealed as soon as possible.[368] The king was strongly of opinion that the agitation in the City was merely got up "just to make a noise" at the coming elections in Common Hall,[369] and Walpole appears to have been much of the same opinion. He believed it was a move on the part of Wilkes in order to carry the election of sheriffs. By getting two friends appointed sheriffs he would be in a position to get Reynolds, his own attorney and election agent, appointed under-sheriff, and so "be more sure of the returning officer against the general election," which was fast approaching.[370] If this were so his scheme was frustrated for his nominees failed to get elected.
[Sidenote: Wilkes elected mayor, 8 Oct., 1774.]
His star nevertheless was soon to be again in the ascendant. At the next election to the mayoralty, he was not only again returned at the head of the poll, but second to him was Bull, his friend, and actual mayor. The other candidates who went to the poll were James Esdaile and Brackley Kennet, both of them senior to Wilkes. Hallifax and Shakespeare, the senior of all did not even go to the poll. Sawbridge who was next below Wilkes did not press his candidature, as the latter--according to Walpole--"had regained him by promising to bring him into parliament for the city." According to the same authority Wilkes "made" Bull decline the chair a second time, and hence it came to pass that when these two were returned to the Court of Aldermen, eleven voted for Wilkes, whilst only two, viz., Townshend and Oliver, voted for Bull. "Thus, after so much persecution of the court, after so many attempts on his life, after a long imprisonment in a goal, after all his crimes and indiscretions, did this extraordinary man, of more extraordinary fortune, attain the highest office in so grave and important a city as the capital of England."[371] That night Alderman Harley, an old opponent of Wilkes, had his windows broken, and the culprit was carried before Wilkes himself.[372]
[Sidenote: Takes his seat as M.P. for Middlesex, Nov., 1774.]
Nor did his success end here. The mayoralty election was still pending when parliament was dissolved (30 Sept.), and writs issued for a new one to meet on the 29th November. Wilkes was again returned for Middlesex and with him his friend, Glynn, the Recorder. The popularity of Wilkes was indeed now so great that he was believed to be capable of carrying no less than twelve seats. Prior to their election both candidates signed an undertaking to use their best endeavours to shorten the duration of parliaments, remove placemen and pensioners from the House, advocate the repeal of the Quebec Act, and generally to follow the line of policy adopted by the livery of London, and recently accepted by Bull.[373] When the City elections came on, Bull and Oliver kept their seats, although Oliver declined to enter into any engagement. Wilkes kept his promise with Sawbridge (if any were really given), and Sawbridge was returned together with Wilkes's own brother-in-law, George Hayley. The irrepressible demagogue was at last allowed to take his seat without any opposition. Had he been permitted to have done so five years before, he would probably have sunk into insignificance, but now he "forced his way triumphantly, and came vested with the insignia of the first magistracy in England, and supported by half a dozen members of his own nomination."[374] His triumph was complete in 1782, when he succeeded in getting the House to stultify itself by rescinding its proceedings touching the Middlesex elections.[375] In the dogged persistence with which he fought the House of Commons and finally came off victorious, he reminds us of no one so much as of the late Charles Bradlaugh, member for Northampton; in other respects the two characters will not bear comparison.
FOOTNOTES:
[269] See Annals of the Mayoralty of the Right Hon. Barlow Trecothick, Esq., ascribed to Wilkes, printed in Stephens's Memoirs of John Horne Tooke, i, 191, note.
[270] Annual Register, xiii, 161, 162.
[271] Id., xiii, 157.
[272] Journal 65, fos. 140 seq. The king was very angry at having to receive more of this "stuff." "The idea of a fresh address, remonstrance and petition is so extremely absurd, and considering the time I may add puerile, that it deserves contempt."--The king to Lord North, 15 Nov., 1770.--Correspondence, i, 39.
[273] Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 196, 197.
[274] Journal House of Commons, xxi, 238.
[275] Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 278, 287-289.
[276] Correspondence, i, 64.
[277] Crosby sat for Honiton, whilst Oliver had succeeded Beckford as one of the members for the city. Wilkes was also summoned to attend, but not as a member. He therefore disobeyed the summons, informing the Speaker by letter that when admitted to his seat for Middlesex he would attend, but not before.--Gentleman's Magazine, xli, 140; Annual Register, xiv, 188.
[278] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 275.
[279] Annual Register, xiv, 83.
[280] Walpole to Mann, 22 March.--Letters, v, 286.
[281] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 269.
[282] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 275; Journal 65, fo. 210.
[283] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 279, 280.
[284] "Last night, when I went to bed at half-an-hour after twelve, I had just been told that all the avenues to the House were blockaded, and had beaten back the peace-officers who had been summoned, for it was toute autre chose yesterday when the lord mayor went to the House from what it had been the first day." Walpole to Mann, 26 March, 1771.--Letters, v, 291.
[285] Annual Register, xiv, 84; Gentleman's Magazine, xli, 141.
[286] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 283-285.
[287] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 285, 286. Walpole to Mann, 26 March, 1771, Letters, v, 291. Calcraft to Chatham, 26 March; Barré to the same, 26 March, Chatham Correspondence, iv, 125-127, 131-133. Walpole, Memoirs of reign of George III, iv, 299, 300.
[288] Barré to Chatham, 26 March.--Chatham Correspondence, iv, 134. Gentleman's Magazine, xli, 170. Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 300, 301.
[289] Journal 65, fos. 212-212b.
[290] Chatham to Calcraft, 26 March, 1771; The same to Barré. 26 March.--Chatham Correspondence, iv, 129-130, 136-137.
[291] Letters of Junius, iii, 376.
[292] Annual Register, xiv, 85. Gentleman's Magazine, xli, 141. Calcraft to Chatham, 28 March, 1771.--Chatham Correspondence, iv, 138-140. Walpole to Mann, 30 March.--Letters, v, 292. Walpole Memoirs, iv, 292.
[293] Baker sat for Plympton Earls, co. Devon, and Martin for Gatton, co. Surrey.
[294] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 289.
[295] Id., ibid.
[296] Journal 65, fos. 213, 214, 214b.
[297] Referring to Bills in Parliament for embanking the Thames for the purpose of building Adelphi Terrace, which was deemed to encroach upon the City's rights of conservancy.--Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 173.
[298] Journal 65, fo. 214b.
[299] Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 307; The Middlesex Journal, 2 April, 1771; The London Chronicle, 2-6 April.
[300] Junius to the Public Advertiser, 13 Aug., 1771; Woodfall, Letters of Junius, ii, 307.
[301] Journal 65, fo. 222.
[302] Id., fo. 226.
[303] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 165.
[304] Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 328. The number "allowed by law" appears to have been ten.
[305] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 167.
[306] The London Chronicle, 13-16 April, 1771.
[307] The king to Lord North, 26 June, 1771.--Correspondence, i. 76.
[308] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 161, 161b.
[309] Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 328. The letter will be found printed in Woodfall's Letters of Junius, ii, 252, 253, note.
[310] Walpole to Mann, 6 July, 1771.--Letters, v, 313.
[311] Wilkes to Junius, 12 Sept. and 17 Oct., 1771.--Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i, 299, 323.
[312] Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i, 322.
[313] Wilkes to Junius, 17 Oct., 1771. Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i, 323-325.
[314] Junius to Wilkes, 21 Oct., 1771.--Letters of Junius, i, 325-328.
[315] Horne to Junius, 13 July, 1771. Id., ii, 259.
[316] A hit at Wilkes's connection with the city. It was usual at one time for the chamberlain thus to address a recipient of the honorary freedom of the city. The expression went out of use, but was revived by Wilkes when he became chamberlain.
[317] Horne to Wilkes, 10 July.--Stephens, Memoirs of John Horne Tooke, i, 310.
[318] "Mr. Wilkes, if not persecuted, will soon be forgotten."--Junius to the Duke of Grafton, 24 April, 1769. Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i, 478.
[319] Junius to Horne, 24 July, 1771. Id., ii, 267.
[320] The letter was placed in Wilkes's hand by a chairman, who said he brought it from a gentleman he had met in the Strand. Id., i, 263, note.
[321] It is strange to find Wilkes giving this character of a mayor, who had shown him great partiality at the time that No. 45 of the North Briton was ordered to be burnt at the Royal Exchange--and who in other respects displayed a distinct democratic tendency. Can it be possible that Wilkes was hood-winking Junius, and that he would have been equally pleased to have seen either Bridgen or Crosby in the mayoralty chair?
[322] Wilkes to Junius, 12 Sept., 1771.--Woodfall, i, 297-304.
[323] Junius to Wilkes, 18 Sept., 1771.--Woodfall, i, 307-308.
[324] Both Sir Henry Bankes and Richard Peers were senior to Nash, and both were nominated at the election.--Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 166.
[325] Woodfall, Letters of Junius, ii, 338-344.
[326] Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 346.
[327] Journal 65, fos. 250, 253. Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 165.
[328] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 162-163.
[329] Journal 65, fos. 278b-280b.
[330] Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i, 250.
[331] Journal 65, fos. 289b, 290. Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 553. Walpole, Journal of reign of George III, i, 26, 42.
[332] Journal 65, fo. 311.
[333] These instructions were not entered on record until the following Midsummer-day (1773).--Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 176b, 177.
[334] Correspondence, i, 110.
[335] Ibid.
[336] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 171b.
[337] Townshend even allowed his goods to be seized rather than pay the tax, and then brought an action for trespass. The case had come on for hearing in June last, when Lord Mansfield, finding that counsel for the plaintiff wanted the court to retry the judgment of the House of Commons touching the case of the Middlesex election, stopt the case, and ordered the jury to find for the defendant.--Walpole, "Journal of the reign of George III," i, 124-126.
[338] Correspondence, i, 112.
[339] Journal of the reign of George III, i, 164.
[340] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 171b.
[341] Journal 65, fo. 311b.
[342] Chatham to Shelburne, 10 Jan., 1772.--Chatham Correspondence, iv, 187.
[343] "Journal of the reign of George III," i, 164, 165.
[344] Repertory 177, fo. 164.
[345] Walpole, Journal, i, 184, 185.
[346] Correspondence, i, 125.
[347] Walpole, Journal, i, 188, 189.
[348] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 175b.
[349] Walpole, Journal, i, 192.
[350] The king to Lord North, 13 March, 1773.--Correspondence, i, 125.
[351] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 176b.
[352] This was something in the nature of a "whip," the custom being for the Speaker to send notice to the sheriffs to summon all their members to attend on a certain day.
[353] Watkin Lewes and Oliver.
[354] Journal House of Commons, xxxiv, 283; Walpole, Journal, i, 194-197.
[355] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 176b.
[356] Gentleman's Magazine, xliii, 300.
[357] Supra, p. 94.
[358] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 162-163.
[359] This judgment was reversed in 1775, and from that day to this the lord mayor has been unable to compel the attendance of the livery at Common Hall.--Journal 66, fos. 36b, 349b-350b. See also "Case of Mr. Alderman Plumbe" (Guildhall Library) where the judgments of the several judges in error are set out with comments by James Roberts, the city solicitor.
[360] This opinion was ordered to be entered in the Repertory of the Court of Aldermen (19 Oct., 1773).--Repertory 177, fos. 439-445.
[361] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 178. The contest was so equal that Wilkes only lost the election by the casting vote of Townshend.--Walpole, Journal, i, 262.
[362] Walpole, Journal, i, 275, 297, 301, 325; Gentleman's Magazine, xliv, 291.
[363] The king to North, 31 Oct., 1773.--Correspondence, i, 153.
[364] The same to the same, 12 Nov., 1773.--Id., i, 155-156.
[365] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 183.
[366] Journal 66, fos. 105b-106; Journal House of Commons, xxxiv, 765, 803; Gentleman's Magazine, xliv, 247, 283.
[367] Walpole, Journal, i, 376, 377.
[368] Journal 66, fos. 170-172, 178, 179.
[369] The king to Lord North, 18 June, 1774.--Correspondence, i, 192.
[370] Walpole, Journal, i, 380-382.
[371] Walpole, Journal, i, 420.
[372] Gentleman's Magazine, xliv, 491.
[373] Gentleman's Magazine, xliv, 444.
[374] Walpole, Journal, i, 427.
[375] Journal House of Commons, xxxviii, 977.
Chapter XXXIX
[Sidenote: Wilkes and the Court of Aldermen.]
Wilkes had not long occupied the mayoralty chair before he came into serious collision with the Court of Aldermen. In November (1774) an election of an alderman for the Ward of Bridge Within took place, and John Hart, one of the sheriffs, was returned at the head of the poll, defeating his opponent, William Neate, by four votes. A scrutiny was demanded, and, in spite of an objection raised by Hart on technical grounds, was allowed to proceed. Whilst the scrutiny was proceeding Hart appeared before the Court of Aldermen and claimed to be admitted to his seat. Neate was also in attendance, but the Court declined to hear him. Wilkes thereupon adjourned the Court until after the result of the scrutiny was known. On the 24th November the votes were cast up in the presence of Wilkes and his predecessor in office (under whom the original wardmote for the election had been held), when there appeared 95 votes for Neate, as against 84 for Hart. The result of the poll was thus reversed. Nevertheless, when the Court of Aldermen met the next day they insisted upon Wilkes putting the question for Hart to be called in and sworn, whilst they persistently refused to hear Neate or his attorney, Reynolds--Wilkes's own friend and election agent. This he positively refused to do, and the matter was allowed to stand over, both parties having in the meantime applied to the King's Bench for writs of mandamus.[376]
[Sidenote: Comments of the Public Advertiser, 28 Nov., 1774.]
The proceedings of the aldermen were published in the Public Advertiser of the 28th November, and were severely commented upon, whilst the action of Wilkes was highly approved of. "The spirit of injustice and violence which influenced the proceedings of the Court of Aldermen on Tuesday"--it was reported--"predominated stronger on Friday by the arrival of Mr. Harley. One of the candidates for the vacant aldermanship of Bridge Within, William Neate, Esq., was refused to be heard, and likewise his agent, Mr. John Reynolds. Mr. Houston, the attorney who officiated at the wardmote, was not suffered to make his report of the election. Mr. Alderman Kirkman acquainted the Court that he had been served with a mandamus from the Court of King's Bench to swear in Mr. Neate, but no attention was paid to him. Mr. Townshend and Mr. Oliver insisted on the swearing in of Mr. Hart immediately, and Mr. Harley's natural violence and rage were brought in aid to the intemperate and unjust spirit of the other two aldermen. The lord mayor, however, had too much firmness to yield to an act of palpable partiality and injustice, and prevented the disgrace, which otherwise that Court would have received, by repeatedly refusing to put the question."[377] The whole passage reads very much as if inspired by Wilkes himself; but whether this were so or not, Wilkes entered his protest against a resolution of the Court that the paragraph was injurious to the honour of the Court and "not founded in truth," because he apprehended that it was "founded in truth."
[Sidenote: Refusal by Wilkes to put a question reflecting upon himself, 29 Nov., 1774.]
Before the aldermen again met (29 Nov.) the city solicitor, acting (apparently) upon instructions from Wilkes, had defended Hart's mandamus, and at the next Court that officer was severely questioned on the matter, and was told that the Court would not allow him his costs. A motion was at the same time made to the effect that the lord mayor having refused to put a question which the Court of Aldermen was competent to decide, had violated the right of election in the freemen of the city, as represented in that Court. It was, of course, the business of Wilkes to put this question, but unlike Trevor, the Speaker, who stultified himself before the House of Commons in 1695, Wilkes positively declined, telling his brother aldermen that he thanked God he was "not quite idiot enough" for that.[378] A week later (6 Dec.) the Court passed a resolution to the effect that Neate had not been duly elected, and Wilkes again protested. The Court thereupon proposed to swear in Hart, but Wilkes again refused to put the question for the reason that the parties had not been heard.[379] Matters were thus brought to a deadlock. At length--on the 17th January, 1775--the Court put itself in order by hearing Neate, and immediately afterwards passed a resolution for calling in and swearing Hart. Wilkes no longer raised any objection, and Hart was sworn.[380] Hart did not long enjoy his victory, for by a judgment of the King's Bench, pronounced in Easter term, 1776, he was excluded from intermeddling with the aldermanry, and on the 18th June Thomas Wooldridge (not Neate) was admitted in his place.[381] As between Wilkes and the Court of Aldermen the honours certainly lay with the former, and he did not hesitate to tell the Court that he intended to pursue the same line of conduct throughout his year of office in spite of all the Court might think or do;--"I declared that I never would put a question to decide the merits of a cause before this Court until both the parties had been heard. The Court at last consented that Mr. Neate should be heard, and only after he had been heard did I put the question.... The same line of truth and impartiality I will steadily pursue thro' the whole course of my mayoralty, regardless of any resolutions of this Court which are repugnant to the great principles of justice or the fair rights of the chief magistrate."[382]
[Sidenote: The new Parliament and the American colonies, 1775.]
The result of the recent general election proved to be in favour of the ministry, and distinctly anti-American. The nation had declared for war, and nothing that the City could do was of any avail to prevent it. As soon as Parliament met (19 Jan., 1775) Chatham went down to the Lords and urged the advisability of addressing the king for the removal of the troops from Boston as a conciliatory measure. He was determined, he said, not to let the matter rest, but would labour to bring the country to a sense of the impending danger:--"I wish, my lords, not to lose a day in this urgent, pressing crisis; an hour now lost in allaying ferments in America may produce years of calamity; for my own part, I will not desert, for a moment, the conduct of this weighty business from the first to the last, unless nailed to my bed by the extremity of sickness. I will give it unremitted attention; I will knock at the door of this sleeping and confounded ministry, and will rouse them to a sense of their impending danger."[383] The citizens of London were among the few who supported Chatham at this momentous crisis in the country's history, and they despatched the Town Clerk to the earl's country seat with an address of thanks, which was acknowledged in very flattering terms.[384] So far from showing any disposition to conciliate the colonies by withdrawing troops and repealing obnoxious Acts, the new House proceeded to consider a Bill for cutting off the inhabitants of Massachusetts and other parts from the Newfoundland fishery. To this the Common Council at once entered their protest, both before the Lords and Commons. It was not to be supposed, they plainly told Parliament, that a great number of men, naturally hardy and brave, would quietly submit to a law which would reduce them to the verge of famine.[385] The warning was to no purpose. The Bill passed.[386]
[Sidenote: Remonstrance of livery, 5 April, 1775.]
At length matters looked so serious that the livery of London met in Common Hall on the 5th April and drew up a respectful but solemn warning to the king himself against the fatal policy pursued by his ministers towards America. The measures which the government had recently adopted were declared to be "big with all consequences which can alarm a free and commercial people." They inflicted (said the livery) a deep and perhaps fatal wound to commerce; they ruined manufactures; they reduced the revenue and increased the taxes; and they alienated the colonists. Here, as ever, commercial interests were placed by the citizens in the foreground. But commercial interests did not form the sole motive for this remonstrance. The City's own liberties were at stake if the liberties of the subject in any part of the kingdom were infringed;--"Your petitioners conceive the liberties of the whole to be inevitably connected with those of every part of an empire, founded on the common rights of mankind. They cannot, therefore, observe without the greatest concern and alarm the constitution fundamentally violated in any part of your majesty's dominions. They esteem it an essential, unalterable principle of liberty, the source and security of all constitutional rights that no part of the dominion can be taxed without being represented."[387] The livery resolved that this address or remonstrance should be presented by the lord mayor, the city members, the Court of Aldermen (not the Common Council) and the sheriffs, and that they themselves should also attend the presentation in a body (and not by deputation, as in 1771 and 1773). Having settled this business, they next proceeded to pass votes of thanks to the Lords and Commons who had opposed "the impolitic and inhuman Bill for prohibiting the people of New England from the Newfoundland fishery, and for their opposition to other arbitrary, cruel and anti-commercial measures" against their fellow subjects in America. They also thanked Chatham and Burke for the plan they had proposed for conciliating the American colonies; and lastly, they passed a vote of thanks to such of the Commons as had recently voted on Wilkes's oft repeated motion for expunging the resolutions of the late Parliament respecting Wilkes and the Middlesex election.[388]
[Sidenote: The King's reply, 10 April, 1775.]
Notwithstanding the absence of the Common Council and the inordinate number of the livery that had expressed their intention of being present, the king submitted, rather than risk a contest with the City with Wilkes in the mayoralty chair. With Wilkes's personal behaviour at court the king was agreeably surprised, and owned that he had never seen "so well-bred a lord mayor."[389] The conduct of the mayor, however, took nothing off the asperity of the king's reply. He expressed the "utmost astonishment" that any of his subjects should be capable of encouraging the rebellious spirit which had displayed itself in some of the colonies in North America. As to the Parliament, which the livery had recently characterised as a "formidable instrument of arbitrary power," instead of being the guardian of liberty, he declared that he had every confidence in it and intended to carry out its measures.
[Sidenote: Letter from the lord chamberlain to Wilkes, 11 April, 1775.]
The next day (11 April) the Earl of Hertford, the lord chamberlain, wrote to Wilkes by the king's command, giving him notice that in future his majesty would not receive on the throne any address, remonstrance or petition except from the body corporate of the City.
[Sidenote: The lord mayor's reply, 2 May, 1775.]
The lord chamberlain's letter drew forth a long and spirited reply from Wilkes[390] as to the legal position of Common Halls and the powers and rights of the livery, in which he refers Lord Hertford to the opinions of counsel delivered in 1771 and 1773.[391] He reminds his lordship that the claim which he was making on behalf of the livery of London to the right of presenting addresses to the king on his throne was of no little importance, and not to be lightly abandoned or set aside;--"When his majesty receives on the throne any address it is read by the proper officer to the king in the presence of the petitioners. They have the satisfaction of knowing that their sovereign has heard their complaints. They receive an answer. If the same address is presented at a levée, or in any other mode, no answer is given. A suspicion may arise that the address is never heard or read, because it is only received, and immediately delivered to the lord in waiting." It was on the throne (the letter continued) that the king and his predecessors had constantly received addresses of the livery, and "on the most exact research" not a single instance had been found to the contrary. Wilkes concluded by expressing his fears lest the unfavourable answer the king had returned to the remonstrance should be considered by the American colonies as a fresh mark of the king's anger towards them, as well as of his displeasure against the faithful citizens of London. The livery would comfort themselves with the assurance of the king's sense of justice, which would sooner or later restore them to royal favour; but the Americans might be driven to despair unless by the merciful interposition of Providence the hearts of ministers were turned. Wilkes took care that his letter received the necessary publicity.[392]
[Sidenote: Appeal from New York to the City, 5 May, 1775.]
The warning came too late; open hostilities had already commenced. The attitude of the colonies towards the mother-country was clearly defined in a letter addressed to the City of London by the committee of Association of New York on the 5th May.[393] All the horrors of a civil war, the letter protested, would never compel America to submit to taxation by authority of Parliament, although it was perfectly ready to make voluntary contributions "as Englishmen" to assist the king if properly requisitioned. The writers appealed to the City of London, well knowing its attachment to the cause of justice and liberty, and they concluded their letter with an expression of confidence that it would use its utmost exertions "to restore union, mutual confidence and peace to the whole empire." The letter was laid before the Common Council on Friday, the 23rd June, when it was ordered to be printed, and a copy to be sent to every member of the Court.[394]
[Sidenote: Proceedings of Common Hall, 24 June, 1775.]
The next day being Midsummer-day the livery met as usual in Common Hall for the purpose of electing sheriffs and other officers. Alderman Hayley, the brother-in-law of Wilkes, was one of the sheriffs elected and Alderman Newnham the other. The ordinary business of the day having been got through Wilkes formally reported to the Common Hall the king's reply to the last address of the livery, and next proceeded to lay before them Lord Hertford's letter and his own reply. These having been read the Town Clerk was ordered to enter both letters in the City's Records, and a vote of thanks was passed to Wilkes "for his very able, judicious and spirited defence of the rights and privileges of the livery." The livery next proceeded to pass a resolution condemning the conduct of those ministers who had advised the king not to receive in future on the throne any address, remonstrance or petition from the livery of London, as being subversive of the right of the subject to petition the throne, and as calculated to alienate the minds of Englishmen from the Hanoverian succession. Then turning from their own grievances to those of America they passed a vote of thanks to the Earl of Effingham for his courageous conduct in throwing up his commission in the army rather than draw his sword against the lives and liberties of his fellow subjects, and next proceeded to prepare another remonstrance to the king on the American war.[395]
This new remonstrance was, if possible, stronger and more plain spoken than any yet presented. The king was told that the power which he and his ministers claimed to exercise over the colonies, under the specious name of "dignity," was nothing less than "despotism," and that as the livery of London would not suffer any man, or any body of men, to establish arbitrary power over themselves, so they would not acquiesce in an attempt to force it upon any of their fellow subjects. They did not hesitate to declare that the majority of the members of that Parliament, in which the king had recently avowed he placed entire confidence, were "notoriously bribed to betray their constituents and their country."[396] Notwithstanding Lord Hertford's recent letter, they insisted upon the king receiving their address upon the throne, and intimated their intention of attending the presentation in a body. This was more than the king could stand, and he determined to put his foot down. The address not being an address of the Corporation of London, he expressed his intention of receiving it at his next levée, and when objection was raised by the sheriffs to this course, he told them that he was judge where to receive it.[397] This decision being reported to the livery they resolved (4 July) to publish their remonstrance, and not to present it. They at the same time passed a number of resolutions condemning the king's advisers, and ordered the sheriffs to place in the king's own hands a copy of these resolutions as well as of those passed on Midsummer-day, signed by the Town Clerk.[398]
[Sidenote: City Address to the king for cessation of hostilities, 7 July, 1775.]
On Friday, the 7th July, the Common Council took into consideration the letter from New York, which had been read to the Court on the 23rd June, and which had by this time been printed and circulated among the members of the Council, as ordered. A motion was thereupon made that a humble address and petition should be presented from the Court to his majesty praying him to suspend hostilities in America, and adopt such conciliatory measures as might restore union, confidence and peace to the whole Empire. The motion was carried, but only by a majority of fifteen; and the address having been drawn up by a committee appointed for the purpose, was in due course read and approved.[399] It is clear that the Common Council was half-hearted in the matter. According to Walpole, it only voted the address in order to satisfy the Americans who had appealed to London.[400] No doubt Court influence had been at work;--"If the Common Council can on Friday be prevented from taking any step with regard to the rebellion in America"--wrote the king to Lord North--"it would be desirable," at the same time he comforted himself with the thought that anything that the Common Council might do would have but little real effect.[401]
[Sidenote: The king's reply, 14 July, 1775.]
The king received the address on the throne with becoming dignity, and returned for answer that it was a duty he owed his faithful subjects to enforce respect for the constitutional authority of the kingdom on those of his American subjects who had openly resisted it. This answer appears to have had considerable effect upon the Common Council, for when, a week later, a motion was made to send a reply to the letter from New York, together with a copy of the City's late address, and the king's answer, the motion was lost.[402]
[Sidenote: Address of the livery to electors of Great Britain, 29 Sept., 1775.]
On Michaelmas-day, when his successor in the mayoralty chair was chosen by the livery, Wilkes, who had recently refused to countenance by his presence the proclamation of the Americans as rebels (23 Aug.),[403] produced a letter he had received from the Congress at Philadelphia appealing to the city of London, as the "patron of liberty," to mediate for the restoration of peace. Thereupon an address to the electors of Great Britain (prepared at a previous meeting of the livery held at the Half Moon tavern in Cheapside) calling upon them to assist the livery to bring to justice the authors of the evils that had arisen in this country and America was also produced and read. The document pointed to the increase of national debt and the decrease of national resources that must supervene if a ruinous and expensive war was to be undertaken against the American colonies. What was the object of the war? It could not be the security of England's commerce, for that was not in danger; neither could it be to bring the colonies into due subordination to the mother-country, for the colonies themselves had repeatedly and solemnly acknowledged their subordination and submission to England. It appeared, then, that the object of the war was nothing else than to establish the arbitrary power of the crown over their fellow subjects in America--a measure which would greatly endanger the constitution at home and increase the number of placemen and pensioners. All that the colonies asked for was peace, liberty and safety. They had pledged themselves to be ready and willing in time of war to show their loyalty to the king and to assist him with money and men to the utmost of their ability. What more could in justice be required? They had recently made a final appeal in the hope that the effusion of blood might be stayed, but to this appeal no answer had been vouchsafed. "This, gentlemen," the address continued, "is the alarming state of America, which fills us with anxiety and apprehensions. We lament the blood that has been already shed; we deplore the fate of those brave men who are devoted to hazard their lives--not against the enemies of the British name, but against the friends of the prosperity and glory of Great Britain; we feel for the honour of the British arms, sullied--not by the misbehaviour of those who bore them, but by the misconduct of the ministers who employed them to the oppression of their fellow subjects; we are alarmed at the immediate, insupportable expense and the probable consequences of a war which, we are convinced, originates in violence and injustice, and must end in ruin. These are the sentiments, gentlemen," concluded this impassionate address, "which we take the liberty of communicating to you as the reasons upon which we have acted; trusting that if they meet with your approbation you will co-operate with us in endeavouring to bring the authors of those evils to the justice of their country." This "decent but very strong address," as Walpole called it,[404] was at once adopted as "the address of the lord mayor, aldermen and livery of London in Common Hall assembled," and was ordered to be published in the papers.[405]
[Sidenote: Petitions of Common Council in favour of peace, 25 Oct., 1775.]
The day before Parliament re-assembled in October the Common Council backed up the livery and prepared addresses to both Houses in favour of a cessation of hostilities; but the nation was so distinctly in favour of war that the City could avail nothing, and its petitions were ordered to lie on the table.[406]
[Sidenote: Arrest of Sayre, an ex-sheriff of London, Oct., 1775.]
The tension of men's minds at this crisis was so great that all kinds of rumours gained credit, and a certain comical element was introduced in the midst of the prevailing gloom. A young American officer named Richardson, who was confined in the Tower, solemnly declared on oath that Stephen Sayre, an ex-sheriff of London, had paid him a visit and privately offered him a large sum of money to assist in seizing the Tower. This was only a part of the conspiracy. The king himself was to be seized on his way to the House of Lords and forced to call a new Parliament. Everybody, except the ministers, laughed at the folly of such a charge. A council was summoned, and by order of the Earl of Rochfort, secretary of state, Sayre was arrested and--in compliment to the City, so it was said--committed to the Tower. He was, however, shortly released.[407]
[Sidenote: Proceedings of Parliament, Oct.-Nov., 1775.]
Parliament met on the 26th without any disturbance, and the king in his address showed a determination to prosecute the war with vigour. Sawbridge, who had been elected successor to Wilkes in the mayoralty chair, took occasion to compare the conduct of Lord Effingham with that of Lord George Germaine, formerly Lord Sackville, who had behaved so discreditably at the battle of Minden in 1759, and who had recently accepted office under the ministry. The one had thrown up his commission rather than engage in civil war, whilst the other "had turned pale at the head of squadrons."[408] In the last week of November, Alderman Oliver, in accordance with a resolution of the livery of London of the 4th July, moved the House to address his majesty, that he might be pleased to inform the Commons who were the advisers of the several measures so obnoxious to the American Colonies. The motion, however, found but little support except from Wilkes and Sawbridge, and upon being pressed to a division, was lost by an overwhelming majority.[409]
[Sidenote: Expenses of Wilkes's mayoralty.]
At the close of Wilkes's mayoralty he received the thanks of the City for the splendour and hospitality that had marked his year of office, as well as for "his vigilant and steady attachment to, and his very able vindication of the constitutional rights of his fellow subjects."[410] It would never have done for one who had so severely taken Trecothick to task for failing to maintain the City's reputation for hospitality, to have himself been deficient in that respect, whilst occupying the mayoralty chair; but setting this aside, Wilkes was naturally prone to lavish expenditure whether in or out of office. The result was that the close of his mayoralty found him in serious pecuniary difficulties. The lord mayors of that day derived their income from various sources, among them, being the sale of those places under the Corporation which happened to fall vacant during their year of office.[411] No two mayors therefore enjoyed precisely the same income, whilst their expenditure was then, as now, only limited by their individual tastes, or the length of their private purses. Wilkes's receipts during his year of office had amounted to £4,889 o_s._ 6-1/2_d._, whereas his expenditure had been no less than £8,226 13_s._[412] He was therefore out of pocket to the amount of nearly £3,500, or perhaps we ought rather to say that he would have been out of pocket to that extent, had he actually disbursed the money. This he had not done, for the simple reason that he had none to disburse.
[Sidenote: Wilkes a candidate for the Chamberlainship, 1776-1778.]
His impecuniosity led him to consider seriously the advisability of becoming a candidate for one or other of the more lucrative posts in the gift of the citizens. Hitherto he had been averse to taking such a course, but matters had now come to such a pass that when the Chamberlainship of the City happened to fall vacant in February, 1776, through the resignation of Sir Stephen Janssen, he followed the advice of his friends, and became a candidate for the post. He was unsuccessful, however, being defeated by Benjamin Hopkins, a brother alderman. This being an interim election, Hopkins had again to seek the suffrages of the livery at Midsummer. Wilkes again opposed him, and was again defeated; this time by a crushing majority. Here it would have been well if he had rested satisfied, and not offered any further opposition when his more successful rival offered himself annually for re-election, the appointment being virtually during good behaviour. He was not, however, a man to let any scruples of delicacy stand in his way, and, moreover, he was being sorely pressed by creditors. Accordingly, he offered himself as a candidate, in opposition to Hopkins, at Midsummer, 1777, and again in 1778, but on both occasions he was defeated.[413]
[Sidenote: His creditors appeal to Common Council, Oct., 1777.]
In the meantime his creditors had again and again applied to him for the discharge of his mayoralty debts, but could obtain no satisfaction, beyond a cool assurance that he had expended the whole of the allowance made him by the City in executing the duties of the mayoralty; that their claims exceeded this allowance and he could not therefore discharge them! Was ever impertinence more sublime? Any other man they would have had laid by the heels, without further ado, but Wilkes they feared to touch. After much patience and long suffering, they made so bold as to appeal to the Common Council. This was in October, 1777. Someone suggested the bestowal of an annuity of £500 upon Wilkes for his public services, but the City wisely decided that the granting of any annuity to him, or the payment of his debts whether contracted in or out of office, would establish a bad precedent.[414]
[Sidenote: Wilkes elected Chamberlain. Nov., 1779.]
At Midsummer, 1779, Hopkins offered himself, as usual, to the livery for re-election to the Chamberlainship, and this time he was returned unopposed. Wilkes had at last seen the futility of continuing the struggle. Possibly the state of Hopkins's health may have had something to do with Wilkes's withdrawal. This, however, is only conjecture. All that we know is that in the following November Hopkins died, and his rival at last succeeded in obtaining the much coveted post.[415] This post--described by Wilkes himself as one of "profit, patronage and extensive usefulness, with rank and dignity," and sufficient, after the payment of his debts, to gratify every wish he could form at the age of fifty-three[416]--he continued to fill with credit to the City (as his friend Dr. Johnson predicted he would) until the day of his death (26 Dec., 1797), no one being found bold enough ever to oppose his annual re-election.
[Sidenote: The Freedom of the City to Dr. Richard Price, 14 March, 1776.]
Early in 1776 England and America were startled by the appearance of a small treatise entitled "Observations on the nature of civil liberty, the principles of government and the justice and policy of the war in America." The writer was Dr. Richard Price, a Dissenting minister, who had devoted much of his leisure to the consideration of questions of public interest, and more especially finance. The demand for his latest work was so great that it outran the supply. The Freedom of the City in a gold box was voted the author,[417] and two years later he received an invitation to become a citizen of the United States, ample provision being promised him for the rest of his life if he would go to America and undertake the regulation of the finances of that country. The offer was, however, declined on the score of old age.
[Sidenote: City address and king's reply, 22 March, 1776.]
The day that the Common Council voted Dr. Price the Freedom of the City (14 March, 1776) it resolved once more to address the king with the view, if possible, of obtaining the postponement of any further military operations until America had had an opportunity of definitely refusing such just and honourable terms as this country was willing to offer. If this were done, England would free herself of any taint or suspicion of injustice and oppression, whilst the refusal of the colonies would then become rebellion. The king's reply was brief. He avoided giving a direct answer to the City's proposal, but contented himself with expressing his deep concern at the misery which the colonies had brought upon themselves, and his readiness to extend mercy and clemency as soon as the "existing rebellion was at an end."[418]
[Sidenote: Declaration of Independence, 4 July, 1776.]
The king's answer shows how little he was acquainted with the real feeling of the colonists at this time. With them it was no longer a question of clemency or redress. The idea of a total separation from the mother-country had already taken shape. France had shown a disposition to assist them, and thus avenge herself on England for the Seven Years' war; but with or without France the colonies were bent on separation, and on the 4th July the Declaration of Independence was signed.
[Sidenote: Refusal of Sawbridge and Hallifax to back press warrants, 1776-1777.]
In anticipation of France openly declaring war against England, the government caused warrants to be issued for pressing seamen. These were executed with great cruelty, and met with much opposition. When Parliament met on the last day of October, Wilkes took the opportunity of an amendment being moved to the address to inveigh against press warrants, as well as against the "savage and piratical, as well as unjust, war" into which the country had been plunged by the king's ministers. He told the House that the press-gangs did not dare enter the City, knowing full well the character of Sawbridge, the lord mayor.[419] "It is certain," he said, "that no pressing has at this time been carried on in the city of London or its liberties. No press-gangs have dared to make their appearance in that jurisdiction.... The city has hitherto remained in perfect tranquility by the vigilance, intrepidity and noble love of liberty which are conspicuous in its present worthy chief magistrate."[420] Sir Thomas Hallifax, who succeeded Sawbridge in the mayoralty chair,[421] was equally stern in refusing to back press warrants in the City, and on two occasions received a formal vote of thanks for so doing from the Common Council, the first time being in February (1777) and the second when he quitted office.[422]
[Sidenote: The City refuses to countenance the war.]
In 1777 the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended against all Americans, and in 1778 public subscriptions were set on foot in support of the war. The City did all it could to prevent the suspension of Habeas Corpus, and absolutely refused to subscribe to any bounties or to in any way countenance, or be instrumental in, the continuation of the war.[423] The king expressed to Lord North the mortification he felt at the City's attitude;--"I feared the city was not yet enough returned to sobriety to be persuaded heartily to support the cause, and therefore think the friends of government would have acted wiser in adopting a public subscription unattended with the mortifying circumstance of a defeat in the Corporation."[424]
[Sidenote: City address, 13 March, 1778.]
At last the ministers themselves began to show a change of front, and conciliatory measures were introduced and passed.[425] Whilst the consideration of these measures was pending, the Common Council drew up another address to the king exhorting him to give effect to those concessions which they feared might have been granted too late.[426]
[Sidenote: Announcement of alliance between France and America, 13 March, 1778.]
The fears entertained by the citizens were well founded. On the very day that their address was presented, the French ambassador delivered to Lord Weymouth a declaration that the king of France had entered into a treaty of commerce and amity with the Independent States of America, and that any attempt to interfere with that commerce between those two countries would be resented by his master. A few days later Benjamin Franklin was formally received at Versailles as ambassador for the United States of America.[427] In the face of this new danger, both Houses rallied round the throne, with vows of support in maintaining the honour and dignity of the crown and nation, although in both Houses there were not wanting those who were in favour of petitioning the king for the removal of those ministers who had brought about all the mischief. The insulting message sent by France touching interruption of commerce with America, had in fact rather strengthened the ministry than otherwise, and a proposal in the Court of Aldermen to summon a Common Hall for the purpose of agitating for their removal fell flat.[428]
[Sidenote: The death of Chatham, 11 May, 1778.]
Chatham now became one of the foremost advocates for the maintenance of the supremacy of Great Britain over its dependencies, however opposed he had been to the fatal policy that brought the country to such a crisis; and it was to him that Lord North, who had long wished to withdraw from the ministry, advised the king to apply for aid. Even if the king had been willing to trust Chatham, which he was not, the state of the Earl's health would scarcely have allowed him to accept a position of such responsibility. His days were in fact numbered. On Tuesday, the 7th April, he unexpectedly appeared in the House of Lords, having risen from a sick bed with the sole object of opposing a motion of the Duke of Richmond, virtually conceding the independence of the American Colonies. When the Duke had finished his speech, Chatham, slowly and with difficulty, rose from his seat. In words that at first were scarcely audible he explained that ill-health had prevented him from attending, at so important a crisis, to his parliamentary duties. He had that day made an effort, almost beyond his strength, to attend the House where, perhaps he might never speak again, and to express his indignation at the suggestion that had been made of yielding up the sovereignty of America. "My lords," he said, "I rejoice that the grave has not closed upon me: that I am still alive to lift up my voice against the dismemberment of the ancient and most noble monarchy," and he concluded a spirited and affecting speech by exhorting his countrymen to make an effort to maintain their supremacy [that supremacy to which he himself had contributed so much] and, if they fell, to fall like men.[429] Even as he spoke, his words began to falter, and on rising to make a second speech, he staggered and fell back in a fit of apoplexy. To all appearance he was in a dying state. He rallied however, but only for a few weeks, and on the 11th May he died.
[Sidenote: His funeral, 9 June, 1778.]
The City lost no time in petitioning Parliament that the remains of the statesman "whose vigour and counsels had so much contributed to the protection and extension of its commerce," might rest in St. Paul's, and the Lord Chamberlain was asked to give timely notice of the funeral in order that the Common Council might pay their last token of respect. The Chamberlain promised to accede to this request, but the City's petition to Parliament met with no further notice than an order that it should lie on the table.[430] Having failed in this direction the City determined to approach the king himself on the subject, and a "remarkably decent and respectful" address was prepared for the purpose in the Common Council.[431] Unfortunately the City had incurred the king's displeasure not only on account of its recent addresses, but also for the respect and affection it had always entertained towards Chatham, who for years had been the object of his special aversion. When asked to name a day for the reception of the address, the first question was as to its nature. He was afraid of having to listen to more "stuff." His curiosity, however, on the point was not gratified. The sheriff (Clarke) respectfully declined to inform him of the nature of the address, and for his "prudent conduct" was rewarded with the thanks of the Common Council.[432]
At length Friday, the 5th June, was appointed for receiving the address. By that time arrangements had been made for the interment to take place in Westminster Abbey, and the king notified the citizens of the fact in a somewhat dry and ungracious manner.[433] Although the ceremony was fixed for the 9th no notice had been sent to the City, notwithstanding the Lord Chamberlain's promise. The Common Council therefore, finding themselves thus trifled with, rescinded their resolution to attend.[434] Indeed the attitude taken up by the king and his ministers throughout the whole business was singularly childish and undignified.
[Sidenote: The City's monument to Chatham.]
The citizens, on the other hand, though prevented from showing their respect at the grave-side of the deceased statesman, were resolved to erect a memorial to one who, when in power, had never (as they declared) allowed them to return from the throne dissatisfied. A sculptured monument by Bacon, with an inscription from the pen of the great Edmund Burke, was in due course erected in the Guildhall, for the express purpose that citizens might "never meet for the transaction of their affairs without being reminded that the means by which Providence raises a nation to greatness are the virtues infused into great men; and that to withhold from those virtues, either of the living or the dead, the tribute of esteem and veneration, is to deny themselves the means of happiness and honour."
FOOTNOTES:
[376] Repertory 179, fos. 10-14, 17-20, 54-65.
[377] Id., fos. 24-25.
[378] Repertory 179, fo. 24.
[379] Id., fos. 65-68.
[380] Id., fos. 96, 97.
[381] Repertory 180, fos. 288-294.
[382] Repertory 179, fo. 194.
[383] Chatham Correspondence iv, 378, note.
[384] Journal 66, fos. 179, 181b.
[385] Journal 66, fos. 185-185b, 188b-190, 191-192.
[386] Journal House of Commons, xxxv, 182, 241; Journal House of Lords, xxxiv, 365.
[387] On the 7th March a pamphlet had been published entitled "Taxation no Tyranny; an Answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American Congress,"--from the pen of Dr. Johnson.--Boswell's Life of Johnson (Napier), ii, 289.
[388] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 186b-188.
[389] Walpole, Journal i, 484. Wilkes's winning manner was never more conspicuous than when, a year later (15 May, 1776), he first met Dr. Johnson at dinner. The story how he succeeded in completely winning over the learned lexicographer who had hitherto looked upon Wilkes as little more than a low demagogue, is admirably told in Boswell's Life (iii, 108-117). They afterwards became very good friends, and Johnson was fain to confess that "Jack was a scholar" and "Jack had the manners of a gentleman," and that "although Jack had always been at him, he would do Jack a kindness rather than not."--(Id., iii, 208.)
[390] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 189b-191.
[391] See Plumbe's case. Supra pp. 138, 139.
[392] Walpole's Journal i, 487. It is printed in the Gentleman's Magazine, xlv, 220-222, and in the Volume of Addresses, etc. (ed. 1778) in the Guildhall Library.
[393] Journal 66, fos. 236-237b.
[394] Journal 66, fo. 238.
[395] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 188b-191.
[396] Id., fos. 191-192.
[397] Walpole, Journal i, 495.
[398] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 192b, 193.
[399] Journal 66, fos. 239b-240b.
[400] "They could not help doing it, to satisfy the Americans on their address to them."--Walpole, Journal i, 496.
[401] The king to Lord North, 5 July, 1775.--Correspondence i, 253.
[402] Journal 66, fo. 241.
[403] Walpole, Journal i, 500; Gentleman's Magazine xlv, 405.
[404] Walpole, Journal i, 503.
[405] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 193b-195b.
[406] Journal 66, fos. 259b-260b; Walpole, Journal i, 501, 502; Journal House of Commons, xxxv, 405; Journal House of Lords, xxxiv, 489.
[407] Walpole, Journal i, 508, 509; Walpole to Mann, 28 Oct., 1775; Letters vi, 277; Annual Register xviii, 167, 239-243.
[408] Walpole, Journal i, 523.
[409] Journal House of Commons, xxxv, 462. Walpole, Journal i, 524.
[410] Journal 66, fo. 261b.
[411] In November, 1776, an alteration was made in this respect, and it was ordained that for the future the sum of £1,000 should be paid to each mayor in lieu of the sale of offices. Journal 67, fo. 8b.
[412] Journal 67, fo. 9. The respective amounts of receipts and expenditure by some of his more immediate predecessors in office, are recorded as having been as follows:--
Receipts. Payments. 1768. Turner £5,731 5 10 £7,749 12 4. 1770. Crosby 4,251 11 6 6,685 10 11. 1772. Townshend 3,896 0 0 7,592 16 9. 1773. Bull 5,647 13 8 9,293 10 0.
[413] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 199, 200, 205-205b, 211.
[414] Journal 67, fos. 85b, 100.
[415] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 217b.
[416] Almon, Wilkes's Correspondence v, 37.
[417] Journal 66, fos. 296, 354.
[418] Journal 66, fos. 296-297, 299b.
[419] Walpole, Journal ii, 77.
[420] Parliamentary History, vol. xviii, cols. 1,402, 1,403. Notwithstanding Wilkes's statement, instances are recorded of men having been pressed in the City; but their instant discharge was demanded.--Journal 67, fos. 12b-13, 43-43b.
[421] On coming into office Hallifax invited the ministers to his banquet. They had not been asked to the lord mayor's banquet for the last seven years.--Walpole, Journal ii, 84.
[422] Journal 67, fos. 42b, 95.
[423] Journal 67, fos. 42, 107.
[424] The king to Lord North, 17 Jan., 1778.--Correspondence ii, 122.
[425] Walpole, Journal ii, 222, 223.
[426] Journal 67, fos. 126-8.
[427] Walpole, Journal ii, 223.
[428] Repertory 182, fo. 184.
[429] Parliamentary History xix, 1,022, 1,023.
[430] Journal 67, fos. 137b-138b, 149b. Journal House of Commons, xxxvi, 990.
[431] Journal 67, fo. 148.
[432] Journal 67, fo. 150; Annual Register xxi, 243.
[433] Journal 67, fo. 149b.
[434] Id., fo. 150.
Chapter XL
[Sidenote: Court martial of Admiral Keppel, Jan., 1779.]
The extension of the sphere of war owing to the French alliance with America brought great difficulties to the ministry. A powerful fleet under Keppel was sent into the Channel, and in July engaged the French fleet off Ushant, but the action was indecisive, and both fleets retired, the one to Brest, and the other to Plymouth. Keppel had signalled Sir Hugh Palliser, his second in command, to bear up with his squadron, and renew the action, but Palliser's ship was much crippled, and he was either unable or unwilling to comply. Mutual recriminations followed, and as both admirals were in Parliament and political adversaries, Keppel being in Opposition, whilst Palliser was a Lord of the Admiralty, the charges led to a fierce Parliamentary war, and eventually Keppel had to submit to a court martial. The trial took place at Portsmouth, and lasted over a month. The result was anxiously awaited by the City and the country. At length, late in the evening of the 11th February (1779), a courier brought the news that Keppel had been honourably acquitted. The whole of London was at once one blaze of illuminations. Palliser had to make his escape out of Portsmouth for fear of violence, and a house in Pall Mall once occupied by him was completely gutted by the mob and its contents burnt in St. James's Square. The gates of the Admiralty were taken off their hinges. Lord Sandwich had his windows smashed, so had Lord North, and greater damage would have been done but for the interference of the military.
[Sidenote: Vote of thanks and Freedom of City to Keppel, 12 Feb., 1779.]
The next day (12 Feb.) the Common Council passed a vote of thanks to Keppel "for his spirited behaviour on the 27th of July last in his attack on the French fleet, for his glorious and gallant efforts to renew the engagement in the afternoon of that day, efforts rendered unsuccessful thro' the want of obedience to his orders by the Vice-Admiral of the Blue."[435] They further voted him the Freedom of the City in a box of heart of oak, in testimony of the respect and gratitude which they entertained of his long and faithful services to his country.[436] That night the illuminations were repeated, but stringent measures were taken to prevent tumult.[437] The vote of thanks was conveyed to the admiral without delay, but circumstances prevented the Freedom being conferred on him until the following December. On the first occasion, Keppel was entertained with a few of his most intimate friends at the London Tavern;[438] on the second the admiral entertained a deputation from the Common Council at his own house in Audley Square. He and Lord Howe had by that time become so disgusted with the government that they had signified their intention of withdrawing their services from the navy so long as the ministers remained in power;[439] but he assured his guests that his zeal for the public good had in no wise abated, notwithstanding his withdrawal from the command of the fleet.[440] The friendly attitude of the City towards Keppel could not have been otherwise than distasteful to the king who looked upon "poor" Palliser as an ill-used man, and had even suggested his appointment to the command of the North American fleet until the recent affair had blown over.[441]
[Sidenote: Spain declares war, 17 June, 1779.]
The situation in which ministers found themselves was daily becoming more difficult, when Spain rendered it worse by allying herself (June, 1779) with France and America against Great Britain. North had again and again intimated his readiness to resign, but the king would not hear of it, and the minister yielded to his master's stronger will and consented to remain in office against his own convictions. With this increase of danger Parliament again rallied round the throne, and voted loyal addresses. At the same time the leading Whig lords protested against the affairs of the country being left in the hands of a ministry that had proved itself so incapable;--"In such a situation a change of system appears to us to be our indispensable duty to advise."[442] This too was the opinion of a large body of citizens, but the Common Council declined to hamper the king with another address on the subject.[443]
[Sidenote: Economical reform.]
The country for the most part was in favour of prosecuting the war with vigour, notwithstanding the addition of a fresh enemy. At the same time there was increasing dissatisfaction at the national expenditure and the excessive use of court influence over Parliament. The Opposition took advantage of this feeling, and in December motions were brought before the House of Lords in favour of economical reform. These were rejected, and the further consideration of the matter was postponed until the 8th February (1780). The Common Council sympathised with the Dukes of Devonshire, Grafton, Manchester, Portland and other Whig lords in their endeavours to promote reform, and passed them a vote of thanks. The Corporation was convinced that the cause of all the existing trouble lay in the "enormous and undue influence of the crown," and promised them support. Each of the lords wrote to acknowledge the vote of thanks, and their answers were given a wide circulation.[444]
[Sidenote: Committees of Association, 1779.]
Before the question came on again the country had become thoroughly roused. Committees of Association--as they were called--sprang up in all directions, their object being to impress upon Parliament the necessity of economy and the abolition of sinecures. Petitions flowed in from all parts. Yorkshire took the lead, but was closely followed by London.[445] The day that the City's petition was laid before the House (11 Feb.) Burke introduced a Bill for carrying out economical reform, but the measure had to be abandoned owing to the opposition it met with in committee.[446]
[Sidenote: Dunning's motion, 6 April, 1780.]
Although Burke's Bill had failed to pass, the movement continued to gain force both in and out of Parliament, and on the 6th April Dunning moved his famous resolution that "it is the opinion of this committee that the influence of the crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished." This resolution, with but a slight variation, was, after a hot debate, carried by a majority of eighteen.[447] It was followed by two other resolutions in the same direction, one (moved also by Dunning) to the effect that it was competent for the House to reform the Civil List, the other (moved by Thomas Pitt) that it was the duty of the House to remedy the abuses mentioned in the petitions. Both were carried, and the movers were accorded the thanks of the City (which they in due course acknowledged[448]), but when it came to taking further action on these resolutions the House raised so many objections that all thought of carrying them into effect had to be abandoned.
[Sidenote: The City's letter to Lord Shelburne, 7 April, 1780.]
As time went on the Committees of Association, not content with their legitimate work--the work for which they were originally established--viz., economical reform, took upon themselves to push parliamentary reform, a matter on which the country was not as yet agreed. The City approved of their action, having long been anxious to see a recurrence to short parliaments and a change made in the mode of representation, but in other places the new departure caused alarm. In Wiltshire, Lord Shelburne's county, the Association had been disavowed[449] owing to its recent action, and his lordship had in consequence written a letter to the county upholding the Association. Soon after this Shelburne was wounded in a duel, and upon his recovery the City took the opportunity of sending him a letter of congratulation, and at the same time of testifying their appreciation of his letter to the county of Wilts;--"The noble and manly proof which your lordship has given in your letter to the county of Wilts of your decided concurrence in the undoubted right of the people to short parliaments and the necessity of a more equal representation cannot but increase our regard, esteem and confidence; and your lordship in your further prosecution of those great constitutional objects may depend on the most firm and determined support of the city of London."[450]
[Sidenote: Lord Shelburne's reply, 12 April, 1780.]
The earl in reply assured the Common Council that the support of the City of London was the most honourable incentive he was capable of feeling, as well as the strongest preservative against despondency. As regards the proposals for shortening the duration of parliaments and a more equitable representation, which the counties, cities and boroughs of England were combining to obtain, they would certainly meet his zealous concurrence whenever they should appear "to be the public sense." Without wishing to influence others, he was bound at so critical a juncture to confess that his own opinion was in favour of both proposals.[451]
[Sidenote: The City accepts a Form of Association, 13 April, 1780.]
The day that the earl's answer was read before the Common Council (13 April) a Form of Association was submitted for their approval. It followed the lines of the Yorkshire Association, and subject to certain alterations it was recommended for acceptance by the City of London.[452] The main point was that subscribers to the form pledged themselves to support only those parliamentary candidates who were in favour (1) of cutting down public expenditure, (2) of shortening the duration of parliaments, and (3) of establishing greater equality in parliamentary representation by allowing the several counties of Great Britain to elect in a due proportion 100 members at least in addition to their present number. The Common Council at once approved of the form, and ordered the Town Clerk to subscribe to it in the name of the Corporation. The citizens were to be recommended also to subscribe to it as being the best plan for effecting the objects in view. The Court at the same time deemed it opportune to place on record the passage in Chatham's letter to Lord Temple of the 17th April, 1771, in which the writer signified his approval of shorter parliaments and more equal representation, and this was accordingly entered on their Journal.[453]
[Sidenote: Outcry against Sir George Savile's Act.]
Scarcely had the ministry managed to escape from Dunning's attack before they were threatened by a new danger. This time they did not stand alone; the strife of parties ceased in the presence of a common danger. For some time past an agitation had been set on foot against a Bill which Sir George Savile had carried in 1778, for the relief of Catholics from some of the hardships inflicted upon them by law. The cry of "No Popery" had been raised, and in March last a motion had been made in the Common Council against any proceedings in Parliament calculated to favour Papists. The consideration of the motion was adjourned, and did not come on again until the 31st May, when the court came to a resolution that the passing of any Acts of Parliament in favour of Papists, or the repealing of any Acts against Popery, was repugnant to the true interests of the country. It, at the same time, directed the City's representatives in Parliament to support any movement for the repeal of Savile's Act, so far as it related "to the establishment of seminaries for the education of youth, and the purchasing of lands within the realm."[454] Protestant associations were formed in different parts of the country, and on all sides a cry was raised against catholic emancipation.
[Sidenote: Lord George Gordon at Westminster, 2 June, 1780.]
The chief leader of the movement was the crack-brained fanatic, Lord George Gordon, who led a mob some thousands strong, wearing blue cockades, through the city to Westminster with a petition which he desired to lay before the House of Commons. A motion that the petition should be brought up was seconded by Alderman Bull. This took place on Friday, the 2nd June. Whilst Lord George was thus engaged, the mob clamoured to be admitted into the House and would have forced an entrance, but for the arrival of a party of horse and foot guards. Foiled in their attempt to intimidate the House, the mob dispersed in various directions, and proceeded to sack and burn the Roman Catholic chapels attached to the Sardinian and Bavarian embassies, standing in Duke Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields, and Warwick Street, Golden Square, and having so far wreaked their vengeance they retired to rest for the night.[455]
[Sidenote: Riot in Moorfields, 4 and 5 June, 1780.]
Matters were not allowed to rest here. On Saturday afternoon (3 June), Kennet, the lord mayor, received a letter from Lord Stormont, secretary of state, forewarning him of the likelihood of tumults arising within his jurisdiction and strongly recommending him to take the necessary steps for preserving the peace. The day passed off quietly, however. A few people gathered in Ropemakers Alley, Little Moorfields, where stood a Roman Catholic chapel, but no disturbance took place. On Sunday afternoon (4 June) matters took a turn for the worse, and the mayor, being informed that a very great concourse of people had assembled in Moorfields in a riotous manner, and was threatening the chapel, at once sent for the marshals and their men and instructed them to procure as many constables as possible, and disperse the mob. In the evening the mayor himself went to the scene of riot, and stayed there until three o'clock in the morning. In the course of the night he received another and more urgent letter from Lord Stormont;--"I cannot but hope, and trust from your lordship's known zeal and activity that every effectual legal method will be used by you to preserve the public peace by guarding it against those dangers to which it stands exposed." The mayor was quick to grasp the situation. There were not nearly sufficient constables procurable to put down the riot, and those that were present declined to exert themselves to save the property of Roman Catholics. Kennet therefore took the only course open to him, and sent to the Tower for military assistance. The commander, however, was slow to give the aid required, and could be prevailed upon to send no more than 73 men, all told, and even these were sent in detachments. The force was utterly inadequate to cope with the crowd, but fortunately the mob were by this time ready to listen to the appeals of the mayor and aldermen, and quiet was at length restored. The mayor went home to seek a much needed rest, leaving one of the sheriffs on the spot in case of emergency. On Monday morning (5 June) a fresh riot broke out, and the mayor sent again to the Tower. A detachment of horse and foot was despatched to his assistance, but by the time it arrived the chapel and several houses adjoining had been burnt and destroyed.[456] The principal object of attack outside the city was Savile House in Leicester Fields, the house of Sir George Savile himself, the indirect author of all the mischief, and this was sacked by the mob.
[Sidenote: The conduct of the civic authorities impugned.]
Upon hearing of this fresh outbreak the secretaries of state, Lords Stormont and Hillsborough, wrote a joint letter to the mayor expressing concern and surprise that houses in the city should be demolished in broad daylight, and--as they were informed--"without the least interposition of the civic magistrates to preserve the public peace."[457] This was scarcely true. The mayor, aldermen and sheriffs appear to have done their duty, but they experienced no little difficulty in getting the marshalmen and constables--who were no friends to the Catholics, and had no real wish to save them from the mob--to do theirs. One marshalman, in fact, openly refused to obey the summons that was sent him, declaring that he would not go to protect any such Popish rascals, and for this he was suspended from office.[458] The mayor, in reply, justified himself (and with reason) by laying the blame upon the commanding officer at the Tower, who had failed to supply him with the requisite assistance. Lord Stormont accepted the mayor's explanation, and immediately sent copies of his letter to the field officer of the guards with directions to send to the city forthwith a detachment of foot guards and light dragoons, as well as to the commanding officer at the Tower, directing him to supply the lord mayor with such assistance as he might require.[459]
[Sidenote: More rioting, 6 June, 1780.]
On Tuesday morning (6 June) a Court of Aldermen sat, and the mayor reported all that had taken place since the previous Saturday. He was recommended to take the most effectual methods he could devise for preventing further tumult, and the Court promised to defray all expenses.[460] During the day the city was quiet, but at night the rioters split themselves up into various parties, and whilst one party was engaged in sacking and burning Lord Mansfield's house in Bloomsbury Square, another attacked the house of Sir John Fielding, and others broke into old Newgate and Clerkenwell prisons, and set free the prisoners.
[Sidenote: The king's letter to Lord North, 6 June, 1780.]
Writing to Lord North late that night the king expressed surprise that Lord Gordon was still allowed to be at large, and complained of the "great supineness of the civil magistrates," whereby the rioters received encouragement;--"I fear without more vigour that this will not subside; indeed, unless exemplary punishment is procured, it will remain a lasting disgrace, and will be a precedent for future commotions."[461] The fact was that many justices of the peace had run away, and it was with the greatest difficulty that a magistrate was found to read the Riot Act in Bloomsbury, and when found it was too late to save Lord Mansfield's house.
[Sidenote: The City in the hands of the mob, 7 June.]
Early next morning (7 June) the mayor despatched a letter to the secretaries of state asking for more troops, and at half-past two o'clock a reply was sent that he should have such additional force as could be spared. In the meanwhile he was urged to take every possible measure for protecting the Bank of England, which there was reason to believe was about to be attacked.[462] On receipt of this letter the mayor summoned a Common Council to meet that evening at six o'clock. It was at once resolved to direct the sheriffs to raise the posse comitatus. The services of the Military Association were offered and readily accepted. Many officers of the City's militia volunteered for duty, and they were desired to place themselves at the disposal of the sheriffs, who were instructed more particularly to protect the Mansion House, the Guildhall and the Bank of England.[463] The measures were not taken a whit too soon. Two attempts were made on the Bank, but in each case the rioters were repulsed. The King's Bench and Fleet prisons were fired; and as many as thirty-six fires, all blazing at one time and in different quarters of the city, might be seen from one spot. Houses were pillaged in all directions. In Broad Street the Artillery Company and the London Association were ordered to fire on the mob, and several were killed.[464] The streets were flooded in many places with raw spirits from wrecked distilleries, and as many (if not more) perished from excessive drink as from the firing of the military, although by an order of Lord Amherst, the adjutant-general, the latter were authorised to act without waiting for directions from the civil magistrates.[465] The return of the number of killed and wounded during the disturbances was 458.[466]
[Sidenote: City petition for repeal of Savile's Act, 8 June, 1780]
In the meanwhile troops had arrived in London from their various quarters in the country, and were encamped in the public parks. Their presence served to intimidate the rioters and order began to be restored. Before the Common Council of Wednesday evening broke up, it resolved to petition Parliament for a repeal of Savile's Act, and the next day (8 June) the petition was drawn up. It set out, in effect, that since the Act made in the 11th and 12th years of King William III, entitled "an Act for the further preventing the growth of Popery," the Papists had experienced no persecution, and the state had enjoyed perfect tranquility, and that the repealing of part of the Act had occasioned much discontent and produced dangerous tumults. The petitioners therefore prayed that the repealing Act should be itself repealed as being in their opinion "the most probable means of immediately quieting the minds of the people." The sheriffs and the remembrancer were instructed to present the petition to the House of Commons without delay, but rather than listen to a debate for a repeal of the Act, of which General Conway had given notice, the House suddenly adjourned until the 19th.[467]
[Sidenote: Instructions of Lords of the Council, 9 June, 1780.]
On Friday morning (9 June) the Lords of the Council issued a warrant for the arrest of the arch-mover in the recent troubles, and before nightfall Lord George Gordon was lodged in the Tower. Their lordships at the same time directed the lord mayor to make diligent search for all idle and disorderly persons, and to commit them for trial. All guns, pistols, and other offensive weapons were to be seized. A difficulty arose as to where to keep prisoners or those awaiting trial, now that Newgate and the other prisons were no longer serviceable. The mayor suggested the Tower, but the Lords of the Council would not hear of such a thing. They recommended him to commit his prisoners to some of the city halls or other public buildings, as he might deem most fit, and they (the lords) would furnish a sufficient force to guard these temporary prisons. The Court of Aldermen lost no time in carrying out the instructions thus given.[468] That evening the mayor was desired to meet the Lords of the Council at the Cockpit, Whitehall. What took place at the interview does not appear to be recorded.[469]
[Sidenote: The civic and military authorities at variance, June, 1780.]
A proposal to form an armed association of householders for future protection, brought the City into variance with the military authorities. No sooner was the proposal set on foot than Colonel Twistleton who was in command of the troops in the city, informed the adjutant-general of it. The latter at once signified his disapproval on the ground that "no person can bear arms in this country but under officers having the king's commission," and he instructed Colonel Twistleton (13 June) to see that all arms in the hands of persons who were not of the City militia, or authorised by the king to be armed, were given up. The existing London Association which had been on duty since the beginning of the riots, on learning this order, flatly refused to surrender their arms, on the ground that by the articles of the Bill of Rights, all his majesty's Protestant subjects were permitted to have arms for their defence suitable to their condition and as allowed by law.[470] The Court of Aldermen could not understand this interference of the military in the City's affairs, and directed the lord mayor to apply to Colonel Twistleton for a copy of the orders under which he acted in the city. Thereupon that officer produced the original orders of the 7th June, signed by the adjutant-general.
[Sidenote: Letter to Lord Bathurst, 14 June, 1780.]
This did not satisfy the Aldermen, and by their directions the lord mayor addressed a letter to Earl Bathurst, the president of the Council (14 June), informing him that in pursuance to his orders they had made diligent search for disorderly persons implicated in the late riots, and had "taken to their assistance the house-keepers in each district, who have armed themselves" under the directions of the Court for the purpose of supporting the civil magistrate, but the Court's attention having been drawn to Lord Amherst's letters to Colonel Twistleton, they desired some explanation, as those letters militated against former orders from the Lords of the Council. The Court further desired to know whether Lord Amherst's order of the 7th June was to continue in force.[471]
[Sidenote: Lord Bathurst's reply, 15 June.]
In reply to this letter, the President of the Council explained that Lord Amherst's letters had been misunderstood, "for when he speaks of the arms in the hands of the city militia or other persons authorised by the king to be armed, he certainly includes the arms in the hands of the citizens and house-keepers, who by virtue of an order of the Court of Lieutenancy are required to keep them in their houses." As regards the order of the adjutant-general of the 7th June, he was of opinion that it had better remain in force so long as the presence of the military in the city was necessary for the preservation of peace. His letter concluded with a warning lest the armed house-keepers should expose themselves to the military, who in a tumult would have difficulty in distinguishing them from the rioters.[472]
[Sidenote: The City's second letter to Lord Bathurst. 17 June, 1780.]
This reply being deemed unsatisfactory, the lord mayor wrote a second letter (17 June) pointing out that Lord Amherst's orders to Colonel Twistleton, of the 13th, would, if literally executed, disarm those very persons without whose assistance it would have been impossible for the civic authorities to have executed the Order of Council of the 9th instant. This (he explains) is what was meant in his former letter, when he said that Lord Amherst's letters militated against the orders first received from the Lords of the Council, and the Court of Aldermen now desired him to submit to his lordship's consideration "whether some further explanation might not be necessary to prevent a construction which would leave the civil magistrate without power to act at all, for want of necessary support."[473]
[Sidenote: Lord Bathurst's reply, 20 June, 1780.]
The lord mayor's letter having been submitted to the Lords of the Council, the President replied, three days later (20 June), that in the opinion of their lordships the matter had been fully explained in his letter of the 15th. With regard, however, to the alleged impracticability of executing the Orders of Council of the 9th instant without the assistance of the inhabitants of the several wards who had armed themselves, the Council was of opinion that in times of danger "a reasonable number of inhabitants, armed according to the nature and circumstances of the case, may attend the peace-officers, as assistants to them, for the preservation of the public peace, until the danger be over." He concluded by reminding the aldermen that the privilege enjoyed by subjects of carrying arms under the Bill of Rights (to which they had referred in the mayor's last letter) did not extend to mustering and arraying armed bodies without the king's permission.[474] The next day (21 June) the Duke of Richmond moved in the Lords that the adjutant-general's orders contravened the Bill of Rights, but the motion was negatived without a division.[475]
[Sidenote: Another letter to Lord Bathurst, 24 June, 1780.]
Still the Court of Aldermen were far from being satisfied. They foresaw that difficulties were likely to arise in the execution of their duty if the military were to be allowed to act independently. They desired, therefore, the lord mayor once more to address the President of the Council with the view of getting the order of the adjutant-general respecting the military acting without previous directions from the civil magistrates, withdrawn. Accordingly on the 24th June Kennet wrote again to this effect,[476] but the only answer vouchsafed to this was the passing of a Bill of Indemnity for the acts of the military.[477] It was useless, therefore, for the Court of Aldermen to proceed further in the matter, and they had the wisdom to ignore a series of propositions which one of their number introduced later on (18 July) touching the rights of the citizens to bear arms and the noninterference of the military powers.[478]
[Sidenote: Speech of Wilkes in the House, 19 June, 1780.]
When Parliament resumed its sitting on the 19th Wilkes, who had displayed great zeal during the riots, not only made an attack on the lord mayor for not having taken proper precautions to prevent their occurrence in the city, but he declared that the petition drawn up and approved by the Common Council on the 8th had been improperly procured, having been moved in the Court after many of the members had gone home under the impression that business was over. He next proceeded to attack his former friend and colleague, Alderman Bull, who (he said) had not only omitted to take steps to quell the rioters, but had allowed the constables of his wards to "wear the ensigns of riot in their hats," and had been seen leaving the House of Commons arm-in-arm with Lord George Gordon himself. Bull could only reply that it was true that constables of his ward had worn the cockades, but he had made four of them remove them.[479] Permission was eventually given for bringing in a Bill for securing the Protestant religion.
[Sidenote: City address to the king on late riots, 28 July, 1780.]
On the 8th July a motion was made in the Common Council for presenting an address to the king "expressing the grateful thanks of this Court for his majesty's care and attention to the citizens of London in granting them such aid as became necessary to subdue the late dangerous riots, they being too formidable for the control of the civil authority." To this the previous question was moved and lost, and the original motion was at length carried, but when it came to nominating four aldermen and eight commoners to draw up the address, there were not found sufficient aldermen present, and the matter had to be postponed.[480] It was eventually passed on the 24th, and presented on the 28th, when the king made a suitable reply.[481]
[Sidenote: City claims for damages during the riots.]
The riots over, and the ringleaders (all except Lord George Gordon himself) brought to justice, it remained to pay the costs. To make good all the damages involved much time and expenditure. The new gaol at Newgate on which so much money had been spent, and which was approaching completion at the outbreak of the riots, was completely "gutted," only the external walls being left standing. The keeper's house was demolished, and much damage done to the neighbouring Sessions House. For all this the City sent in claims for compensation,[482] and in course of time succeeded in getting from Parliament three several sums of £10,000 to assist in defraying the expense of rebuilding Newgate.[483] The cost of maintaining the military force quartered in the city during the riots was no slight one, and had to be provided for by the Common Council. One ward alone, that of Farringdon Within, sent in a bill exceeding £350 for victuals supplied to a party of light horse quartered at the Oxford Arms in Warwick Lane, and the Sessions House, to a detachment of foot guards quartered in St. Paul's, and several companies of militia at Christchurch, Newgate.[484] There were, moreover, legal expenses incurred by the City in defending actions brought against the sheriffs by various inhabitants of the city for damage done to houses.[485]
[Sidenote: A new Parliament, 31 Oct., 1780.]
Whilst the riots brought a respite to Parliament from the importunity of associations, their suppression brought temporary support to the king, who embraced the opportunity of dissolving Parliament before the court party lost ground.[486] Parliament was accordingly prorogued on the 8th July, and on the 1st September, was dissolved, another being summoned to meet on the last day of October. Only two of the old city members were re-elected. These were Bull and Hayley. The places of Sawbridge and Oliver were taken by two other aldermen, namely, Kirkman--who commanded the light horse volunteers during the riots--and Nathaniel Newnham. Sawbridge, however, recovered his seat upon Kirkman's death, which occurred within a few days after his election. A year later (Sept., 1781) Hayley died, and Lord George Gordon, whom a jury had recently acquitted of high treason, made some show of contesting the seat. He soon, however, discovered that the City would have none of him, and withdrew before the election came on. The seat was won, after a severe contest, by Sir Watkin Lewes the outgoing lord mayor.[487]
[Sidenote: The City's Committee of Correspondence dissolved, 15 March, 1781.]
The late riots had somewhat cooled the ardour of the associations. Many of them, according to Walpole,[488] had been formed chiefly with a view to the coming Parliamentary elections, and now that these were over, the various committees became less active. The City's Committee of Correspondence was dissolved, and the civic authorities after some wavering refused to allow country associations the use of the Guildhall for fear of renewed disturbances.[489]
[Sidenote: Proceedings of Common Hall, 6 Dec., 1781.]
The news of the capitulation of Cornwallis and his army at Yorktown which reached London on Sunday, the 25th November (1781), induced the livery to urge the king once more to put an end to the war. A Common Hall was summoned by special request to meet on Thursday, the 6th December. Alderman Bull being too ill to attend and to consult his constituents as he wished, contented himself with addressing a letter to the "Gentlemen of the Livery" calling upon them to continue to be an example to the nation, as they always had been. With their assistance he hoped to see a change effected which should put an end to the evils from which the country was suffering. This letter having been read to the livery they proceeded to consider the terms of a new remonstrance, which was produced ready cut and dried. After expressing concern at the king's recent speech in Parliament, declaring his intention to persevere in a system of measures which had already proved so disastrous, the document plainly told the king that he had been deluded by his ministers, and the consequences of that delusion had been the almost total extinction of trade and commerce, and the annihilation of public and private credit. "Your majesty's fleets"--it went on to say--"have lost their wonted superiority. Your armies have been captured. Your dominions have been lost." The petitioners expressed a desire publicly to declare not only to the king, but to Europe and to America itself, their abhorence of the continuation of the unnatural and unfortunate war, which could only tend to the alienation of the American colonies with whom they still hoped to live on terms of intercourse and friendship so necessary to the commercial prosperity of the kingdom; and they concluded by imploring his majesty to dismiss his present advisers as a pledge to the world of his determination to abandon a system incompatible with the interests of his crown and the happiness of his people.[490]
The remonstrance was ordered to be presented by the lord mayor, the city members, the Court of Aldermen [not the Common Council], the sheriffs and ten of the livery--the number permitted by Stat. 13, Chas. II, c. 5--attended by the Recorder and city officers; and notwithstanding all previous objections on the part of the king it was resolved that the sheriffs should enquire when his Majesty would be pleased to receive it on the throne. The result was such as might have been, and no doubt was, expected. When those "fellows in fur,"[491] as George called the sheriffs, attended at court to deliver their message, the king told them he would consider the matter, and would let them know; and in due course Lord Hertford addressed (10 Dec.) the following letter to the mayor:--"It is well known to be the settled custom for the King to receive upon the Throne an address from the City of London only in their corporate capacity, and the same was signified by a letter written by me, in obedience to His Majesty's command, on the eleventh of April, 1775, to the then Lord Mayor. In consequence thereof I am commanded by His Majesty to acquaint you that His Majesty will receive at the levée on Friday the 14th inst. the Address, Petition and Remonstrance of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Livery in Common Hall assembled. I have, etc." To this the mayor replied by referring the lord chamberlain to Wilkes's letter of the 2nd May, 1775, as to the question of custom. With regard to the present address, petition and remonstrance he contented himself with representing to his lordship that as the resolution of the livery was that it should be presented to the king on the throne, the persons directed by the said resolution to present it could not dispense therewith by presenting it in any other mode.[492] The remonstrance was in consequence never presented, although Walpole believed it to have been presented at the levée.[493]
[Sidenote: Resolutions of Common Hall, 31 Jan., 1782.]
Thus baulked in their design the livery proceeded at another special Common Hall (31 Jan., 1782) to pass a number of resolutions condemning the king's advisers and maintaining the necessity of shorter parliaments and fairer representation. They declared that the Committee of Correspondence appointed by the Common Council in February, 1780 (and since abolished) had "proved themselves firm friends to the people," and they resolved to appoint a similar committee from among themselves, and to petition the Common Council to grant the use of their new council chamber[494] to the committee for the purpose of occasionally meeting therein.[495] When the petition was laid before the Court on the 5th February it was refused, but in the following April it was granted, and the Committee of Correspondence was permitted to meet in the council chamber, or in any other part of the Guildhall that might be most convenient.[496]
[Sidenote: The fall of North's ministry, 20 March, 1782.]
The ministry was now fast tottering to its fall. On the 22nd February General Conway moved the House of Commons to address the king for the purpose of restoring peace and giving up all thoughts of subduing America by force. After prolonged debate the motion was lost by one vote only.[497] Five days later (27 Feb.) the City agreed to a petition to the House imploring the Commons to interpose and prevent the continuation of the war,[498] and that same day the attack was renewed by Conway, who moved that the use of force to put down the colonies was impracticable. This time he was more successful.
His motion was carried by a majority of nineteen,[499] and a few weeks later (20 March) North resigned.
[Sidenote: City's address on change of ministry, 12 April, 1782.]
Much to his annoyance, the king found himself compelled to place the Opposition in office, with Rockingham as prime minister and Fox and Shelburne as secretaries of state, and to consent to negotiations for peace being opened on the basis of an acknowledgment of American independence. As soon as the change of government had taken place the Common Council presented a loyal address to the king expressing their warmest thanks for having complied with the wishes of the people and taken into his confidence men who were respected by the country for their constitutional principles. They trusted that with the assistance of these new advisers, and with the blessing of Providence, the dignity of the crown would be restored, and prosperity and unity promoted throughout the king's dominions. The king thanked the City for their address, and assured them that the dignity of the crown, the union of his people and the interests and prosperity of his dominions must ever be the principal objects of his care.[500]
[Sidenote: Parliamentary reform, 1782.]
The new ministers were pledged to do something towards purifying Parliament, and accordingly they carried a measure disqualifying contractors from sitting in the House of Commons, unless their contract should have been made at a public bidding. It was thought that government contractors might be too easily moved to support the party that happened to be in power. Alderman Harley, who sat with Sir George Cornewall for the county of Hereford, was one of those whom the Bill affected, inasmuch as he held a contract for supplying the army in Canada, Nova Scotia, Carolina, New York and the West Indies with money. He rose from his seat in the House and boldly defended himself. He had never (he said) asked for the contract; he was not in the habit of asking favours of ministers; "he got his contract in consequence of an address which the late Lord Suffolk intended to have moved to the king, that his majesty would be pleased to confer upon him some mark of his favour ... he was afterwards offered a pension which he would not accept, saying at the same time that he had rather have something in the way of his profession; on this he got the gold contract, which he fulfilled for twelve years with the fairest character, and he now felt himself hurt indeed that he should be treated as if he were a criminal, in being forced to give up a valuable branch of his business, or renounce the honour, which he held so high, of sitting in Parliament."[501] The measure was carried on the 1st May. As Harley retained his seat, and continued to hold it until 1802, it is presumed he gave up his contract. On the 7th, William Pitt, the second son of the late Earl Chatham--who had already displayed such oratorical powers in defence of Burke's economical reform Bill that Burke himself, no less delighted than surprised, had declared him to be not a chip of the old block, but "the old block itself"[502]--moved for a committee to examine into the state of the representation of the country. The motion was rejected by only a majority of twenty, the closest division that the reformers ever achieved until 1831, the eve of their ultimate success.
[Sidenote: Military reform, May, 1782.]
The ministers now turned their attention to a reform of another kind. On the same day that Pitt made his motion in the House, Lord Shelburne, one of the secretaries of state, sent a letter to the lord mayor enclosing copies of a plan for augmenting the home force, and of a circular thereon he had sent to the chief magistrates of principal towns. His majesty (the letter said) expected that "his faithful citizens of London" would set an example to the rest of the kingdom, as they had so often done before, in gathering forces for the protection of their sovereign and their country; the more so, as the city of London had greater interests at stake. The Common Council not only voted (17 May) a sum of £5,000 to put the City militia on a proper footing, but resolved to invite subscriptions in the several wards of the city, and to send copies of Shelburne's letter to all the chartered and trading companies of the city.[503] The matter had already (9 May) been laid before the Court of Aldermen, and the lord mayor had been requested to wait upon Lord Shelburne, to thank him for the letter, and to assure him that the Court would at once proceed to accomplish his majesty's wish "and to do justice to his majesty's most gratifying sentiments of the exemplary loyalty and zeal of his faithful citizens of London."[504]
[Sidenote: Rodney's naval victory, 12 April, 1782.]
On the 18th May, news arrived that the French fleet under De Grasse had been defeated by Rodney in the West Indies (12 April). The City presented a congratulatory address to the king, who in reply (5 June) assured his "good city of London" of his constant attention to their commerce and happiness.[505] Rodney who had previously been in disgrace was now raised to the Peerage; but a proposal to entertain him at a public banquet at the City's expense fell through.[506] In October, however, the Common Council unanimously passed a vote of thanks to him for the service he had rendered to the commercial interests of the City, and the committee appointed to convey the same entertained him and his friends at a banquet given at the London Tavern--[507]an event which Horace Walpole had cause to remember, for the windows of his house in Berkeley Square were smashed by the mob which accompanied Rodney home from the City.[508]
[Sidenote: The wreck of the Royal George, Aug., 1782.]
In the meantime the British navy suffered a severe loss by the capsizing of the Royal George off Spithead. The vessel was reckoned the finest ship in the navy. The unfortunate circumstances, which carried her to the bottom with 800 souls, including Kempenfelt, the admiral, who was at the time writing in his cabin, have been immortalised in Cowper's well known lines:--
"Toll for the brave!" The brave that are no more! All sunk beneath the wave Fast by their native shore!
It was, possibly, this loss which prompted the Common Council to consider the question of raising a sum of money (the Corporation itself contributing £10,000) for the purpose of presenting the king with a man-of-war, to be called the "City of London." It will be remembered that in 1665, when the ship "London" suddenly blew up on her way up to the Hope from Chatham, the City made good the loss then sustained by the navy. It was proposed now to follow the precedent then set, but after several adjournments the proposal was allowed to drop.[509]
[Sidenote: The relief of Gibraltar, Sept., 1782.]
In September Lord Howe set sail to relieve Gibraltar, which had endured a siege of three years and more. It was defended by General Elliot, afterwards raised to the peerage as Lord Heathfield, and the sufferings of the garrison had at times been terrible. When Shelburne succeeded to the premiership, on the death of Rockingham in July, negotiations for a peace with America and her allies were far advanced, but before a peace was signed France and Spain were anxious above all things to regain Gibraltar. Accordingly on the 13th September a tremendous attack was made on the fortress by the combined fleets. The forts replied with red hot shot, and eventually succeeded in destroying the floating batteries. Just when these were silenced Lord Howe appeared in the bay, and the combined fleet, not venturing to attack him, withdrew. The siege had attracted the eyes of all Europe, and in February (1783) the Common Council appointed a committee to consider the most suitable mode to be adopted by the City to express their respect to Elliot and Howe and the officers of the army and navy employed in "the glorious defence and relief of Gibraltar."
[Sidenote: Copley's picture at the Guildhall.]
Two artists were consulted on the matter, namely, West and Copley. The former was of opinion that it would be better to have two pictures instead of one, inasmuch as the defence of the Rock by Elliot and the relief by Howe were two distinct subjects. Copley, on the other hand, thought that both subjects could be treated in one picture of sufficient size to fill one of the side windows of the Common Council Chamber. The cost of such a picture he estimated at £1,500, but rather than lose the commission he was prepared to paint it for 1,000 guineas. His offer was in course of time accepted,[510] and his picture now adorns one entire wall of the Guildhall Art Gallery.[511]
[Sidenote: The Peace of Paris, 3 Sept., 1783.]
This great success, following so close upon Rodney's victory in the West Indies, convinced the allies that England was not by any means so prostrate as her failures in America had led them to believe, and they now showed a disposition to negotiate. Accordingly in January (1783) preliminaries of peace were signed at Paris. A provisional treaty had already been concluded with America, by which the independence of the United States was formally acknowledged. The news was received in the city with the greatest joy, and the Common Council congratulated the king on his having paid "final attention" to the petitions of his faithful citizens and people. They took the opportunity of expressing their firm conviction that the commercial interests of this country and of North America were inseparably united--a sentiment with which the king declared in his reply that he entirely concurred--and hoped that the stipulations of the treaty would restore commercial intercourse between the two countries.[512] The preliminaries of both treaties were converted into definitive treaties on the 3rd September, and on the 6th October the peace was proclaimed in the city of London in the same manner as at the proclamation of peace with France on the 22nd March, 1763.[513]
FOOTNOTES:
[435] Walpole makes the following comment upon this paragraph:--"The French will not like the éclaircissement of the court martial by which it is clear that they were beaten and fled. The city which does not haggle, has expressed this a little grossly in their address to Keppel."--Walpole to Mann, 18 Feb., 1779. Letters vii, 179.
[436] Journal 67, fo. 200b.
[437] Walpole, Journal ii, 345.
[438] Journal 67, fos. 2O9b-212.
[439] Walpole to Mann, 9 March, 1779. Letters vii, 182.
[440] Journal 67, fos. 329b-331b.
[441] The king to Lord North, 29 Jan. and 19 Feb., 1779.--Correspondence ii, 224, 232.
[442] Journal House of Lords, xxxv, 802.
[443] Journal 67, fo. 268-271.
[444] Journal 67, fos. 331b-333b. Journal 68, fos. 5b-12b.
[445] Journal 68, fo. 13.
[446] Walpole, Journal ii, 366, 367, 374.
[447] When that staunchest of Tories, Dr. Johnson, was asked by his friend Boswell if he had not felt vexed at the passing of such a resolution he characteristically replied, "I would have knocked the factious dogs on the head, to be sure, but I was not vexed."--Boswell's Life of Johnson (Napier) iv, 154.
[448] Journal 68, fos. 47-47b, 49-50.
[449] Walpole to Mason, 13 and 17 April, 1780.--Letters vii, 352, 353; Walpole, Journal ii, 378, 379.
[450] Journal 68, fo. 46b.
[451] Id., fo. 49.
[452] "The Form of Association prepared by the committee appointed by the Court of Common Council to correspond with the committees appointed or to be appointed by the several Counties, Cities and Boroughs in the kingdom."--Journal 68, fo. 51.
[453] Journal 68, fo. 52.
[454] Journal 68, fos. 29-29b, 61.
[455] Walpole to the Countess of Ossory. 3 June, 1780.--Letters vii, 377.
[456] Repertory 184, fos. 204-207.
[457] Repertory 184, fo. 207.
[458] Id., fo. 209.
[459] Journal 68, fos. 65, 65b.
[460] Repertory 184, fo. 210.
[461] The king to Lord North, 6 June, 1780.--Correspondence ii, 324.
[462] Journal 68, fo. 65b.
[463] Journal 68, fo. 66. Notwithstanding these precautions--and it is difficult to see what more could be done--Walpole declares that "the Lord Mayor Kennet and Sheriff Pughe behaved shamefully."--Journal ii, 408.
[464] This incident is depicted in a well known engraving, where the Mayor is represented, with his hat off, giving the command to fire. A prominent figure in the group is the surgeon, Sir William Blizard, tending a wounded man, whilst an attempt is being made on his own life by one of the rioters.--See Raikes's History of the Hon. Artillery Company ii, 68.
[465] Repertory 184, fo. 246; Walpole, Journal ii, 407-409; Walpole to the Countess of Ossory, 7 June, 1780.--Letters vii, 386-389.
[466] Annual Register xxiii, 262.
[467] Journal 68, fo. 67. Walpole, Journal ii, 409, 410.
[468] Repertory 184, fos. 228-236.
[469] Id., fo. 232. According to the Gentleman's Magazine (Vol. 50, p. 295) it would appear that the mayor was put on his defence for we read: "The lord mayor of London was summoned before the privy council; but discharged the same evening." A modern writer goes so far as to say "the lord mayor was tried and convicted of criminal negligence." (Bright, Hist, of England iii, 1,094). Another goes still further, and states that he was "prosecuted by the attorney general for a gross neglect of duty and was convicted, but his death prevented the passing sentence." (See note by editor of Letters of George III to Lord North, ii, 324). As a matter of fact Kennet did not die until two years later, and he continued to perform his civic duties to the last.--Repertory 186, fo. 196.
[470] Highmore, Hist, of Hon. Artillery Company, p. 332. On the 16th June, the Court of Aldermen passed a vote of thanks to the association, as well as to the corps of light horse volunteers, serving under Alderman Kirkman, who had been the first to call the attention of the Court of Aldermen to Lord Amherst's orders. (Repertory 184, fos. 251-253.) The Common Council also acknowledged the services of both bodies, by resolving to present the first mentioned corps with a handsome pair of colours, and the second with a pair of standards.--Journal 68, fos. 72b-73.
[471] Repertory 184, fos. 243-248.
[472] Repertory 184, fos. 249-250.
[473] Id., fos. 254-256.
[474] Repertory 184, fo. 267.
[475] Journal House of Lords, xxxvi, 151.
[476] Repertory 184, fo. 270.
[477] Journal House of Commons, xxxvii, 929.
[478] Repertory 184, fos. 309-312.
[479] Hansard, Parliamentary History xxi, 701, 702; Walpole, Journal ii, 418.
[480] Journal 68, fo. 338. The entry is misplaced.
[481] Id., fos. 70, 74b.
[482] Id., fos. 71, 77b-78.
[483] Id., fos. 159b, 196b, 296. Journal 69, fo. 257b.
[484] Journal 68, fos. 164b, 165.
[485] Id., fo. 152b.
[486] Walpole, Journal ii, 425.
[487] Walpole, Journal ii, 468-471.
[488] Id., 453.
[489] Journal 68, fos. 127-128.
[490] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 227b-228b.
[491] Walpole, Journal ii, 484.
[492] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 229.
[493] Walpole, Journal ii, 484.
[494] Now known as the old council chamber.
[495] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 229-230.
[496] Journal 68, fos. 198, 221b.
[497] Journal House of Commons xxxviii, 814.
[498] Journal 68, fo. 217b.
[499] Journal House of Commons, xxxviii, 860, 861; Walpole, Journal ii, 5O5-5O9.
[500] Journal 68, fos. 221-221b, 226.
[501] Hansard, Parliamentary History xxii, 1, 335.
[502] Walpole, Journal ii, 446.
[503] Journal 68, fos. 226b-228.
[504] Repertory 186, fos. 187-194.
[505] Journal 68, fos. 230, 238b.
[506] Id., fo. 251.
[507] Id., fos. 265, 290.
[508] Walpole to Mann, 26 Nov., 1782.--Letters viii, 309.
[509] Journal 68, fos. 273b, 284, 293, 296.
[510] Journal 68, fos. 298, 317. Considerable additions having been made to the picture as originally designed, a further sum of 300 guineas was voted to the artist, on condition, however, that he repaid Alderman Boydell the sum of 200 guineas which the worthy alderman had advanced to enable him to proceed to Germany for the purpose of painting certain portraits of Hanoverian officers for his picture. Copley objected to the Common Council taking cognisance of what was a private pecuniary transaction, and declined to pay Boydell out of the sum voted by the City. Thereupon the Common Council rescinded its vote, and paid 200 guineas to Boydell direct. This was in March, 1794. Five years later Copley changed his mood, and petitioned the Court for the other 100 guineas and for the return of the sketch of his picture. Both requests were granted.--Journal 70, fo. 259; Journal 74, fos. 63, 164b, 221; Journal 75, fo. 108; Journal 79, fo. 33. In 1817 this picture was lent to the British Institution for exhibition.--Journal 91, fo. 89b.
[511] The picture is so large, measuring over 24 feet in length, that it necessitated certain structural alterations in the old Council Chamber, where it was originally placed in 1793, at a cost of £300.--Journal 73, fo. 309b.
[512] Journal 68, fos. 307-307b, 310-310b.
[513] Repertory 187, fos. 310, 311.