Chapter XLI
[Sidenote: The City and Fox's East India Bill, 1783.]
[Sidenote: Vide Printed addresses.]
Before the preliminaries of peace became converted into definite treaties, the Shelburne ministry had been forced to give way to a coalition with Fox and North as secretaries of state, and the Duke of Portland as nominal head. The new ministry found little favour with the City, firstly on account of its Stamp Act--imposing a duty upon all receipts for sums of forty shillings and upwards--which the citizens (wrongly, as it turned out) believed would be a hindrance to trade;[514] and secondly on account of Fox's attack on the chartered rights of the East India Company. If Fox's East India Bill were passed, what, they asked, was to become of their own chartered rights and privileges? Every corporation in the kingdom was solemnly warned of the consequences to themselves if the Bill were allowed to pass. "Our property and charter are invaded, look to your own" was the message the Company sent, together with a copy of Fox's Bill, to every borough in the country. The Bill passed the Commons, but when it came before the Lords the king declared himself so strongly against it that it was thrown out, and before the close of the year (1783) the ministers were suddenly and somewhat unceremoniously dismissed. For the first time in history we find the City unanimously supporting the king in the exercise of his prerogative. The Common Council hastened to assure his majesty that his faithful citizens had "lately beheld with infinite concern the progress of a measure which equally tended to encroach on the rights of your majesty's crown, to annihilate the chartered rights of the East India Company, and to raise a new power unknown to this free government and highly inimical to its safety. [As the dangerous measure was warmly supported by your majesty's late ministers, we heartily rejoice in their dismission, and humbly thank your majesty for exerting your prerogative in a manner so salutary and constitutional."] Finally they assured the king that as the prerogatives of his majesty's high office were intended for the good of the people, the citizens of London would always support the constitutional exercise of them to the utmost of their power. In other words, the king might always look to the City for support so long as he was content to exercise his prerogative for the preservation of "parliamentary engagements" and chartered rights.[515] The livery and the Common Council, so long opposed to each other, became allies again, and the former body passed a formal vote of thanks at a special Common Hall (13 Feb., 1784) to the representative body of the City for the address they had carried up to the throne "thereby setting an example to the whole kingdom."[516] Truly, as Macaulay remarks, "the successors of the old Roundheads had turned courtiers." Not content with thanking the Common Council for its attitude in the matter, the livery passed resolutions of their own in support of the just prerogative of the crown, the privileges of Parliament and the rights of the people, whilst they ordered that the city members should be instructed to advance in every way the business of the House, and particularly by the granting of supplies.[517]
[Sidenote: Pitt's struggle with the Coalition, 1783-1784.]
Fox's East India Bill had been strongly opposed by Pitt, who at the early age of twenty-three had been Chancellor of the Exchequer and leader of the House of Commons under the Shelburne ministry. It was to this youth that the king now appealed for assistance, and although the task of forming a ministry of any stability was almost beyond hope, Pitt undertook the struggle. As it was useless to look for any support in the Commons he chose his cabinet entirely from the Upper House, reserving for himself the post of First Commissioner of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer. Even before Pitt was able to take his seat as prime minister (a new election being necessary on his accepting office), it was evident that the Opposition intended to show him no pity or favour. It was not until the 12th January (1784)--the day that the House re-assembled after the Christmas recess--that he made his first appearance as prime minister. He came prepared with an India Bill, similar in most respects to that which he afterwards succeeded in carrying, but the Bill was now rejected although by a small majority. For weeks he struggled against the violent attacks of the Opposition, refusing either to resign or to dissolve Parliament until he could take his opponents at a disadvantage.
[Sidenote: Civic honours for Pitt, Feb., 1784.]
At length, the nation at large became attracted by the indomitable courage and unflinching honesty of the young minister and began to rally round him. The city of London had been from the outset one of his staunchest supporters. On the 10th February (1784), the Common Council voted him the Freedom of the City and a gold box for his zeal in "supporting the legal prerogative of the crown and the constitutional rights of the people."[518] On the 28th, he was made free of the Grocers' Company and hospitably entertained by them in their hall. There are members of the Grocers' Company still alive who can recall the time when "the immortal memory of William Pitt" was honoured in solemn silence at all public gatherings in Grocers' Hall, and the esteem in which the company continues to hold one of the greatest statesmen that England has ever produced recently manifested itself afresh, when on the 28th February, 1884, the Grocers celebrated the "Pitt Centenary" by a banquet in their hall.
[Sidenote: Dissolution of Parliament and defeat of Whigs, 1784.]
As soon as the minister perceived the attack of the Opposition wearing itself out, and the balance of parties becoming more equal, he seized the opportunity of dissolving Parliament and appealing to the country. One of the first elections to take place was, as usual, that for the City. Without his knowledge or consent Pitt himself was nominated among others; he declined, however, to stand, and was eventually returned for Cambridge University, a seat he continued to hold for the remainder of his life. The result of the City election was that all the old members were returned,[519] although Sawbridge nearly lost his seat in consequence of his attachment to Fox.[520] It soon became evident that the country was with Pitt. No less than 160 of Fox's friends and supporters--"Fox's martyrs," as they were popularly called--lost their seats, and Fox himself had, for a time, to content himself with a seat for a close borough, although he was eventually returned for Westminster, after one of the severest contests ever known.
[Sidenote: Pitt's East India Bill. 1784.]
When the new Parliament met (18 May) three subjects more especially demanded attention. These were the finances of the country, the affairs of the East India Company, and the state of Ireland. The first two were immediately taken in hand. Having in an incredibly short time placed the finance of the country on a firm basis, Pitt again introduced his East India Bill. This Bill, it must be borne in mind, differed essentially from Fox's Bill, which had recently excited such fears in the City, inasmuch as it merely proposed to establish a board of control for political purposes, and did not lay a finger upon the company's material possessions. The chartered rights of the company being left untouched, the directors offered no opposition, the fears of the City for their own chartered rights and possessions were lulled, and the Bill was allowed to pass. The dual system then established proved to work so well that it continued to be the system under which India was governed from that day down to 1858.
[Sidenote: Pitt's Reform Bill, 1785.]
In the course of the session Sawbridge brought forward his perennial motion in favour of short parliaments, but although it received the support of Pitt, notwithstanding his deeming it inopportune, the motion was lost.[521] In the following spring (1785) Pitt himself for the third, and, as it proved, for the last, time attempted to carry a measure for parliamentary reform, but this, too, was defeated, and, strange to say, by the same majority as Sawbridge's motion.[522] The Common Council had previously passed a resolution urging every alderman who had a seat in the House to do his utmost to secure shorter parliaments,[523] but it was all in vain, and Pitt, disappointed at his failure, again turned his attention from parliamentary to financial reform.
[Sidenote: The City and the Shop Tax, May, 1785.]
One of the many schemes which he proposed for filling the exchequer was a tax on retail shops. As soon as the proposal got wind the City was at once up in arms, and a committee was appointed (14 May, 1785) to confer with Pitt on the matter. Upon the citizens objecting that they would have to bear nearly the whole burden of the tax, they were told they could recoup themselves by raising the price of their goods to the consumer.[524] Disappointed in this quarter, they resolved to lay their case before Parliament; and accordingly a petition was drawn up, which set forth that the citizens of London had always been ready and willing to bear their fair share of the necessary burdens of the state, but that the tax now proposed was partial, unjust and oppressive to trade; that the inhabitants and traders of the city were already overburdened with taxation; that London and Middlesex paid 80 parts out of 513, or more than one-sixth of the whole Land Tax annually raised in the kingdom; and that, finally, it was a grave mistake to suppose that a tax on trade eventually fell on the consumers, for the price of every commodity was regulated by supply and demand.[525] This petition was laid before the House on the 19th May, but with little effect, and on the 30th the Bill passed the Commons[526] in spite of the strong protest against it made by the city members, who received the thanks of the Common Council for their spirited and manly opposition to a tax "universally condemned for its partiality and injustice."[527]
[Sidenote: Efforts to get it repealed, 1785-1789.]
No sooner was the Bill passed than a committee of shopkeepers was formed to get it repealed, and in this they were assisted by the committee appointed by the Common Council on the 14th May. The costs incurred by the latter committee were to be discharged to the extent of £300 out of the City's Chamber.[528] In November (1785), the Common Council instructed their committee to prepare a petition to Parliament for a repeal of the obnoxious Act. This was accordingly done and the petition duly laid before the House, but with no better success than before (27 Jan., 1786).[529] In the meantime a split had occurred among the commissioners whose duty it was to carry out the provisions of the Act. Some of them had duly qualified themselves for the purpose, whilst others had not, and so long as disagreement continued among the executive officers, the City shop-keeper ran the risk of incurring a double assessment.[530] Early in 1787, the agitation was renewed, and the mayor was asked to allow of a meeting of the discontents in the Guildhall on the evening of Friday, the 19th January. The mayor was willing enough, but the Court of Aldermen were afraid of a disturbance and the meeting was put off.[531] A fortnight later (31 Jan.) the Common Council resolved to present another petition to Parliament for the repeal of the Act. Further experience, they assured the House, had confirmed their opinion of the partiality and oppression of the Act, and of the impossibility of shifting the burden upon the consumer.[532] The petition was presented the following day, but the House remained obdurate.[533] The shopkeepers passed a vote of thanks to the Common Council for the pains they had taken in the matter.[534] For another two years the City agitated for the repeal of the tax, receiving the support of Fox, among others,[535] but all their efforts proved futile, until in April, 1789, they were at last crowned with success and the Act was repealed.[536]
[Sidenote: Convention with France, 1787.]
The Shop Tax was not the only point in Pitt's financial schemes which tended to bring him into direct opposition to the City, as we shall shorty see; but as a whole his schemes were eminently successful, and not the least successful of them all was his commercial treaty with France. Duties were lowered in each country on the productions of the other and both England and France were the better for the change, but the treaty as originally drafted threatened unfortunately to diminish the revenues of the city of London. Pitt's attention having been drawn to the matter, a proviso was inserted in a subsequent convention signed at Versailles (15 Jan., 1787) whereby the City's rights were safeguarded.[537] The convention was followed in October by a joint declaration whereby England and France mutually agreed to discontinue warlike operations.[538]
[Sidenote: The City and the slave trade, 1788-1792.]
The year 1788 witnessed the first steps taken in Parliament for the abolition of the slave trade. Wilberforce a prominent leader in the movement succeeded in winning over Pitt to the cause, and the City threw its influence into the scale. On the 4th February, the Common Council petitioned the House to take the matter into its consideration.[539] Little however was done beyond the introduction of a temporary measure for improving the sanitary condition of vessels employed in the slave traffic. The Bill passed the Commons, but underwent such a change in the House of Lords that it became practically useless. In 1789, and again in 1790, Wilberforce urged the Commons to abolish the slave trade in its entirety, and in 1792, Pitt supported the proposal in a speech which surpassed all his previous oratorical efforts. It was to no purpose. The Liverpool merchants, whose interests in the nefarious traffic were enormous, succeeded in frustrating every attempt to put it down. At last, even the city of London refused to petition Parliament any further on the matter.[540]
[Sidenote: Pitt's Regency Bill, 1788-1789.]
In the meanwhile an event had occurred which for the moment threatened to overthrow the ministry. In November, 1788, the king who had previously shown signs of mental derangement became so seriously ill that a regency seemed inevitable. That the Prince of Wales ought to be Regent all parties were agreed, but whether he should be allowed to take upon himself the regency as a matter of right, or whether he should accept it at the hands of Parliament and with such limitations as Parliament might think fit to create, opinions differed. Pitt was strongly in favour of upholding the authority of Parliament in the matter and introduced a Regency Bill. The Bill passed the Commons, but before it passed the Lords the king unexpectedly recovered, and further proceedings were stayed. For having thus maintained "the important right of the Lords and Commons of this realm to provide the means for supplying the defect of the personal exercise of the royal authority arising from his majesty's indisposition," the Common Council passed a vote of thanks to Pitt and his supporters, which the minister duly acknowledged;[541] but when it was proposed to present an address to the prince condoling with him on the king's illness, and congratulating him upon his being invested with the government "by the united wisdom of the two Houses," a debate of three hours ensued and the motion was eventually lost.[542]
[Sidenote: Gift of £1,000 by Prince of Wales for poor of city, Jan., 1789.]
It speaks well for the prince that he not only bore the City no ill-will, but was careful to forward to the city Chamberlain the sum of £1,000 for the poor of the city, who were suffering from the inclemency of the season, as he feared that his father's illness might prevent the king sending his usual annual gift. The Common Council were touched with the prince's thoughtful act of charity, and sent to Carlton House to thank him. His highness took the opportunity of assuring them that no one was more sensible than himself of the attention of the City, and no one would be more ready to show regard "towards the most respectable city in Europe."[543]
[Sidenote: City addresses on king's recovery, 19 March, 1789.]
Towards the end of February (1789) the king was himself again. The news of his recovery was a cause of sincere joy to the city of London, as well as to the nation at large, however disappointing to those who had built their hopes upon a regency. On the night of the 10th March the whole of London was illuminated. From one extremity of the town to the other and far out into the surrounding suburbs there was one blaze of light. Two days later the Common Council prepared congratulatory addresses to the king and queen. These were presented to their majesties at Kew on the Thursday, the 19th March, and were graciously received, the City on this occasion, in compliance with the king's wishes, who was still far from strong, waiving their right to present the address to him on the throne.[544]
[Sidenote: Thanksgiving service at St. Paul's, 23 April, 1789.]
A solemn thanksgiving service was held at St. Paul's on Thursday, the 23rd April--St. George's day--and was attended by the king and queen, the royal family, the members of both Houses and great officers of state, as well as by the lord mayor, the aldermen, the sheriffs and members of the Common Council. In carrying out the preparations for the king's reception in the city everything was done with the view of sparing the king all unnecessary exertions.[545] The Earl of Salisbury, in his capacity as lord chamberlain, suggested that if the lord mayor and sheriffs and those aldermen who represented the city in Parliament were to meet the king at Temple Bar and conduct him to St. Paul's it would be more agreeable to his majesty than the attendance of a greater number of persons. For the same reason it was decided that no more than four members of the Common Council should attend. The formal presentation to the king of the City's sword at Temple Bar and of its re-delivery into the hands of William Gill, the lord mayor, was made the subject of a large oil painting, mounted on a screen of six panels, by Ralph Dodd.[546]
[Sidenote: Pitt's Bill for excise duty on tobacco, 1789.]
As soon as the king's health allowed of Parliament resuming its ordinary course of business Pitt consented to remit the Shop Tax, which had caused so much bad feeling in the city. Scarcely was this done, however, before he again gave umbrage to the citizens by a proposal to transfer the duty on tobacco from the customs to the excise. Walpole had endeavoured to carry out a similar change in 1733, but the opposition he met with was so overpowering that he was obliged to give way. Pitt was more successful. The City withstood his Bill, as it had withstood Walpole's, but in spite of all opposition Pitt's Bill passed, and all subsequent efforts to get it repealed proved futile.[547]
[Sidenote: Negotiations for the removal of the Bank guard, 1788-1790.]
The king's illness had interrupted negotiations that had been opened for the withdrawal of the guard of soldiers that had been accustomed ever since the Gordon riots, to pass through the city daily for the purpose of protecting the Bank of England. In 1787 a citizen had complained to the Court of Aldermen of his having been pushed off the footway by soldiers of the guard passing to the Bank on the evening of the 5th July; and the Court had thereupon instructed the lord mayor to request the secretary at war to give such directions as he might think proper that the guard might in future march in single file and not two abreast as they hitherto had done.[548]
The secretary at war (Sir George Yonge) had replied that the lord mayor's suggestion would be likely to lead to great inconvenience; that he undertook to promise that the officers of the guards would for their part endeavour to conduct their detachments on the march in a quiet, decent and soldier-like manner, but that from representations that had been made to him by officers commanding the guards as to the treatment the detachments sometimes met with in their passage through the city, he felt bound to ask the lord mayor to take such steps as he might deem fit to prevent any cause of complaint arising in future on either side.[549] This letter had been referred to a committee, with instructions to report their opinion as to the best way of affording sufficient protection to the Bank and at the same time of avoiding the inconveniences complained of. The committee showed no haste in the matter, and it was not until the following May (1788) that they reported in favour of furnishing the Bank with a guard of the city's militia, in place of the detachment of foot guards. The Court of Aldermen on receiving this report wished to know what the directors of the Bank of England thought of the suggestion,[550] but all the answer they got was that if the existing mode of protecting the Bank were discontinued, the directors would not "put the city to the trouble of providing any other." The Court scarcely knew how to treat this answer. At length, after several adjournments, it resolved (21 Oct.) that the lord mayor should write to the secretary at war and request that the guard at the Bank should be withdrawn.[551] Four days later Sir George Yonge informed the lord mayor by letter that the matter had been referred to his majesty's ministers, that the directors of the Bank had been desired to attend Lord Sydney on the subject, and that further information would be given as soon as the king's pleasure should be known.[552]
The king's severe illness served as an excuse for letting the matter drop, and nothing more was done until January, 1790, when Pickett, the lord mayor, on his own responsibility and without any authority from the Court of Aldermen, wrote to Grenville, then secretary of state (having previously solicited an interview with Sir George Yonge), desiring to know the king's pleasure as to the removal of the Bank guard. Grenville replied by asking the lord mayor to specify on what grounds his application was made, and whether the resolution of the Court of Aldermen of the 21st October, 1788 (referred to in his letter), was based on "any legal right or exemption claimed by the City."[553] The secretary was told in reply that no reasons were assigned for the resolution of the Court of Aldermen, nor had any been desired by the late secretary of state when approached on the subject; but the lord mayor volunteered some reasons of his own (27 Jan). He apprehended that "the unnecessary introduction of the military into the civil government of this nation" was unconstitutional. The Bank guard was originally adopted at the time of an extraordinary crisis. It was no longer needed, or if needed, could be more constitutionally furnished by the city's militia. The introduction of the regulars was considered an infringement of the ancient privileges of the City,[554] and their presence was an annoyance to his majesty's peaceable and commercial subjects. This answer of the lord mayor seemed far from satisfactory to the secretary of state as it ignored the question whether the City claimed any privilege. As soon as the mayor satisfied him on this point, he promised to take an early opportunity of consulting the king. The correspondence having been laid before the Court of Aldermen, the Court showed a disposition to let the matter rest. The mayor, however, wrote another letter to Grenville (notwithstanding the Court's request that he should do nothing more without instructions from them), intimating that he would still have to press the withdrawal of the guard as "unconstitutional, unnecessary, and offensive," but its only effect was to draw forth a formal acknowledgment of its receipt by the secretary of state, and there the matter was allowed to drop.[555]
[Sidenote: Outbreak of the French Revolution.]
Just at a time when there seemed a fair prospect of the country enjoying a long spell of prosperity the whole of the civilised world was moved by the outbreak of the French Revolution. Englishmen were at first disposed to look upon the movement with interest, if not with approval, as of a nation struggling to be free. But in course of time the sparks of sedition crossed the channel, and it became necessary to suppress by royal proclamation (21 May, 1792) the numerous pamphlets with which the country was flooded. Fox was one of the few statesmen who still believed in the honesty of purpose underlying the revolution, and he signified publicly his disapproval of the proclamation. The City supported the king, however, and its example was widely followed by other corporate bodies throughout the kingdom.[556]
[Sidenote: The September massacres, 1792.]
Pitt had hoped to save England by preserving a strict neutrality, and for a time he was successful, although frequently urged to declare war. The massacres of September (1792) rendered his peace policy almost hopeless by the shock they gave to English public opinion. The streets of London swarmed with French refugees, and subscriptions had to be opened for their relief.[557] How imminent was the danger which threatened England was brought home to the citizens by the appearance of a placard--headed A House to let--affixed to Newgate Prison, and bearing these words:--"Peaceable possession will be given by the present tenants on or before the first day of January, 1793, being the commencement of the first year of liberty in Great Britain. The Republic of France having rooted out despotism, their glorious example and eventful success against tyranny render such infamous bastiles no longer necessary."[558]
[Sidenote: Resolutions of Common Council, 29 Nov., 1792.]
With the spirit of revolution thus rife in the city the new lord mayor (Sir James Sanderson) had his hands full. He proved himself, however, equal to the occasion, and the Common Council thanked him (29 Nov.) for his pains in suppressing seditious meetings,[559] and promised him every assistance in the work of carrying into execution his majesty's late proclamation. The council at the same time passed a series of resolutions touching the duty of every corporation and every freeman to suppress seditious assemblies, and to bring to justice every disturber of the peace, and gave orders to the aldermen and common councilmen of each ward to take steps for the preservation of tranquility and for securing obedience to the law. These resolutions were to be printed in all the public papers of the United Kingdom.[560] The officers and men of the London militia had already received orders to be ready at short notice to be under arms for the purpose of suppressing riot and tumult.[561]
[Sidenote: War declared by France, 1 Feb., 1793.]
In anticipation of war being sooner or later declared by one side or the other the Common Council resolved on the 10th January (1793) to offer bounties for seamen for a term not exceeding one month from that date.[562] Before that month expired the blow had fallen. Instead of England declaring war France took the initiative, and after sending her king to the scaffold declared war against England (1 Feb.). The citizens immediately extended their bounties for another month,[563] and pledged themselves to stand by the king and constitution.[564] They furthermore contributed the sum of £500 to the fund that was being raised by merchants of the city for privateering purposes.[565]
[Sidenote: The campaign of 1793.]
In the course of the spring a British force, under the command of the Duke of York, landed at Ostend, and having joined the imperial army under the Prince of Saxe-Coburg, contributed in no small measure to the success achieved against the French during the earlier part of the campaign. Later on the Duke of York attempted the siege of Dunkirk, but was compelled to retire. A ward committee was appointed in the City for the purpose of raising subscriptions for providing the troops with warm clothing and other necessaries during the winter, and the Common Council voted the sum of £500 for the same purpose.[566] Subscriptions came in from various parts of the country. Some towns, like Wigan and Hereford, sent clothing, but most of them sent cash. The result was that the City was able to despatch to the army a large number of greatcoats, trousers, shoes, stockings, shirts, mittens and other articles of apparel to the value of nearly £4,000. An offer made by the Grocers' Company to furnish the troops with a supply of "porter" was declined by the committee with thanks, as it appeared to them that "the advantage thereof could only be partial and temporary at best."[567] The Duke of York, writing from Ghent (10 Jan., 1794) to acknowledge the gift, paid a high tribute to the patience and courage of the troops under his command.[568]
[Sidenote: The "Battle of the 1st of June," 1794.]
The campaign of 1794 proved disastrous to the allies, and before the end of the year the Duke of York resigned his command. The want of success on the continent was in part compensated by Howe's victory over the French at sea. The French had resolved to dispute the sovereignty of the seas, and had prepared a fleet at Brest. In course of time Howe fell in with it, and on the 1st June a general engagement took place, in which the enemy, although far superior to the English fleet in weight of metal, was completely worsted. For this victory Howe received the thanks of Parliament and of the City, and also the Freedom of the latter in a gold box.[569] The City, moreover, voted a sum of £500 for the relief of those wounded in the engagement, and of the widows and children of those who had been killed. Howe acknowledged the honour conferred upon him and the liberality and benevolence of the City towards those who had served under him in most gracious terms.[570] Success also attended our arms in the West Indies, where Admiral Sir John Jervis and Lieutenant-General Sir Charles Grey captured Martinique and other French islands. For these exploits the Common Council voted both gallant officers the Freedom of the City and gold boxes,[571] and presented a congratulatory address to the king.[572]
[Sidenote: Riots in the city, Aug., 1794.]
In the meantime (17 April) proceedings had been taken to raise a regiment of infantry and a troop of cavalry to be called "The Loyal London Volunteers." Their chief duty was to be the defence of the city, but they were to be ready to enter the service of the government whenever occasion might require. A committee was nominated to raise subscriptions, and an Act of Parliament was passed for placing the Militia of the City on a better footing.[573] Scarcely was this done before riots again broke out, and on the 20th August the mayor (Paul le Mesurier) had to send for the Honourable Artillery Company for the protection of houses where recruits were being enlisted for the army. The military remained on duty all night in the neighbourhood of Whitecross Street, and effectually checked the rioters in the wanton destruction of property. The next night they were again on duty, this time in Shoe Lane, where they succeeded in dispelling a mob. For these services they were not only thanked by the mayor, but, more formally, by the Common Council, the latter body extending its acknowledgments to the light horse volunteers, as well as to the Military Association at Grocers' Hall, for their respective services during the crisis.[574]
[Sidenote: Scarcity of wheat, 1795.]
To add to the City's troubles a famine was threatening, and on the last day of the year (1794) the lord mayor received instructions to confer with the Duke of Portland (he had recently joined the ministry) as to the best means of averting the calamity.[575] In the course of the next twelvemonth the City voted two sums of £1,000 for the relief of the poor.[576] There was even some talk of discontinuing all Corporation dinners for one whole year, in order that the money thus saved might be devoted to the poor; but the civic fathers had not the courage to adopt such a self-denying ordinance, although they consented to a compromise. They agreed that no committee should dine at the City's expense between the 16th July and the 1st October.[577] More than this they could not do.
[Sidenote: "Standard bread."]
In the hope of affording some relief the Lords of the Council proposed to put a stop to the use of fine flour for baking purposes, and to substitute a coarse but wholesome bread known as "standard wheaten bread" for the better class of bread. Their lordships themselves set an excellent example by signing a document pledging themselves and their families to use no other bread than standard wheaten bread until the following 1st October (by which time the harvest would have been gathered in), and to avoid as far as possible the use of flour in other articles of food. They further expressed a hope that their example might be generally followed. There was a difficulty, however, in adopting the standard wheaten bread in the city, where the assise of bread was regularly set by the mayor and aldermen. One reason against it was that its price as fixed by Statute was so low that bakers could not afford to make it, and penalties were attached to its sale at a higher price. The Lords of the Council were asked if they would indemnify bakers against such penalties if they infringed the Statute? They replied that this was beyond their power, but they suggested that the City might well make good any loss the trade might sustain, out of public subscriptions.[578]
[Sidenote: The City's desire for peace, Jan., 1795.]
The scarcity of wheat and the prospect of a bad harvest in 1795, had already predisposed the citizens for a cessation of hostilities abroad. As early as the 23rd January, 1795, a special Common Hall had been summoned by request, and a petition to the House of Commons had been drawn up praying the House to disclaim all right of interference in the internal concerns of France, and to take such measures as it should seem fit to bring about a speedy peace. The war, they said, ought never to have been entered upon and was based on a wrong principle.[579] The Common Council were more reserved, and, whilst assuring the king of their support, expressed a desire for such a peace only as could be procured with dignity and honour.[580]
[Sidenote: Assault on the king, 29 Oct., 1795.]
As the year wore on and distress increased, the cry for peace became more general, and the government resolved upon an Autumn Session. Matters indeed had become so serious that when the king drove down to Westminster to open Parliament he was assailed on all sides with cries of "bread, bread! peace, peace!" and his carriage window was broken by a pebble or bullet. On his return he was again met with similar shouts, and he escaped with difficulty to Buckingham Palace. The Common Council at once offered their congratulations on his providential escape, and expressed their horror at the attack that had been made upon him. They at the same time embraced the opportunity, thus afforded, of thanking him for the declaration he had made of giving "the fullest and speediest effect to a negotiation for a general peace," whenever the condition of affairs in France would allow of it.[581] In consequence of this ebullition of public feeling, Pitt introduced and passed two Bills, commonly known as the Sedition and Treason Bills. The severity of these Bills was thought by many to be unreasonable, and brought much obloquy upon the minister; but the necessity of some such steps being taken to put down sedition was acknowledged by the Common Council.[582]
[Sidenote: Negotiations for peace, 1796.]
In December (1795), Pitt brought a royal message to Parliament declaring that the establishment of a new constitution (viz., the Directory) in France offered facilities for negotiations,[583] and in the following March (1796), overtures were made through the British envoy in Switzerland. They were, however, ungraciously received, and matters remained as they were until the following October, when the king notified his intention to the new Parliament of despatching a minister to Paris for the purpose of re-opening negotiations. By a certain section of the Common Council the news was received with anything but favour, and they would gladly have seen Pitt dismissed. The majority, however, preferred to present a loyal address to the king, assuring him that in the event of the negotiations failing he might depend upon the City for future support in any crisis that might arise. The king thanked the City.[584] As was feared, the negotiations again proved fruitless. France was all the while preparing to make a descent on Ireland, and as soon as these preparations were complete, the British ambassador was abruptly ordered to quit Paris (19 Dec.).
[Sidenote: The "Loyalty Loan" of £18,000,000 Dec., 1796.]
Thanks to the minister at the head of affairs the crisis did not find England unprepared. Fresh levies had already been made, both for the army and the navy; supplementary corps of militia had been raised, and plans laid for forming bodies of irregular infantry and cavalry. One thing only was wanting, and that was money. In order to raise this, Pitt at first thought of introducing a Bill to compel all persons enjoying a certain amount of income to subscribe one-fourth for the service of the country. On second thoughts, however, he preferred to trust to the patriotic spirit of the nation. He believed that many would be found ready to contribute even a larger proportion of their income if only an example were set by the Bank of England and the Corporation of London. The sum required was large, being no less than £18,000,000, and the terms he had to offer were scarcely remunerative. On the last day of November he addressed a letter to the governor of the Bank of England, desiring him to lay the proposal before the directors, and at the same time expressing a hope that they might "not be disinclined to take the lead in a measure which must have the most beneficial effect on public credit and the most evident tendency to accelerate the restoration of peace on secure and honourable terms."[585]
[Sidenote: Pitt's letter to the lord mayor, 1 Dec., 1796.]
The next day (1 Dec.) he wrote to the lord mayor, urging him to lay the matter before the Common Council;--"The repeated proofs which the citizens of London have given of their zeal and public spirit leave me no doubt that if it appears likely to promote the interests of the country at this important crisis, it will receive their cheerful support in their individual capacity, as well as that of the corporate body and of the different public companies. It is unnecessary for me to state the effect which such an example would produce throughout the kingdom." To this the mayor (Brook Watson) replied that previous to the receipt of the letter he had been desired by a number of members to call a Common Council as soon as possible to consider the grant of an aid to government at the present crisis, and that he had in consequence summoned a court for the following Monday (5 Dec.).[586]
[Sidenote: The loan subscribed.]
For once the Corporation found themselves left in the lurch. Long before the time named for the Common Council to consider Pitt's proposal the directors of the Bank of England had met, public subscriptions had been invited, and the whole loan of eighteen millions had been subscribed. Here is an account by a contemporary writer of the scene witnessed in the Bank on Thursday, the 1st December, and two following days[587];--"At ten o'clock this morning [1 Dec.] the parlour doors were opened, before which time the lobby was crowded. Numbers could not get near the books at all; while others, to testify their zeal, called to the persons at the books then signing to put down their names for them, as they were fearful of being shut out. At about twenty minutes past eleven the subscription was declared to be completely full, and hundreds in the room were reluctantly obliged to go away. By the post innumerable orders came from the country for subscriptions to be put down, scarcely one of which could be executed. And long after the subscription was closed persons continued coming, and were obliged to depart disappointed. It is a curious fact, and well worth stating, that the subscription completely filled in fifteen hours and twenty minutes: two hours on Thursday, six ditto on Friday, six ditto on Saturday and one ditto and twenty minutes on Monday--fifteen hours and twenty minutes." The directors of the Bank subscribed one million in their corporate capacity and £400,000 individually. The Common Council finding themselves left out in the cold, scarcely knew what to do. At first a somewhat pompous proposal was made for a committee to "prepare a plan for assisting the exigencies of the state in the present conjuncture." This, however, fell through, and the court finally contented itself with voting a sum of £100,000 towards the loan.[588]
[Sidenote: The City and foreign subsidies, Dec., 1796.]
Pitt's method of disposing of public money, when he got it, was not always approved by the citizens, more especially when it went to subsidise foreign mercenaries, without any authority from Parliament. Here, again, the livery and the Common Council entertained opposite views, and whilst the former called upon the city members to move or support a motion for censuring the ministry for sending money to the Emperor of Germany during the sitting of Parliament without the consent of Parliament,[589] the latter gave public testimony of their opinion that such payments as had been made to the Emperor had been beneficial to the country.[590]
[Sidenote: Suspension of cash payments, 1797.]
The constant drain of gold to the continent under Pitt's administration again began to affect the Bank of England as it had formerly done in 1793. On the previous occasion the difficulty had been got over by the issue of Exchequer Bills. Since that time the financial state of the country had been going from bad to worse. A run on country banks set in, resulting in demands being made on the Bank of England, which threatened to exhaust its reserve. At this crisis the Bank applied to the government. Pitt, with his usual promptitude, summoned a council, although it was Sunday (26 Feb., 1797), and a proclamation was issued suspending cash payments until Parliament should decide what should be done. The next day a meeting of the leading merchants of the city was held at the Mansion House under the presidency of the lord mayor. They at once grasped the situation, and unanimously consented to accept bank-notes as legal tender.[591] The Order in Council was subsequently approved by Parliament, and though intended only as a temporary expedient, the Act then passed continued in operation for twenty-two years, the resumption of cash payments not taking place until May, 1819.
[Sidenote: Naval victory off Cape St. Vincent, 14 Feb., 1797.]
At a time when England seemed on the verge of bankruptcy, she seemed also likely to lose her supremacy at sea. A plan was set on foot for a junction of the French and Spanish fleets, whereby an overwhelming force might be brought into the English Channel and an invasion rendered comparatively easy. Both the king and the citizens expressed the greatest confidence in the navy,[592] although there were not wanting signs of discontent among the seamen. Fortunately the Spanish fleet was intercepted by Sir John Jervis off Cape St. Vincent; the British sailors forgot their grievances in the presence of the enemy, and a signal victory was won (14 Feb.), for which Jervis received the thanks of the City and a sword of honour, whilst Nelson and others serving under him were voted the Freedom and gold boxes.[593]
[Sidenote: Address of the livery, 23 March, 1797.]
Although the Common Council--i.e., the City in its corporate capacity--were satisfied that the king had done all that was possible to procure an honourable peace, the livery were far from content. Again, they drew up an address to the king demanding the instant dismissal of his ministers, and once more they made an attempt to get their address received by the king on the throne. The king, however, stood out, and all that the livery could do was to pass resolutions in their Common Hall to the effect that they had always possessed the privilege they claimed, and that it had never been questioned "except under the corrupt and infamous administration" of those who were responsible for the American war.[594]
[Sidenote: Mutiny at the Nore, May, 1797.]
All immediate danger from the foreign enemy being over, the crews of the Channel Fleet at Portsmouth broke out into open mutiny. Their grievances were real, and as soon as they were assured of a remedy they returned to their duty. No sooner was one mutiny quelled, however, than another broke out at the Nore and threatened danger to London. The two movements were entirely distinct, and the sailors at Spithead expressed their strong disapproval of the conduct of their fellow seamen at the Nore. The danger was none the less. The Common Council resolved (6 June) to form ward associations for the defence of the city, but only one association, viz., the "Cornhill Military Association," appears to have been actually formed, and that comprised no more than fifty-three members.[595]
[Sidenote: Duncan's victory off Camperdown, 11 Oct., 1797.]
The mutiny soon spread to the fleet off the Texel where Admiral Duncan was stationed for the purpose of preventing a junction between the French and the Dutch. Many of the ships sailed away to join the fleet at the Nore and Duncan was left in great straits. Nevertheless he still continued to make a show of force, and after the suppression of the mutiny, had the satisfaction of defeating the Dutch fleet off Camperdown (11 Oct.), and so putting an end to another projected invasion of Ireland. The Common Council presented a congratulatory address to the king; passed votes of thanks and presented swords of honour to Duncan and Sir Richard Onslow, and contributed £500 for the relief of the wounded and the widows and orphans of those who had fallen.[596]
[Sidenote: Thanksgiving service at St. Paul's, 19 Dec., 1797.]
Three such naval victories as those achieved by Howe, Jervis, and Duncan, deserved a solemn service of thanksgiving at St. Paul's, and on Saturday, the 25th November, the lord mayor received orders from the Duke of Portland to prepare for the king's reception in the city.[597] Tuesday, the 19th December, was the day fixed for the ceremony, and on that day the king and queen, the royal family, the cabinet and foreign ministers, the two Houses of Parliament, and a large body of naval officers and seamen came in solemn procession to the city, being met at Temple Bar by the mayor, sheriffs, and a deputation of the Common Council.[598] The gallant Duncan received an ovation, but Pitt was so grossly insulted on his way to the city that after the ceremony, instead of returning in his own carriage as he came, he betook himself to some friends in Doctors Commons and there dined, being afterwards conveyed home under military escort.[599]
[Sidenote: Dispute as to command of London militia, 1797-1798.]
The occasion caused a re-opening of the question as to the command of the London militia. Was the command vested in the lord mayor or in the Court of Lieutenancy?[600] The latter body had claimed to have the disposition of troops brought into the city to keep order on thanksgiving day. The lord mayor conceived such a claim to be opposed to his own prerogative, and he at once communicated with the Duke of York desiring his royal highness to order up the regiment of militia then quartered at Greenwich, and to place it for the day under his (the mayor's) command, and that had accordingly been done.[601] The question whether the lord mayor, for the time being, could on his own individual responsibility, and without consulting the Court of Lieutenancy, call out the London militia except in cases of emergency, was afterwards submitted to the law officers of the City, and they unanimously pronounced an opinion in favour of the lord mayor's contention.[602]
[Sidenote: Military associations in the city, 1798.]
Except for the naval victories of Jervis and Duncan the year 1797 had been one of the darkest in the nation's history. The war had lasted over four years, and although it had already added a hundred and thirty-five millions to the National Debt, Pitt found it necessary early in 1798 to make another appeal to the country for a voluntary loan. Determined not to be behindhand again, the Common Council at once resolved (13 Feb.) to subscribe £10,000; but the money had to be borrowed.[603] A third invasion was threatening under the command of Napoleon Bonaparte himself. The Duke of York sent for the lord mayor to learn what military associations had been formed in the city, and was disappointed to find that only one existed (viz., the Cornhill Military Association just mentioned), and even that had threatened to dissolve itself when it found the rest of the city wards doing nothing. It now resolved, however, to put itself into active training. In April Secretary Dundas wrote more than once to the lord mayor urging the necessity of forming as many military associations as possible. The municipal authorities and the Court of Lieutenancy buried their differences, and vied with each other in inspiring the inhabitants of the city with military ardour. The Phoenix Fire Office offered its firemen for military training, and every effort was made to bring the militia regiments up to their full strength.[604]
[Sidenote: The Battle of the Nile, 1 Aug., 1798.]
Instead of making a descent on England Bonaparte sailed to Egypt, seizing Malta on his way, and there he was forced to remain, owing to the destruction of his transports by Nelson at the battle of the Nile (1 Aug.). Nelson, a freeman of the City, presented to the Corporation the French admiral's (Blanquet) sword, which lies in the Guildhall Museum.[605] The Corporation, on their part, presented Nelson with a sword of honour, and Captain Berry with the Freedom of the City in a gold box. They also passed a vote of thanks to the officers and men engaged in the action, and contributed the sum of £500 for the relief of the widows and orphans of those who had fallen.[606] The City further proposed to erect a suitable memorial of Nelson's victory. Several suggestions were offered. Copley recommended pictures to hang in the Council Chamber opposite his siege of Gibraltar, others were in favour of sculpture.[607] All suggestions were set aside, however, when it became known that a national memorial, in the shape of a Grand Naval Pillar, or Rostra, to be set up on Portsdown Hill, was proposed, and subscriptions invited. The Common Council at once resolved to subscribe 100 guineas to the fund.[608] Contributions, however, came in so slowly that the idea of a national monument had to be abandoned, and subscriptions were returned, the City's 100 guineas being paid over to the Marine Society by order of the Common Council.[609] On the 17th January (1799) the Honourable Mrs. Damer, a daughter of General Conway, and a clever artist, offered to execute a bust of Nelson for the Corporation, either in bronze or marble, in commemoration of his recent victory. The offer was gracefully made and no less gracefully accepted;[610] and the City's Art Gallery is enriched by an admirable specimen of that lady's handiwork.[611]
[Sidenote: Pitt's Income Tax Bill, 3 Dec., 1798.]
Soon after Parliament met in November (1798) Pitt introduced his financial scheme for the coming year. The principal feature of this scheme was a Bill for imposing a tax upon all the leading branches of income. The tax was professedly of a temporary character and was to be employed solely to meet the exigencies of the war. Some little opposition was made to the Bill both before and after it passed, as well in the city as in Parliament. The Common Council objected to it on the ground that it drew no distinction between the precarious and fluctuating income arising from labour, trade and professions and the more settled income arising from landed and funded property. They were afraid also that unless the assessors were bound to secrecy a man's credit might be unduly prejudiced.[612] In spite of all opposition the Bill passed the Commons by a large majority on the last day of the year, and early in 1799 was accepted by the Lords.
[Sidenote: The Siege of Acre raised, 21 May, 1799.]
In the meantime the situation of Bonaparte and the French army--shut up as they were in Egypt--had become very critical. To complete his scheme of Eastern conquest Bonaparte had marched into Syria. After capturing Joppa, where he massacred his prisoners, he advanced to Acre, the key of Syria. There he was met by Sir Sidney Smith, who succeeded in throwing himself into the town, and at length compelled him to raise the siege (21 May).[613] For his extraordinary gallantry in defending the fortress Sir Sidney was accorded the thanks of the City and a sword of honour.[614]
[Sidenote: Royal review of City volunteers, 21 June, 1799.]
On the 21st June (1799) the king himself came to the City, accompanied by the Dukes of York, Gloucester, Kent and Cumberland, and officers of the Life Guards, for the purpose of reviewing the several volunteer corps of the City, drawn up in Bridge Street, Blackfriars, at St. Paul's, the Bank, the Royal Exchange and on Tower Hill. The royal party were met on the south side of Blackfriars Bridge, where the City's jurisdiction commenced, by the mayor, sheriffs and city marshals on horseback, followed by the grenadiers of the East Regiment of London militia. The ceremony of delivering the City's sword into the king's hands having been gone through, the inspection of the regiments took place. The royal party afterwards repaired to Finsbury to hold an inspection of the Artillery Company in their own ground;[615] and in Sun Street, the limit of the City's jurisdiction, the mayor took leave by lowering the sword. The Duke of Portland was subsequently commissioned by the king to express to the mayor the gratification the visit had given his majesty.[616]
[Sidenote: Capture of the Dutch fleet, Aug., 1799.]
Pitt, in the meanwhile, though failing in health, had succeeded in forming a new coalition, and in August (1799), the whole of the Dutch fleet fell into the hands of Sir Ralph Abercromby and Admiral Mitchell. A series of reverses, however, quickly followed, and before the end of November the allied forces, English and Russians, were glad to accept terms and quit Holland. Some members of the Common Council were for presenting a strongly worded address to the king demanding an enquiry into the cause of the failure of the expedition, and the punishment of the authors, but the motion was eventually allowed to drop.[617] The Council had previously congratulated the king upon the capture of the Dutch fleet.[618]
[Sidenote: French overtures rejected, Jan., 1800.]
As soon as Bonaparte heard of the new coalition that had been formed against him he hurried to Paris, leaving his army behind him in Egypt to shift for itself. Soon after his arrival he succeeded in putting an end to the Directory, and in getting himself appointed First Consul. He was now practically supreme, and on his own responsibility made overtures to England for peace. These overtures were declined, to the great disappointment of the livery of London, who again petitioned Parliament against the prolongation of the war, which had been undertaken, they said, for no other purpose than for restoring the Bourbon family to the throne.[619]
[Sidenote: The Act of Union, 1800.]
The disaffection that had so long manifested itself in Ireland led at last to the passing of an Act of Union. The subject was brought before Parliament by the king on the 2nd April (1800). A Bill was subsequently introduced and read a first time on the 17th June. On the 24th it passed the Commons.[620]
The assent of the Irish Parliament was necessary for the scheme to take effect. This occasioned some difficulty, but by a wholesale system of bribery and corruption, such as was only too common in those days, it was at last obtained, and it was agreed that the union of Great Britain and Ireland should commence from the 1st January, 1801. Thenceforth there was to be but one Parliament for the two countries.
[Sidenote: Bread riots in the city, 15-20 Sept., 1800.]
In the meantime distress in England had been increasing to an alarming extent owing to the bad harvests and the consequent scarcity of wheat. At the commencement of the year (1800), the price of flour had risen to such an extent that the Court of Aldermen resolved to enforce the consumption of the standard wheaten bread according to the Statute (13 Geo. III, c. 62).[621] As time went on matters became worse. In September the city was threatened with riot. On the night of Saturday the 13th, the following placard was stuck upon the Monument[622]:--
"Bread will be sixpence the quartern loaf if the people will assemble at the Corn Market on Monday.
"Fellow countrymen.
"How long will ye quietly and cowardly suffer yourselves to be thus imposed upon and half starved by a set of mercenary slaves and government hirelings; can you still suffer them to proceed in their extensive monopolies and your families are crying for food? No, let them exist not a day longer. Ye are the sovereignty. Rouse then from your lethargy and meet at the Corn Market, Monday."
As soon as the attention of the lord mayor (Harvey Combe) was drawn to the placard, he forthwith took steps to put down any disturbance that might arise. The city constables were posted in the neighbourhood of the Corn Market. The West Regiment of the city militia was held ready for action under the command of Alderman Newnham, at their head-quarters in the Old Bailey, whilst the South-East Division of Loyal London Volunteers under the command of Alderman Curtis took up its station at Fishmongers' Hall. The fact of inflammatory papers having appeared posted on the Monument, and the steps he had thus taken to prevent disturbance, were duly reported by the mayor to the Duke of Portland, who signified his approval of the chief magistrate's conduct.[623] At eleven o'clock on Monday morning word was brought to the lord mayor that a crowd had collected at the Corn Market in Mark Lane, and that business was impeded. He immediately set out, accompanied by Alderman Hibbert, for Mark Lane. At the Corn Market they were joined by Sir William Leighton and Sheriff Flower. Finding a large number of people assembled who had no business in the Corn Market, his lordship ascended the staircase and proceeded to address the assembly, entreating them to go home, as that was the best way of getting rid of their grievance. Thereupon he was met with loud cries of "bread, bread, give us bread, and don't starve us!" On the whole, the mob appeared fairly good tempered and cheered the mayor as he left for the Mansion House. In the afternoon, however, his presence was again required, and the Riot Act had to be read. Still nothing very serious occurred; one man suspected of being connected with the corn trade received rough treatment at the hands of the mob, and a few rioters were committed by the mayor to the Compter for attacking the city marshal with bludgeons, but matters soon quieted down and the mayor again returned to the Mansion House to write a report of the day's doings to the Duke of Portland as before. Whilst thus occupied, he was again sent for. This was at half-past six in the evening. As the mob were at that time beginning to display signs of mischief, he sent to Colonel Newnham to have his men ready at a moment's warning, whilst he drew the volunteers from Fishmongers' Hall, and with their assistance succeeded in clearing the whole of Mark Lane and guarding its approaches. The East India Volunteers, the Bishopsgate Volunteers, and the Portsoken also rendered assistance. In the course of the evening the Loyal London Volunteers were relieved by the militia; but nothing serious happened, and at one o'clock in the morning the troops were withdrawn.
[Sidenote: Proceedings of Court of Aldermen, 16 Sept., 1800.]
On Tuesday (16 Sept.) the lord mayor gave a full account of all that had taken place to the Court of Aldermen, and informed that body that he had caused advertisements to be published offering a reward of £100 for the apprehension and conviction of the person or persons who had written or caused to be stuck up the inflammatory placards on the Monument.[624] At the suggestion of the Duke of Portland the amount of the reward was afterwards raised to £500.[625] The Court of Aldermen passed a vote of thanks to the mayor for what he had done. They also placed on record their opinion that, but for business in the Corn Market being hindered by the mob, the price of wheat and flour would have experienced a greater fall than it actually had done on the 15th, and further, that as nothing would more tend to the reduction of the existing high price of the principal articles of food than the affording protection to dealers bringing corn and other commodities to the market, the Court was resolved at once and by force (if necessary) to put down any attempt to impede the regular business of the markets of the metropolis.[626]
[Sidenote: Letter of the Duke of Portland to the mayor, 16 Sept., 1800.]
Whilst the mayor was presiding over the Court of Aldermen a letter was placed in his hands from the Duke of Portland, informing him that the duke had instructed Colonel Herries, commanding the London and Westminster light horse volunteers, to lose no time in placing his services at the lord mayor's disposal. The duke at the same time seemed to suggest that the lord mayor had been somewhat remiss in apprehending the ringleaders in yesterday's disturbances.[627] The mayor sent a reply that evening. He thanked the duke for his offer of assistance; but he had no occasion for it, as the city was perfectly quiet. As to his grace's suggestion that the arrest of some of the ringleaders might have been useful, the mayor begged to inform him that four of them had been arrested, and had been committed for trial. If his grace thought that their prosecution by the crown would be more efficacious than by the city, he would forward the minutes of evidence that had been taken. The letter concluded by an assurance that at the time of writing (5 p.m.) the mayor had not the smallest intimation of any disorder in any part of the city.[628]
[Sidenote: Precautions taken by the lord mayor.]
Notwithstanding the apparent tranquillity of the city, the mayor received notice three hours later that a mob had gathered in Bishopsgate Street and was threatening the premises of Messrs. Wood, Fossick and Wood. In anticipation of some further outbreak he had already massed troops in Drapers' Hall Gardens and at the Royal Exchange, whilst he had given orders to Colonel le Mesurier to hold the Artillery Company in readiness in the Artillery House. The colonel thought fit to disobey orders--to the mayor's great indignation--and on his own responsibility marched 150 men to Bishopsgate Street, and sent orders for a party of the light horse to follow him. The troops continued to parade the streets until nearly one o'clock in the morning, when all fear of a disturbance having passed away, they were withdrawn for the night, and the mayor went home to write another report to the Duke of Portland.[629] Disturbances continued to occur in different parts of the city between Wednesday, the 17th September, and the following Saturday, but they were not of a serious kind, the damage being chiefly confined to the breaking of street lamps.[630] After Saturday the streets resumed their wonted appearance, and business was carried on at Smithfield and the Corn Market as usual.
[Sidenote: The lord mayor's speech to Common Council, 14 Oct., 1800.]
The lord mayor of London for the time being has, as we have seen, always jealously guarded his right to the supreme control over all military forces within his jurisdiction. Harvey Combe was no exception. When the colonel commanding the Artillery Company ventured to disobey his orders during the recent riots Combe was justly indignant. He was more indignant when, a few weeks later, the military associations were called out without his orders on information of a likelihood of a riot sent by the Duke of Portland to the police officers of the city, and not to himself; and he laid the matter before the Common Council in the following speech,[631] delivered on the 14th October:--
"Gentlemen of the Common Council,
"After the disturbances which existed within this city a month ago it is very natural for everyone to be alarmed by the appearance of the least symptom of their return. I have the satisfaction to state to this Court that from the time I had the honor to sit here last [27 Sept.] to the present moment I have not received the slightest information of that tendency, nor has any one person expressed to me an apprehension on that head. I should not have thought it necessary to have made this declaration had it not been that a considerable agitation prevailed in the city yesterday because the police officers round the city had ordered out various military associations to assist the civil power in consequence of information received from the Secretary of State that riots were expected--no such information was given to me."
[Sidenote: City petition to king to summon Parliament, 16 Oct., 1800.]
The same day that the lord mayor thus addressed the Common Council the Court resolved to present an humble address to the king praying him to hasten the meeting of Parliament in order to consider the enormously high price of provisions. To this the king replied that he was always desirous of recurring to the advice and assistance of Parliament on any public emergency, and that previous to receiving the City's petition he had already given directions for convening Parliament for the despatch of business. This was scarcely the reply the City looked for, and it gave rise to much debate in the Common Council. When the usual motion was made and question put that his majesty's gracious answer should be entered in the Journal of the Court, an amendment was moved reflecting upon the character of the answer received as one disrespectful to the Court and regardless of the extreme sufferings and distress of his majesty's subjects. This amendment was, however, negatived.[632] When Parliament at last met, the question of remedial measures was at once referred to select committees of both Houses. Nevertheless, the high price of bread continued to exercise the minds of the civic authorities for some time to come.[633]
[Sidenote: Pitt's resignation and the king's illness, Feb., 1801.]
Early in the following year (1801), Pitt resigned. It had been his intention to introduce a Bill into Parliament--the first united Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland--for the full emancipation of Roman Catholics, and thereby to fulfil a pledge he had given before the Union was effected. The king, however, displayed so much opposition to the proposal, that Pitt could not do otherwise than send in his resignation, which the king reluctantly accepted. The excitement caused by recent events brought on a recurrence of the king's insanity, and measures were taken for appointing a regent on the terms formerly insisted on by Pitt. The king's illness, however, again proved to be only of a temporary character, and when he recovered, the Common Council who had recently presented him with a congratulatory address on the Union,[634] deemed it best to take no notice either of his illness or recovery.[635]
[Sidenote: Battle of Alexandria, 21 March, 1801.]
The new ministry, with Addington, the late Speaker, at its head, was fortunate so far as the war was concerned. In March (1801) an expedition under Sir Ralph Abercromby landed in Egypt and succeeded in defeating the French army left there by Bonaparte. Abercromby was killed, but General Hutchinson, who succeeded him, continued to act with vigour, and was backed up by Admiral Lord Keith. The Common Council voted (23 July) a sum of £500 towards the relief of the widows and orphans of those who had perished in the expedition.[636] A month later the town of Alexandria capitulated, and the French army was allowed to evacuate Egypt. For these services the Freedom of the City was conferred on Keith and Hutchinson, and the thanks of the Common Council voted to the officers and men of the army and navy under their command, as well as to Sir Sidney Smith, who had recently been mixed up in the El Arish Treaty.[637]
[Sidenote: Battle of Copenhagen, 2 April, 1801.]
At sea the British government was no less successful. A few days after the battle of Alexandria it became necessary to despatch a fleet to the Baltic in order to break up a Northern confederacy formed between Russia, Sweden, and Denmark, which threatened the interests of this country. The fleet was placed under the command of Sir Hyde Parker. Thanks to Nelson's insubordination in declining to obey the Admiral's signal to discontinue action, the battle of Copenhagen was won. The Common Council voted another sum of £500 for the relief of the wounded and the widows and orphans of those who had died in the action, but Nelson's name is not even mentioned.[638]
[Sidenote: Peace of Amiens, 27 March, 1802.]
Defeated in Egypt, and thwarted in her Northern policy, France was now willing to accede to terms, and on the night of the 1st October, Lord Hawkesbury, foreign secretary, was able to inform the lord mayor by letter that preliminaries of peace had been signed that evening. On the 10th, he wrote again informing the mayor that the preliminaries had been ratified.[639] The news caused immense satisfaction. Some time, however, was still to elapse before the final ratification took place. Negotiations to this end were carried on at Amiens, and although a number of outstanding questions were still left unsettled, peace was finally concluded on the 27th March, 1802, and proclaimed in the city on the 29th April, amid general rejoicing.[640] The termination (as it was thought to be) of a war which left the British navy "more proudly pre-eminent" than the termination of any former war, called forth another of that long series of loyal addresses which the citizens found it their duty to present to the king in the course of his long and eventful reign.[641]
FOOTNOTES:
[514] Journal 69, fos. 15, 16b-18b, 20-21. Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 239b-240. In May, 1784, the Common Council petitioned Parliament for its repeal. Journal 69, fo. 113b.
[515] Journal 69, fo. 65.
[516] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 246.
[517] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 246b.
[518] Journal 69, fos. 67, 128. The gold box was not presented until the 5th Feb., 1785. Id., fos. 265b-266b.
[519] Alderman Bull had died during the Christmas recess, and his place had been taken by Brook Watson.--Annual Register xxvii, 179.
[520] Wraxall, Memoirs iii, 433, 434.
[521] Parliamentary History xxiv, 975-1006.
[522] The votes against Sawbridge's motion had been 199 to 125, whilst those against Pitt were 248 to 174, or a majority of 74 in each case.--Journal House of Commons, xl, 216, 863.
[523] Journal 69, fo. 223b.
[524] Id., fos. 248-249.
[525] Journal 69, fos. 249b-250.
[526] Journal House of Commons, xl, 1000, 1032.
[527] Journal 69, fo. 250b.
[528] Id., fos. 288b-290.
[529] Journal 69, fos. 330, 338b-339, 355. Journal House of Commons, xli, 151.
[530] Journal 69, fos. 297b-298, 302-305.
[531] Repertory 191, fos. 74-79.
[532] Journal 70, fos. 132-133.
[533] Journal House of Commons, xlii, 289.
[534] Journal 70, fos. 134, 134b.
[535] Journal 71, fos. 48-49, 74b, 75, 93, 99-99b.
[536] Journal House of Commons, xliv, 276.
[537] Journal House of Commons, xlii, 266, 289. The city solicitor and comptroller were specially commended for their services in preserving the city's rights in the treaty.--Journal 71, fos. 17b-18b.
[538] Journal 70, fo. 303b.
[539] Journal 71, fo. 47b. Journal House of Commons, xliii, 166, 167.
[540] Journal 73, fo. 87.
[541] Journal 71, fos. 179b, 180, 188.
[542] Id., fos. 190, 190b.
[543] ID., fos. 186b-187, 190.
[544] Journal 71, fos. 212-213b, 216-216b, 221.
[545] Journal 71, fos. 221b, 222b-223b, 231b; Repertory 193, fos. 193-201, 206-215.
[546] The picture was painted as a private speculation by the artist, and was offered for sale to the Corporation in 1791. The committee to whom the matter was referred suggested that the City might give 200 guineas for the picture, not so much on account of its intrinsic merit as because the artist was an industrious and promising man with a numerous family. This suggestion did not meet with the approval of the Common Council. It preferred to give the artist half that sum in acknowledgment of his pains and to allow him to keep the picture. Whether the artist thought himself thus sufficiently paid for his work is not clear, but the picture for many years stood in the Long Parlour at the Mansion House, where it served as a screen. It has recently been restored, and is now hung in the lobby of the Guildhall.--Journal 72, fos. 357b, 431-431b.
[547] Journal 71, fos. 253, 272, 274b; Journal 72, fo. 55.
[548] Repertory 191, fos. 363-364.
[549] Id., fos. 381-383.
[550] Repertory 192, fos. 201-203.
[551] Repertory 192, fos. 296, 308, 344, 394.
[552] Repertory, 193, fo. 34.
[553] Repertory 194, fos. 128-132.
[554] To this day the secretary of state for the home department requests the sanction of the lord mayor before despatching troops through the city, and when permission is given, it is on the understanding that all troops (with the exception of the "buffs," who claim to be directly descended from the ancient trained bands), march without colours flying, drums beating, or bayonets fixed. As a further token of the lord mayor's supremacy in the city, we may add that the pass-word of the Tower is sent to him quarterly.
[555] Repertory 194, fos. 132-137, 150-152.
[556] Journal 73, fos. 144b-145; Annual Register xxxiv, 36.
[557] Annual Register xxxiv, 36, 39.
[558] Annual Register xxxiv, 44.
[559] At the close of his mayoralty he again received the thanks of the Common Council for having hazarded his life in putting down seditious meetings.--Journal 74, fo. 2.
[560] Journal 73, fo. 218.
[561] Annual Register xxxiv, 46.
[562] Journal 73, fo. 237.
[563] Id., fo. 249b.
[564] Id., fos. 255b-257.
[565] Id., fo. 273.
[566] Journal 74, fo. 2b.
[567] Committee Book, 21 Dec, 1793.
[568] Journal 74, fos. 126b-129b.
[569] Journal 74, fo. 172; Journal 75, fo. 33.
[570] Journal 74, fos. 172b, 174b.
[571] Journal 74, fos. 156b-157, 195b; Journal 75, fo. 5.
[572] Journal 74, fos. 170b-172.
[573] Stat. 34 Geo. III, c. 81; Journal 74, fos. 133b, 145b, 153, 178.
[574] Journal 74, fos. 187-187b; Raikes, History of Hon. Artillery Company ii, 130, 131; Annual Register xxxvi, 25.
[575] Repertory 199, fo. 39.
[576] Journal 75, fos. 38, 239b.
[577] Id., fos. 181, 243.
[578] Repertory 199, fos. 363-366, 369-371, 387-395. Journal 75, fos. 238b-247.
[579] Common Hall Book, No. 9, fo. 50b.
[580] Journal 75, fos. 43b-44b.
[581] Journal 75, fos. 312-313b.
[582] Journal 76, fos. 25-26.
[583] A proposal had previously (5 Nov.) been made in the Common Council to beseech the king "not to consider the Directory as incapable of maintaining the relations of peace and amity." The motion was, however, negatived.--Journal 75, fo. 312.
[584] Journal 76, fos. 309-311, 314.
[585] Journal 77, fos. 14b-15.
[586] Id., fos. 14-16.
[587] Annual Register xxxviii, 44.
[588] Journal 77, fo. 16.
[589] Common Hall Book, No. 9, fo. 72b.
[590] Journal 77, fo. 34b.
[591] Annual Register xxxix, 9.
[592] Journal 77, fos. 23, 36.
[593] Journal 77, fos. 83b-84.
[594] Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 75-76, 80b.
[595] Journal 77, fos. 195-196b, 353-354.
[596] Journal 77, fos. 264-266, 277, 305b, 388.
[597] Repertory 202, fo. 36. Journal 77, fo. 300b.
[598] Repertory 202, fos. 167b-169b. A picture by John Graham representing the reception of his majesty at Temple Bar was offered to the City by the artist for the sum of £300, but the offer was not accepted. In 1798, after the battle of the Nile, Alderman Boydell presented to the City portraits of Howe, St. Vincent, and Duncan, together with one of Nelson, and these were gratefully accepted.--Journal 78, fos. 61b, 94, 107.
[599] Annual Register xxxix, 83.
[600] The question had arisen in the month of July, when the Court of Lieutenancy took upon itself to change the quarters of the East and West regiments without consulting the lord mayor, but no decision had been arrived at.--Journal 77, fos. 222b, 238b. Journal 78, fos. 60, 152b.
[601] Repertory 202, fos. 162-166.
[602] Id., fos. 308-316, 423-428.
[603] Journal 77, fo. 369.
[604] Journal 78, fos. 7-8, 82b; Repertory 202, fos. 231, 268-281.
[605] Journal 78, fos. 100, 100b. It was originally placed in the Council Chamber with the medal struck by order of Alexander Davison, Nelson's friend and agent, and presented by him to the city.--Id., fos. 105b, 287b-288.
[606] Id., fos. 103, 106-107, 258b.
[607] Id., fos. 147, 150, 165b, 171-172, 196, 244, 267.
[608] Id., fos. 299b-301; Journal 79, fos. 160b-161.
[609] Journal 85, fos. 165b-166b.
[610] Journal 78, fos. 159b, 168.
[611] In May, 1817, Mrs. Damer obtained permission to have the bust removed from the city in order to allow her to make an alteration, and it was not returned until March, 1820.--Journal 91, fo. 159b; Journal 94, fo. 73b.
[612] Journal 78, fos. 157b-158, 204b-205.
[613] Annual Register xli, 35.
[614] Journal 78, fo. 320.
[615] Raikes, History of Hon. Artillery Company ii, 216.
[616] Repertory 203, fos. 308, 340-343; Journal 78, fos. 298-299.
[617] Journal 79, fo. 28b.
[618] Journal 78, fo. 314.
[619] Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 118-119.
[620] Journal House of Commons, lv, 362, 667, 694.
[621] Repertory 204, fos. 58-60.
[622] Id., fo. 412.
[623] Repertory 204, fos. 413, 418-420.
[624] Repertory 204, fos. 414-418.
[625] Id., fos. 423-425.
[626] Id., fos. 427, 428.
[627] Id., fo. 423.
[628] Repertory 204, fos. 432-434.
[629] Id., fos. 434-437.
[630] Id., fos. 439-446, 469-472.
[631] Journal 79, fo. 209b.
[632] Journal 79, fos. 215-217, 218-218b.
[633] Repertory 205, fos. 85, 319-328. Journal 80, fos. 113b, 125.
[634] Journal 79, fos. 255, 256, 283.
[635] Id., fo. 325.
[636] Journal 80, fo. 46b.
[637] Id., fos. 97-97b.
[638] Journal 80, fos. 46-46b.
[639] Repertory 205, fos. 644-646.
[640] Repertory 206, fos. 292-293, 458-465.
[641] Journal 80, fos. 219b, 237b-238b.
Chapter XLII
[Sidenote: Resumption of hostilities, May, 1803.]
The peace proved to be no more than a temporary suspension of hostilities, and England's refusal to surrender Malta, which she had recovered in 1800, and which she had covenanted by the terms of the treaty to surrender to France under certain guarantees, served Napoleon for an excuse to renew the war. On the 12th May, 1803, Lord Whitworth, the British ambassador, quitted Paris, where he had been subjected to much rudeness by the First Consul, and at the same time the French ambassador was directed to leave London. Much as the City disliked war, and eager as it had been for peace, the Common Council were among the first to express their determination to support the king and country "against the insatiable ambition of the French Republic."[642]
[Sidenote: Defensive operations.]
As soon as war was declared Pitt, after a prolonged absence in the country, re-appeared in the House, and in an impassioned speech, lasting two hours and a half, expatiated upon the justice and necessity of the war. This took place on the 3rd May. Two months later (22 July) he urged the House to take measures for the fortification of London itself:--"If the fortification of the capital can add to the security of the country I think it ought to be done. If by the erection of works such as I am recommending you can delay the progress of the enemy for three days, it may make the difference between the safety and the destruction of the capital."[643] An army of reserve was already in course of formation, and on the 28th June the secretary at war (Charles Yorke) wrote to the lord mayor expressing a hope that a contingent of 800 men might easily be furnished by "the first city in the world." The letter having been laid before the Common Council it was at once resolved to furnish the quota desired.[644] In addition to this army of reserve, which was to be 50,000 strong, the militia, to the number of 70,000, were embodied, whilst 300,000 volunteers were enrolled. In the city the employés in the Bank of England formed themselves into a regiment of volunteers, and the Guildhall became a drill-hall for the various military associations.[645] Besides ten regiments of volunteers and a cavalry corps, there were associations of River Fencibles and Harbour Marines. The Common Council voted two field pieces to the "Loyal London Cavalry" and colours to the other corps.[646]
[Sidenote: Renewal of the Income Tax.]
By way of raising supplies Addington brought forward a plan for the renewal of the Income Tax, which had been abolished at the conclusion of the Peace. The plan involved a distinction between incomes derived from land and funded property and incomes derived from the more precarious sources of trade and commerce--a distinction previously advocated by the City--but Pitt offered so strong an opposition to the proposal, although beaten on a division, that Addington gave way.
[Sidenote: Nelson's ungraciousness towards the City, 1804.]
A sharp look-out was kept in the Channel to prevent the embarkation of the forces gathered on Boulogne heights, and all French and Dutch ports were closely blockaded by Cornwallis, Nelson and other naval commanders, whose services in this direction were handsomely acknowledged by the City in March (1804).[647] Nelson alone, of all the officers, showed dissatisfaction, and found fault with the City, because, forsooth, he had been described as "blockading" Toulon. Blockading Toulon! he had been doing "quite the reverse," so he informed the lord mayor by letter, written on board the "Victory" the 1st August;--"Every opportunity had been offered the enemy to put to sea, for it is there that we hope to realize the hopes and expectations of our country, and I trust they will not be disappointed." Not only did he ungraciously decline the City's vote of thanks, but he found fault with the civic authorities for having omitted to pass similar votes of thanks to Rear-Admiral Sir Richard Bickerton and Rear-Admiral Campbell, an omission which the writer imputed to wilful negligence in making proper enquiries.[648] The letter was referred to a committee to consider and report thereon. As regards the first objection raised by Nelson, viz., his having been represented as "blockading" the port of Toulon, the committee failed to see in this representation, although perhaps not technically correct, any solid reason for his not accepting the vote of thanks, more especially as others who had been similarly employed in different parts of the world had gladly accepted this mark of the City's gratitude. The Common Council, however, preferred to ignore the objection altogether and to let the matter drop, whilst they tendered a handsome apology to Rear-Admirals Bickerton and Campbell for having unwittingly omitted their names in the vote of the Court of the 26th March.[649] This apology, coupled with an assurance that there did not exist a body of men in his majesty's dominions more sensible of the distinguished services of these two officers than the Corporation of London, was duly transmitted by the lord mayor to Nelson. That gallant admiral remained, however, still dissatisfied, and before the close of the year (27 Dec.) he again wrote from Toulon, complaining of other omissions on the part of the City, and recommending that for the future the municipal authorities should apply to the secretary of the Admiralty for the names of all officers in fleets intended to be thanked, and so avoid "such very unpleasant omissions." This savoured too much of dictation. The consequence was that instead of remedying the defect pointed out in the admiral's letter, the Common Council merely thanked the lord mayor for having communicated the letter to them.[650]
[Sidenote: Resignation of Addington and recall of Pitt, May, 1804.]
Meanwhile the state of affairs required a stronger man at the helm than Addington. There was only one man equal to the task. That man was Pitt. Between these two statesmen there was no comparison, except such as Canning wittily drew:--
"Pitt is to Addington As London is to Paddington."
For some time past the country had displayed impatience of Addington's weak ministry and a desire for Pitt's recall; but Addington was loth to acknowledge his own incompetence and stuck to office. The prime minister of to-day has happily hit off Addington's ministerial method in a single sentence. Addington's father had been a respectable and respected family physician to Pitt's family, and the son--writes Lord Rosebery in his excellent monograph on Pitt (p. 230)--"carried into politics the indescribable air of a village apothecary inspecting the tongue of the state." More than once indeed he went so far as to open negotiations with Pitt through a third party, but the terms offered were such as Pitt could not possibly entertain without loss of self respect. Now that England was embarked on a fresh war, the country became fairly aroused and the minister was forced to bow to public opinion and resign (10 May). Pitt undertook to form a ministry, but was at once confronted with difficulties from the king. It was Pitt's wish that the new ministry should be a large and comprehensive one, embracing both Fox and Grenville, but the king positively refused to admit Fox, although he offered no great opposition to Grenville. As Grenville refused to accept office without his friend, both were excluded, and Pitt had to form a government as best he could on a narrow Tory basis.[651]
[Sidenote: Proceedings of Common Council, 19 June, 1804.]
Soon after the formation of the new ministry, an attempt was made in the Common Council (19 June) to pass a vote of thanks to Addington for his recent services, but an amendment was proposed to thank the late minister for having resigned office as soon as he discovered that he no longer enjoyed the confidence of the country. The amendment further expressed regret that the late "partial changes" in the government appeared so little calculated to promote the interests of the nation and to secure the confidence of Parliament and the nation at so momentous a crisis. Before the amendment, however, could be put to the vote, it was found that a quorum was not present, and so "no decision was made thereon."[652]
[Sidenote: Review of city volunteers at Blackheath, 18 May, 1804.]
On the 18th May, Pitt resumed the reins of government, having submitted himself for re-election to his constituents at Cambridge. That same day the First Consul, Pitt's arch enemy, was solemnly proclaimed sovereign of the French under the title of the Emperor Napoleon. That same day, too, witnessed the presentation of colours which the Common Council had in October last (1803) voted to the London regiments. The presentation took place at Blackheath, the lord mayor being conveyed down the river in the City's state barge, accompanied by the commander-in-chief and a brilliant staff of officers, and the troops being conducted to Greenwich by the River Fencibles. One officer, viz., Colonel Kensington, commanding the third regiment of Loyal London Volunteers, declined to accept the colours, for what reason we are not told. The ceremony passed off without any accident or confusion, but a banquet which it was proposed to give the commander-in-chief and his staff after the review could not take place in consequence of the London Tavern being previously engaged, and time did not allow of another suitable place being sought for.[653]
[Sidenote: Pitt's Additional Force Bill, June, 1804.]
It was quite clear that if the country was to be saved from invasion, the military forces of the kingdom would still have to be greatly strengthened. Before consenting to form a ministry, Pitt did not disguise from the king the serious character of the situation. "It is in the first place, evident"--he wrote to Lord Eldon for communication to the king--"that zealous and united as the country appears to be at this moment [2 May] in its efforts against the enemy, the present contest may probably be of very long duration, attended with great and heavy burdens, and likely to press severely on the resources and conveniences of all classes of persons." Filled with these sentiments, Pitt, as soon as he returned to office, prepared a measure for the better defence of the country and for substituting a more permanent military force for the existing militia. The Additional Force Bill, as this measure was called, was no sooner laid before the House than it met with the most strenuous opposition. The City, according to the provisions of the Bill, would have had to furnish 1,600 men for military service, but the Remembrancer, whose business it is to watch Bills in Parliament affecting the City's interests, applied to have the clause affecting the City struck out by an amendment in the House of Lords, "it having been uniformly the practice for the city of London to have separate Bills for such purposes." Two of the city members also made similar applications. They were told that the objection came too late to allow of any omission or addition being made to the Bill, but that if the Corporation were desirous of having a separate Bill on this occasion "they might prepare the same with such powers for raising the men or money required as were more consonant to their accustomed forms and practice."[654] In spite of the opposition of Addington, Sheridan, and Fox, the Bill eventually passed the Commons by a majority of forty-two, and was carried up to the Lords. There it was again strongly opposed and was only carried by a majority of thirty-four. The City took the advice offered and introduced a separate Bill on its own account, and this also passed.[655]
[Sidenote: Artillery practice in Finsbury.]
Nothing could exceed the energy of the prime minister in superintending personally the defences of the country, and although some of his measures (as for instance the erection of martello towers along the south coast and the cutting a canal from Hythe to Rye) could have done little to check the advance of the French army had a landing been once effected, the real value of such measures lay in the confidence and energy which they excited in the people. Nor were the citizens less energetic. The Artillery Company and the London militia, instead of marching out to the suburbs for practice took to discharging their field pieces in their own grounds in Finsbury, causing the houses in the vicinity to shake and windows to be broken by the concussion. The noise of their discharge frightened the horses of the frequenters of the City Road--the Rotten Row of the East end--and disturbed those who had sought ease and quiet, in what was in those days a respectable if not an aristocratic suburb of the city. In July (1804) the annoyance became so great that a formal complaint was made to the Common Council, who agreed that the practice complained of should not be continued.[656]
[Sidenote: The French camp at Boulogne.]
Whilst the City and the country were for the most part inspired with Pitt's enthusiasm, there were not wanting some who ridiculed the prime minister for intermeddling in military matters, and for the anxiety he displayed at the prospect of an invasion which they thought to be in the highest degree improbable. "Can he possibly be serious in expecting Bonaparte now!"--wrote Grenville to Lord Buckingham on the 25th August--although it was well known that Napoleon had himself gone recently to Boulogne to view the army that had long been encamped on its heights. He had even gone so far as to order a medal to be prepared, bearing the words Frappée a Londres, in commemoration of his expected conquest. Circumstances eventually led him to postpone his descent on the English coast, but the project was far from abandoned.
[Sidenote: Disgrace of Lord Melville, April, 1805.]
Strong as Pitt was in the country he was weak in parliament. Before the end of the year (1804) he sought at once to gratify the king and strengthen his own position in the House by becoming reconciled with Addington, who entered the ministry as President of the Council and was created Viscount Sidmouth. The coalition lasted, however, but a short time. On the 8th April (1805) Henry Dundas, now Lord Melville and first lord of the admiralty, was charged with peculation, and had to stand his trial in Westminster hall. The lord mayor claimed to have a certain number of tickets allowed him to witness the trial, on the ground that a former lord mayor had been allowed them to witness the trial of Warren Hastings. He experienced, however, some difficulty in getting them as he could produce no record of the mayor having established his claim at the former trial.[657] Although the trial resulted in Melville's acquittal, Pitt could not do otherwise than advise the removal of his old friend from the Privy Council. It was a bitter blow and one that he must have felt the more keenly when he found his old supporters, the citizens of London, animadverting in no measured terms upon his friend's conduct and congratulating the king on his having rid himself and his councils of so obnoxious a minister.[658] The unfortunate affair again caused an estrangement between Pitt and Sidmouth, which ended in the latter withdrawing from the ministry (7 July).
[Sidenote: The battle of Trafalgar, 21 Oct., 1805.]
Although misfortune continued thus to follow Pitt in the House, his foreign policy promised well. Spain it is true had thrown in her lot with France. On the other hand, Pitt had succeeded in forming a strong coalition against the Emperor on the continent, and on the 21st October, Nelson succeeded in vanquishing the French and Spanish fleets off Cape Trafalgar, although at the cost of his own life. On the 13th November, the Common Council drew up an address to the king, congratulating him upon the recent victory, whilst expressing sincere sorrow at the loss of so brave a commander.[659] A fortnight later they resolved to bestow the Freedom of the City with swords of honour upon Collingwood and others who had distinguished themselves in this action.[660]
[Sidenote: The funeral of Nelson, 8 and 9 Jan., 1806.]
Nelson's funeral afforded an opportunity for a solemn water pageant such as has seldom been seen. On Wednesday, the 8th January (1806) his remains were borne up the Thames, by barge from Greenwich to Whitehall, and thence to the Admiralty. The mayor, aldermen and city officers drove down to Greenwich after breakfast, and were there received by Lord Hood. The City's barge had been sent on, and the barges of the Drapers' Company, the Fishmongers, the Goldsmiths, the Skinners, the Merchant Taylors, the Ironmongers, the Stationers and the Apothecaries were already there. The lord mayor's barge immediately followed the royal barges and the barge containing the lords commissioners of the Admiralty. As the procession made its way up the river, with a slow hanging stroke befitting the solemnity of the occasion, minute guns were fired. The body lay at the Admiralty that night, and the next day (9 Jan.) was brought to its last resting place in St. Paul's. The whole of the military arrangements for keeping the streets of the city were left in the hands of the lord mayor, and no question as to his authority was raised, such as had been raised in 1797. On the other hand, a controversy had arisen as to the position allotted to the lord mayor in the procession, after its entrance in the city; the mayor claiming to take precedence of all subjects of the crown within his own jurisdiction in the city and liberties, whether the king was present or not. The king was not to attend on this occasion; nevertheless the mayor claimed the same precedence as if his majesty were present, on the ground that in all commissions of gaol delivery he was named before the chancellor, the judges and all other subjects whatever. Time did not allow of the question being fully enquired into at the Heralds' College, and the difficulty had to be solved by a special royal warrant to Garter King-at-arms, authorising him to allot the same place to the lord mayor that he would have enjoyed had the king himself been there to receive the City's sword. When the procession entered the city, the mayor accordingly took up his position between the carriage of the Prince of Wales and the funeral car. At the moment the remains were lowered into the crypt volleys were fired by the troops, in Moorfields, by signal given from the gallery on the top of the dome of the cathedral.[661]
[Sidenote: Nelson's monument in the Guildhall.]
The City having resolved to erect a monument to the deceased admiral, the Hon. Mrs. Damer again offered her services. Her offer, however, was not accepted, the Common Council preferring to submit the matter to public competition. A number of designs were sent in, one of which was especially recommended by a committee of so-called experts (not being themselves artists). This was, however, eventually rejected on a ballot being taken, and a design accepted, which proved to be by James Smith, an artist who had studied under Flaxman, and who had assisted Mrs. Damer. His estimate of cost was the lowest of five selected by the committee of experts.[662]
[Sidenote: Death of Pitt, 23 Jan., 1806.]
Although the victory of Trafalgar had established England's supremacy at sea and had effectually put an end to Napoleon's project of invasion, the victory he subsequently gained (2 Dec.) over the allied forces on the field of Austerlitz, completely shattered the coalition, and made him all-powerful on the continent. The shock was too much for Pitt, whose health had long been failing. Last lord mayor's day, when news of Nelson's victory and death had recently arrived, he had attended the banquet at the Guildhall, but at the cost of much personal suffering. Once more he was received with acclamation, and his coach was drawn in triumph. It was for the last time. When the lord mayor proposed his health as "the Saviour of Europe," he replied in one of the shortest, and under the circumstances perhaps one of the most effective speeches ever delivered on the occasion by a prime minister:--"I return you many thanks," he said, addressing the mayor, "for the honour you have done me; but Europe is not to be saved by any single man. England has saved herself by her exertions and will, I trust, save Europe by her example."[663] With only these two sentences--the last words spoken by him in public--Pitt sat down. A month later (7 Dec.) he set out for Bath, and there he received the fatal news. From that day his health rapidly declined. He recovered sufficiently to be removed to a house he had hired at Putney, but on the 23rd January he died.
[Sidenote: His funeral, 22 Feb., 1806.]
A month later (22 Feb.) the deceased statesman, whose praises Canning had sung as "The pilot that weathered the storm," was laid to rest in Westminster Abbey. The City expressed no wish, as at his father's death, to be present in their corporate capacity, but the lord mayor attended in state, and that there might not be wanting in after years (as in the case of Hastings's trial), a record of his attendance and of the precedence allotted him on this occasion, he caused the facts to be entered in the minutes of the Court of Aldermen.[664]
[Sidenote: Pitt's monument in the Guildhall.]
In the meantime (6 Feb.) a motion had been made in the Common Council to erect a monument in the Guildhall to the late minister. After long debate, the motion was carried, but only by a majority of six votes. A ward committee was thereupon appointed to carry the same into execution. On the 28th, an attempt was made to stop all further proceedings, but the court after further debate, decided otherwise, and unanimously resolved that the committee should submit such models and designs as they might think worthy, together with estimates of expense. On the 18th September, five models were submitted to the Common Council,[665] the estimates varying from £3,675 to £5,500. Eventually, the lowest estimate was selected. The artist who had sent in the model at this estimate, proved to be J.G. Bubb, of whom little is known, except that he carved the sculptures in front of the Custom House, and modelled the figures adorning the façade of the Opera House, in the Haymarket, recently pulled down. The monument occupied the artist for more than six years, and it was not set up in the Guildhall until 1813. The inscription, written by Canning, bears testimony to the affectionate regret with which the City of London cherished Pitt's memory.
[Sidenote: City address to the king, 19 Feb., 1806.]
Upon the formation of a new ministry with Grenville as prime minister, and Fox as foreign secretary, the Common Council presented an address to the king, offering their sincere thanks and congratulations "on the formation of an administration, combining men of the highest consideration and talents"--the administration was known as "the ministry of all the talents"; they hoped that by such an union of wisdom and energy in his majesty's councils, a policy of "vigour, vigilance, and economy" would be pursued, and they promised the king the City's support in every demand necessary for resisting the unreasonable pretensions of Napoleon and for effecting a permanent and honourable peace.[666]
[Sidenote: The City and Sir Home Popham, 1806.]
Whilst Napoleon was bent on forming on the continent a western empire, England succeeded in securing the sea route to India by the re-capture of the Cape of Good Hope from the Dutch. The importance of this exploit by the British navy, under the command of Sir Home Popham, was misconceived by the City, and a vote of thanks to Popham moved in the Common Council was lost. The capture of Buenos Ayres, on the other hand, by the same officer, was welcomed by them with extravagant joy as opening a new source of commerce to British manufacturers, and the Common Council not only accorded Popham and the fleet a vote of thanks, but voted that officer a sword of honour of the value of 200 guineas.[667] Yet Buenos Ayres was shortly afterwards lost and never recovered, whereas the Cape still remains one of the most valuable possessions of the country.
[Sidenote: Battle of Maida, 3 July, 1806.]
The only military success of the Grenville ministry besides the conquest of the Cape of Good Hope, was gained in the south of Italy, where Sir John Stuart beat the French general Regnier at Maida. The victory was the more welcome, because it proved to the world that "the boasted prowess" of the French could not stand against well disciplined British soldiers when fairly put to the test. The Common Council, ever ready to recognise merit, voted Stuart the Freedom of the City and a sword.[668]
[Sidenote: Fall of the Grenville ministry, March, 1807.]
The Grenville ministry did not last long. It showed a singular inaptitude for war, but it fell on the question of Catholic emancipation, the same question that had caused Pitt to resign in 1801. In consideration of the king's increasing age and bad health, Fox had given his word immediately on assuming office, not to bring the question forward. Fox died in September, 1806, and early the following year Grenville, who had given no such pledge, notified his intention of bringing forward a Bill for throwing open all ranks of the army and navy to Catholics and Protestants alike. The king looked upon any assent that he might give to Catholic emancipation as nothing less than an infringement of his coronation oath, and he conscientiously and consistently opposed every measure tending in that direction. A certain section of the Common Council was also opposed to the Bill as subversive of the constitution, but a motion to move parliament against the Bill was rejected.[669] Not satisfied with the withdrawal of Grenville's Bill the king in his morbid sensibility, insisted upon a promise that he would never bring forward a similar measure again--a promise that no constitutional minister could give. Thereupon he was summarily dismissed (March, 1807), and the Duke of Portland became nominally prime minister, although the leadership was virtually assumed by Spencer Perceval.
[Sidenote: City address, 22 April, 1807]
Once more the "successors of the Roundheads" congratulated the king upon his having vindicated "the glorious independence of the crown." Owing to the state of the king's health, and more particularly his defective eyesight, the City waived its right to present the address on the throne; and only a deputation of the Common Council was present.[670] A dissolution took place soon afterwards, when it was found that not only the City but the country supported the king.
[Sidenote: The Berlin Decree, 21 Nov., 1806.]
Having devastated the continent to such an extent that both London and the kingdom were called upon to contribute towards the alleviation of the prevalent distress,[671] the Emperor had recently aimed a direct blow at England by issuing the famous Berlin Decree (21 Nov., 1806), forbidding all intercourse with this country, and confiscating all English merchandise found on the continent. This was the commencement of the "continental system" which ultimately proved more injurious to Napoleon himself than to England.
[Sidenote: Napoleon and Spain, 1807-1808.]
The system was accepted everywhere except in Portugal, and Napoleon, who had long fixed his eyes on the Peninsula, seized the opportunity afforded by Portugal refusing to close its ports to England to wage war not only upon that country but upon Spain. The city of London became more than ever alive to the danger which threatened this country from the "vast gigantic confederacy" established mainly for the destruction of England, and the citizens set an example, as the king himself graciously acknowledged (30 March, 1808), "of union and public spirit" at this important crisis.[672] When Napoleon succeeded by a gross piece of chicanery in setting his own brother Joseph on the throne of Spain (15 June), the high-spirited Spaniards, rebelled, and sent envoys to England asking for assistance. They were everywhere received with enthusiasm, and the City offered them its customary hospitality.[673]
[Sidenote: City's address to the king, 20 July, 1808.]
Their appeal was not in vain. Money and arms were promised, to the great delight of the citizens, who formally offered their thanks to the king for granting his protection and support to a "high-minded and gallant nation in defence of their dearest rights and privileges." They declared that the king's solemn recognition of the Spanish nation as a friend and ally against "the common enemy of all established governments"--as they styled Napoleon--had excited in their breasts the most lively and grateful sensations, and they assured him that they would spare no sacrifice to assist in preventing "twelve millions of fellow freemen from being accursed with the most galling and profligate despotism recorded in the history of the world."[674]
[Sidenote: The City and the Convention of Cintra, 1808.]
A force was despatched to Portugal under the command of Sir Arthur Wellesley; but no sooner had he achieved some success than he found himself superseded by Sir Harry Burrard, who in turn had to give place to Sir Hugh Dalrymple. The consequence was, that the good accomplished by one commander was quickly undone by another, and in August a Convention--known as the Convention of Cintra--was signed, and the French army was allowed to return home scot free. This raised a storm of indignation among the citizens, and the king to pacify them promised an enquiry. He little liked, however, the City's interference in the matter, and said so:--"I should have hoped"--he told the Common Council who waited upon him--"that recent occurrences would have convinced you, that I am at all times ready to institute enquiries on occasions in which the character of the country or the honor of my arms is concerned; and that the interposition of the city of London could not be necessary for inducing me to direct due enquiry to be made into a transaction which has disappointed the hopes and expectations of the nation."[675] Wellesley and his two official superiors were thereupon ordered home to give an account of their conduct, the command of the army in Portugal being left in the hands of Sir John Moore, who soon afterwards lost his life at Corunna.
[Sidenote: Scandal of the Duke of York, 1809.]
The Convention of Cintra and the retreat of Sir John Moore, successful as that retreat had been, although costing him his own life, discouraged the government which now was called upon to meet an attack from another quarter. Early in the spring of 1809, the Duke of York, commander-in-chief, was charged by a militia colonel named Wardle, member for Okehampton, with having allowed his mistress, Mrs. Clarke, to dispose of commissions, and having himself participated in the proceeds of this nefarious traffic. The scandal was aggravated by a public investigation before the entire House of Commons, and although the duke was eventually acquitted of personal corruption, he felt compelled to resign his post. His acquittal disgusted the Common Council, who desired to place on record their belief that it was greatly due to that "preponderating influence" of which they had formerly complained. On the other hand they voted Wardle the Freedom of the City in a gold box (6 April).[676] In the course of a few months Wardle was himself sued by a tradesman for the price of goods with which he had furnished a house for Mrs. Clarke. This put a new aspect on the charges Wardle had brought and greatly diminished the feeling against the duke, who was soon afterwards restored to office. The City, however, still upheld Wardle, and not only refused to rescind their vote of the 6th April, but placed on record an elaborate statement showing how by his means, and in the face of unexampled threats and difficulties, a system of "scandalous abuse and corruption, not only in the army, but in the various departments of the State" had been brought to light. This statement they ordered to be published in the morning and evening papers.[677]
[Sidenote: The Walcheren expedition, July-August, 1809.]
The ministry had scarcely recovered from the effects of the scandal before it received a fatal shock from the disastrous failure of the Walcheren expedition, owing chiefly to senseless disputes between the naval and military commanders. Canning and Castlereagh--the foreign minister and the war minister--endeavoured to throw the blame on each other's shoulders. They both resigned office and then fought a duel. Their resignation was followed by that of the Duke of Portland, whose failing health had from the first rendered him unfit for his position, and who shortly afterwards died. His place was taken by Spencer Perceval.
[Sidenote: The king's Jubilee, 25 Oct., 1809.]
The City was greatly depressed at the result of the expedition, and there was some talk of the Corporation taking no part in the celebration of the king's jubilee, his majesty being about to enter upon the 50th year of his reign on the 25th October of this year. To some members of the Common Council it seemed out of place to set apart a day for public rejoicing at a time when the country was involved in so much disgrace.[678] The majority, however, thought otherwise, and the City joined with the rest of his majesty's subjects in offering congratulations. The citizens could forgive much, if only trade were good, and as to this they were in a position to assure the king that notwithstanding the unexampled struggles through which the country had passed since the day of his accession, its commerce was "flourishing to an extent unknown in any former war."[679] A thanksgiving service was held in St. Paul's, which the municipal authorities attended in state. The City contributed £1,000 for the relief of poor debtors, whilst twice that amount was forwarded by the king for the same purpose. Resolutions were passed to illuminate the Guildhall and to go to the expense of a City banquet, but they were afterwards rescinded.[680]
[Sidenote: City address re Walcheren expedition, 13 Dec., 1809.]
The jubilee over, the City drew up and agreed to an address to the king complaining that no proper enquiry had been made into the circumstances under which the Convention of Cintra had been signed, as his majesty had promised, and urging another enquiry into the causes of the recent Walcheren disaster. The address was agreed to at a special Court of Common Council held on the 5th December. On the 13th, however, this address was set aside, and another and more temperate address substituted for it.[681]
[Sidenote: The king's reply, 20 Dec.]
Upon the latter address being presented to the king, a short, dry answer was returned, such as he was accustomed to give when displeased. He had not judged it necessary, he told the citizens, to direct any military enquiry into the conduct of the commanders of the expedition at sea and on shore; but it rested with parliament to ask for such information or to take such measures as they thought best for the public good.[682]
[Sidenote: Address of the livery, 14 Dec., 1809.]
Before the presentation of the City's address a special meeting of the livery took place (14 Dec.), when the original address agreed to by the Common Council and afterwards discarded was adopted by the livery as their own, and ordered to be presented to the king at the next public levée. Then followed another of those unseemly wrangles we have had so often to record. When the sheriffs proceeded to carry out the wishes of the livery they found that for some years past no public levée had been held owing to the king's failing eyesight, and when asked to do as all others did--with the exception of the corporation of London and the two Universities--and to leave the address with the principal secretary of state, who would in due course lay it before the king, they refused.
[Sidenote: Resolution of the livery, 9 Jan., 1810.]
The matter being reported to the livery (9 Jan., 1810), they proceeded forthwith to draw up resolutions condemning the king's advisers, and these the sheriffs were ordered to deliver "into his majesty's hands." The secretary of state very naturally objected to trouble the king any further in the matter, as there was, in reality, no difference between presenting an address and presenting resolutions. At the same time, he signified his willingness to lay a copy of the resolutions before the king in the manner adopted since the cessation of public levées. This offer was refused. An attempt was then made to have the document presented at a private levée, and the sheriffs wrote a joint letter to the secretary of state informing him of their intention of attending for the purpose at the next private levée, unless it should be his majesty's pleasure to receive them at some other time and place. To this the secretary replied that no one was admitted to private levées without the king's permission; that he had laid their letter before the king and that his majesty saw no reason for drawing a distinction between the resolutions and the address; that had the sheriffs been deputed by the body corporate of London, his majesty would have received them differently, but he could not receive them at the levée or elsewhere for the purpose of presenting proceedings not adopted at any meeting of the corporation as such, without allowing others the same privilege, and thereby exposing himself to that personal inconvenience which the discontinuance of public levées was intended to prevent. Thus baffled, the livery had to content themselves with entering a formal protest against what they still believed to be a "flagrant violation of city rights."[683]
[Sidenote: The City opposes proposed Wellington's annuity, Feb., 1810.]
A few weeks later (23 Feb.) when a Bill was before the House for granting an annuity to Wellesley (recently created Viscount Wellington for his victory at Talavera) the Common Council took the matter up and complained to Parliament of the recent failure of the livery to get their address received by the king owing to the misconduct of his majesty's ministers, who had "placed a barrier between the king and the people," and whose conduct was now aggravated by the proposal respecting Wellington, made "in defiance of public opinion." Whilst petitioning against the Bill the City assured the House that they did so from no motives of economy, but from a sense that, notwithstanding Wellington's indisputable valour, his military conduct was not deserving national remuneration. What were the facts? That in the short period of his service in Europe, not amounting to two years, they had seen his gallant efforts in Portugal lead only to the "disgraceful and scandalous" Convention of Cintra; while in Spain, notwithstanding his defeat of the French at Talavera, he had been compelled to retreat and leave his sick and wounded to the care of the enemy. No enquiry had been made into either of these campaigns, although it was but due to the nation that a most rigid investigation as to why so much valour should have been uselessly and unprofitably displayed should first take place before the nation's pecuniary resources should be thus applied. In India Wellington had received ample remuneration for his services, and at home he had held valuable appointments. As for making provision for his family, none had been made for the family of Sir John Moore, who had so nobly died.[684] This attitude of the City towards the Bill becomes the more intelligible when we consider that Wellington at that time had many enemies, both in and out of Parliament, and that his military genius had not yet awakened recognition. When, a year later, it was found that, owing to his skill, his patient self-reliance (for he received but little encouragement from the government at home) and his foresight, not a single French soldier remained in Portugal, the City, like the rest of the nation, were ready to acknowledge his "consummate ability, fortitude and perseverance," and presented him with the Freedom and a sword of honour, despatching at the same time the sum of £1,000 for the relief of poor Portuguese.[685]
[Sidenote: Sir Francis Burdett committed to the Tower, 9 April, 1810.]
In the spring of this year (1810) the question of parliamentary reform was (after an interval of twenty-five years) again brought into prominence by the committal of Sir Francis Burdett to the Tower by order of the House of Commons. The House had recently committed to Newgate a man named John Gale Jones for having published an attack on its proceedings, and Sir Francis Burdett had questioned its right to commit any man to prison. The consequence was that on the 6th April a warrant was issued for the committal of Burdett himself to the Tower. Burdett resisted the warrant as illegal, and had to be conveyed to the Tower by an armed force (9 April). The ministry anticipated a riot, and made application to the lord mayor for permission to quarter troops in the government storehouses situate on the banks of the river. The mayor, in reply, assured the secretary of state, through whom the application had been made, that the city was perfectly quiet, but he would consult his brother aldermen on the matter. The next day--the day that Burdett was to be conveyed to the Tower--he wrote again to the secretary, assuring him that the city continued quiet, but that if necessity arose for military assistance to protect the government stores he (the mayor) would allow the premises to be occupied by troops, but only on the express condition that they acted under his own directions or the directions of one of the city marshals.[686]
[Sidenote: Riots in the city.]
Unfortunately the day did not pass off without bloodshed. Notwithstanding the care taken to conduct their prisoner by a circuitous route instead of by the direct way through Eastcheap to the Tower, the troops were severely handled by the mob both going and returning. For a long time the soldiers exhibited the greatest patience, but at length they were forced in sheer self-defence to fire, and a man named Thomas Ebrall was killed and others wounded. The Court of Aldermen were asked to offer a reward of £200 for the discovery of the man who had shot Ebrall, on whose death a jury had brought in a verdict of wilful murder against a guardsman, name unknown, but the Court declined. They instituted an enquiry, however, into the whole of the proceedings of the day, and after taking numerous depositions and giving the matter their best attention they came to the conclusion that the firing by the soldiers was justified.[687]
[Sidenote: Petition of the livery to Parliament, 4 May, 1810.]
The livery in the meanwhile had insisted upon a special Common Hall being summoned for the purpose of taking into consideration "the alarming assumption of privilege by the honourable the House of Commons, of arresting and imprisoning during pleasure the people of England, for offences cognisable in the usual courts of law," and on the 4th May, they passed a cordial vote of thanks to Burdett for having resisted the Speaker's warrant, and for having upheld the right of freedom of speech. They also thanked the lord mayor for his "constitutional endeavours to preserve the peace of the city without the aid of the military." Furthermore, they resolved that the only means left to save the constitution and the country was parliamentary reform, which must be both speedy and radical, and they called upon the people of the United Kingdom to join them in endeavouring to bring this reform about. A petition to the House was then read and adopted, the language of which was so strong that even the petitioners themselves felt constrained to offer some kind of apology, and to declare that by it they intended no disrespect to the House. After commenting upon what they deemed an illegal and totally unjustifiable act of the House, in committing Jones and Burdett to prison without legal process, they proceeded to remind the Commons that so far from representing the people, they were known to have been sent to Parliament "by the absolute nomination or powerful influence of about 150 peers and others;" that they had refused to examine the charge brought against Lord Castlereagh and Spencer Perceval, two ministers of the Crown, of trafficking in seats; that when, on a former occasion, it was averred before the House "that seats for legislation in the House of Commons were as notoriously rented and bought as the standings for cattle at a fair," the House had treated the assertion with affected indignation, and ministers had threatened to punish the petitioners for presenting a scandalous and libellous petition. The petitioners, nevertheless, had lived "to see a House of Commons avow the traffick and screen those accused of this breach of law and right, because it had been equally committed by all parties, and was a practice as notorious as the sun at noon-day." Where, they asked, was the justice of the House? Where its dignity? Jones was confined to prison for an alleged offence which if committed against any subject of the realm, or even the king himself, would have been made the subject of legal investigation; Lord Castlereagh continued to be a principal minister of the Crown, and was at that very time a free member of Parliament; Sir Francis Burdett had been dragged from the bosom of his family and committed to the Tower, for exercising the right of constitutional discussion, common and undeniable to all, whilst Spencer Perceval continued a member of the House, taking a lead in its deliberations, the first minister of the Crown, and the chief adviser of the royal council. There was no need, the petitioners said, to recapitulate to the House the numerous instances of neglect to punish public delinquents, to economise the public money, to obtain redress for the lavish profusion of blood and money in the late Walcheren expedition. These and similar proceedings required no comment. Under these circumstances the petitioners called upon the House to expunge from its Journal all its orders respecting Jones and Sir Francis Burdett, and in conjunction with the latter to adopt such measures as would effect an immediate and radical parliamentary reform.[688]
[Sidenote: The petition dismissed.]
Such strong language addressed to the Parliament of the United Kingdom was more than some of the livery then present in Common Hall could approve of, and they adjourned to the London Tavern where they drew up a formal protest against what they conceived to be nothing less than an attempt "to degrade the legislature; to alienate the affections of the people from the Government, to produce contempt and distrust of the House of Commons, to introduce anarchy, and to subvert the constitution." The petition nevertheless was presented to the House, but after considerable debate, and after a motion that it should be allowed to lie on the table had been lost by a large majority, it was dismissed.[689]
[Sidenote: Proceedings of Common Hall, 21 May, 1810.]
The rejection of their petition occasioned the holding of another Common Hall for the purpose of maintaining the rights of the livery constitutionally assembled. As soon as the Hall met (21 May), the livery proceeded to pass a number of resolutions. They declared that the recent protest had been signed by "contractors, commissioners, and collectors of taxes, placemen, and place-hunters," and that its object was "the excitement of civil dissension, the increase of public abuses, and the further and fuller participation in the wages of corruption," by many of those who had signed it; that the right of petitioning, which had been denied to the subject in 1680, and allowed and confirmed in 1688 by the Bill of Rights, had again been invaded, and a new race of Abhorrers had sprung up, and that it behoved every real friend of the country "to resist their mischievous designs by recurring to the genuine principles of the constitution, and by using every legal means for obtaining a full, fair and free representation of the people in Parliament." They resolved, notwithstanding the rejection of their last petition, to give the House of Commons every opportunity of hearing and redressing the grievances of the people, and sanctioned the presentation of another humble address, petition and remonstrance. This new petition, which differed but slightly from the last, was presented to the House on the 25th, and instead of being rejected, was ordered to lie on the table.[690]
[Sidenote: The king's illness, Nov., 1810.]
Just as lord mayor's day was approaching the king suffered a sudden relapse, owing in a great measure to the loss of his favourite daughter, and became hopelessly insane. The question thereupon arose whether the new lord mayor could, under the circumstances, be sworn before the barons of the exchequer. Counsel were of opinion that this was the proper course to pursue and the incoming mayor was so sworn.[691] There was no pageant owing to the death of the princess.[692]
[Sidenote: His statue in the Council Chamber.]
A few days prior to the king's seizure the City resolved to place his statue in their council chamber, in token of their sense of his "endearing and amiable qualities."[693] The work was entrusted to Chantrey who had already executed a bust of the younger Pitt for the Trinity House Brethren.[694] The artist undertook to complete the statue in three years, but it was not until 1815 that it was ready to be set up. It originally bore an inscription written by Samuel Birch, who was mayor at the time, but upon the removal of the statue to the new council chamber, in 1884, the pedestal bearing the inscription was left behind.
[Sidenote: The Regency Bill, Feb., 1811.]
The necessity of a regency soon became manifest, and in January, 1811, a Bill was introduced for the purpose of appointing the Prince of Wales. When Pitt introduced a similar Bill in 1788 he had displayed no little courage in upholding the authority of parliament and imposing certain restrictions and limitations upon the regency of the prince whose character was none of the best, and the City had acknowledged the wisdom of his policy and passed him a vote of thanks. At that time it was a matter of uncertainty whether the king might not recover, as recover he did, and there was danger of prematurely paying court to the rising sun. More than twenty years had since passed away. The king was now an old man and the Prince of Wales must, in the ordinary course of things, succeed to the throne before long. Parliament still wished to impose restrictions upon the regency, but in a more modified form than in the former Bill. The prince, however, was adverse to any restrictions and the City sided with the prince against parliament.[695] In spite of their protest the Bill, with its limitations, was passed (5 Feb., 1811) and the prince submitted to take the oaths. A few days later the City offered him an address of condolence and congratulation, and at the same time appealed to him for redress of grievances and more especially for parliamentary reform.[696]
[Sidenote: The Freedom declined by Prince Regent.]
In May the Common Council offered him the Freedom of the City, but this he declined on the strange plea that its acceptation would be incompatible with his station as Regent. He made, however, a gracious reply to the deputation which waited upon him to learn his pleasure (he declined to receive more than the lord mayor, the sheriff, the recorder, and the remembrancer, as being contrary to precedent), and assured them that it was his earnest desire at all times to promote the interest and welfare of the ancient corporation.[697]
[Sidenote: Proposed reform meeting at the Guildhall, 3 June, 1811.]
The regency being thus settled the "friends of parliamentary reform" appointed a committee (May, 1811) to organise a meeting in London. The meeting was to take place on Whit Monday (3 June) and was to be attended by delegates from all parts of the kingdom. The Common Council were disposed to accede to a request for the use of the Guildhall for the purpose of the meeting, but upon representation being made to them by the Court of Aldermen, and by some of the livery, that such a course would be without precedent as well as dangerous to the peace of the city, the permission was withdrawn.[698]
[Sidenote: Address of the livery to the Regent, 26 Mar., 1812.]
As time wore on and the livery who had confessedly looked upon the regency as the "dawn of a new era" found their hopes disappointed, no change being made in the ministry and no reforms carried out, they resolved to address themselves to the Regent. They accordingly drew up a petition after their kind, and appointed a deputation of twenty-one liverymen to attend its presentation (26 March, 1812). Not a word was said about the petition being presented to the prince on the throne. When the sheriffs attended at Carlton House on Wednesday, the 1st April, to learn when the Regent would be pleased to receive it, they were told that he would receive it at the levée on the following Thursday week (9th) in "the usual way." When asked if he would receive the deputation appointed by the livery, the prince demurred. There were "certain forms attending that," but he would communicate with the secretary of state who would give them an answer. The next day (2 April), secretary Ryder informed the sheriffs by letter, that no persons beyond "the number allowed by law," to present petitions to his majesty, would be admitted to the levée on the 9th, except the lord mayor, aldermen, sheriffs, and city officers. The sheriffs, on the receipt of this letter again came to the charge and represented to the secretary of state--apparently for the first time, and on their own responsibility--that the livery had expected that the Regent would have received their address on the throne. What, moreover, did the Regent mean when he said that he would receive it in "the usual way"? To this query, the secretary replied that by the words "in the usual way," the prince meant "the way in which the petitions of persons in general were received, and not in which the addresses or petitions of the livery of London had been received in some instances previous to the year 1775." He also added that the address and petition would not be read at the levée nor would any answer be given, and, further, that only a deputation of the livery, not exceeding ten persons, might attend. On being informed of all this the livery were furious, but had to content themselves as before, with passing a number of resolutions against the advisers of the crown, etc., etc., and these the sheriffs were ordered to deliver into the prince's own hands.[699]
[Sidenote: Address of Common Council to regent, 28 April, 1812.]
Ten days later (17 April), the Common Council drew up an address to the prince, which proved to be such a formidable indictment of the government that it was characterised by his highness (who presumably received it on the throne) as one that involved "the total change in the domestic government and foreign policy of the country." This address did not appear in the London Gazette, as it ought to have done according to custom, and upon enquiry as to the reason for this omission, answer was made that "the London Gazette was the king's paper," and nothing appeared therein without the order of government; that no such order had been received in this case; that nevertheless, as it had been found to be usual to insert addresses of the Corporation presented to the king with the answer thereto, the secretary of state would give directions for inserting the last address and answer "on account of the usage," and not as a matter of right.[700]
[Sidenote: Assassination of Spencer Perceval, 11 May, 1812.]
Dissatisfied as the citizens were with the ministry, they nevertheless viewed with horror the dastardly assassination of Spencer Perceval in the lobby of the House of Commons (11 May), and both the Court of Aldermen and the Common Council presented addresses on the subject to the Prince Regent.[701] As soon as news of the outrage reached the lord mayor, he dispatched messengers to the House for confirmation of the report, and at the same time sent his chaplain to the secretaries of state for further particulars. The city marshals were immediately ordered to take steps for calling out the watch and ward, and to report every half-hour to the Mansion House. All that night a double patrol was kept, and half-hourly reports sent in until daylight. At eight o'clock the following morning, the East Regiment of London militia mustered at head-quarters in case of an outbreak,[702] but it soon became known that the outrage was the work of a single individual--one Bellingham, a Liverpool broker, with some real or fancied grievance--and not of a political conspiracy as was at first believed. The assassin was convicted and hanged within a week. All the ministers resigned, and an attempt was made to construct a Whig cabinet, but it failed and Lord Liverpool became premier.
[Sidenote: The Battle of Salamanca, 22 July, 1812.]
In June, Napoleon entered Russia, and Wellington prepared to carry out offensive operations in Spain. In the following month (22 July) the latter defeated the French general, Marmont, at Salamanca, and afterwards entered Madrid in triumph. For his victory at Salamanca, the Common Council added a gold box to the Freedom of the City already accorded to him but not yet conferred;[703] whilst later on they voted a sum of £2,000 in aid of the sufferers from Napoleon's Russian invasion.[704]
[Sidenote: The "Shannon" and "Chesapeake," 1 June, 1813.]
The year 1813 found England at war, not only with France but with America. For some time past the United States had felt aggrieved at certain Orders in Council which had been issued by way of retaliation for the famous Berlin decree; and in contravention of these orders they had insisted on the doctrine that a neutral flag made free goods. The orders had been revoked in favour of America in June, 1812, but the concession came too late, and war had been declared. An attempt to draw off Canada from her allegiance failed, but at sea the Americans succeeded in capturing some of our frigates. At length, a duel was, by arrangement, fought outside Boston harbour, between the English vessel "Shannon," Captain Broke in command, and the American frigate "Chesapeake." The vessels were well matched, but the action which took place on the 1st June (1813), lasted little more than a quarter of an hour. It was reported at the time that an explosion took place on the "Chesapeake," and that it was owing to this rather than to any superiority in courage or tactics on the part of the crew of the English vessel that the American was made a prize.[705] But, however, this may have been, the honour of the day rested with Captain Broke, who was presented with the Freedom of the City and a sword of the value of 100 guineas.[706] The unhappy war was not brought to a close until December (1814).
[Sidenote: Treaty of Paris, May, 1814.]
In the meantime, Napoleon had met with a series of unprecedented reverses, and been forced to abdicate; Louis XVIII had succeeded to his murdered brother's throne, and peace between England and France had been signed at Paris (May, 1814). The City presented a long congratulatory address to the Prince Regent, on the fall of Napoleon and the accession of Louis to the throne.[707] Swords of honour were showered on foreign officers,[708] whilst our royal allies, the czar of Russia and the king of Prussia, as well as the new French king were presented with congratulatory addresses, and with the Prince Regent magnificently entertained by the citizens at the Guildhall (18 June).[709] Two days later the peace was proclaimed in the city with the same formalities as those used in the proclamation of peace with France and Spain, in 1783,[710] and on Thursday, the 7th July, a solemn thanksgiving service was held in St. Paul's, and was attended by the Regent.[711]
[Sidenote: The Duke of Wellington at the Guildhall, 9 July, 1814.]
The entertainment at the Guildhall was followed at a short interval (9 July) by another given to the Duke of Wellington, when opportunity was taken of presenting him with the Freedom of the City, which he had hitherto been unable to "take up," as also with the sword of honour and gold box already voted to him. The second entertainment was scarcely less brilliant than the former, the general arrangements and decorations being the same on both occasions.[712]
[Sidenote: Petition Common Council for abolition of slave trade, 4 July, 1814.]
Before the terms of peace were actually settled, the House of Commons embraced the opportunity of addressing the Regent upon the advisability of provision being made against the revival of the slave trade in those parts which were about to be ceded to France.[713] Ever since 1792 Bills had from time to time been introduced, with the view of putting down or at least suspending the nefarious traffic, but with little or no success, until in 1807 an Act was passed prohibiting the slave trade, under a penalty of heavy fines. As this Act was not sufficiently deterrent, another Act had been passed in 1811, making slave trading a felony, and so the trade had, after a long struggle, been finally abolished throughout the British dominion. Since 1792 the civic fathers do not appear to have taken any active part in the matter; but when it became known that the peace had been concluded, not only without any guarantee against the revival of the slave trade in parts where it had been abolished by England, and which were now to be ceded to France, but with express stipulations that the traffic should and might be exercised in those parts for a certain number of years, the City again took the matter up. A strong petition was drawn up by the Common Council (4 July), and submitted to both Houses of Parliament. They expressed the deepest regret that by such stipulations "all the labours and exertions of the wise and virtuous in this country, and all the enactments of the legislature," for the abolition of the slave trade had been rendered useless and unavailing. After such a formal recognition in the treaty of the right of France to carry on the abominable traffic, it would be preposterous for the British government to ask the assistance of other powers to put it down. The petitioners, therefore, humbly prayed both Houses to take speedy steps to impress upon his majesty's government the necessity of having the obnoxious clauses rescinded.[714] A week later (11 July) the prince, who, when originally applied to on the matter by the House of Commons, had returned what was then considered a favourable answer, now assured Parliament that he would endeavour to carry out its wishes.[715]
[Sidenote: Battle of Waterloo, 18 June, 1815.]
Early in the following year, whilst a congress was sitting at Vienna to regulate the affairs of Europe, news was brought that Napoleon had made his escape from Elba. Louis XVIII, the restored Bourbon king, who had already become unpopular, fled to Lille, and Napoleon became once more emperor of the French. His reign was, however, cut short on the field of Waterloo (18 June). The allies entered Paris in triumph (7 July), Napoleon took refuge on board the "Bellerophon," a British man-of-war, and claimed the hospitality of the Prince Regent. It was, however, only too clear that the peace of Europe would be constantly menaced were he to be allowed his liberty. He was, therefore, removed to St. Helena, and kept under guard. Louis XVIII was again restored, and negotiations were resumed, which resulted in a second treaty of Paris (20 Nov.). Once more the City offered congratulations to the Regent,[716] and as the swords of honour, voted last year to Blucher and other distinguished foreign officers, had not yet been presented, the lord mayor (Samuel Birch) proposed going to Paris himself, with a small deputation of the Common Council, and making the presentation--as he said--"in the face of the world." Although he had received assurances that every possible respect would be shown him, he eventually abandoned the idea, and contented himself with despatching the swords to the Duke of Wellington for delivery to their respective owners.[717]
FOOTNOTES:
[642] Journal 81, fo. 142
[643] Parliamentary History xxxvi, 1,661, 1,662.
[644] Journal 81, fos. 166-167.
[645] Id., fos. 171-172, 204.
[646] Id., fos. 219b, 231b.
[647] Journal 81, fos. 345-345b.
[648] Journal 82, fos. 54-55.
[649] Journal 82, fos. 97-98.
[650] Id., fos. 181-182.
[651] See Appendix to Stanhope's Life of Pitt, Vol. iv, pp. iv-xiii.
[652] Journal 82, fos. 27-28.
[653] Journal 82, fos. 34b-36.
[654] Journal 82, fos. 33-34.
[655] Journal House of Commons, lix, 406-422.
[656] Journal 82, fos. 44, 69b.
[657] Repertory 210, fos. 375-376.
[658] Journal 82, fo. 253.
[659] Journal 82, fos. 368-368b.
[660] Id., fos. 381-382.
[661] Repertory 210, fos. 54-62, 65, 102-168; Journal 82, fo. 393b; Journal 83, fos. 12Ob-128b.
[662] Journal 82, fo. 380; Journal 83 fos. 117-118b, 144-144b.
[663] Stanhope "Life of Pitt," iv, 345, 346.
[664] Repertory 210, fos. 373-375.
[665] Journal 83, fos. 11b-12, 45b-46, 225-226.
[666] Journal 83, fo. 16.
[667] Journal 83, fos. 154, 233-4.
[668] Id., fo. 234.
[669] Journal 83, fo. 352b.
[670] Id., fos. 382, 384b, 388.
[671] Id., fos. 67, 151, 170-170b, 171b. Journal 84, fo. 96b.
[672] Journal 84, fos. 197b-198b, 201.
[673] Upon the lord mayor (Ansley) quitting office a vote of thanks was moved for the hospitality he had shown the Spanish envoys, but the motion was negatived. Affairs had not gone so well in Spain as the City had hoped.--Journal 84, fo. 357b.
[674] Journal 84, fo. 294b.
[675] Id., fos. 333, 336b.
[676] Journal 85, fos. 79b-80b.
[677] Journal 85, fos. 201b-205. See Annual Register li, 457.
[678] Journal 85, fo. 258.
[679] Journal 85, fo. 279b.
[680] Id., fos. 277b-278, 291.
[681] Id., fos. 322-325b, 350. The substitution of a new address in the place of one already agreed to was afterwards (8 Feb., 1810) declared irregular.--Id., fo. 397.
[682] Journal 85, fo. 355b.
[683] Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 237b-243.
[684] Journal 85, fos. 420-422b.
[685] Journal 86, fos. 380, 380b.
[686] Repertory 214, fos. 307-311.
[687] Id., fos. 336-339, 373-477.
[688] Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 245-248b.
[689] Journal House of Commons, lxv, 346.
[690] Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 249b-253b. Journal House of Commons, lxv, 410, 411.
[691] Repertory 214, fos. 772-812.
[692] Id., fos. 761-762.
[693] Journal 86, fo. 216b.
[694] Journal 86, fo. 332.--See minutes of committee relative to the king's statue, 19 April, 1811.
[695] Journal 86, fos. 262b-268. Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 259-261b.
[696] Journal 86, fos. 290-291b.
[697] Journal 86, fos. 373b-374, 384-385b.
[698] Id., fos. 386b-387b, 400-405; Repertory 215, fos. 345-350; Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 263-265.
[699] Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 272-277b.
[700] Journal 87, fos. 195, 196b, 204b.
[701] Journal 87, fos. 228b-23lb; Repertory 216, fo. 340.
[702] Repertory 216, fos. 338-339.
[703] Journal 87, fos. 397b.
[704] Id., fos. 438b.
[705] See letter from Commodore William Bainbridge to the secretary of the navy. Dated Charleston (Mass.), 2 June.--Examiner, No. 294.
[706] Journal 88, fos. 114, 171.
[707] Journal 88, fo. 285b.
[708] Journal 89, fos. 45b-46.
[709] Journal 88, fos. 295b, 297b; Journal 89, fos. 42-45, 47-47b, 50-52b, 307b-320; Repertory 218, fos. 448-453, 472-481. A plaster of Paris bust of the Czar was presented to the lord mayor, and set up in the centre niche of the Egyptian Hall, in the Mansion House. Journal 89, fo. 93b; Journal 90, fo. 47.
[710] Repertory 218, fos. 485-487.
[711] Journal 89, fos. 39b, 56.
[712] Journal 90, fos. 71-80b.
[713] Journal House of Commons, lxix, 231.
[714] Journal 89, fos. 61b-64b.
[715] Journal House of Commons, lxix, 450.
[716] Journal 89, fos. 352-353b.
[717] Journal 89, fos. 368-368b; Journal 90, fo. 57b.
Chapter XLIII
[Sidenote: The City opposes renewal of Income Tax, Feb., 1816.]
Now that the war was over, a period of tranquillity, prosperity and retrenchment was eagerly looked for. The country therefore experienced bitter disappointment when, on the resumption of the parliamentary session in February (1816), the government declared its intention of continuing to levy the income or property tax (which, from the first, had been avowedly a war tax) although the assessment was to be reduced by one-half. The citizens were among the first to express their indignation at such a proceeding. The Common Council and the livery passed a number of resolutions against the continuance of a tax that was at once inquisitorial, unjust and vexatious, and both bodies presented petitions to parliament against its renewal.[718] The Common Council submitted to the House that having patiently endured great burdens and privations during a war of unexampled difficulty they had naturally expected that on the return of peace "they should have been relieved from the burthens of war establishments and war taxes, that at least the most obnoxious and oppressive of them would have been removed, and they confidently hoped that by such reductions in the public expenditure with the necessary reformations and the abolishing of all unnecessary places, pensions and sinecures, there would have been no pretence for the continuance of a tax subversive of freedom and destructive to the peace and happiness of the people." The livery for their part reminded the House that the first imposition of the tax was accompanied by "the most unequivocal and solemn declaration that the same should be withdrawn immediately after the termination of the then existing hostilities," and they expressed the utmost surprise and indignation at the government proposing to continue the oppressive and odious tax now that peace had been restored. As for the proposed reduction from ten to five per cent. the change so far from being likely to render the tax less vexatious would produce the opposite effect, and would, in their opinion, "be the occasion of the most degrading and inquisitorial proceedings, worse, if possible, than have been experienced under the former pressure of this heavy burden." The outcry of the city was quickly taken up by the country, and such a flood of petitions against the renewal of the tax poured in that the government had to give way and the tax was abandoned.
[Sidenote: Agricultural depression, 1811-1815.]
At the opening of the session the Prince Regent had congratulated the country upon the prosperity of the revenue and of all branches of trade and manufacture.[719] As a matter of fact both the commercial and agricultural interests of the country were in a very bad way. The high prices produced during the latter part of the war by the continental system, which virtually excluded foreign competition, had been most disastrous to agriculture by encouraging a bad system of farming, whilst they inflicted the greatest hardship upon all but the wealthiest class. In 1811 the price of a quartern loaf--as set from time to time by the Court of Aldermen, according to the custom of the city,[720] "within the city and the liberties thereof, and the weekly Bills of mortality, and within ten miles of the Royal Exchange"--had risen to such a height that the Common Council presented an address to the Regent (18 Dec.) praying him to take measures for re-opening commercial intercourse with foreign, and especially neutral, nations. To this the Regent replied that nothing should be wanting on his part towards restoring commercial intercourse between this country and other nations "to the footing on which it has been usually conducted, even in the midst of war."[721] The average price of the quartern loaf, from this period until the autumn of 1813, when the country was blessed with a rich harvest, may be set down at 1_s._ 6_d._ It then began to fall rapidly. Flour, however, kept up in price for some time owing to the dryness of the summer, which prevented many mills near London from working, whilst several of the mills which could work "were engaged in answering the demands of government for the army abroad, and the prisoners of war confined in this country."[722]
[Sidenote: The City and the first Corn Law, March, 1815.]
No sooner had the price of wheat fallen than a Corn Law Bill was introduced into Parliament, in the interests of the landed gentry, to raise it again. The Bill was brought in on the 1st March (1815), and rapidly passed the Commons, in spite of protests from the Common Council, as well as the livery of London, who objected to the landowner, who had benefited by the war, being made richer at the expense of the tradesman and merchant, whose burdens the war had so much increased.[723] On the 21st the Bill passed the Lords, and only awaited the Regent's assent to become law. Determined to make one more effort the Common Council presented an address to his royal highness begging him to withhold his assent.[724] They complained of the "precipitancy" with which the Bill had been passed, and of the utter disregard of public feeling and opinion which both Houses--composed as they were of landed proprietors, to whom the war had been a source of emolument--had throughout displayed. The Bill had been passed (they repeated) in the interest of landowners, who already enjoyed sufficient immunities, whereas the manufacturer and the merchant, who had done so much to make England what she was, had to suffer from foreign competition and the recent introduction of machinery. The Bill, if passed, would keep up the price of food, and so drive the manufacturer and artisan to foreign parts, and transfer the skill, industry and capital of the kingdom to other nations. They prayed his highness, therefore, to exercise his prerogative of refusing his assent to the Bill. This he refused, however, to do, and the Bill became law. As to the merits or demerits of free-trade, opinions are still divided; but for thirty years after the passing of the first Corn Law the City never lost an opportunity of declaring its opposition to the principle involved,[725] and never rested until in 1846 the first steps were taken for the abolition of all corn duties. However much others have benefited by their repeal, one cannot shut one's eyes to the fact that to the agricultural class the result has been little short of disastrous.
[Sidenote: A year of general depression, 1816.]
Unfortunately the depression was not confined to agriculture, as the Common Council took an early opportunity of pointing out to Parliament in their petition against the renewal of the income tax (8 Feb.): "Your petitioners are deeply sensible"--they told the House of Commons--"of the depressed state of the agricultural interests and of the ruinous effect of such a burthen thereon, they nevertheless beg to state that the manufacturing and trading interests are equally depressed and equally borne down with the weight of taxation."[726]
[Sidenote: Address of the livery to Regent, 21 Aug., 1816.]
As time went on matters became worse, and in August the livery resolved to present another address to the Regent, calling his attention to the prevalent distress, which they characterised as "unparalleled in the history of our country," and which they declared to be "the natural result of a corrupt system of administration," as well as of the profligate waste of public money during the late war. An address was accordingly drawn up (21 Aug.) praying his highness to lose no time in recommending to the serious consideration of Parliament (1) the distressed state of the country; (2) the prompt abolition of all useless places and pensions; (3) the immediate and effectual reduction of the standing army; (4) a system of the most rigid economy in every public department, and last, but not least, (5) such a reform of Parliament as should restore and secure to the people their ancient constitutional rights. This address they ordered to be presented to the Prince Regent "seated on his throne." The address was never presented, for the reason that the Regent refused to receive it in any other way than at a levée or through the medium of his secretary of state. The livery therefore had once more to console themselves with passing a number of resolutions after the usual manner.[727]
[Sidenote: The city flooded with vagrants.]
The streets of the city, meanwhile, swarmed not only with artisans out of work, but, what was worse, with discharged soldiers and sailors. A large proportion of the last mentioned class were foreign seamen. At the close of the war the government had taken steps to send to their respective countries all foreign seamen who had served on British vessels. Many of them, however, had either declined the government offer, or, having accepted it and obtained a passage home, had come to England with the view of entering the English merchant service or obtaining some other employment in this country. It was in vain that the lord mayor (Matthew Wood)[728] applied to the foreign consuls to send them home. The answer was that they had "forfeited all claim on their native country and violated the allegiance they owed to it by entering the service of Great Britain." The consequence was that great numbers of these unfortunate men wandered about the city in an utterly destitute condition. Oftentimes when opportunity offered for sending some of them to their own country their consuls could not find them. The lord mayor, who was in communication both with Lord Sidmouth and Lord Melville, suggested the advisability of mooring an old vessel in the Thames for the reception of foreign seamen until they could be sent home. Lord Melville, as first lord of the admiralty, signified his approval of the plan and promised to supply a suitable vessel. In the meanwhile, matters daily grew worse. The lord mayor complained to Lord Sidmouth (16 Nov.) that he had frequently been engaged from nine in the morning until six in the evening attending to destitute cases:--"I have had before me two hundred in a day, of whom the greater number have come from Wapping and the out parishes, and not one in twenty has slept in London." If only the magistrates (he declared) would examine into the cases of their own districts, "it would divide the labour and prevent the daily assemblage of from one to two hundred of these poor creatures around the Mansion House, some of whom linger about it all night." In conclusion he begged to draw his lordship's attention once more to the situation of the foreign seamen who were found on the bridges and in the streets "literally starving," and to ask that the government should do something to relieve the City of the heavy expense which their presence entailed. The only reply which the secretary of state vouchsafed to this appeal was a non possumus. The government had done all they could do, and relief could only be looked for at the hands of the foreign consuls, whose duty it was to provide for their own poor.[729]
[Sidenote: Resolutions of the livery, 29 Nov., 1816.]
Moved at the sad spectacle which met them on every side, the livery of London again met in Common Hall on the 29th November. They felt that it was useless to attempt to get an address received by the Regent in the manner they deemed proper; so they again passed resolutions urging all counties, corporate bodies, towns, wards and parishes throughout the kingdom to lay their grievances at the foot of the throne and before Parliament in a firm, temperate, and peaceable manner, with the view of eventually obtaining that economical and parliamentary reform they had so long and so anxiously desired.[730]
[Sidenote: Lord Mayor's report of Spa Fields Riot, 3 Dec., 1816.]
In the meanwhile a series of riots had taken place in various parts of the country. In agricultural districts ricks had been fired, and in manufacturing towns machinery had been wantonly destroyed. In December, a riot known as the "Spa Fields Riot" broke out, but was repressed without much difficulty, thanks to the courage of the lord mayor. The first intimation that Matthew Wood received that anything was wrong, was about mid-day on Monday, the 2nd December. He was then told that a mob some thousands strong was approaching the city by way of Aldersgate Street; that a man had already been shot in a gun-maker's shop in Skinner Street, and that the shop had been cleared of a large quantity of arms. What subsequently took place is best told in Matthew Wood's own report[731] to his brother aldermen:--"I immediately signified my intention of going out to meet them and instantly Sir James Shaw and Mr. White offered their services. On enquiring for Police Officers, only two were to be found. We hurried to Guildhall, where we met with only three more, and attended by these five we advanced by the back streets in the hope of reaching the top of Cheapside before the Mob; in Lad Lane we were told that they had already entered Cheapside in great force with Colors, and the firing was distinctly heard by us, we returned therefore immediately with all imaginable speed by the way of Princes Street into Cornhill, with the view of heading them in that direction; in this however we were again foiled, for in reaching the West end of Cornhill, we saw them pressing [sic] the front of the Exchange. We followed them close, and seeing the head of their Column crossing into Sweeting's Alley we rushed thro' the Royal Exchange in order to take them in front and we succeeded. We met them on the North of the Royal Exchange near the Old Stock Exchange, on seeing me they cheered, we immediately attacked them, upon which they began to seperate in all directions and some laid down their arms. Sir James Shaw intrepidly seized the Flag and its Bearer, Mr. White seized one man and I another. The Mob were now seen flying in all directions: about this time Mr. Favell and Mr. Hick joined us, a man with a tricolored Cockade in his hat (Hooper) came up to me with a desire to explain. I made him go before me into the Exchange which he did without resistance. I had him in the centre when two fellows levelled their Musketts at me. I said, 'fire away, you Rascals.' One of them fired. I then gave Hooper into the Custody of the Officers, who found in his pockets two Horse Pistols, one loaded with Ball, the other with Slugs. A cry that the mob had rallied was heard just as we were making arrangements for securing the Prisoners. I ordered the gates of the Exchange to be shut, which we accomplished with some difficulty and not before several guns loaded with shot were fired under the gates at our feet, but without any effect. Information being now received that a portion of the Rioters had gone towards the East end of the City, it was determined to follow them, directions having been first given to put the prisoners into the custody of the Master of Lloyd's, with whom Sir James Shaw also lodged the Standard. I proceeded accompanied by Sir James and a few Constables up Cornhill and Leadenhall Street, but here we were told, the Mob had wholly dispersed; which induced us to return to the Mansion House, where I found Sir William Curtis, who in his zeal for the Public Service, had lost sight of all personal ailments, and had come, ill as he was, to offer me his best services, by this time also the Dragoons had reached the City. Mr. Alderman Atkins who had been sitting in the Justice Room for me also joined us, and it being suggested, that it would be proper that the different Wards should collect as many of their respectable Inhabitants as possible, to be sworn in Special Constables, I immediately gave directions to that effect. Sir James Shaw and Mr. Alderman Atkins tendered their Services to convey my wishes to Lloyd's and the Stock Exchange and these Gentlemen informed me that the proposition was received and accepted at each of these places by the Gentlemen with cheers. These Gentlemen next proceeded to the Bank where they saw the Governor, and had the satisfaction to learn he had anticipated their wishes; a division of the Bank Corps being then actually under arms. From the Bank they proceeded to the India House and met with several of the Directors in attendance who immediately gave orders for 500 of their men to be selected as a Guard on their warehouses, who were soon after sworn in Constables by Mr. Alderman Atkins. When these Gentlemen returned to the Mansion House there were assembled Sir John Eamer, Sir John Perring, Sir William Leighton, Sir Charles Flower, Alderman J.J. Smith, Alderman Scholey, Alderman Birch, Alderman Magnay, Alderman Heygate, Alderman Cox and Sheriffs Bridges and Kirby with their Under-Sheriffs. About 3 o'clock information was brought me, that the Mob had broken into the Warehouses of Messrs. Branden and Co. and Mr. Rea's and had taken from each a quantity of arms, and almost at the same moment I received intelligence that the plunderers had been met and dispersed by the Dragoons, who had made some Prisoners, and recovered most of the arms. During the absence of Sir James Shaw and Mr. Alderman Atkins Mr. White of Bishopsgate Street had arrived with a Troop of Light Dragoons which he had fetched from the Light Horse Stables, Grays Inn Lane, and Mr. Goldham having been dispatched with a few of them to reconnoitre, now returned with a Coach loaded with Musketts, Swords, Blunderbusses, Pikes, Halbuts, and a brass Cannon which had been taken from the Mob in the Minories by the Life Guardsmen and three Prisoners were sent into Aldgate Watchouse and committed to the care of a Constable, who by a shameful dereliction of his duty suffered them to escape. Mr. Mc Lean of Brunswick Square, who had not long left the Mansion House, returned about four o'Clock and informed me, that, the Meeting in the Fields had broken up, and that, there were 15,000 people coming down Holborn and passing to Fleet Market. I determined to go and meet them; Sir James Shaw and Mr. Mc Lean tendered their Services, when taking some Police Officers some Special Constables and a Detachment of Dragoons with us we moved on in a quick pace by the North side of St. Paul's Church Yard where we met about 2,000 persons, but seeing they were without arms of any kind and perfectly peaceable, we allowed them to pass on. We proceeded Westward and nearly to the middle of Fleet Street when meeting another party of Dragoons, who informed us everything was quiet in that Quarter we returned to the Mansion House, I having first directed a party of the Horse accompanied with Police Officers to make the Circuit of the Prisons and to report to me when they had so done. The City was quiet from this time. About 12 o'Clock at Night some papers taken by the Constable out of the Pocket of the Man who shot Mr. Platt were shown to me, by which I learned that Hooper was connected with Preston the Secretary of the Spa Fields Meeting. These papers state that subscriptions towards defraying the expences of erecting Hustings, Printing &c., will be received by J. Hooper No. 9 Graystock Place Fetter Lane signed Preston Secretary. About one in morning accompanied by Mr. Sheriff Kirby, Mr. Under-Sheriff Kearsey and others with some Constables, I went to No. 9 Graystock Place and made the Householder come down, who proved to be Preston the Secretary. We searched the House and found in it very few papers--one an Hymn, and another a letter of exhortation on the subject of 'England expects every Man to do his duty.' There was likewise a small quantity of Tricolored Ribbon. Preston had two daughters and there were only two Beds on the floor in the same room, the whole house in a most wretched condition--with scarsely a chair; in the room used by Hooper for the reception of subscriptions there was no other furniture but a table. Preston said Hooper did not lodge there nor did he know where he lived. It is supposed Watson Junr. was the Person who fired the Pistol at Mr. Platt, as Hooper says he did not see Watson for some time after they left the Fields, and it appears that he went into the Shop alone. The Officer was induced to let him escape through the entreaties of Mr. Beckwith's family who were apprehensive should he be detained that the house would be pulled down. I have no doubt had the Mob not been prevented it was their intention to have collected a great number of fire arms and then to have returned to Spa Fields and from thence to Carlton House. Hooper admits that they intended to go to Carlton House, but not with fire arms. Hooper said that Watson Junr. gave him the Pistols on Sunday night at Preston's House and in his presence said that if they were opposed by the Civil power, they were to use them."
The lord mayor closed his narrative with a handsome acknowledgment of the services rendered by his brother aldermen, the special constables and others, whilst he expressed a desire more particularly to call the attention of the Court to the conduct of Sir James Shaw, "whose zeal, activity, coolness and undaunted courage," had rendered him such valuable assistance throughout the day.
[Sidenote: The City's address to Regent on state of affairs, 9 Dec., 1816.]
On the 9th December--just one week after the riot--the Common Council presented an address to the Regent praying for a reformation of abuses, a speedy meeting of Parliament, and a more equitable system of representation. The address was received with "surprise and regret." His highness expressed his opinion, shared as he said, by a large portion of his subjects, that the prevailing distress was the result of "unavoidable causes." He was confident that the good sense, public spirit, and loyalty of the nation would prove superior to the attempts that had been made to "irritate and mislead" his subjects. And he declared his readiness to meet Parliament at the time appointed and not before.[732]
[Sidenote: Reflections on the Regent's reply.]
When it came to recording the Regent's "most gracious" answer on the Journal of the Common Council, an amendment was made and carried, to leave out the words "most gracious." The Council went further than this. It passed a resolution expressing its own "surprise and regret," that his highness should have been advised to return such an answer at such a time; that he should have imputed to those who sought only a reformation of abuses, a desire to "irritate and mislead" the people, and that he should have attributed to "unavoidable causes" what was in reality due to reckless public expenditure, sanctioned by a corrupt Parliament.[733]
[Sidenote: Outrage upon the Regent, 28 Jan., 1817.]
The general discontent vented itself by a personal attack on the Regent as he drove from Westminster after opening Parliament in January (1817), and one of the windows of his carriage was broken by a missile. The City at once expressed its indignation at the outrage and offered addresses congratulating the prince on his escape.[734]
[Sidenote: City petitions to Parliament for Reform, Feb., 1817.]
Parliament had not sat many days before the Common Council and the livery presented strongly-worded petitions to both Houses for Reform. The Common Council pointed out--as an example of one of the most glaring anomalies--that Cornwall alone returned more borough members than fifteen other counties together including Middlesex, and more than eleven counties even including county members,[735] whilst the livery referred all the evils which the country was suffering--"the prodigious amount of the National Debt, the enormous and unconstitutional military establishments, the profusion of sinecure places and pensions, and a long course of lavish expenditure of the public money"--to one source, viz., "the corrupt, dependent, and inadequate representation of the people in Parliament." They disclaimed all wild and visionary plans of Reform. All they desired was "to see the House of Commons in conformity with pure constitutional principles, a fair and honest organ of the public voice exercising a controuling power over the servants of the Crown, and not an instrument in their hands to oppress the people."[736]
[Sidenote: Repressive measures of the Government, March, 1817.]
It was to no purpose. The outrage on the Regent frightened the ministers, and instead of following the advice offered by the City and appeasing the public by showing a willingness to correct abuses, they proceeded to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act and to pursue a cruel system of repression, which only served to increase the evil.[737]
[Sidenote: The trial of Hone, the bookseller, Dec., 1817.]
Not only were seditious actions proceeded against but seditious writings. A quiet and inoffensive bookseller of Old Bailey, named Hone, was prosecuted on three several charges for which he was put on trial three several days. The charges were professedly for having published pamphlets of a blasphemous character, but the persistency with which they were pressed after a first and second acquittal, sufficiently showed that the prosecution had been undertaken from political and not from any religious motives, and the City did not hesitate to tell Parliament as much.[738] They declared that they had viewed with indignation and horror the vindictive cruelty with which ministers had exercised their power since the suspension of the Act. Numerous individuals (they said) had been torn from their wives and families, dragged to distant prisons and kept in irons, and afterwards released without being brought to trial, or even knowing the nature of the charges against them. The country had been flooded with spies and informers in the pay of the government, and these inhuman wretches had endeavoured to excite simple and deluded men into acts of outrage and treason. The petitioners did not disguise their belief that "the groundless alarms excited by ministers were solely for the purpose of stifling complaints and protecting abuses."
[Sidenote: The Indemnity Bill, 13 March, 1818.]
When the Habeas Corpus Act was again allowed to come into force (29 Jan., 1818), after nearly a year's suspension,[739] the ministers were anxious to cover their recent proceedings under a Bill of Indemnity. A sealed bag of papers was laid upon the table of the House which the government demanded to be referred to a secret committee, but as this committee was virtually nominated by the government itself, the citizens of London lost no time in declaring that they for their part, would have no confidence in any report such a committee might think fit to make.[740]
[Sidenote: The City and the parliamentary election, June, 1818.]
The City had its revenge in the following June, when parliament was hurriedly dissolved and a new election took place. Three of the old city members,--Sir William Curtis, Sir James Shaw, and John Atkins,--all of them aldermen with ministerial proclivities, were rejected, and four liberals were returned, the best known being Matthew Wood, who had sat in the last parliament on the withdrawal of Harvey Combe, and Robert Waithman, afterwards an alderman. In the country the elections were attended with the bitterest party strife, but as the representation then stood, no great change was possible, and the ministers found themselves still in possession of a large majority.
[Sidenote: Mass meetings in Smithfield, 21 July, 25 Aug., 1819.]
Although the harvest of 1817 had been a good one, and commercial activity had succeeded a period of extraordinary depression, the year 1818 was marked with great distress among artisans, owing to overproduction. As is usually the case at such times, demagogues were at hand urging the sufferers to revolutionary measures. Among them was the Rev. Joseph Harrison, a schoolmaster at Stockport, who, after making a violent speech in that town on the 28th June (1819), was arrested on a warrant at a mass meeting held in Smithfield, on the 21st July.[741]
[Sidenote: The "Manchester massacre" or "Peterloo," 16 Aug., 1819.]
Another of these demagogues was Henry Hunt, commonly known as "Orator" Hunt, who had offered himself as a candidate for Westminster at the last general election, and figured in the Spa Fields commotion. He was a man, however, more ready to stir up others to deeds of violence than risk his own skin. An attempt to arrest him at a meeting which he was about to address in St. Peter's Fields, near Manchester, led to five or six being killed by the military, and to a number of others being wounded. The affair, which was caused by magisterial blundering, came to be known as the "Manchester massacre" or "Peterloo," and proved a formidable weapon against the government. Hunt was taken, but liberated on bail, and on the 13th September was conducted in great triumph from Islington to the Crown and Anchor Tavern, in the Strand.[742]
[Sidenote: City address to Regent, 9 Sept., 1819.]
The Common Council expressed much sympathy with the sufferers, whose only fault had been to assemble for the purpose of lawfully and peacefully discussing public grievances, and they petitioned the Regent for a full and immediate enquiry into the outrage and for the punishment of the authors. They assured his highness that he had been deceived by false representations, otherwise he would never have been induced to express approval of the conduct of the abettors and perpetrators of the late atrocities.[743] The Prince in reply flatly told the citizens they knew nothing about the real state of the case, and this "most gracious" answer was ordered to be entered in the Journal of the Court.[744]
[Sidenote: The six Acts, 1819.]
The passing of a series of suppressory enactments, known as "The Six Acts," at an autumn session, gave the Common Council another opportunity for recommending parliamentary reform. It at the same time suggested--as reformers of the present day will do well to remember--the extension of the municipal form of government as a better panacea for existing evils than more drastic measures.[745] The Court of Aldermen, on the other hand, kept silence. They had, however, already passed a number of resolutions upholding the magistracy in putting down seditious meetings, and calling upon the labouring classes to have confidence in themselves, and not to be led by agitators, but to wait patiently until the present difficulties--"springing alone from the termination of a protracted war"--should pass away.[746]
[Sidenote: Proceedings in Common Hall, 29 Sept., 1819.]
The city itself presented signs of uneasiness. On Michaelmas-day, when the election of a lord mayor took place, a great commotion had been raised in Common Hall by sheriff Parkins, alderman Waithman, "Orator" Hunt and others, who wished to introduce violent resolutions against the government. The sheriff made himself especially obnoxious to the outgoing lord mayor (Atkins), chiefly, it appears, on account of the Court of Aldermen having refused to recognise him (Parkins) as the senior sheriff. His conduct in Common Hall, as well as the conduct of Waithman and certain others, was deemed so bad by the Court of Aldermen that legal proceedings were ordered to be taken against them.[747] The Common Council expressed disapproval at any proceedings being taken, and recommended their withdrawal. The Court at the same time directed the City Chamberlain not to pay any costs of the proceedings.[748] The Court of Aldermen were not unnaturally indignant at this,[749] but declined to withdraw from their position, and eventually a judgment was obtained in the King's Bench, which completely justified the position they had taken up. It was laid down by the judges that when a Common Hall has been summoned for a particular purpose, the livery have no right to introduce matter for consideration distinct from that for which they were assembled. The defendants in this case, however, were exonerated on the ground that they had been misled by an opinion given by Glynn, the City's Recorder in 1773, as to their rights.[750]
[Sidenote: Conduct of Sheriff Parkins.]
In the meantime, sheriff Parkins had continued to make himself as obnoxious as he could. He refused to attend at church on Michaelmas-day, and on the following day, when he should have accompanied his fellow sheriff, to be presented at Westminster to the Barons of the Exchequer, he wrote a rude letter to the mayor, excusing himself joining the procession on the score that he was busily engaged in his duties at the Old Bailey, and could not be "at two places one and the same time." Later in the day, he presented himself at Westminster, but without any state, and declined to invite the Barons of the Exchequer to the entertainment usually provided by the sheriffs on such occasions. He, in fact, gave no entertainment at all. He ought to have accompanied the mayor to the Court of Aldermen on the 8th October, but he again excused himself, on the plea of a headache, which he had the coolness to attribute to "the incessant noise and dreadful screams" at the last Common Hall. The mayor complained to the Court of Aldermen, and the sheriff was called upon to explain his conduct at the next Court.[751] When the Court met, Parkins read a long statement, which for sheer impudence will bear comparison with some productions of Wilkes or Junius, whilst lacking their cleverness. The reason he gave for not having accompanied the lord mayor to Westminster was that he did "not choose to divide with the lord mayor those marks of popular feeling which everywhere follow the track of the city state carriage during the present mayoralty." The lord mayor and the other sheriff had made the best part of the journey to Westminster by water, as was then the custom, but Parkins had reverted to the more ancient custom of riding thither on horseback.[752] It was true (he said) that he was not accompanied by any member of his company, but that was because "it would have been neither decorous nor prudent to have set on foot or even on horseback any rival procession, since it might have been deemed by the lord mayor a demonstration of hostility against his own supremacy," and so on and so on. His whole defence was after the same manner, but all that the Court of Aldermen did was to refer his conduct to a Committee of Privileges (12 Oct.), and there the matter appears to have ended.[753]
[Sidenote: Accession of George IV, 29 Jan., 1820.]
On the evening of Saturday, the 29th January, (1820) George III passed away, and on Sunday morning his death was notified to the lord mayor. A special Court of Aldermen was immediately summoned to sit at the Mansion House, when the mayor laid before them two letters from Lord Sidmouth, one informing him of the king's decease, and the other desiring his attendance at Carlton House, at one o'clock that afternoon. He also laid before the Court another letter which he had subsequently received. This was a letter from the Clerk of the Privy Council, stating that the lords of the Council would meet at one o'clock, at Carlton House, and that the lord mayor and Court of Aldermen might attend, if they thought proper. Thereupon the lord mayor, the aldermen, and the high officers of the city proceeded in state (the black sword being borne before the mayor) to Carlton House, where they heard and subscribed the proclamation of King George IV. On their return to the Mansion House, the York herald delivered a copy of the ceremonial to be observed the next day, when the king should be proclaimed. Upon the arrival of the procession the following day at Temple Bar, the lord mayor took up his position in his state coach immediately before the archbishop of Canterbury; the aldermen, sheriffs, chamberlain, common serjeant, town clerk and city officers immediately after the lords of the Privy Council. The proclamation was publicly read at Carlton House and Charing Cross and at three different places within the City's jurisdiction, viz.: at the corner of Chancery Lane, the corner of Wood Street, Cheapside, and at the Royal Exchange.[754]
[Sidenote: City addresses to George IV, 28 Feb., 1820.]
When sheriff Parkins and his brother sheriff, Rothwell, attended at Carlton Palace to learn when it would be convenient for the king to receive addresses from the City, they found his majesty much indisposed. Monday, the 28th February, was fixed for receiving the addresses of the Courts of Aldermen and Common Council, but an intimation was given to the sheriffs (privately, it appears) that the state of the king's health would require the addresses to be presented in a room adjoining his majesty's bedroom by a small deputation from each Court. When Rothwell, the senior sheriff, communicated the result of their mission to the aldermen and the Common Council, Parkins again made himself obnoxious, declaring that he had heard nothing about the addresses being presented by small deputations, and that as a matter of fact "his majesty did not appear to him to be so unwell as he had been led to expect from the various reports he had heard." No notice was taken of this exhibition of bad taste, and both Courts agreed to present their addresses by deputation. To each of them the king made gracious replies, promising that the welfare and prosperity of the City and the maintenance of its rights and liberties should be objects of his constant care.[755]
[Sidenote: The coronation of George IV, 19 July, 1821.]
The coronation was originally fixed for Tuesday, the 1st August, but was subsequently postponed to Thursday, the 19th July, 1821.[756] The City lost no time in sending in its customary claim of services; and the masters and prime wardens of the twelve principal livery companies were invited, as usual, to assist the lord mayor in his duties at the coronation banquet.[757] These services were now performed for the last time, the coronation banquet and all ceremonial in connexion therewith in Westminster Hall being dispensed with, by royal proclamation, at the accession of William IV.[758]
[Sidenote: City addresses to Queen Caroline, June, 1820.]
The ceremony was somewhat marred by an injudicious attempt of the unhappy queen to force her way into the abbey. Whatever may have been the extent of her folly or her guilt no one can question the misfortune of Queen Caroline. From the first moment of their meeting she was treated by her husband with scant courtesy and was soon forced to quit his side and lead a life of retirement at Blackheath. A watch was set on her movements and her conduct made the subject of a private enquiry by the lords. The City was no less indignant than the princess herself at such a proceeding. The livery presented her with an address of sympathy,[759] and at the close of the enquiry the Common Council congratulated her upon having escaped from a "foul and atrocious conspiracy against her life and honour."[760] The Court of Aldermen, however, once more held aloof. This was in 1813. In the following year she withdrew disgusted to the continent and there remained until her husband succeeded to the throne. Again the livery and the Common Council presented addresses and testified their attachment to one whom most people looked upon as an injured woman, who had in vain challenged her accusers to appear before a public and impartial tribunal.[761] Her wish was now to be gratified.
[Sidenote: The queen's trial, Aug.-Nov., 1820.]
Another secret enquiry into her conduct was held by the lords, at the king's command, and upon evidence thus scraped together and unsupported by oath a Bill of Pains and Penalties was introduced into the House of Lords for depriving the queen of her title and dissolving her marriage. The Common Council entered a strong protest and appealed to both Houses to reject the Bill,[762] but in vain. The queen was put on her defence, and after a protracted trial succeeded with the help of her learned counsel--Brougham, Denman and Lushington--in placing her conduct in such a light that the Bill had to be abandoned.
[Sidenote: City address to the queen, 21 Nov., 1820.]
The news of the queen's triumph was received with the wildest delight, and for three nights in succession London was illuminated. Addresses began to flow in upon her in such quantities that a special day of the week had to be set apart for their reception.[763] The Common Council assured her that they had never entertained the slightest doubt as to what would be the result of a trial unconstitutionally instituted and unfairly carried on; and expressed a hope that she would continue to reside among them.[764] The Freedom of the City was voted to counsel engaged in her defence.[765]
[Sidenote: The queen's reply, 24 Nov., 1820.]
In acknowledging the City's address the queen referred to her late victory as a triumph for the people. "If my enemies had prevailed"--she said--"the people who are now feared would have been despised, their oppression would have been indefinitely increased." She declared that it was to the sympathy and support of the people and of the Press that she was chiefly indebted for her escape from a conspiracy such as had never before threatened an individual, and although she doubted whether her presence in the country was conducive to the national welfare, as seemed to be generally supposed, she expressed herself as being always ready to conform to the will of the community at large:--"The people have made many sacrifices for me, and I will live for the people."[766]
[Sidenote: The queen at Brandenburgh House.]
The Court of Aldermen, as a body, had rigidly withheld their support from the unfortunate queen. Nevertheless, there were two members of the Court who thoroughly believed in her innocence, and who rendered her every assistance in their power. These were Matthew Wood, in whose house in South Audley Street she first found shelter on her return from abroad, and Robert Waithman. Matthew Wood continued to attend her at Brandenburgh House, where she kept her court, and where he dined with her the day that the Bill against her was thrown out. The motley character of her attendants elicited a satirical poem from Theodore Hook, in which the alderman comes in for his share of ridicule in the following lines:--
"And who were attending her--heigh ma'am; ho ma'am? Who were attending her, ho? --Lord Hood for a man, For a maid Lady Anne,[767] And Alderman Wood for a beau--beau And Alderman Wood for a beau."
[Sidenote: Presents her portrait to the City.]
It was Matthew Wood whom the queen employed to write to the Corporation, whilst her trial was still pending, asking that body to accept her portrait in testimony of her attachment and gratitude to "the first city in the world" for the zeal they had manifested in her cause, and it was Waithman who laid the letter before the Common Council. The offer was graciously accepted, and Queen Caroline's picture, as well as that of her deceased daughter, the Princess Charlotte--a subsequent gift--are preserved in the Guildhall Art Gallery.[768]
[Sidenote: The queen at St. Paul's, 29 Nov., 1820.]
An intimation which the Common Council received from the gentleman acting as the queen's vice-chamberlain that she proposed to attend the usual service held at St. Paul's on Wednesday, the 29th November, was received with mixed feelings. It was feared that her appearance in the city might cause inconvenience, and perhaps lead to riot. Nevertheless a special committee was appointed to give her a suitable reception.[769] A similar foreboding was felt by the Court of Aldermen as soon as they heard of the queen's intention, and a motion was made expressing regret; but before any vote could be taken on the matter, the Court was abruptly broken up by Wood and Waithman leaving.[770] On the 27th, the Court again met, when communications were read from the Dean of St. Paul's, and from Lord Sidmouth, touching the preparations to be made for her majesty's reception in the Cathedral, and the precautions to be taken against injury being done by accident or otherwise within the sacred precinct or in the public streets. The lord mayor was promised the assistance of the military if necessary. Again, a motion was made expressive of regret at the queen's proposal, but with no better success than at the previous Court. Alderman Wood again got up and left the Court so as to reduce the number present to less than a quorum, and Alderman Waithman immediately moved a count out.[771] Fortunately the day passed off without any mishap. One of the chief grievances which the queen had been made to suffer had been the omission of her name from the Liturgy. On this occasion she desired that "the particular thanksgiving, which at the request of any parishioner, it is customary to offer up" might be offered on her behalf, but the officiating minister refused on the ground that the rubric directed that "those may be named, who have been previously prayed for, but that the queen not having been prayed for, could not be named in the thanksgiving." After all was over, the queen communicated her thanks to the lord mayor and the committee for the trouble they had taken, and expressed herself as particularly obliged to his lordship for not yielding to alarm, and for declining all military assistance.[772]
[Sidenote: Address of Common Council to the king, 7 Dec., 1820.]
The queen's trial served only to increase the City's dissatisfaction with the ministers, and the Common Council once more urged their dismissal (9 Dec.). In their address to the king they referred "with pain and reluctance" to the late proceedings against the queen--proceedings which (they said) had drawn forth "the reprobation of the great body of the people"--and they expressed indignation at the flagrant outrage that had been committed on the moral and religious feelings of the nation.[773]
[Sidenote: The king's reply, 9 Dec.]
It is not to be supposed that the king would receive such an address very graciously. Indeed, he acknowledged that he received it "with the most painful feelings," and he vouchsafed no further answer than to tell the citizens that whatever might be their motives in presenting the address, it served no other purpose than to inflame the passions and mislead the judgment of the less enlightened of his subjects, and to aggravate the difficulties with which he had to contend.[774]
[Sidenote: Address, Court of Aldermen.]
Very different had been the reception accorded the previous day (8 Dec.) to an address from the Court of Aldermen, in which they informed the king of their resolution to defend the monarchy and other branches of the constitution, at that time so bitterly attacked. The subject of the queen's trial was not mentioned, although an attempt had been made to introduce it into the address by some members of the Court. This "loyal and dutiful" address was graciously received with the king's "warmest thanks."[775]
[Sidenote: The queen's death, 7 Aug., 1821.]
Early in the following year (Jan., 1821) the Common Council petitioned both Houses for the restoration of the queen's name in the Liturgy, and for making her a proper provision to enable her to support her rights and dignities. It at the same time demanded an enquiry into the manner in which the queen's prosecution had been brought about.[776] As regards a provision to be made for the queen, she had previously declined to accept any at the hands of the ministry.[777] The Commons now voted her an annuity of £50,000,[778] which she accepted but did not long enjoy, for in the following August she died.
[Sidenote: Disgraceful scene at her funeral, 14 Aug., 1821.]
The circumstances attending her funeral were of a most disgraceful character. She had expressed a wish to be buried in her own country, and this wish was carried out. The citizens were extremely anxious to pay a last token of respect in the event of her corpse being brought through the city to Harwich, the port of embarkation, and the Remembrancer waited upon Lord Liverpool for the purpose of notifying to him the resolutions passed by the Common Council to that effect. As in Chatham's case, so in the case of this unfortunate queen, the wishes of the citizens were ignored. After some delay they were informed that the funeral arrangements were already completed, and had been laid before the king, and that it was not intended that the procession should pass through the city.[779] The people, nevertheless, decided otherwise, and succeeded in gaining the day. This was not accomplished, however, without bloodshed. In order to insure the funeral procession passing through the city, the roads not leading in that direction were blocked and the pavement taken up. At Knightsbridge the mob came into collision with the military quartered in the barracks there. Stones and mud were freely thrown, and the guards were tempted at last to fire on the mob, killing two of their number. After the procession had passed through the city, with the lord mayor at its head, it was allowed to continue its course without further opposition. This took place on Tuesday, the 14th August.[780]
[Sidenote: The sheriff assaulted by the military, 26 Aug., 1821.]
On the 26th, when the funeral procession of the two men shot by the military had to pass in front of Knightsbridge barracks, another disgraceful scene occurred. Waithman, who was sheriff at the time, fearing lest the sight of soldiers outside the barracks might infuriate the people, had taken the precaution of asking the officers in command to keep their men within the gates until the procession had gone by, but the only answer he got was that "the sheriff might be d--d, they would not make their men prisoners for him." In the course of the day Waithman himself was struck. This led to a long correspondence with Lord Bathurst, one of the principal secretaries of state, but the sheriff failed to get any redress. The Common Council instituted an enquiry, and upheld his action.[781] The Court of Aldermen ignored the whole affair, but one of their number, viz., Sir William Curtis, a member for the City, made a violent speech in the House against the Common Council for having dared to institute an enquiry. The alderman himself was a member of the General Purposes Committee to which the matter had been referred, but did not attend its meetings. The Common Council voted his speech a gross and injurious reflection upon the members of the Corporation and an unfounded calumny upon the committee.[782]
[Sidenote: The City and the Holy Alliance, 1823-1824.]
The citizens appreciated too well the blessings of freedom not to sympathise with the struggles of others to obtain it, and they looked askance at the Holy Alliance which had been formed with the view of dictating to the rest of the world. In their eyes "national independence is to states what liberty is to individuals," and that being so the Common Council readily voted two sums of £1,000 to assist Spain and Greece in throwing off their respective yokes.[783] In 1823 the relations between the City and Spain, then threatened by France, were of such a friendly nature that a proposal was actually made to set up, in the centre of Moorfields, a statue of Don Rafael Del Riego, a patriotic Spanish general, who had lost his life in the cause.[784] In the following year (1824) the City again raised its voice against the pretensions of the Holy Alliance, and opposed the renewal of the Alien Act, mainly on the ground that its renewal would appear to countenance the action of the allies "against the independence of nations and the rights and liberties of mankind."[785]
[Sidenote: Revival of trade followed by wild speculation, 1825-1826.]
A revival of commerce, which commenced in 1821, was succeeded in 1825 by an era of wild speculation such as had not been seen since the days of the South Sea Bubble. The civic authorities protested against the reckless formation of Joint Stock Companies, but in vain.[786] Before the end of the year a crash came, firms and companies began to break, credit was shaken, trade depressed, and a run on banks took place, resulting in many of them stopping payment altogether. In six weeks between sixty and seventy banks are said to have stopped payment, of which six or seven were London houses. The distress which ensued was widespread, so widespread indeed that it extended to Scotland, and brought to grief that "wizard of the North," whose writings have delighted, and continue to delight, so many thousands, both young and old--Sir Walter Scott. In the city of London the Spitalfield weavers were reduced to such straits that the Corporation had to come to their assistance with a grant of £500.[787] Although the worst was over by the end of 1825, bankruptcies were frequent during the following year, whilst the country was much disturbed by riots and attacks on all kinds of machinery, which the artisan foolishly regarded as the chief cause of all the misery. When Venables, the lord mayor, went out of office (Nov., 1826) and the Common Council passed the usual vote of thanks, they expressly referred to the decision, energy and judgment he had evinced "during a recent period of commercial embarrassment," and the prompt measures he had taken for relieving distress and restoring confidence.[788]
FOOTNOTES:
[718] Journal 90, fos. 123-125; Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 339-340.
[719] Journal House of Commons, lxxi, 4.
[720] The custom of setting the assize in the city continued until 1822, when it was abolished by Stat. 3 Geo. III, c. cvi.
[721] Journal 87, fos. 68, 104b.
[722] See Report of Special Committee on the continued high price of bread, 24 March, 1814.--Journal 88, fos. 262b-268b.
[723] Journal 89, fos. 216b, 217b-219, 237b; Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 316-318b.
[724] Journal 89, fos. 242b-244.
[725] Journal 99, fos. 101-105; Journal 100, fos. 113b-115; Journal 117, fos. 225-226; Journal 118, fos. 438b-441.
[726] Journal 90, fo. 124b.
[727] Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 343-345, 346b-347.
[728] He had just entered upon his second year of office, and had given no little offence to Lord Sidmouth--at that time high steward of the city and liberties of Westminster, as well as secretary of state for the home department--by returning from Westminster after being sworn in, through the streets of Westminster instead of by water, without having given notice to the high steward. Wood justified his conduct to Sidmouth in a letter in which he protested against the claim of the high steward to dictate to the lord mayor, the city of London, and the sheriffs of London and Middlesex, the particular course they were to take in going or returning on the occasion of the lord mayor being sworn before the Barons of the Exchequer.--Journal 90, fos. 348b-349b.
[729] Journal 90, fos. 345b-348.
[730] Common Hall Book, No. 9, fo. 348b-350b.
[731] Repertory 221, fos. 6-18.
[732] Journal 90, fos. 377-380b, 384-384b.
[733] Journal 90, fos. 383-384.
[734] Repertory 221, fo. 175. Journal 91, fo. 18. A curious incident is recorded in connection with these addresses. Owing to the requisition for a Common Council having referred to the attack on the Regent as an act of some "rash and intemperate" individuals only, and not as a treasonable outrage, the Recorder declared the Common Council to be illegal, and the Court at once broke up, there being no aldermen present. The Common Council resented what they considered to be an unjust attempt on the part of the aldermen to dictate to them in the exercise of their duty, and an unwarrantable attack upon their privileges, and a few days later (13 Feb.) passed resolutions to that effect, and ordered them to be published in the morning and evening papers.--Journal 91, fos. 33b, 34.
[735] Journal 91, fo. 12.
[736] Common Hall Book, No. 10, fo. 9.
[737] Journal 91, fos. 34b-40. Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 14-22.
[738] Journal 92, fos. 57b-58.
[739] Journal House of Commons, lxxiii, 11. The suspension had been renewed in June (1817), notwithstanding the City's continued opposition.--Journal 91, fos. 187-189b.--Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 23-31.
[740] Addresses of Common Council and Common Hall to parliament, 23 and 27 Feb., 1818.--Journal 92, fos. 54b-58b.--Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 48-55.--Journal House of Commons, lxxiii, 90, 106.
[741] See report of lord mayor to Court of Aldermen on the public meetings held in Smithfield, 21 July, and 25 Aug., 1819.--Repertory 223, 627-632.
[742] Repertory 223, fos. 629-630.
[743] Journal 93, fos. 156b-157b.
[744] Id., fos. 159b-160.
[745] Journal 93, fos. 332-335b.
[746] Repertory 223, fos. 656-659.
[747] Id., fos. 635-636, 758-764.
[748] Journal 93, fos. 323b-325.
[749] Repertory 224, fos. 26-34.
[750] Repertory 225, fos. 61-69, 907, seq. For Glynn's opinion vide sup., p. 138.
[751] Repertory 223, fos. 636-645.
[752] Sir Gilbert Heathcote is said to have been the last mayor (1710-11) to have ridden to Westminster on horseback for the purpose of being sworn in.
[753] Repertory 223, fos. 660-672.
[754] Repertory 224, fos. 181-193.
[755] Journal 94, fos. 32-34, 71b-73b; Repertory 224, fos. 193-200.
[756] Repertory 224, fos. 333-341; Repertory 225, fo. 499.
[757] Repertory 224, fos. 342-343, 350, seq. 427; Repertory 225, fos. 502-514, 582-584.
[758] Repertory 235, fos. 551-557.
[759] Common Hall Book, No. 9, fo. 285; the address was not allowed to be printed in the Gazette; Id., fos. 287b-288b.
[760] Journal 87, fo. 508.
[761] Journal 94, fo. 182b; Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 92-93.
[762] Journal 94, fos. 199b-203b.
[763] Annual register lxii, 482, 483, 498.
[764] Journal 94, fo. 277b.
[765] Id., fos. 291b-292.
[766] Journal 94, fos. 278b-279b.
[767] Lady Anne Hamilton.
[768] Journal 94, fos. 231b, 242, 275.
[769] Id., fos. 273-275. She had originally proposed to attend on Sunday, the 26th Nov., but changed the day, lest her presence should lead to a desecration of the Sabbath.
[770] Repertory 225, fos. 25-28. Annual Register lxii, 499-500.
[771] Repertory 225, fos. 29-37. Annual Register lxii, 500.
[772] Journal 94, fo. 285b. Annual Register lxii, 503-506.
[773] Journal 94, fos. 287-289.
[774] Id., fo. 304.
[775] Repertory 225, fos. 42-50, 59-60.
[776] Journal 94, fos. 337-340b.
[777] Annual Register lxii, 491-492.
[778] Journal House of Commons lxxvi, 24, 73.
[779] Journal 95, fos. 327, 327b, 331-331b.
[780] Annual Register lxiii, 127.
[781] Journal 95, fos. 332, 370-375; Journal 96, fos. 21-22. After Waithman's death, in 1833, an obelisk was erected to his memory in Ludgate Circus, opposite to that erected to commemorate the mayoralty of Wilkes in 1775.
[782] Journal 96, fos. 101-102.
[783] Journal 97, fos. 168b, 170-171b, 172b-173b.
[784] Id., fos. 313-314.
[785] Journal 98, fos. 40-43.
[786] Journal 99, fos. 83b-87b; Journal 100, fos. 116-118b.
[787] Journal 100, fo. 76.
[788] Id., fo. 298.