Home
  By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon


We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: London and the Kingdom - Volume III - A History Derived Mainly from the Archives at Guildhall - in the Custody of the Corporation of the City of London.
Author: Sharpe, Reginald R. (Reginald Robinson)
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "London and the Kingdom - Volume III - A History Derived Mainly from the Archives at Guildhall - in the Custody of the Corporation of the City of London." ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.



[Illustration: FACSIMILE OF WRIT AND RETURN]



  LONDON AND THE KINGDOM

  A HISTORY

DERIVED MAINLY FROM THE ARCHIVES AT GUILDHALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON.


  BY

  REGINALD R. SHARPE, D.C.L.,

RECORDS CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK OF THE CITY OF LONDON;
EDITOR OF "CALENDAR OF WILLS ENROLLED IN THE COURT OF HUSTING," ETC.

  IN THREE VOLUMES.

  VOL. III.

         *       *       *       *       *

  _PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE CORPORATION UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE LIBRARY
  COMMITTEE._

         *       *       *       *       *

  LONDON
  LONGMANS, GREEN & Co.
  AND NEW YORK: 15 EAST 16TH STREET.
  1895.

         *       *       *       *       *

  _All rights reserved._


                              LONDON:
                   PRINTED BY BLADES, EAST & BLADES,
                     23, ABCHURCH LANE, E.C.



CONTENTS.


CHAPTER XXXV.

    _Accession of George I.--The Old Pretender.--Impeachment of
        Ministers.--Tory re-action.--End of Jacobite Rebellion.--The
        King's Picture and Statue.--The Septennial Act.--Trial of
        the Earl of Oxford.--Disputed Elections.--The right of the
        City to discharge law costs incurred in Elections over the
        Chamber, questioned.--Paying "Scot" defined.--An Alderman
        insulted by the Military.--The South Sea Company.--Supremacy of
        Walpole.--Fears of another Jacobite rising.--The Election Act,
        II George I, c. 18.--Death of the King._ _Page 1_


CHAPTER XXXVI.

    _Accession of George II.--Walpole and the Queen.--Dissenters
        and the Corporation and Test Acts.--Walpole's Excise
        Bill.--Unpopularity of Billers, Mayor.--Disputes with
        Spain.--Jenkin's ear.--The Spanish Convention.--"Leonidas"
        Glover.--War with Spain declared.--Capture of Porto
        Bello.--George Heathcote.--The Aldermanic Veto
        again.--Resignation of Walpole.--War declared with
        France.--The Young Pretender.--"Black Friday."--The Victory
        of Culloden.--City Address.--Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.--The
        Newcastle Administration.--The National Militia Bill.--A
        tax on Plate.--The loss of Minorca.--Newcastle succeeded by
        Pitt.--Execution of Byng.--Civic_ _honours for Pitt and
        Legge.--Coalition of Pitt and Newcastle.--Conquest of Canada._
        _Page 31_


CHAPTER XXXVII.

    _Accession of George III.--The fall of Pitt.--Alderman
        Beckford.--Unpopularity of Bute.--The King and Queen at
        the Guildhall.--John Wilkes.--War with Spain.--The Peace
        of Paris.--Resignation of Bute.--Wilkes and the "North
        Briton."--No. 45 burnt at the Royal Exchange.--Conduct of the
        Lord Mayor.--Wilkes's "Essay on Woman."--Wilkes Expelled the
        House.--Is outlawed.--Pitt created Earl of Chatham, proposes
        to bring in an East India Bill.--Wilkes's letters to the
        Duke of Grafton, is elected M.P. for Middlesex.--Committed
        to the King's Bench.--Sentence pronounced.--Wilkes elected
        Alderman.--Again expelled the House.--Is thrice elected for
        Middlesex and thrice rejected.--Colonel Luttrell usurps
        his Seat.--Remonstrance of the Livery.--The City and Lord
        Holland.--Beckford's second Mayoralty.--Another remonstrance of
        the Livery.--The remonstrance approved by "Junius."--Condemned
        by the Goldsmiths, Weavers and Grocers.--The King hesitates
        to receive it as being "entirely new."--Consults Lord
        North.--Consents to receive it on the Throne.--The remonstrance
        condemned by Parliament.--Beckford entertains the Opposition
        at the Mansion House.--Wilkes regains his liberty.--City
        address to the King.--Beckford's famous Speech.--Chatham's
        approval.--Vote of thanks to Chatham.--Beckford's death._ _Page
        66_


CHAPTER XXXVIII.

    _Brass Crosby, Mayor.--The legality of Press Warrants.--The
        Freedom of the Press.--The Messenger of the_ _House of
        Commons arrested in the City.--His recognizance ordered to be
        expunged.--Crosby and Oliver before the House.--Committed to
        the Tower.--Chatham's opinion as to the conduct of the civic
        magistrates.-- Bitter feeling against the Ministry.--Crosby
        and Oliver regain their liberty.--Another remonstrance of
        the Livery.--Received on the Throne.--Wilkes and Bull,
        Sheriffs.--Wilkes and Junius join forces.-- Parson Horne.--Nash
        elected Mayor.--Refuses to summon a Common Hall.--Sawbridge
        and Short Parliaments.--Townshend elected Mayor.--Riot at
        the Guildhall.--Address of the Livery in favour of Short
        Parliaments.--Wilkes declines to attend its presentation.--
        Claims his seat in the House.--The Recorder's opinion
        touching the rights of the Livery in Common Hall.--Plumbe's
        case.--Alderman Bull elected M.P. for the City.--England and
        America.--The Quebec Bill.--Wilkes elected Mayor.--Takes his
        seat as Member for Middlesex._ _Page 106_


CHAPTER XXXIX.

    _Wilkes and his brother Aldermen.--Chatham and the City deprecate
        England's policy towards America.--The King notifies his
        intention of receiving no more Addresses of the Livery on the
        Throne.--Wilkes and the Lord Chamberlain.--New York appeals to
        London.--An Address of the Livery not received.--Address of the
        Common Council received in usual manner.--Address of the Livery
        to the Electors of Great Britain.--Ex-Sheriff Sayre committed
        to the Tower.--Expenses of Wilkes's Mayoralty.--Wilkes and the
        Chamberlainship.--Doctor Richard Price.--The Declaration of
        Independence.--The City and Press Warrants.--Alliance between
        France and America.--The Death of Chatham.--His Funeral.--His
        Monument in the Guildhall._ _Page 146_


CHAPTER XL.

    _Court Martial of Admiral Keppel.--The Freedom of the City
        conferred on Keppel.--Spain declares war.--Economical
        Reform.--Committees of Association.--Dunning's Motion.--The
        City accepts a Form of Association.--Sir George Savile's
        Act.--The Gordon Riots.--The City's petition for repeal
        of Savile's Act.--Dispute between Civic and Military
        Authorities.--Wilkes attacks the Lord Mayor in a violent
        speech in the House.--The City's claim for damages arising
        out of the Riots.--A New Parliament.--Alderman Bull and the
        Livery.--Another remonstrance of the Livery not received.--The
        fall of North's Ministry.--The City's congratulations to
        the King.--The first step taken towards Parliamentary
        Reform.--Alderman Harley.--The younger Pitt.--Rodney's
        Victory.--The relief of Gibraltar.--The Peace of Paris._ _Page
        172_


CHAPTER XLI.

    _Fox's East India Bill.--Pitt and the Coalition.--The City and
        Pitt.--Pitt's East India Bill.--The Reform Bill.--The City
        and the Shop Tax.--The Convention with France.--The City and
        the Slave trade.--Pitt's Regency Bill.--Thanksgiving service
        at St. Paul's for the King's recovery.--Pitt's Excise Bill
        for duty on tobacco.--The Military Guard of the Bank of
        England.--The French Revolution.--France declares war.--The
        Battle of the first of June.--Riots in the City.--Great
        scarcity of wheat.--Standard wheaten bread.--Assault on the
        King.--Negotiations for Peace.--Pitt's Loyalty Loan.--Foreign
        subsidies.--Suspension_ _of cash payments by Bank of
        England.--Another remonstrance of the Livery not received.--The
        Mutiny at the Nore.--Duncan's victory off Camperdown.--Pitt
        mobbed in the City.--Military associations in the City.--The
        Battle of the Nile.--Pitt's Income Tax Bill.--Royal review
        of City volunteers.--Capture of the Dutch fleet.--French
        overtures for peace declined.--The Livery protest against the
        prolongation of the war.--The Act of Union.--Bread riots in the
        City.--Conduct of Harvey Combe, Mayor.--Pitt resigns.--Battle
        of Copenhagen.--Peace of Amiens._ _Page 204_


CHAPTER XLII.

    _Resumption of hostilities.--Pitt recommends the fortifying of
        London.--Renewal of the Income Tax.--Nelson takes offence at
        the City.--Addington gives place to Pitt.--Volunteer review at
        Blackheath.--Pitt's Additional Force Bill.--The City claims to
        be treated in a separate Bill.--Artillery practice in Finsbury
        Fields.--The French camp at Boulogne.--Disgrace of Lord
        Melville.--The Battle of Trafalgar.--Nelson's funeral.--His
        monument in the Guildhall.--Death of Pitt.--The Ministry
        of all the Talents.--The fall of the Ministry.--The Duke
        of Portland.--The Berlin Decree.--The Peninsular War.--The
        Convention of Cintra.--The Scandal of the Duke of York.--The
        Walcheren Expedition.--The King's Jubilee.--The City urges
        an enquiry into the cause of recent failures.--Another
        remonstrance of the Livery not received.--The City opposes
        Wellington's annuity.--Sir Francis Burdett committed to
        the Tower.--Riots in the City.--Petition of the Livery to
        Parliament.--Petition dismissed.--Another Petition.--Ordered
        to lie on the table.--The King seriously ill.--The Regency
        Bill.--The Freedom of the City declined by the Prince_
        _Regent.--An address of the Livery to the Regent not
        received.--Assassination of Spencer Perceval.--Battle of
        Salamanca.--The Shannon and the Chesapeake.--Treaty of
        Paris.--The Freedom of the City conferred on Wellington.--The
        City and the Slave trade.--The Battle of Waterloo._ _Page 251_


CHAPTER XLIII.

    _The City opposes renewal of Income Tax.--Agricultural
        depression.--The First Corn Law.--Another address of the
        Livery not received.--Vagrants in the City.--The Spa Fields
        Riot.--Matthew Wood, Mayor.--City address to Regent on
        state of affairs.--Outrage on the Regent.--The City urges
        Parliamentary Reform.--The trial of Hone.--Parliamentary
        Elections.--The Manchester Massacre or "Peterloo."--The
        Six Acts.--Tumultuous proceedings in Common Hall.--Conduct
        of Sheriff Parkins.--Accession of George IV.--Addresses of
        sympathy to Queen Caroline.--The Queen's trial.--Matthew
        Wood at Brandenburgh House.--The Queen presents her portrait
        to the City.--The Queen attends at St. Paul's.--The City
        urges the dismissal of the King's Ministers.--The Queen's
        death.--Disgraceful scene at her funeral.--Riots at
        Knightsbridge.--Sheriff Waithman assaulted.--The City and the
        Holy Alliance.--Wild speculation followed by great distress._
        _Page 292_

CHAPTER XLIV.

    _The Repeal of Corporation and Test Acts.--The Catholic
        Emancipation Bill.--Accession of William IV.--The King's
        visit to the City postponed for fear of riot.--Resolutions
        respecting Reform.--Introduction of the first Reform
        Bill.--The Bill approved by the City.--The Bill withdrawn
        and Parliament dissolved.--The Bill re-introduced.--Passes
        the Commons, rejected by the Lords.--City address and King's
        reply.--Political Unions formed.--Sir John Key re-elected
        Mayor.--The Freedom of the City voted to lords Grey and
        Althorp.--Resignation of the Ministry.--The City expresses
        dissatisfaction.--The Ministry recalled.--The Reform Bill
        passed.--The rights of the Livery saved.--Grand Entertainment
        at the Guildhall.--A retrospect.--The Enfranchisement of
        Jews.--The City's public spirit.--The abolition of Coal and
        Wine Dues.--The City and the Port of London._ _Page 326_



CHAPTER XXXV.


[Sidenote: George I proclaimed king, 1 Aug., 1714.]

Like her predecessor on the throne, Queen Anne died on a Sunday. A
proclamation was immediately drawn up by the lords spiritual and
temporal, assisted by the members of the Privy Council and the lord
mayor, aldermen and citizens of London, announcing the accession of
Prince George, the Elector of Hanover, and that same afternoon he was
duly proclaimed at Temple Bar and elsewhere. The proclamation does not
appear on this occasion to have borne the signature of the lord mayor
or any of the aldermen.[1]

[Sidenote: City addresses to the new king.]

Some weeks elapsed before George arrived in England. Meanwhile the
Common Council prepared an address which the lords justices, who held
the reins of government until the king's arrival, transmitted to his
majesty. The address was graciously received, and the king, who knew
little or no English, sent word by the lords justices that the City
might count upon his support. Both the Common Council and the Court of
Aldermen were desirous of presenting addresses to the king in person
soon after his arrival.[2]

[Sidenote: The reception of George I by the City, 20 Sept., 1714.]

The 20th September being the day fixed for the king's passage through
the city to St. James's Palace great preparations were made to give
him a befitting reception. It was decided to adopt the same measures
as those taken for the reception of William III in 1697, after the
conclusion of the Peace of Ryswick but with this exception, viz.,
that members of the Common Council should take the place in the
procession of those who had either served or fined for sheriff.[3]
The earl marshal, however, ruled that the common councilmen of London
should neither ride nor march in the procession. The court thereupon
appealed to the lords justices, but the result is not recorded.[4]
On the day appointed the mayor and aldermen took up their station at
the court-house on St. Margaret's Hill in Southwark. Cushions from
the Bridge House were borrowed for the occasion, and the open space
before the court-house was fenced with rail to prevent crowding.[5]
His lordship was provided with a new crimson velvet gown, the city
marshal's men with new liveries, and the city trumpeters with new
cloaks.[6] The conduits ran with claret furnished by order of the
Court of Aldermen. The erection of balcony stands was discouraged
for fear of accidents, and for the same reason the firing of guns or
_padreros_ under the piazza of the Royal Exchange was forbidden.[7]
At St. Margaret's Hill the king was welcomed by the Recorder, who
read a congratulatory address on behalf of the citizens, after which
the procession moved on towards the city, the Recorder taking up his
position immediately in front of the mayor,[8] who rode bareheaded with
the city sword in his hand.

[Sidenote: Precautions against the Pretender.]

Three days later (23 Sept.) the whole of the Common Council proceeded
to St. James' to present their congratulations to the king on his safe
arrival, and to assure him of their loyalty.[9] This assurance was
opportune, for the country was being flooded with pamphlets advocating
the claim of Prince James Edward, better known as the Pretender, to the
throne, and a reward had been offered for the capture of the prince
should he attempt to set foot in any of his majesty's dominions.[10]
When Humphreys entered on his mayoralty in the following October he
made himself especially active in putting a stop to the spread of
seditious literature in the city, and for his services in this respect
was heartily thanked by Secretary Townsend.[11]

[Sidenote: The king attends the lord mayor's banquet, 29 Oct., 1714.]

On the 20th October the king was crowned,[12] and on the 29th,
according to custom, he attended the lord mayor's banquet. The
lord mayor was called upon to contribute the sum of £300, and each
of the sheriffs the sum of £150 towards defraying the cost of
the entertainment. The rest of the expenses were paid out of the
Chamber.[13] So pleased was the king with the entertainment that he
conferred a baronetcy upon the lord mayor. He also bestowed the sum of
£1,000 for the relief of poor debtors.[14]

[Sidenote: Thanksgiving service at St. Paul's, 20 Jan., 1715.]

By the end of the year all immediate danger appeared to have passed
away, and Thursday, the 20th January, 1715, was appointed to be kept
as a day of solemn thanksgiving for the king's peaceful accession.[15]
Once more the majestic but gloomy walls of St. Paul's contained a
brilliant assembly of worshippers. King George attended the service
accompanied by the royal family, and there, too, were the mayor,
aldermen and sheriffs of the city seated in their accustomed places
in the lower gallery on the south side of the altar, their wives and
ladies being accommodated in the opposite gallery.[16]

[Sidenote: General Election, 1715.]

In the meanwhile the statutory period of six months--during which the
parliament existing at the time of the demise of the crown was to
continue to sit--had elapsed, and the last parliament of Queen Anne
had been dissolved (13 Jan.), a new one being summoned to meet in
March. Riots such as had occurred at previous elections were strongly
deprecated by royal proclamation (11 Jan.), and a reward of £500 was
offered for the discovery of the printer or publisher of a paper
intituled "English advice to the freeholders of England," which had
been freely circulated for the purpose of advocating the Pretender's
claims.[17] The elections, which were hotly contested, resulted in the
Whigs--the party already in power--obtaining a large majority. The
City returned two aldermen, viz.: Sir John Ward, who had sat in the
parliament of 1708 in the Tory interest, and Sir Thomas Scawen;[18] and
two commoners, viz.: Robert Heysham and Peter Godfrey, of whom little
is known. As delegates of the City, they were to carry out the City's
instructions given to them under twenty-one heads. They were more
particularly to cause an enquiry to be made as to the manner in which
the Peace of Utrecht had been brought about.[19]

[Sidenote: Impeachment of late Ministers, March, 1715.]

Similar instructions were drawn up by electors in other parts of the
country, and so well were they carried out that as soon as the Houses
met preparations were made to impeach Harley, Bolingbroke and the Duke
of Ormond, for the part they had taken in the secret agreements made
with the French during the negotiations for peace. Bolingbroke and
Ormond immediately took fright and fled to France, where the former
entered the service of the Pretender as secretary of state. Oxford, who
alone stayed at home and faced the storm, was forthwith committed to
the Tower.

[Sidenote: Tory re-action.]

Such high-handed proceedings on the part of the triumphant Whigs led
to a Tory re-action. In spite of all precautions[20] riots broke out
in the city on the 28th May, when the king's birthday was being kept
with bonfires and illuminations. The next day (29 May), being the
anniversary of the restoration of Charles II, there were more bonfires,
and those who refused to light up their houses had their windows
broken. A patrol of life guards was insulted and made to join in the
cry "High Church and Ormond!" A print of King William III was publicly
burnt in Smithfield, and the mob carried everything before them until
stopt in Cheapside by ward constables and dispersed.[21]

[Sidenote: Jacobite Conspiracy, July, 1715.]

The Jacobites took advantage of the general disaffection that prevailed
to push forward the conspiracy which had been set on foot at the close
of the last reign. Ormond had up to the moment of his flight been
busily engaged in organising it in England, while Bolingbroke had been
no less busy in endeavouring to obtain the assistance of France. On the
20th July the king announced to the new parliament that he had received
information of a projected invasion by the Pretender, which was abetted
and encouraged by disaffected persons in this country.[22] Three days
later (23 July) a similar announcement was made to the lord mayor by
letter from secretary Townshend.

[Sidenote: The City's loyal address.]

Notwithstanding the recent riots to which the aggressive policy of the
whigs had given rise, the respectable citizen remained true Hanoverian
and staunch supporter of the established church. The municipal body
were proud of the part they had taken in bringing about the "glorious"
Revolution, and in later years took occasion more than once to remind
George the Third that the House of Hanover owed its accession to the
crown of England in no small measure to the citizens of London. As soon
as the secretary's letter was communicated to the Common Council, they
immediately drew up a loyal address, in which they assured the king
that they entertained the utmost abhorrence and detestation of all who
encouraged either openly or secretly the hopes of the Pretender, and
promised their adherence to his majesty's person and government against
the Pretender and all other enemies to the king at home and abroad.[23]

[Sidenote: Precautionary measures.]

An Act known in those days as the Proclamation Act, but better known
at the present day as the Riot Act, investing magistrates with the
power of compelling any number of persons exceeding twelve to disperse
on pain of being held guilty of felony without benefit of clergy
was passed (20 July, 1715),[24] whilst another Act authorising the
appointment of commissioners for tendering the oaths of allegiance and
supremacy, as well as the abjuration oath to all suspected persons,
was passed a month later (20 Aug).[25] Pursuant to this last Act,
commissioners were afterwards (5 Dec.) appointed for the purpose of
administering the oaths in each city ward. The names of recusants were
to be returned to the next quarter sessions and there enrolled.[26]
Nor were the municipal authorities idle. The anniversary of the
king's coronation (20 Oct.) was to have been celebrated in the city
by a solemn procession with "effigies of several persons," and money
had been collected for the purpose of defraying expenses. The mayor,
however, hearing of this, issued a precept to the effect that although
the promoters of the scheme might well have intended thereby to show
their affection to his majesty's person and government "yet at this
time, when the nation is alarmed by a rebellion, it is not thought
convenient to be permitted, lest under that pretence many disaffected
persons might gather together and raise tumults to the endangering
of the public peace." The constables were accordingly instructed to
prevent any meeting for the purpose, and to prevent all bonfires and
illuminations.[27]

[Sidenote: End of Jacobite rebellion, Feb., 1716.]

These precautionary measures were taken not a whit too soon. The Earl
of Mar, who had undertaken the organization of an insurrection in
Scotland in favour of the Pretender, had already made himself complete
master of that country as far as the Forth. He was, however, soon
afterwards (13 Nov.) defeated by the Earl of Argyle at Sheriffmuir
near Stirling, and although the Pretender himself appeared in Scotland
before the close of the year, not another blow was struck, and in the
following February (1716) Prince James stole back to France, leaving
his army to shift for itself.

[Sidenote: City address. 11 May, 1716.]

The rebellion being thus put down, the Common Council unanimously
resolved (11 May, 1716) to present another address to the king, in
which after offering their congratulations upon the failure of the
rebels to depose and murder his majesty, and to subvert the Church
and State, they declared their resolution (1) as friends to monarchy
to promote true zeal and loyalty towards his majesty's person, (2)
as members of the Church of England to act up to its principles by
submitting to the powers that be, and (3) by all possible means to
prevent discord and support the Protestant succession. To this the king
returned a gracious answer, and expressed his conviction that the
example set by the City would have a good effect upon the nation.[28]

[Sidenote: The king's statue and picture.]

The Council at the same time resolved to set up a statue of the king
at the Royal Exchange as well as his picture in the Guildhall. The
royal assent having been asked and obtained, Sir Godfrey Kneller was
sent for to paint the portrait. Considerable delay took place in the
execution of the work,[29] but the picture was at last completed and is
still believed to grace the walls of the members' reading room at the
Guildhall, although in 1779 it was reported to be so much decayed and
torn as to be incapable of repair.[30] The statue, if ever set up at
the Royal Exchange, probably shared the fate of other statues erected
there, and was destroyed in the fire of 1838.

[Sidenote: Thanksgiving service at St. Paul's, 7 June, 1716.]

Thursday, the 7th June (1716), was ordered by royal proclamation (8
May) to be kept as a day of public thanksgiving for the suppression of
the rebellion. A sermon was preached at St. Paul's on the occasion. The
members of the livery companies were desired to attend in their best
gowns and hoods, at nine o'clock in the morning; this early hour being
probably fixed so as not unduly to interfere with the business of the
day.[31]

[Sidenote: The Septennial Act, April, 1716.]

One of the immediate effects of the rebellion was the repeal of
the Triennial Act (passed Dec., 1694), limiting the duration of
parliament to three years. According to the provisions of this Act
a new parliament would have to be elected in 1718. The Whigs were
afraid, however, to face the country and risk the return of a Jacobite
majority. The ministers therefore proposed and parliament agreed that
the existing parliament should continue for a term of seven instead of
three years--a somewhat arbitrary proceeding on their part and only
to be justified by the exigency of the time. The Septennial Act[32]
was only intended as a temporary measure, but it has been found to
work so well that it continues to this day to regulate the duration
of parliaments, notwithstanding repeated efforts made by the City in
general and by Alderman Sawbridge in particular to get it repealed.

[Sidenote: The King and the Prince of Wales.]

A few weeks later, parliament was prorogued (26 June, 1716) and the
king paid a visit--often repeated during his reign--to his beloved
Hanover, leaving his son, the Prince of Wales, as guardian of the realm
and his lieutenant. Between father and son there was never any love
lost, there was a sort of hereditary family quarrel, which in this
case was brought to a climax in November of the following year over
the christening of a babe. The court became split up into two distinct
parts. The prince was ordered to quit St. James's and those who paid
court to the prince and princess were for ever banished from the king's
presence.[33]

[Sidenote: Trial of the Earl of Oxford, June, 1717.]

After remaining a prisoner in the Tower for nearly two years, the Earl
of Oxford was at length, at his own request, brought to trial. The
13th June (1717) was originally fixed as the day on which he was to
appear at Westminster Hall, but this was afterwards changed to the 24th
by desire of the House of Commons, who wished to put off the trial as
long as possible. The lord mayor and sheriffs being directed by the
House of Lords to take precautions for guarding the city's gates and
preventing an unnecessary concourse of people resorting to Westminster,
it was resolved to place double watch in the ward of Farringdon Without
during the trial "as was done in the tryal of my Lord Winton and the
like cases."[34] Fortunately for the earl, a dispute arose between the
two houses on a question of procedure. The Commons were glad of the
opportunity of backing out and declined to appear as his accusers, and
the Lords thereupon ordered his discharge.[35]

[Sidenote: Act for quieting and establishing corporations (5 Geo. i, c.
6) 1718.]

For many years past the Corporation Act of 1661, had not been strictly
enforced in the city. Such negligence laid the citizens open to pains
and penalties. It was therefore deemed advisable towards the end of the
next year (1718) to address the king on the subject and a petition was
drawn up by the Court of Aldermen setting forth the apprehension of
the petitioners of being "disquieted in the execution of their offices
by pretence of not subscribing a declaration against the Solemn League
and Covenant at the time of their admission into their respective
offices" according to the Statute. Such subscription they submitted had
been generally disused, and the Act in that particular, disregarded.
Nevertheless, the petitioners had behaved themselves in their offices
with all duty and affection to his majesty and the government. They
humbly prayed therefore that His Majesty would take such order as
should effectually quiet their minds and enable them "to proceed with
cheerfulness in the execution of their respective duties."[36] This
petition was received very graciously by the king, who looked upon
it as a mark of the City's trust and confidence in him. "I shall be
glad"--he said--"not only for your sakes, but my own, if any defects
which may touch the rights of my good subjects are discovered in my
time, since that will furnish me with means of giving you and all my
people an indisputable proof of my tenderness for their privileges, and
how unwilling I shall ever be to take advantage of their mistakes."[37]
His Majesty's assurance thus given was quickly followed by the passing
of an Act for the purpose of relieving the City of London and other
boroughs of any disabilities for their neglect in subscribing the
prescribed declaration.[38]

[Sidenote: Disputed election in Tower Ward, 1717 1719.]

The reign of George I was marked not only with repeated disputes
between the Court of Aldermen and the Common Council, but also with
disputes over different municipal elections, until in 1725 matters
were to a certain extent accommodated by the passing of the Election
Act, 11 George I, c. 18. It had been the custom of the City, whenever
the ruling of an alderman at a wardmote had been disputed, to defend
the alderman's action when brought before a court of law at the
City's expense. The legality of this proceeding was now questioned. In
December, 1717, when the annual elections for the Common Council came
on, there had been a disputed election in Tower Ward, and the ruling of
Alderman Sir Charles Peers had been called in question by Peter Bolton
and Edward Bridgen, two unsuccessful candidates. The dispute engaged
the attention of the Common Council and the law courts for a whole
twelvemonth, the expenses of the aldermen being defrayed by the City.
In February, 1719, it reached the House of Lords, but before the matter
came on for hearing a compromise was effected, the City agreeing to pay
taxed costs.

The reason for this sudden change of attitude on the part of the City
is doubtless to be found in a resolution of the House of Lords (17
Feb., 1719) to appoint a committee to examine and report what sums
of money the City had expended out of its own chamber on this and
similar causes, and what jurisdiction the Common Council exercised
over elections of its members. The committee was authorized to carry
its investigations as far back as they deemed proper, and to send for
persons, papers and records. On the 17th April the committee made
its report to the House. The Town Clerk and the City Chamberlain had
attended the committee with the necessary warrants and minutes of
proceedings, and it had been found that a sum of £2,827 10_s._ had
been paid out of the City's cash for carrying on causes and suits at
law relating to the elections of Aldermen and Common Councilmen since
the 8th November, 1711.[39] As regards the claim of the Common Council
to hear and determine matters in connection with elections of its
own members, the committee found that it was based upon a resolution
of the Court of the 9th January, 1641,[40] which resolution had been
disclaimed (with many others) by Act of Common Council of 1683.[41]

[Sidenote: Resolution of the House thereon.]

The report having been read, the House passed a resolution to the
effect that in maintaining suits at law between citizen and citizen
in cases of disputed elections, the Common Council had "abused
their trust, and been guilty of great partiality, and of a gross
mismanagement of the city treasure, and a violation of the freedom of
elections in the city."

[Sidenote: A protest entered.]

So scathing an indictment against the City was not allowed to pass
unchallenged. Sixteen peers entered a vigorous protest on the several
grounds: (1) that no evidence had been taken on oath, and that without
such evidence they conceived that so heavy a censure ought not to be
passed on any individual, much less on so important a body as the
Common Council of the city, which had done good service on pressing
occasions; (2) that the Common Council had not had due notice given
them; (3) that the resolution of the House might be construed as
prejudging matters which might come before the House judicially; and
lastly (4) that had the Common Council been heard they might have shown
that the money had been expended in defence of their ancient rights and
privileges, and in order to prevent any encroachment thereon.[42] That
the dissentient Lords had reason on their side there can be little
doubt. Nevertheless, some writers[43] whilst setting out in full the
committee's report, as well as the returns made by the Chamberlain of
money expended by the City on election suits, and the resolution of the
House thereon, have entirely ignored the fact that a solemn protest
was made against such resolution, and the reasons which urged the
dissentients to make such protest.

[Sidenote: What is "paying Scot?"]

In the meantime another disputed election had taken place. This time
it concerned an alderman. The mayor had reported the case to the
Court of Aldermen the day that the Lords appointed their committee to
investigate the City's law costs. The case was shortly this. On the 9th
January a wardmote had been held at Cordwainers' Hall, for the purpose
of electing an alderman for the ward of Bread Street, in the place
of Sir Richard Hoare, deceased. The show of hands for the respective
candidates--Robert Baylis and Richard Brocas, both of them members of
the Grocers' Company--had been so equal that the mayor had been unable
to declare which had the majority. A poll had therefore been demanded,
the result being declared by the mayor to be in favour of Brocas, and
thereupon a scrutiny had taken place, with the same result.[44] The
whole question turned upon the qualification of certain voters. Did
they or did they not pay Scot, and in what did "paying Scot" consist?
The matter having been argued before the Court of Aldermen by counsel
on behalf of each candidate, the Court came to the conclusion that
paying Scot was "a general contribution to _all_ public taxes," and
at the same time declared Baylis to be duly elected.[45] The Common
Council then attempted to interfere, but the Court of Aldermen would
brook no invasion of their rights,[46] and although litigation
continued well into the next year (1720) Baylis retained his seat in
the Court.

[Sidenote: An insult offered to an alderman on Lord Mayor's Day, 29
Oct., 1720.]

On Lord Mayor's day (29 Oct.) 1720, an incident occurred worthy of a
passing notice. From particulars laid before the Court of Aldermen (10
Jan., 1721) by a committee appointed to investigate the matter,[47]
it appears that when the members of the Court of Aldermen were
riding in their coaches towards the Three Cranes on the banks of the
river, thence to attend the new lord mayor (Sir John Fryer) in his
barge to Westminster, a certain ensign in the Second Regiment of the
Guards--Thomas Hockenhull or Hocknell by name--who was in charge of
a detachment of soldiers on their way to the Tower, thought fit to
break through the aldermen's procession, and to bring Sir John Ward's
coach to a sudden standstill, his horses being struck over the head by
the soldiers' muskets. The affront was too serious to be passed over,
and Sir John reported the matter to Secretary Craggs, who forwarded
the alderman's letter to the Secretary at War, and at the same time
expressed regret that such an incident should have happened.[48] Later
on the officer himself appeared before the Court of Aldermen bearing
a letter from Sir George Treby to Alderman Ward to the effect that
the officer had already received a reprimand, and would (he hoped)
make a suitable apology. A written apology was read to the Court of
Aldermen in which Hockenhull pleaded ignorance as to whose coach it
was that had been stopped, and endeavoured to throw the blame on two
of his soldiers, who he declared to be "a little in liquor." The
officer being called in offered to make submission and to beg pardon,
but the Court was not in the humour to accept his apology, and so the
matter rested until the following January (1721), when upon Sir George
Treby's intercession and Hockenhull's submission the Court agreed to
pass the matter over. The Secretary at War was at the same time desired
"that for the future the route for the Guards marching to and from the
Tower may be as usual through Watling Street, and not through the high
streets of this city."

[Sidenote: The South Sea Company, 1711-1720.]

Sir John Fryer had been elected mayor at one of the most critical times
in the history either of London or the kingdom, for his election took
place just at the time of the bursting of the great South Sea bubble.
The South Sea Company had been formed in 1711 by Harley, with the
view of carrying on such trade with Spanish America as Spain might be
willing to allow in the treaty which was then expected. When the Treaty
of Utrecht was concluded Spain was found to have conceded the right
of trading with America, but only to a limited extent. Nevertheless
the idea got abroad that the company was possessed of a very valuable
monopoly, and that the trade with Spanish America would enrich all
who took part in it. Accordingly the shares of the company were
eagerly bought, and in a few years the institution began to rival the
Bank of England itself. Early in 1720, when a scheme was propounded
for lessening the National Debt, the company was in a position to
outbid the Bank in buying up government annuities, and holders of such
annuities were found only too ready to exchange them for shares in the
company. The company next invited the public to subscribe new capital,
and upwards of £5,000,000 were subscribed in an incredibly short space
of time. The wildest speculation prevailed. Bogus companies sprang up
in all directions, and no matter how ridiculous the purpose might be
for which they were avowedly started, they always found subscribers.
Men of all ranks, ages, and professions, nay! women also flocked to
Threadneedle Street (where stood the South Sea House) or to Change
Alley, and the very streets were blocked with desks and clerks, and
converted into counting-houses. The whole nation suddenly became
stock-jobbers. Swift, writing of the ruin worked by the mad speculation
of the day, thus characterises Change Alley, the centre of all the
mischief:

    "There is a gulf where thousands fell
      Here all the bold adventurers came,
    A narrow sound, though deep as hell;
      '_Change Alley_ is the dreadful name."

The South Sea Company continued to maintain its pre-eminent position,
and the value of its shares continued to rise until, in August, a £100
share was worth £1,000.

At last it brought about its own ruin in a way little anticipated.
In an evil hour the directors commenced proceedings against the
unlicensed, and therefore illegal, companies which had interfered
with the great company's more legitimate business. The result was
disastrous. One fraud after another was exposed. The nation suddenly
recovered its senses. A panic arose as bubble after bubble burst.
By the end of September, South Sea stock had fallen from £1,000 to
£150, and at last, after an abortive effort to obtain assistance from
the Bank of England, this biggest bubble of all collapsed, bringing
thousands to beggary. Even the Bank of England itself experienced
difficulty in maintaining its credit during the panic, and was
compelled once more to resort to stratagem. Payments were made in
silver, and chiefly to persons who were in league with the bank, and
who no sooner received their money than they brought it back. The money
had of course to be re-counted, and by this means time was gained, and
time at such a crisis, and to such an institution, meant literally
money. On Michaelmas-day the Bank according to the custom prevailing
was closed, and when it opened again, the public alarm had subsided.[49]

[Sidenote: Thomas Guy and his hospital.]

A few--a very few--of those who had speculated in South Sea stock
kept their heads, and got out before the bubble burst. Among these
was Thomas Guy, the founder of Guy's Hospital, at that time carrying
on business as a bookseller at the corner of Lombard Street and
Cornhill--the "lucky corner." He made a large fortune by buying stock
at a low price and selling before the crash came, and right good use
did he make of his money, for at his death he endowed the hospital
called by his name with a sum exceeding £200,000.

[Sidenote: Parliamentary enquiry, Jan., 1721.]

As is not unusual in such cases, there was a universal endeavour to
fasten the guilt upon others than the rash speculators themselves. An
outcry was raised, not only against the directors of the company, but
also against the ministry. Nothing would suffice but a Parliamentary
enquiry into the affairs of the company. This was granted, and early
in the following year the Lords commenced an open investigation,
whilst the Commons appointed a committee of secrecy. The Lords had
scarcely entered upon their investigation before it was discovered that
the secretary of the company had made his escape to the continent.
Thereupon the Commons gave orders for all ports to be watched in order
to prevent the directors of the company following his example. Any
director holding office under Government was dismissed. Two members of
the House, who were also directors, were expelled the House and taken
into custody. These were Jacob Sawbridge, the grandfather of Alderman
John Sawbridge, of whom we shall hear more later on, and Sir Theodore
Janssen, the father of Stephen Theodore Janssen who, after serving
the City in Parliament and in the Mayoralty chair, became the City's
Chamberlain. Other directors were also taken into custody and their
papers seized.

[Sidenote: The Sword-blade Company.]

Jacob Sawbridge was a member of the firm of Turner, Caswall and
Company, commonly known as the Sword-blade Company, carrying on
business as goldsmiths in Birchin Lane. Sir George Caswall, one of
the partners, was member for Leominster, and was serving as Sheriff
the year of the South Sea Bubble. His firm had acted as cashiers of
the South Sea Company, and like many similar firms of goldsmiths, had
advanced large sums upon the company's stock. The committee of secrecy
appointed by the House of Commons soon discovered that Sir George had
been guilty of tampering with the firm's books in order to shield
Charles Stanhope. For this he was expelled the House and committed to
the Tower, whilst his firm was made to surrender its illgotten gains to
the extent of a quarter of a million sterling.[50]

[Sidenote: Parliament and the South Sea Company.]

All the directors were forced to send in inventories of their
respective estates to the Parliamentary Committee. These were
confiscated for the benefit of their dupes, their owners being allowed
some small portion of their former wealth to keep them from starvation.
Peculation and dishonesty were not confined to the city. Peers of the
realm and cabinet ministers were charged with receiving large bribes
either in money or stock. The Earl of Sunderland, first commissioner
of the Treasury, was reported by the committee of investigation to
have received £50,000 stock without any consideration whatsoever, and
although the House of Commons refused to find him guilty,[51] the
Earl felt compelled to give up his post. Craggs, who was Secretary of
State, and Aislabie, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to mention
others, were convicted by the House of receiving similar bribes.[52]
Craggs died of an attack of small-pox, pending the enquiry, but he
left a large estate, and this was confiscated for the relief of
sufferers. Aislabie was expelled the House, and committed to the Tower.
Among the directors who were thus made to feel the heavy hand of
Parliament was Edward Gibbon, grandfather of the great historian of the
"Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." Out of an estate of £60,000,
Parliament allowed him to retain no more than £10,000. That the action
of Parliament towards the directors was afterwards condemned by the
historian as arbitrary and unjust, and only to be excused by the most
imperious necessity, need not therefore cause surprise.[53]

[Sidenote: The action of Parliament upheld by the City.]

The city fathers, on the other hand, upheld the action of Parliament,
and urged it to take further measures to alleviate the prevalent
distress by presenting to the House the following petition (3
April)[54]:--

"Your peticoners think it their duty most humbly to represent to this
Honoble House the present state of the City of London (so considerable
a part of the kingdom) now filled with numberless objects of grief
and compassion (the sad effects of the mismanagemts avarice and fatal
contrivances of the late Directors of the South Sea Company, their
aiders, abettors and confederates in the destruccõn of their country.)

"Nor is it the case of this great city alone your peticoners lament,
but the general decay of trade manufactures and of public creditt,
whereof this Honoble House have been alwaies so extreamly tender, as
also of the honour of the British name and nacõn.

"Your peticoners beg leave to return their most humble thanks to this
Honoble House for the great pains they have taken to releive the
unhappy sufferers by compelling the offenders to make restitucõn as
likewise for their continued applicacõn to lay open this whole scene
of guilt, notwithstanding the industrious artificers of such sharers
in the common plunder as have endeavoured to obstruct the deteccõn
of fraud and corrupcõn, and your peticoners doubt not but the same
fortitude, impartiality and public spirit wherewith this Honoble House
have hitherto acted will still animate them in pursuit of those truly
great and noble ends.

"We are too sensible"--the petitioners went on to say--"of the load
of public debts not to wish that all proper methods may be taken to
lessen them, and it is an infinite concern to us that the paiment of a
great summe towards them (which was expected from the success of the
late scheme) is now rendered extreamly difficult, if not impracticable,
and yet is a cloud hanging over the heads of the present unfortunate
Proprietors of the South Sea Company, and a great damp to public credit.

"We will not presume," they said in conclusion, "to mention in what
manner releif may be given in this arduous affair, but humbly submit it
to the serious consideracõn of this Honoble House."

This petition was followed by others in the same strain from different
parts of the country, and conduced to the passing of a Bill which,
besides appropriating the sum of £2,000,000 out of the private
property of the directors for the relief of sufferers, remitted a
sum of £7,000,000 due by the Company to the Government, and made an
equitable division of the remainder of the Company's capital among the
proprietors.[55]

[Sidenote: Supremacy of Walpole.]

These measures were greatly, if not exclusively, due to Walpole, the
great financier of the day, and one of the few who had not allowed
themselves to become involved in the affairs of the South Sea Company.
The recent disclosures led to his becoming first lord of the treasury,
and chancellor of the exchequer, with his brother-in-law Townshend as
secretary of state. In March, 1722, the first septennial Parliament
came to an end, and again the Whigs were returned by an overwhelming
majority.[56] Walpole thus found himself absolute master of the field,
and this position he continued to maintain for twenty years.

[Sidenote: Jacobite Conspiracy, 1722.]

In the meanwhile the birth of an heir[57] to the Pretender (1721) had
raised the hopes of the Jacobites, who were only waiting for a fitting
opportunity to renew their attack upon the House of Hanover. The
confusion which followed the bursting of the South Sea Bubble seemed
to afford them the opportunity they desired. Again the aid of France
was invoked. Not only did the Regent refuse assistance, however, but
he informed the English minister in Paris of the conspiracy that was
on foot. Thus it was that on the 8th May (1722) Townshend informed the
Lord Mayor (Sir William Stewart) by letter[58] that the king had the
best of grounds for believing that another plot was being prepared in
favour of the Pretender, but that as the plot was unsupported by any
foreign power, and the king had been forewarned, there would be little
to fear. At the same time the king looked to the mayor and his fellow
magistrates to secure the city.

[Sidenote: City address to the king, 9 May, 1722.]

The letter being the next day brought to the notice of the Court of
Aldermen, that body prepared a loyal address to the king and presented
it to him the same evening.[59] In acknowledging the address the king
assured the deputation that his interests and the interests of the City
were inseparable, that he would do all in his power to maintain public
credit and protect the City's privileges and estate as well as uphold
the religion, laws and liberties of the kingdom. An order was issued
the same day by the Privy Council for putting into execution the laws
against papists, reputed papists and non-jurors, as well as against
riots and tumults.[60] In addition to this the Habeas Corpus Act was
suspended for a whole year, the longest time on record, and throughout
the summer troops were kept encamped ready for any emergency. Some
of the chief conspirators in England, among them being Atterbury,
Bishop of Rochester, were placed under arrest. Had not the conspiracy
been timely discovered and precautions taken the whole kingdom "and
particularly the City of London"--as George told the new parliament
when, after frequent prorogations, it met in October--might have
become involved in blood and confusion.[61] As matters turned out, the
conspiracy proved a complete failure.

[Sidenote: Bill for regulating elections in the city, Jan., 1725.]

Whilst Walpole continued to pursue his policy of peace and increased
in influence year by year, the City found itself constantly involved
in disputed elections. At one time it was an election of an alderman,
at another a member of the Common Council, at another an election of
a sheriff. At length matters arrived at such a pitch that a petition
from the citizens at large was presented to the House of Commons (16
Dec., 1724)[62] setting forth that, at elections by the liverymen
of the city, numbers of people voted who had no right to vote; that
at wardmote elections non-freemen claimed the right to vote on the
ground that they contributed to the charges of their respective wards,
refusing at the same time to qualify as voters by taking up the
freedom of the city because they would thereby restrict their right
of testamentary disposition of their estate;[63] that the Court of
Aldermen had decided (as we have just seen) that payment of scot was a
general contribution to all the public taxes and charges upon the city
and inhabitants thereof--a decision which had not met with the favour
of the Common Council, and that thus fresh causes of dissension between
these two bodies had recently arisen. The petitioners prayed therefore
"the relief of the House for preserving the liberties and peace and
quieting the minds of the citizens and for punishing all intruders upon
their rights and privileges, and settling their elections upon a just
and lasting foundation." In answer to this prayer the House gave leave
for the introduction of a Bill "for regulating elections within the
City of London, and for preserving the peace, good order and government
of the said City."

[Sidenote: Bill supported by majority of Aldermen.]

After the Bill had been brought in (27 Jan., 1725), two petitions were
laid before the House; one purporting to come from "the major part of
the Aldermen of the city," the other from the Common Council.[64] The
former, which was in favour of the Bill, had been previously submitted
to the Court of Aldermen; but upon the question being proposed that
the petition should be the petition of the Court, the lord mayor (Sir
George Merttins) declined to put the question on the ground that it
would not be consistent with his honour to let his name be inserted in
that petition, when already a petition had been presented to parliament
in the name of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Commons in Common Council
assembled.[65] The aldermen's petition drew attention more particularly
to a clause in the Bill touching the right of passing Acts or By-laws
by the Common Council. It declared that the right of the aldermen to
veto such proceedings had never been questioned until the time of the
civil war, and not afterwards until quite recently; it further stated
that the aldermen had lately (20 Feb., 1724), by their recorder,
proposed to the Common Council a settlement of all disputes by
reference either to the judges of the High Court or the parliament; but
the offer had been declined.[66]

[Sidenote: Bill opposed by Common Council.]

The petition of the Common Council was against the Bill as being
destructive to many of the rights and privileges which they and their
fellow citizens enjoyed by ancient charters.[67] The Bill passed its
second reading on the 6th of February, after which both parties were
heard by counsel. When the Bill was before the committee, several
petitions against it were presented from Livery Companies of the city.
On the 19th March it was read a third time and passed the Commons.[68]
In the passage of the Bill through the Lower House it had been
strenuously opposed by three out of the four members for the city, viz:
Francis Child, Richard Lockwood and John Barnard. For their services in
this respect the Common Council passed (22 March) them a formal vote of
thanks. The Court at the same time prepared to oppose the Bill in the
Lords.[69]

[Sidenote: Election Act, 11 Geo. i. c, 18, 1725.]

When the Bill was carried up to the Lords, petitions from "the major
part of the aldermen" and from the Common Council were again presented,
as well as another petition subscribed by certain freemen who objected
to parts of the Bill.[70] The passage of the Bill through the Upper
House was nevertheless expeditious; on the 1st April it was read
a second time and committed, and on the 13th, it was passed with
some amendments, but not without a protest being formally entered by
dissentient lords.[71] On the 20th the Bill received the royal assent.

There are three clauses in the Act of special interest. First, the
clause (No. ix), which prescribes the nature of the charges embraced
in the term "payment of scot;" secondly, the clause (No. xv), which
confirms to the Aldermen of the city their right to negative Acts of
the Common Council;[72] and thirdly, the clause (No. xvii) abolishing
the custom of the City restraining citizens and freemen from disposing
of the whole of their personal estates by will.

[Sidenote: Death of George I, 11 June, 1727.]

Just when the reign of George I was drawing to an unexpected close,
it seemed as if England was on the point of becoming involved in a
European War. The emperor and the king of Spain had laid aside their
quarrels and become united in a confederacy against France and England.
Unless Gibraltar were ceded by England, another invasion of the
Pretender might be shortly expected. The citizens were highly incensed
at the thought of their trade being periodically put in jeopardy by
Jacobite risings, and they hastened to assure the king once more of
their determination to sacrifice their lives and fortunes in defence
of the constitution both in church and state against all enemies
whatsoever.[73] Thanks to the pacific tendencies of Walpole and the
diplomatic skill of Townshend, hostilities were averted, and George was
able to set out for his customary visit to Hanover, where he had been
in the habit of spending a portion of each year. Before his journey was
completed, however, he was seized with apoplexy and died in his coach,
near Osnabrück (11 June).

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Journal 56, fo. 130b; Repertory 118, fo. 357.

[2] Journal 56, fos. 132b, 150; Repertory 118, fo. 363.

[3] Journal 56, fos. 133-134b.

[4] Journal 56, fo. 150; Repertory 118, fo. 394.

[5] Repertory 118, fos. 389-391.

[6] _Id._, fos. 368, 369, 384.

[7] Repertory 118, fos. 377, 381.

[8] This "indulgence" was granted by the lords justices, but was not to
be drawn into precedent.--_Id._, fo. 395.

[9] Journal 56, fo. 150b.

[10] Proclamation dated 15 Sept., 1714.--_Id._ fo. 135b.

[11] Repertory 119, fo. 8.

[12] The City put in its customary claims, and the masters and wardens
of the principal livery companies were appointed to assist the lord
mayor in his duties.--Repertory 118, fos. 382-383.

[13] Journal 56, fos. 151b, 161b, 181b.

[14] Maitland, i, 517.

[15] Proclamation dated 6 Dec., 1714.--Journal 56, fo. 139b.

[16] Repertory 119, fos. 79-81.

[17] Journal 56, fo. 147b.

[18] Both aldermen had been knighted by George soon after his
landing.--Maitland, i, 517.

[19] Maitland, i, 518.

[20] Journal 56, fo. 164.

[21] Rapin's Hist. of England (continuation by Tindal), v, 424, 425.

[22] Journal House of Commons, xviii, 232.

[23] Journal 56, fos. 194b-195.

[24] Stat. 1 Geo., i, c. 5. Journal House of Commons, xviii, 232.

[25] Stat. 1 Geo., i, c. 13. "An Act for the further security of his
majesty's person and government ... and for extinguishing the hopes of
the pretended Prince of Wales...." _Id._, xviii, 279.

[26] Repertory 120, fos. 50-70. Rolls of quarter sessions of this
period containing the signatures of those who had not previously
subscribed to the oaths are preserved at the Guildhall.

[27] Repertory 119, fo. 386. Journal 56, fo. 203.

[28] Journal 56, fos. 217, 217b, 218b.

[29] _Id._, fos. 217b, 218b, 270b. Journal 57, fo. 3b.

[30] Journal 67, fo. 267.

[31] Journal 56, fos. 216b, 218.

[32] Stat. 1, Geo. i, c. 38.

[33] Rapin, History of England (contd. by Tindal) iv, 550.

[34] Repertory 121, fos. 250, 265, George Seton, the 5th Earl of
Winton, had joined the rising of 1715. He was taken at Preston, and
being brought to trial was condemned to death. He managed, however, to
make his escape from the Tower and fled to France.

[35] Rapin iv, 541-545.

[36] Repertory 123, fo. 17.

[37] _Id._, 123, fo. 19.

[38] Journal House of Commons, xix, 47.

[39] Journal House of Lords, xxi, 72, 145-147.

[40] A mistake for 19th Jan., 1641-2. See Journal 40, fo. 16.

[41] Journal 50, fo. 32b.

[42] Journal House of Lords, xxi, 148, 149.

[43] See Maitland i, 521-525; Noorthouck, 312.

[44] Repertory 123, fos. 210-215.

[45] Repertory 123, fos. 223, 242.

[46] Journal 57, fo. 22b; Repertory 123, fo. 401.

[47] Repertory 125, fos. 149-156.

[48] Letter from Secretary Craggs to Alderman Ward "at his house upon
Lambeth Hill," 8 Nov., 1720. Repertory 125, fo. 151.

[49] Macleod, "Rise and Progress of Banking in England," ii, 55.

[50] Journal House of Commons, xix, 476.

[51] _Id._, xix, 482.

[52] _Id._, xix, 472-473, 532.

[53] Gibbon, Miscellaneous Works, i, 16-18.

[54] Journal 57, fo. 85. Journal House of Commons, xix, 502.

[55] Rapin v. 645.--Journal House of Lords, xxi, 584.

[56] Only one of the old members (viz., Peter Godfrey) was returned for
the City, the remaining seats being gained by Francis Child, of the
banking firm, who in the next Parliament sat for Middlesex, Richard
Lockwood and John Barnard, who afterwards became Lord Mayor and one of
Walpole's strongest opponents.

[57] Charles Edward Stuart, better known as the young Pretender.

[58] Repertory 126, fo. 344.

[59] _Id._, fos. 344-352. The address as well as the king's reply are
set out by Maitland (i, 531-532).

[60] Repertory 126, fo. 355.

[61] Journal House of Commons, xx, 11.

[62] Journal House of Commons, xx, 363.

[63] By the custom of the City a freeman disposing by will of his
personal estate was obliged to leave his wife one-third of that estate,
and to his children, if any, another third.

[64] Journal House of Commons, xx, 383, 387, 389.

[65] Repertory 129, fo. 123.

[66] Repertory 128, fos. 149-150, 204. Journal 57, fo. 110.

[67] Journal 57, fos. 119b. 120.

[68] Journal House of Commons, xx, 403, 426, 462.

[69] Journal 57, fos. 121, 121b.

[70] Journal House of Lords, xxii, 472, 474, 483. Journal 57, fo. 121.
Repertory 129, fo. 218.

[71] Journal House of Lords, xxii, 499, 500. During the debate in
committee, a proposal had been made to ask the opinion of the judges
whether the Bill repealed any of the privileges, customs, or liberties
of the City restored to them or preserved by the Act passed in 2
William and Mary for reversing the judgment on the _Quo Warranto_ and
for restoring the City its ancient rights and privileges. The proposal
was negatived; but 16 lords entered a formal protest against rejecting
it, whilst 25 lords protested against passing the Bill.

[72] This clause was repealed by Stat. 19, Geo. ii, c. 8. On the 24
April, 1746, the Common Council passed a general vote of thanks to
the lord mayor and Aldermen who had assisted in bringing about the
repeal of a clause which had been "productive of great jealousies and
discontents and might, if continued, have proved subversive of the
rights and liberties of the citizens of London."--Journal 59, fo. 29b.

[73] Journal 57, fo. 149b.



CHAPTER XXXVI.


[Sidenote: King George II proclaimed, 15 June, 1727.]

On the 15th June, 1727, the Court of Aldermen were informed by Sir John
Eyles, the lord mayor, that he had received an order of council dated
from Leicester House (the residence of the Prince of Wales) for his
lordship and the Court to attend at eleven o'clock the next morning at
Temple Bar for the purpose of proclaiming King George II. The Court
thereupon agreed to be present, and instructed the lord mayor to see
that they were allowed to follow in the procession immediately after
the lords of the council.[74] Proclamation having been duly made the
mayor and aldermen, accompanied by the Recorder, waited upon the king
with an address, and afterwards proceeded to pay their compliments to
the queen.[75] Another address had been drawn up by a joint committee
of aldermen and common councilmen on behalf of the Common Council.
But when it was submitted for approval the aldermen insisted upon
exercising their right of veto--recently confirmed by parliamentary
authority--and as they and the commons failed to agree on the several
clauses of the address it had to be abandoned altogether. The mayor
was asked to summon another court, "in pursuance to common usage and
ancient right," to consider another address, but after consultation
with the aldermen he declined to accede to the request.[76]

[Sidenote: The king's coronation, 11 Oct., 1727.]

The coronation did not take place until October. The ceremony was one
of far greater splendour than that of George I, such pageants being "as
pleasing to the son as they were irksome to the father."[77] The City
put in its customary claims, which were duly allowed. The manner in
which these claims were made, as set out in a report made to the Court
of Aldermen by the city Remembrancer, whose duty it was to make them,
was shortly this. Having first obtained the names of the masters of the
twelve superior companies, he put in two claims--written on parchment,
and stamped with a treble sixpenny stamp--for the usual services in
attendance upon the king and queen. The claims being allowed, he
obtained certificates to that effect, and on presenting them at the
lord great chamberlain's office he received warrants to the master of
the king's jewel office for two gold cups, each weighing 21 ozs. One
of these, the king's cup, he conveyed to the lord mayor; the other,
the queen's cup, he left until after the ceremony, "for note"--says
he--"they were not nor are they used to be carryed down to Westminster
Hall to be made use of on that solemnity." The coronation over, the
Remembrancer applied for and received from the Clerk of the Crown a
copy of the judgments on the several claims.[78]

[Sidenote: The lord mayor's banquet, 28 Oct., 1727.]

According to custom the king attended the first lord mayor's banquet
after his accession. He was accompanied by the queen, the royal family,
the great officers of state, and a large number of the nobility.[79]
The entertainment was signalised by what appears to have been a
barefaced attempt at extortion on the part of the king's own cup-bearer
who made a claim on the City for a silver cup (or its value) by way
of fee. The matter having been brought to the notice of the Court of
Aldermen, the Town Clerk was instructed to search the city's Records
for precedents, and upon his reporting that he had failed to find
one the claim was dismissed.[80] The new king, like his father,
ordered £1,000 to be paid to the sheriff for the relief of insolvent
debtors.[81]

[Sidenote: Portraits of king and queen.]

The day that the king was invited to the lord mayor's banquet the
Common Council resolved to set up his statue at the Royal Exchange.[82]
Eventually they commissioned Charles Jervas, an Irish painter and pupil
of Kneller, to paint portraits both of the king and queen for the
Guildhall. Jervas had been originally apprenticed to a frame maker, and
this may account for the anxiety he displayed to put the portraits into
better frames than was usual. To do this he asked for and obtained the
consent of the Court of Aldermen.[83] The pictures now hang in the
members' reading room at the Guildhall.[84]

[Sidenote: Walpole and the queen.]

For a short time after the king's accession it appeared as if Walpole's
ascendancy was to be suddenly cut short. The minister was fortunate,
however, in winning over the queen to his interests, and her influence,
combined with his own masterful tact, turned the scale in his favour,
and he was allowed to remain at the head of affairs. Before long
he succeeded in gaining the entire confidence of the king himself,
but during the lifetime of the queen it was chiefly to her that the
minister turned in times of difficulty. She was a woman of considerable
ability, and thoroughly appreciated Walpole, and together they were
able to avoid many political pitfalls and to persistently carry out
that policy of peace which characterised the whole of this reign.

[Sidenote: Dissenters and the Corporation and Test Acts, 1730.]

Thus it was that in 1730, when the government was placed in an
unpleasant dilemma over an attempt that was being made by Dissenters
throughout the country to obtain the repeal of the Corporation and
Test Acts Walpole took counsel with the queen, and these two laid a
plan with Hoadley, Bishop of Salisbury, for getting the Dissenters
to postpone bringing their petition before parliament. The plan as
we learn from Lord Hervey,[85] who had every means of making himself
acquainted with the inner workings of the Court of George II, was this.
Hoadley, in whom the Dissenters placed much confidence as an avowed
advocate of ecclesiastical as well as civil liberty, was to do all he
could to persuade them to postpone, at least for a short time, their
petition to parliament, whilst Walpole was to see that the committee of
London Dissenters, which was to be chosen to confer with government,
should comprise none but creatures of his own. The scheme succeeded
entirely. The Dissenters were hoodwinked. The packed committee went
through the form of an interview with the ministers, and in due course
reported to the general assembly of Dissenters that the time was
inopportune for petitioning parliament. The general body agreed, and
the ministry was thus saved.

[Sidenote: The City and Walpole's Excise Bill, 1733.]

Although it was chiefly as a financier that the great minister, under
whom England enjoyed an unexampled period of peace and prosperity,
excelled, it was a financial reform that nearly brought him to ruin
three years later. This was his famous Excise Bill. In a hasty desire
to curry favour with the landowners by reducing the Land Tax Walpole
proposed to establish a new system of levying duties on tobacco and
wine. The tax itself was not new, but only the manner of levying it.
Hitherto the duty on wine and tobacco had been payable on importation.
The new proposal was that these commodities should be allowed to lie
in bonded warehouses duty free until taken out for home consumption,
when their sale was to be restricted to shops licensed for the purpose.
In other words the customs' duties on these commodities were to be
changed into excise duties, a form of taxation especially hateful in
those days, as seeming to infringe the rights of the subject by giving
revenue officers the right of entering and searching houses at any hour
without further warrant. The City and the country were up in arms, and
the city members of parliament were instructed to oppose the Bill for
reasons set out in writing and delivered into their hands.[86]

Walpole delayed bringing in the Bill as long as he could in hopes that
the clamour against it--"epidemic madness," as Hervey called it--might
subside. Neither London nor the kingdom, however, would listen to
reason, and the universal cry was _No slavery--no excise--no wooden
shoes!_[87] When the Bill was at last introduced (14 March) it met
with violent opposition, and more particularly from two of the city
members, viz., Sir John Barnard and Micaiah Perry. During the debate
the doors of the House were besieged by such a noisy crowd that Walpole
in an unguarded moment characterised the mob as "sturdy beggars." This
at once brought Barnard to his feet, and although there was at first
a disposition not to hear him, as he had already spoken to the Bill,
the House was prevailed upon to give him a second hearing, owing to
his position as a representative of "the greatest and richest city in
Europe," and a city greatly interested in the issues of the debate.
Barnard thereupon took Walpole severely to task for the expression he
had let drop. "The honourable gentleman," said he, "talks of sturdy
beggars; I do not know what sort of people may be now at the door,
because I have not lately been out of the House, but I believe they
are the same sort of people that were there when I came last into the
House, and then I can assure you that I saw none but such as deserve
the name of sturdy beggars as little as the honourable gentleman
himself, or any gentleman whatever." Sturdy beggars or not (he declared
in conclusion) they could not legally be prevented from coming down to
the House. After some further debate Walpole gained the day, and on the
4th April the Bill was read a first time.[88]

Before the Bill came on for its second reading a copy of it had been
laid before the Common Council (9 April), and a petition had thereupon
been drawn up and presented to the House asking that the City might
be heard by counsel against the Bill.[89] After long debate the
prayer of the petition was refused, but only by a bare majority of
seventeen.[90] By this time the clamour had become so great, even the
army showing signs of disaffection, that Walpole, true to his principle
of expediency, the key-note of his policy, resolved to purchase
peace by concession. He postponed the further consideration of the
Bill (11 April) for a period of two months, and afterwards withdrew
it altogether. On leaving the House the day that the motion for
postponement was carried the minister was mobbed. The affair was little
more than an "accidental scuffle," but it was studiously represented
to parliament as "a deep-laid scheme for assassination." Resolutions
were passed condemning in strong terms all actors and abettors of the
outrage, and the city members were especially directed to carry copies
to the lord mayor for publication within his jurisdiction--the City
being considered as the real author of all the mischief.[91]

[Sidenote: Mayoralty of Sir William Billers, 1733-1734.]

The defeat of the Bill was received with extravagant joy, and in 1734
it was proposed to celebrate its anniversary in the city with bonfires.
For this purpose subscriptions were invited through the medium of the
press. The mayor, Sir William Billers, on learning this consulted
the Court of Aldermen as to what was best to be done under the
circumstances, and by their advice he issued his precept for a special
watch to be kept, and for the arrest of all persons attempting to make
bonfires or to create disorder.[92] Notwithstanding this precaution a
riot broke out, and Billers not only had his windows broken, on account
of his obnoxious precept, but was himself pelted with dirt and stones,
whilst patrolling the streets in company with the Swordbearer. Insult
was added to injury by the newspapers of the day holding him up as
having himself been the real cause of all the disorder. The Court of
Aldermen, on the other hand, accorded him a hearty vote of thanks for
the courage he had displayed.[93] On going out of office Billers again
became an object of attack, the mob pelting him with all kinds of filth
and endeavouring to smash his coach. The Court of Aldermen were so
indignant at this outrage that they offered a reward of £50 for every
offender brought to justice.[94]

[Sidenote: Royal marriages, 1734 and 1736]

In 1734 the princess royal was married to the Prince of Orange, and
two years later the Prince of Wales married the Princess Augusta
of Saxe-Gotha. On both occasions the City presented congratulatory
addresses.[95] Lord Hervey, the king's vice-chamberlain, was highly
indignant at the first address because of the reference it made to King
William III. But if the City sinned in this respect it sinned in good
company, for Oxford University and other corporate bodies made similar
allusions. "The city of London," wrote Hervey,[96] "the University of
Oxford, and several other disaffected towns and incorporated bodies
took the opportunity of the princess royal's marriage to say the most
impertinent things to the king, under the pretence of complimental
addresses, that ironical zeal and couched satire could put together.
The tenor of them all was to express their satisfaction in this match
from remembering how much this country was indebted to a prince who
bore the title of Orange, declaring their gratitude to his memory,
and intimating as plainly as they dared, how much they wished this
man might follow the example of his great ancestor, and one time or
other _depose his father-in-law_ in the same manner that King William
had deposed his." Happily the king took a more sensible view of the
address, and vouchsafed a gracious reply. So far from being offended
at the City's allusion to William of Orange he was pleased. "It is a
great pleasure to me," he said, "to see this great metropolis remember
with so much gratitude the deliverance of these kingdoms from popery
and slavery by my great predecessor King William."[97] Soon after the
marriage of the Prince of Wales he was presented with the Freedom of
the City in a gold box, having previously been admitted a member of the
Saddlers' Company.[98]

[Sidenote: Disputes between England and Spain in the West Indies.]

For nearly twenty years England had enjoyed uninterrupted peace at home
and abroad. The last action in which an English force had been engaged
had taken place in the summer of 1718, when Admiral Byng defeated a
Spanish fleet off Cape Passaro. Since then trade had been flourishing,
and the city merchant had been busily sending cargoes of English
merchandise across the sea to the West Indies, paying little regard to
the restrictions imposed on them by the provisions of the Treaty of
Utrecht.[99]

[Sidenote: Jenkin's ear, 1738.]

Spain on the other hand insisted upon the right of search, and their
coastguards had often seized English vessels suspected of smuggling,
and were sometimes reported as having brutally ill-used their
crews.[100] Matters were fast tending to an open rupture when the
episode of Jenkin's ear roused an intense desire for war both in the
city and the country generally. The story is well known. Jenkin was
master of a small trading vessel which seven years before had been
overhauled by a Spanish guarda-costa. Irritated at finding nothing
contraband on board the Spanish commander is said to have cut off
one of Jenkin's ears, bidding him carry it to the king. Jenkin took
advantage of the prevalent feeling against Spain to exhibit his ear
wrapt in cotton wool, and when asked as to his feelings at the time
of the outrage declared that he had commended his soul to God and his
cause to his country. This clap-trap story--it is shrewdly suspected
that Jenkin lost his ear in the pillory--had the desired effect.
Popular indignation was roused, and the nation clamoured for war.

[Sidenote: The City and the Spanish Convention, 1739.]

To all this Walpole turned a deaf ear, and instead of proclaiming war
opened negotiations for peace. A Convention with Spain was agreed to,
but as it left the question as to right of search still unsettled,
great opposition was displayed, both in and out of parliament, to
its ratification. The minister was in the greatest straits. His best
friend and supporter, the queen, had recently died, and the king,
freed from the peaceful influence of his wife, as well as the City,
were urging war. It was not often that the Londoners called for war,
they were too interested in commercial pursuits not to appreciate
to the full the blessings of peace. But on this occasion the City
felt bound to make a strong representation to parliament as to "the
fatal consequences of leaving the freedom of navigation any longer
in suspense and uncertainty." They had too much reason to fear (they
said) that if the right claimed by Spain of searching British ships at
sea were admitted in any degree "the trade of his majesty's subjects
to America will become so precarious as to depend in a great measure
upon the indulgence and justice of the Spaniards, of both which they
have given us for some years past such specimens as we humbly think
this nation can have no cause to be satisfied with."[101] The citizens
were probably right, although they were held up to much ridicule for
venturing to give advice upon affairs of state. During the debate on
the convention, lists of the members of the Common Council, with their
respective trades or companies, were scattered abroad, and to these
lists were appended texts from scripture to the effect that however
useful such men might be in a city "they shall not be sought for in
public council."[102]

[Sidenote: "Leonidas" Glover.]

One citizen in particular distinguished himself by advocating war in a
poem of greater length than merit. This was Richard Glover,[103] known
as "Leonidas" Glover (from another poem he wrote bearing that title),
author of "London, or the Progress of Commerce," in which he reminds
the citizens of their former prowess at Newbury, and asks--

    "Shall we be now more timid, when behold,
    The blackening storm now gathers round our heads
    And England's angry genius sounds to arms?"

Besides being an "eminent Hamburgh merchant" and a writer of verse,
Glover took an active part in city elections, and was a strong
upholder of the rights of the livery. On Michaelmas-day, when Sir
George Champion, who sat for Aylesbury, was put in nomination for the
mayoralty and rejected chiefly, if not wholly, on account of his
having voted for the Convention,[104] Glover was asked to move a vote
of thanks to the city members, for having opposed the Convention. This
he did in a spirited speech, in which he referred to Champion's chance
of election to the mayoralty as being in all probability for ever lost,
a prediction which proved true.[105]

[Sidenote: War declared with Spain, 19 Oct., 1739.]

Although the Convention was carried, it became apparent that either
war must be declared or Walpole resign. The minister's love of power
overcame his convictions, and he allowed himself to be dragged into a
war which he felt at the time to be unjustifiable and foreboding of
evil. The declaration of war which was made in October was welcomed
with peals of bells from London churches. "They ring their bells now,"
said he, "before long they will be wringing their hands." When the
outgoing mayor received instructions from the Duke of Newcastle to
assist at the proclamation of war according to custom, he demurred on
the ground that the town clerk had been unable to find a precedent
for the Court of Aldermen attending a proclamation of war; but upon
the Duke referring him to what had taken place when war was declared
in 1718 against Spain, the objection was withdrawn. A question next
arose as to the place the civic authorities should occupy in the
procession, and the Remembrancer was instructed to make enquiries on
the point both at the secretary's office and the Heralds' College.
The information gathered by him proving unsatisfactory, the Court of
Aldermen took it upon themselves to decide that the civic party should
fall in immediately after Garter King-at-Arms. This order, however,
was not carried out, for the Horse Guards thrust themselves into the
procession in front of the municipal officers.[106]

[Sidenote: Capture of Porto Bello, Nov., 1739.]

At the outset of the war fortune favoured British arms, and in
November, Admiral Vernon succeeded in surprising and capturing the town
of Porto Bello, situate on the Isthmus of Darien (Panama). The City
was delighted and presented the king with the usual congratulatory
address.[107] Such a feat the citizens declared would not only serve to
show that the maritime power of the country, although allowed to lie
dormant so long, was still capable of vindicating the honour of the
crown, but also gave promise of future successes, and they assured the
king that he might depend upon them to contribute towards the support
of a war so necessary for the protection of their long injured trade.

[Sidenote: "Admiral Hosier's Ghost."]

As for Vernon, he became a popular idol with the citizens, who
continued to look upon his single success whilst they turned a blind
eye to his many subsequent failures. Not only was he presented with the
Freedom of the City in a gold box, but his birthday was for some years
kept with general rejoicing.[108] His capture of Porto Bello was made
the subject of a poem by Glover--his one readable ballad--under the
title of "Admiral Hosier's Ghost," in which Vernon's good fortune is
compared with the ill-luck which attended Hosier's expedition to the
West Indies in 1726, when, doomed to inaction by orders from home, that
gallant officer saw the greater part of his men swept off by disease,
and he himself died subsequently of a broken heart.[109]

[Sidenote: Heathcote discharged Mayor by Common Council, Oct., 1740.]

When Michaelmas-day again came round Glover was again to the fore. It
was customary for the livery to hold a preliminary meeting either at
the London Tavern or some company's hall before they met in Common
Hall. On this occasion the meeting was held in Vintners' Hall, and
Glover took the chair. The business of the day having been opened by
a speech from the chairman, in which he referred to the rejection of
Sir George Champion the previous year, and exhorted them to choose a
mayor for the year ensuing who would be agreeable to the majority of
the citizens, the livery proceeded to choose Sir Robert Godschall and
George Heathcote, although they were not the senior aldermen below
the chair.[110] There names were accordingly submitted to the full
body of the livery assembled in Common Hall on Michaelmas-day and were
accepted.[111] It now became the duty of the Court of Aldermen to
select one of these two to be mayor for the year ensuing. Godschall
was the senior, and Heathcote particularly desired not to be chosen
on the plea of ill-health, and because he had so recently served
sheriff. Nevertheless the choice of the aldermen was declared to be
for Heathcote, although he repeated his request not to serve. A
Common Council was thereupon summoned to consider the matter, and it
was eventually resolved that Heathcote should be discharged without
fine.[112]

[Sidenote: Humphrey Parsons re-elected Mayor, Oct., 1740.]

This necessitated the summoning another Common Hall, and another
accordingly met on the 14th October. A preliminary meeting of the
livery took place, as before, at Vintners' Hall, and again Glover was
in the chair. The action of the Court of Aldermen in thus passing
over Godschall merely because the livery had refused to nominate
Champion, was strongly condemned by the chairman, who no less strongly
eulogised the action of Heathcote for refusing to serve--a refusal
which emanated, according to the speaker, not from ill-health, but from
a determination not to fill the place of the rejected Godschall.[113]
When the election came on in Common Hall the livery returned Godschall
for the third time, and with him Humphrey Parsons who had served mayor
ten years before. Again Godschall was passed over by the Court of
Aldermen, and Parsons was called to the mayoralty chair for the second
time, although by the bare majority of one vote.[114]

The Common Council were desirous (22 Oct.) of passing a vote of thanks
to Parsons for again accepting a laborious and expensive office,
"_and thereby endeavouring in some measure to restore the peace and
tranquility of this city which has been greatly disturbed by a late
extraordinary and unusual proceeding_." A A long debate arose, some
of the aldermen present insisting upon their right of a negative voice
in the matter; and upon the question being put to them, the words in
_italics_ were vetoed by twelve aldermen to one.[115] Those aldermen
who had previously voted for Godschall and a large number of the Common
Council had already got up and left the Court.[116]

[Sidenote: A general election, 1741.]

In 1741 a general election took place. Parsons, who had sat in the
last two Parliaments with Sir John Barnard, had, in the meantime,
died during his mayoralty, and had been succeeded in the civic chair
by Daniel Lambert.[117] Barnard retained his seat, and with him were
returned the new mayor, and Aldermen Godschall and Heathcote. The
ministry still retained a majority in the House, but it was not always
to be depended upon.

[Sidenote: City petitions to parliament, Jan., 1742.]

Early in the following year two petitions were laid before Parliament
complaining of the manner in which the trade of the country was being
ruined owing to insufficiency of convoys. One petition--drafted by
Glover--was from merchants of the city, and was presented to Parliament
by Godschall,[118] who had at last succeeded in becoming mayor; and
the other was from the Common Council of the city, and was presented
by the sheriffs.[119] Both petitions were referred to a committee of
the whole House, with Godschall in the chair, and in due course the
House instructed the lord mayor and Sir John Barnard to prepare a Bill
for the better protecting and securing the trade and navigation of the
kingdom in time of war.[120]

[Sidenote: Death of Godschall, mayor, June, 1742.]

A Bill was accordingly prepared, which passed rapidly through the
Commons but was thrown out by the Lords.[121] This was almost the last
parliamentary business on which Godschall was engaged, for he died
during his mayoralty in the following June.

[Sidenote: Resignation of Walpole, 17 Feb., 1742.]

Whilst these petitions were under consideration the ministry suffered
a defeat over an election petition, and Walpole resigned (17 Feb.).
With the great "corrupter" removed the City hoped for great things.
The Common Council had, previously (10 Feb.) made a "representation"
to the city members urging them to promote a Place Bill and a Pension
Bill, as well as the repeal of the Septennial Act, and so secure the
constitution "against all future attempts either of open or secret
corruption or of any undue influence whatsoever."[122]

[Sidenote: The City and the new ministry.]

After some difficulty a new ministry was formed in which Carteret soon
became the leading man. The City continued to look for the execution of
the long-wished-for reforms, but looked in vain. It was the old story.
Men who when out of office breathed the spirit of patriotism and virtue
were anything but virtuous and patriotic in office. Again were the city
members urged by another "representation" to press forward certain
measures and not to vote supplies until the government showed some
signs of moving in the direction required.[123] The example of the
City was followed in other places, and copies of the "representation"
were freely circulated in all parts of the country. The newspapers of
the day, whilst lamenting the condition into which the country had
fallen through "the iniquitous administration of the late corrupter,"
expressed their confidence that the example set by London--"the source
and fountain head of all our wealth and trade"--would continue to have,
as it had already had, its proper influence both within and without
doors.[124]

[Sidenote: France and the Young Pretender, 1743.]

When Carteret came into power, Europe was distracted with the war of
the Austrian succession, and before long England was drawn into the
vortex. Whilst France embraced the cause of the Elector of Bavaria,
England supported Maria Theresa. In June, 1743, the French army was
defeated at Dettingen, when, for the last time, a king of England
appeared in the field of battle at the head of his men, and bore
himself right royally. Louis retaliated by promising assistance to
Charles Edward Stuart, known in history as the Young Pretender, who
meditated an invasion of England to claim the crown.

[Sidenote: War declared against France, 29 March, 1744.]

Information of the project having been communicated to Parliament (15
Feb., 1744), both Houses concurred in an address of loyalty to the
king, promising him their utmost support, and the next day the Common
Council voted a similar address.[125] The deputation which waited upon
his majesty with the City's address met with a gracious reception, and
the king conferred the honour of knighthood upon the mayor (Robert
Westley), the recorder (Simon Urling), two aldermen, (viz., Daniel
Lambert and Robert Willimot), and the two sheriffs, Robert Ladbroke and
William Calvert,[126] the latter of whom had succeeded to Godschall's
seat in Parliament as one of the members for the city. Before the end
of the month the lord mayor was informed by letter from the Privy
Council that extensive preparations were being made at Dunkirk, in
concert with disaffected persons in this country, for an invasion, and
it behoved his lordship to put into operation the Acts against papists
and non-jurors.[127] The aspect of affairs began to look black indeed.
"If they still attempt the invasion," wrote Walpole to his friend,
"it must be a bloody war."[128] The danger that seemed so imminent
passed away owing to a violent storm which destroyed the French
transports, and England was thus again saved from foreign invasion by
the difficulties of the channel passage.[129] Nevertheless on the 29th
March, war was declared against France.[130]

[Sidenote: The Pretender in Scotland, 1745.]

Though bitterly disappointed at the failure of this expedition the
prince did not lose courage, but resolved in the following year (1745)
to cross over to Scotland unsupported by France, and to trust to the
loyalty of his friends there. Landing in the western highlands with
a mere handful of followers he gradually drew to his side a small
force, and on the 19th August set up his standard in Glenfinnan. On
the 4th September the Duke of Newcastle (brother of Pelham, who had
recently succeeded Carteret in the premiership) informed the lord
mayor by letter of the Pretender having set up his standard and of his
then being on his way to Perth or Edinburgh. The king was assured, he
said, that the mayor would do his utmost to preserve the peace and the
security of the city.[131] Both the Common Council and the Court of
Aldermen presented addresses to the king in testimony of their loyalty
to the constitution of Church and State, and both bodies in return
received assurances of royal favour and promises of protection for
their trade and commerce.[132] The London merchant and trader had been
the greatest gainers by the Revolution and the policy of peace pursued
by Walpole. It would have been base ingratitude, if nothing else, had
the City acted otherwise at this important crisis. Dr. Gardiner points
out that it was much the same in Scotland, and that the traders there,
having profited by the Union, were to a man staunch Hanoverians.

[Sidenote: The Pretender's march to Derby.]

On the 17th September the prince entered Edinburgh and took up his
quarters at Holyrood House. A few days later he succeeded in defeating
an English force under Sir John Cope at Preston Pans, and thus
encouraged he prepared to cross the border and to appeal to England for
support. The news caused a run upon the Bank of England, and had it not
been for the praiseworthy promptitude of the leading London merchants
who met and passed a formal resolution pledging themselves to support
the credit of the bank's notes, its doors would probably have been
closed.[133]

[Sidenote: The Pretender enters Derby, 4 Dec., 1745.]

Again fortune favoured England. The prince delayed his march so long,
collecting money and organising his forces, that time was gained
for putting London into a state of defence. A camp was formed at
Finchley[134] to intercept the rebels, and subscription lists were
opened in London and the country for the soldiers who were to be
engaged in the coming winter campaign. The Common Council voted £1,000
to the fund,[135] but England as a whole was strangely apathetic.
Carteret, the late prime minister, who had, on the death of his mother
recently, become Viscount Carteret and Earl Granville, refused to
subscribe anything to the fund, and a similar indifference to the
country's danger was displayed by others of the aristocracy.[136] By
Wednesday, the 4th December, the Pretender had succeeded in evading the
English forces sent to oppose him under the command of Wade and the
Duke of Cumberland and had entered Derby, where he seized all the money
he could lay his hands on, including the subscriptions that had been
raised to oppose him.[137]

[Sidenote: "Black Friday," 6 Dec., 1745.]

The news of the rebels being within 150 miles of the capital reached
London on Friday, the 6th December--"Black Friday," as it came to be
called. The Duke of Newcastle immediately wrote off to the lord mayor
informing him of the fact of the Pretender's forces having already
reached Derby "in their way, as they give out, towards London." The
Duke of Cumberland, the letter went on to say, was making every effort
to intercept the rebels at Northampton, and part of his cavalry would
be there that night and the rest the next day, when the foot soldiers
were also expected. The mayor was desired to take immediate steps, in
the meantime, for the defence of the city, in case the duke failed to
place himself between the rebels and London. The letter having been
communicated to a special Court of Aldermen on Saturday it was resolved
to issue precepts for returns to be made by the following Monday of the
number of coach and saddle horses found in each ward. The trained bands
were to take up their quarters in the Royal Exchange, whilst a portion
of Bridewell Hospital was to serve as a guard-room for the night guard
appointed by the commissioners of lieutenancy. The two city marshals
were to be instructed to visit the night watches in the several wards
and to see that the constables did their duty.[138] All was excitement
and activity. The king prepared to go to the camp at Finchley to take
command of the guards. The weavers of London offered to supply him
with 1,000 men, whilst the lawyers formed themselves into a little
army under the command of Chief Justice Willes, and offered to serve
as a body-guard to the royal family during the king's absence.[139]
Another run was made upon the Bank of England, which again had to
resort to strategem (as in 1720) in order to avert bankruptcy. Instead
of refusing payment the Bank employed agents for the express purpose
of presenting notes which, in order to gain time, were cashed in
sixpences; "and as those who came first were entitled to priority the
agents went out at one door with the specie they had received and
brought it back by another, so that the _bonâ fide_ holders of notes
could never get near enough to present them."[140]

[Sidenote: The Pretender withdraws from Derby.]

Fortunately the crisis was soon over, the Pretender had scarcely
reached Derby before he reluctantly accepted the advice of his
commanders and ordered a retreat. Under the circumstances it was
perhaps the best thing to do. The English armies were gradually closing
in upon him, this country had shown no disposition to rise in his
favour, and the Duke of Cumberland was, as we have seen, hastening
towards Northampton to bar his passage to the capital.

[Sidenote: The Freedom of the City for Duke of Cumberland, 23 Jan.,
1746.]

The citizens were not slow to realise how much they owed to the duke
for their protection, and on the 23rd January (1746) the Common Council
resolved to present him with the Freedom of the City in a gold box,
both for his "magnanimous" behaviour against the rebels, as well as for
his vigilant care in protecting the city "in a late time of imminent
danger."[141]

[Sidenote: Victory of Culloden, 16 April, 1746.]

Some time elapsed before the duke was able to receive the freedom, for
as soon as he was aware that the rebels were in retreat, he hurried
off in pursuit. After defeating General Hawley at Falkirk (17 Jan.,
1746) the rebels retired towards Inverness, but in April they were
brought to bay by the duke at Culloden Moor and utterly defeated. The
duke was a man of violent passions, and his victory was marked with so
much wanton cruelty and bloodshed, that he acquired the name of the
Butcher. This name he never lost, and when it came to his taking up the
Freedom of the City, some one was bold enough to suggest the propriety
of his becoming a member of the Butchers' Company.[142]

[Sidenote: City address to the king, 3 May, 1746.]

Cruel as the duke's conduct had been, it had the effect of crushing
the rebellion. London and the kingdom could once more breathe freely,
and the citizens could follow their commercial pursuits without fear
of further abortive attempts being made to restore the crown to the
Stuarts. Instead of blaming the duke for his drastic measures, they
applauded him and formally thanked the king for giving him the command,
"Permit us, Sir"--they said, addressing his majesty--"to return our
most unfeigned thanks ... for the appointment of his royal highness
the duke to this important service, whose conduct and bravery (so
early conspicuous) have by the blessing of the Almighty produced this
our happy deliverance: a glory reserved for one of your illustrious
family, endowed with those princely qualities which render him amiable
to those under his command, and formidable to his enemies." They, at
the same time assured his majesty that it would be always their firm
resolution, no less than their indispensable duty "to oppose every
attempt of the common disturbers of the peace of Europe" against the
rights of his crown.[143]

[Sidenote: The general election, 1747.]

One effect of the rebellion was to strengthen the hands of the
government. The subscription lists that had been opened during the
crisis were the means of displaying to the world who were Jacobites
and who were not, and when the general election came on in the summer
of 1747 it went hard with those who entertained Jacobite proclivities.
Barnard and Culvert retained their seats for the city, but Slingsby
Bethell and Stephen Theodore Janssen were returned in place of Lambert
and Heathcote. "Both Westminster and Middlesex have elected court
candidates," wrote Walpole to his friend,[144] "and the city of London
is taking the same step, the first time of many years that the two
latter have been whig; but the non-subscribing at the time of the
rebellion, has been most successfully played off upon the Jacobites."

[Sidenote: Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, Oct., 1748.]

The rebellion had also a considerable effect upon the war on the
continent, for the Austrians, deprived of English succour, lost nearly
the whole of their possessions in the Netherlands to France. The
French, however, were unsuccessful in Italy, whilst at sea the English
navy attacked their colonial possessions, and captured the island of
Cape Breton. All parties being ready to come to terms, a peace was
at length concluded (Oct., 1748) at Aix-la-Chapelle on the general
principle of restitution of all conquests.[145]

[Sidenote: The Newcastle administration, 1754-1756.]

From the time when Henry Pelham succeeded Carteret (Nov., 1744)
as Prime Minister, the strife of parties was lulled by the simple
expedient of admitting into office any man capable of rendering himself
dangerous to the government. Pelham's administration thus became
distinguished as the Broad-bottomed Administration. Upon his death in
March, 1754, the era of tranquillity passed away. He was succeeded in
the Premiership by his brother the Duke of Newcastle. Already there was
danger of war with France, as well as opposition at home, but with the
assistance of Charles Fox, Newcastle contrived to get through the year.
Before another twelvemonth had elapsed, however, England was again
threatened with a French invasion.[146]

[Sidenote: The National Militia Bill, 1756.]

On the 11th November (1755) the lords of the council wrote to Slingsby
Bethell, who had just entered upon his mayoralty, instructing him to
call out the whole of the City's militia for immediate service. The
letter was laid before a special Court of Aldermen on Saturday, the
15th, when it was resolved to summon the Commissioners of Lieutenancy
to meet that afternoon, and a special court of Common Council for the
following Tuesday.[147] The Common Council having assembled on the day
named the Lord Mayor communicated to them the contents of the letter he
had received. A motion was thereupon made for applying to Parliament
for a more effectual National Militia Bill, but a debate arose, and
the matter was adjourned for further consideration. On the 25th the
debate was resumed, but upon being put to the vote the motion was lost.
Nevertheless, a Bill for better ordering the militia of the country was
introduced into Parliament the following spring and passed (10 May,
1756), but the City's militia was exempted from the Bill.[148]

[Sidenote: Importation of foreign mercenaries.]

Newcastle was not the man to conduct a great war. A fresh election
had taken place soon after his appointment as first lord of the
treasury, and the result had given the ministry a handsome majority.
Nevertheless, so helpless was he that he could devise no better plan
for saving the country from invasion than by importing Hessian and
Hanoverian mercenaries. Worse than this, his proposal was adopted,
although Pitt left a sick bed on purpose to go down to the House and
solemnly protest against such a course.[149]

[Sidenote: A tax on plate opposed by the City.]

A proposal, made by the chancellor of the exchequer, Sir George
Lyttelton, to impose a tax upon plate, for the purpose of raising
supplies, was reasonable enough, but it met with opposition not only
from Pitt but also from the City,[150] partly on account of the
existing inland duties being already sufficiently heavy and partly
because this particular tax would teach servants to become informers.
At the same time the citizens avowed themselves ready to hazard their
lives and their fortunes in support of the king and the Protestant
succession.[151]

[Sidenote: The loss of Minorca, 1756.]

The threatened invasion was only a trick played by the French king
to draw off attention from the real object of attack--the capture of
Minorca. Owing to dilatoriness on the part of the ministry Byng was
despatched too late to save the island. This loss excited the utmost
indignation. The cry was loud against the government, but louder still
against Byng, who was accused of rank cowardice, if not treachery.
Newcastle was content to make a scapegoat of the admiral, and ordered
him home under arrest to await trial. The feeling of disgust which
prevailed in the city at Byng having withdrawn to Gibraltar without
hazarding a brush with the enemy manifested itself by the display of
a placard at the Royal Exchange advertising _Three kingdoms to be
let_.[152] Whilst Byng awaited his trial, popular clamour, throughout
the country rose to such a pitch that at last war was declared (17
May, 1756). In August the citizens again assured the king of their
readiness to shed their last drop of blood and contribute all that
might be necessary for the defence of the kingdom and colonies, but
they none the less expressed an eager hope that Byng and those who were
responsible for losses in America should be brought to punishment.[153]

[Sidenote: A "representation" to city members, Oct., 1756.]

The recent failures and the general weakness and incapacity of
Newcastle irritated the country to such a degree that the ministry
became frightened, and in October (1756) Fox, who for the last
year had undertaken the duties of the leadership in the House of
Commons, resigned. At this juncture the Common Council again drew up
a "representation" for the guidance of the city's representatives in
parliament.[154] First and foremost they were to insist upon a strict
and impartial parliamentary enquiry into the causes of the recent
disasters at Minorca and in North America, which had rendered the
British name contemptible; and in the next place they were to seize
the earliest opportunity of urging the necessity of establishing a
constitutional militia and of ridding the country of those foreign
mercenaries, whose numbers had been constantly increasing, whose
support had become an intolerable expense, and who claimed to be above
the law of the land. They were to vote for no supplies until this were
done. They were further instructed to endeavour to limit the number of
placemen and pensioners, which of late had so remarkably increased; to
restore at a proper season triennial parliaments, as being the only
means of obtaining a free representative of the people; to keep an eye
on the proper application of public money; and finally to see that
the country did not become involved in continental affairs so as to
threaten its independence.

[Sidenote: Newcastle succeeded by Pitt, Nov., 1756.]

This representation was not without its effect. In November Newcastle
resigned, and Pitt, although nominally only secretary of state under
the Duke of Devonshire, became virtually prime minister. He had not
been many weeks in office before he gratified the City by sending
the Hanoverian and Hessian troops out of the country, as well as by
passing a Bill for re-organising the national militia.

[Sidenote: Execution of Admiral Byng, 14 March, 1757.]

Just as the year was drawing to a close Byng was brought to trial.
Owing to a comparatively recent change that had been made in the
articles of war the court found itself compelled to bring in a
verdict of guilty without any imputation on the personal courage
of the admiral.[155] The extent of his criminality was that he had
failed to do all that might have been done to save Minorca. Pitt, who
was no favourite with the king, was courageous enough to plead for
a royal pardon, but the king turned a deaf ear. The country deemed
itself betrayed, and called for a victim. The timorous Newcastle had
long promised a deputation of citizens that Byng should be speedily
brought to justice. "Oh! indeed he shall be tried immediately, he shall
be hanged directly."[156] The trial had taken place, and although
the court that tried him had shown an unmistakable desire to treat
him with leniency, the City began to show signs of impatience and
clamoured for his death. Papers bearing the words "Shoot Byng, or take
care of your king" are even said to have appeared posted up in the
Royal Exchange.[157] The citizens had their wish. The sentence was
carried out, and Byng was shot on the quarterdeck of the "Monarque" at
Portsmouth (14 March, 1757).

[Sidenote: Civic honours for Pitt and Legge, 24 May, 1757.]

Soon after this Pitt was dismissed. His dismissal was the signal for a
general ebullition in his favour. The Common Council presented both him
and Legge (who had served under him as chancellor of the exchequer)
with the Freedom of the City and gold boxes, in testimony of their
conduct during their "honourable tho' short administration." The City
declared its appreciation of the noble efforts of these ministers "to
stem the general torrent of corruption and revive by their example
the almost extinguished love of virtue and our country," their zeal
in promoting a full and impartial enquiry into the real causes of the
late disasters in America and the Mediterranean, and lastly their
efforts to support the glory and independence of Great Britain, the
true interests of the crown and the rights and liberties of the
subject.[158] The example thus set by the city of London was followed
by other corporations in such quick succession that for some weeks, as
Lady Hervey wittily remarked, "it rained gold boxes."

[Sidenote: Coalition of Pitt and Newcastle, June, 1757.]

The king tried to get Newcastle, with his subservient band of
supporters, to accept office again, but the duke could not make up
his mind whether to resume office or not, and for nearly three months
the country was without any ministry at all. At last a compromise was
arranged in June between Pitt and Newcastle,[159] whereby the former
undertook all affairs of state, leaving to Newcastle the business of
patronage, such as his soul loved. Pitt threw himself heartily into the
war, determined to raise the national spirit. His task, however, was a
difficult one, owing to the incompetency of those he found in command.
Thus, for instance, an attempt to take Rochefort failed through
dissension between Admiral Hawke and General Mordaunt. The Common
Council were on the point of considering the advisability of addressing
the king on the subject, when the mayor informed them that one of the
clerks of the Privy Council had waited on him at the Mansion House to
inform him that directions had already been given for an enquiry into
the cause of the recent miscarriage; and so the matter was allowed to
drop.[160]

[Sidenote: Subscriptions for bounties, 1759-1760.]

Thanks to Pitt's military reforms and to the confidence he inspired,
the remainder of the reign was marked by a series of successes
culminating in the conquest of Canada. In the summer of 1759 the French
again threatened an invasion, but it caused no alarm. A new spirit had
been breathed into the nation and animated both services. The City
resolved to open a subscription list at the Guildhall for encouraging
the enlistment of recruits, and to contribute £1,000 towards the fund.
By way of further encouragement the Freedom of the City was offered
gratuitously to every soldier who should produce to the chamberlain
a testimonial of his good behaviour during his term of service, and
who should wish to be admitted to the privilege of exercising a
trade within the city and liberties. A committee was appointed to
make the necessary arrangements for carrying out the enlistments,
and Pitt was desired to lay these resolutions before his majesty as
an humble testimony of the City's zeal and affection for king and
government.[161] The king commissioned Pitt to thank the City on his
behalf, and to express the satisfaction he felt at this signal proof
of the City's resolution to support the war.[162] The money raised
between August, 1759 and June 1760, amounted to a little over £7,000,
which was distributed in bounties to 1,235 men, enlisted for the term
of the war with France, at five guineas a head. The livery companies
subscribed to the fund: the Grocers' contributing 500 guineas, the
Goldsmiths' and the Fishmongers' respectively £500, the Clothworkers'
£300, and other companies lesser sums. The names of Pitt himself and of
Legge also appear as having each subscribed £100.[163]

[Sidenote: City address in conquest of Canada, 16 Oct., 1760.]

But of all the achievements abroad at this time none caused so much joy
as the capture of Quebec (Sept., 1759). The City once more embraced the
opportunity of presenting a congratulatory address to the king, at the
same time expressing deep regret at the loss of so gallant an officer
as Wolfe.[164] A year later it again offered its congratulations on
the complete conquest of Canada,[165] promising to assist in the
preservation of that valuable acquisition, and "to prosecute the
various and extensive services" of the just and necessary war. Pitt
was delighted with the address. "The address of the city of London,"
he wrote to Grenville, "will speak for itself, and I believe you will
think that it speaks loud enough to be heard at Paris.... How it was
heard at Kensington you need not be told, as the address is big with _a
million in every line_. Were it able to produce an advantageous peace
it would be most happy; next to that, such generous and warm assurances
of supporting the war cannot but give the highest satisfaction to
government."[166] Within ten days of listening to the address the king
died (25 Oct.).

[Sidenote: The City's admiration for Pitt.]

On the last day of the month the first stone was laid of Blackfriars
Bridge. The bridge was originally known as Pitt Bridge, and bore an
inscription in Latin and English testifying the City's affection
for the great statesman who had done so much to restore the ancient
reputation of the British empire,[167] whilst the approach to the
bridge was for some years known as Chatham Place.

FOOTNOTES:

[74] Repertory 131, fo. 285.

[75] _Id._, fos. 287, 289-291.

[76] Journal 57, fos. 154b-155b; Repertory 131, fos. 345-348. For the
next two years the Common Council became practically powerless, the
lord mayor for the time being summoning a court only when he thought
fit. In 1728 the council only met four times, viz., twice in February
and twice in May, after which no court was held until June, 1729. It
was then thought high time to re-enact the old Act of Common Council
_temp._ Richard II, when Brembre was mayor, compelling the mayor for
the time being to summon a Common Council once a quarter at least, and
a Bill for that purpose was brought in and passed.--_Id._, fos. 166b,
174b, 176, 177b, 182, 188b, 197b, 198, 201.

[77] Hervey, Memoirs, i, 88.

[78] Repertory 132, fos. 40-57.

[79] Journal 57, fo. 162. An account of the entertainment, its cost,
etc., is given by Maitland, i, 541-543.

[80] Repertory 132, fos. 10, 16.

[81] _Id._, fo. 9.

[82] Journal 57, fo. 162.

[83] Repertory 132, fo. 381.

[84] Another portrait of Queen Caroline, by the same artist, is
preserved in the National Portrait Gallery, having been transferred
thither from the British Museum in 1879.

[85] Memoirs, vol. i, c. vii.

[86] Journal 57, fos. 274-274b.

[87] Hervey, Memoirs, i, 176-179.

[88] Parl. Hist., viii, 1281-1307; Maitland, i, 558, 559.

[89] Journal 57, fos. 278b-280. On quitting office the lord mayor (John
Barber) received the special thanks of the Common Council for having
afforded them this opportunity of preserving the trade and liberty of
the citizens.--_Id._, fo. 298.

[90] Journal House of Commons, xxii, 108, 109, 112, 113.

[91] Hervey, Memoirs, i, 200-202.

[92] Repertory 138, fos. 243-246. See also the _Daily Courant_, cited
in the _Gentleman's Magazine_, iv, 208.

[93] Repertory 138, fo. 252.

[94] Repertory 139, fo. 2.

[95] Repertory 138, fo. 228; Journal 57, fos. 318-319; Repertory 140,
fo. 254; Journal 57, fos. 375-377.

[96] Memoirs, i, 317.

[97] Journal 57, fo. 319b; Repertory 138, fo. 237.

[98] Repertory 141, fos. 48, 60, 69, 75.

[99] By an article of this treaty England obtained the right of sending
yearly to Panama one ship of 600 tons, and no more, for the purpose
of trading with the Spanish colonists. This restriction was evaded by
putting a fresh cargo on board under cover of the night to take the
place of that which had been discharged the previous day.

[100] Hervey, Memoirs, ii, 484, 485.

[101] Journal 58, fo. 122; Journal House of Commons, xxiii, 248.

[102] Ecclesiasticus, c. xxxviii, v. 33.

[103] Horace Walpole, who always showed intense dislike to anyone
who had opposed his father, Sir Robert, describes Glover as "the
greatest coxcomb and the greatest oaf that ever met in blank verse or
prose."--Walpole to Mann, 3 March, 1742; Letters, i, 136.

[104] According to Maitland (i, 599) Champion was the senior alderman
below the chair. This was not the case. There were two senior to him,
but these, as well as Champion, were set aside by the livery, who
returned Sir John Salter and Sir Robert Godschall to the Court of
Aldermen. The Court selected the first named.--Common Hall Book, No. 7,
fo. 277.

[105] Maitland, i, 600.

[106] Repertory 143, fos. 469-472.

[107] Journal 58, fos. 167-168b.

[108] Walpole to Mann, 12 Nov., 1741.--Letters, i, 89.

[109] The poem is preserved among the Percy Reliques, ii, 397.

[110] Maitland, i, 608.

[111] Common Hall Book, No. 7, fo. 284b.

[112] Repertory 144, fos. 389, 400. Journal 58, fo. 182b.

[113] Maitland, i, 610.

[114] Common Hall Book, No. 7, fo. 285. Repertory 144, fo. 406.

[115] Journal 58, fos. 190-191.

[116] Maitland, i, 611.

[117] He had for some reason been sworn into office before Lord
Cornwallis, the Constable of the Tower, with the same ceremony as if
sworn before the Barons of the Exchequer; and it was expressly provided
that the city's rights and privileges were not to be prejudiced
thereby.--Repertory 145, fo. 151. Common Hall Book No. 7, fo. 288.

[118] Walpole to Mann, 22 Jan., 1742.--Letters, i, 117.

[119] Journal 58, fo. 222b.

[120] Journal House of Commons, xxiv, 49, 111.

[121] Journal House of Commons, xxiv, 231. Journal House of Lords,
xxvi, 138.

[122] Journal 58, fo. 225b. Maitland, i, 624.

[123] Journal 58, fos. 254-256. Maitland, i, 628.

[124] Extract from _Common Sense_ cited by Maitland (i, 630).

[125] Journal House of Commons, xxiv, 568. Journal 58, fo. 307b.

[126] Maitland, i, 633.

[127] Repertory 148, fo. 165.

[128] Walpole to Mann, 1 March.--Letters i, 292.

[129] The same to the same, 5 March.--_Id._ i, 294.

[130] Repertory 148, fo. 230.

[131] Journal 58, fo. 377b.

[132] Journal 58, fos. 378, 383; Repertory 149, fos. 398, 399.

[133] Francis, "History of Bank of England," i, 162.

[134] Hogarth's famous picture of the "March to Finchley" is preserved
in the Foundling Hospital.

[135] Journal 59, fo. 16b.

[136] "I had this morning a subscription book brought me for our
parish. Lord Granville had refused to subscribe. This is in the style
of his friend, Lord Bath, who has absented himself whenever any act of
authority was to be executed against the rebels."--Walpole to Mann, 22
Nov., 1745; Letters, i, 404-405.

[137] Walpole to Mann, 9 Dec., 1745; _Id._, i, 409.

[138] Repertory 150, fos. 40-47.

[139] Walpole to Mann, 9 Dec.; Letters, i, 410.

[140] Francis, "History of Bank of England," i, 161.

[141] Journal 59, fo. 15.

[142] Walpole to Mann, 1 Aug., 1746.--Letters, ii, 43. The Freedom of
the City was conferred on the 6 Aug. Journal 59, fo. 44.

[143] Journal 59, fo. 33.

[144] Walpole to Mann, 3 July, 1747. Letters, ii, 92.

[145] The peace was not proclaimed in the City until the 2 Feb., 1749.
Repertory 153, fo. 138.

[146] "I need not protest to you, I believe that I am serious, and that
an invasion before Christmas will certainly be attempted." Walpole to
Chute, 20 Oct., 1755. Letters, ii, 477.

[147] Repertory 160, fos. 3-5.

[148] Journal 61, fos. 23b-24, 25, 57; Journal House of Commons, xxvii,
523, 600. The City was in the habit of claiming that its militia should
be dealt with by a separate Bill to the rest of the kingdom.

[149] Walpole, "Memoirs of the last ten years of the reign of George
the Second," ii, 30, 31; Journal House of Commons, xxvii, 539.

[150] Journal 61, fos. 49b-52; Walpole, Memoirs, ii, 24-28.

[151] Journal 61, fo. 55b.

[152] Walpole, "Memoirs of George the Second," ii, 68.

[153] Journal 61, fos. 80b-81b.

[154] Journal 61, fos. 114-115b.

[155] Walpole, Memoirs, ii, 121-124.

[156] _Id._ ii, 70.

[157] Walpole to Mann, 3 March, 1757; Letters, iii, 64-66.

[158] Journal 61, fos. 156, 158-158b.

[159] Walpole, Memoirs, ii, 224; Walpole to Mann, 20 June, 1757;
Letters, iii, 83.

[160] Journal 61, fo. 186.

[161] Journal 62, fos. 32b-34.

[162] Journal 62, fo. 35.

[163] _Id._, fos. 113-116.

[164] Journal 62, fos. 37-38.

[165] _Id._, fos. 140, 158b.

[166] Pitt to Grenville, 18 Oct., 1760.--Grenville Correspondence, i,
355.

[167] Journal 62, fos. 161-161b. A lead plate, bearing the inscription
in English, is preserved in the Guildhall Museum.



CHAPTER XXXVII.


[Sidenote: The accession of George III, 1760.]

On the 26th October George III was proclaimed king in the city in
the presence of the mayor and aldermen.[168] The usual addresses
were presented by the Courts of Aldermen and Common Council, special
reference being made by the latter body to the "bloody and expensive
war" in which the country was then engaged. They expressed a hope
that the new king would continue to carry on the war as prudently and
successfully as it had been carried on hitherto, until an end should
be put to it by a firm and honourable peace. The king in reply echoed
this wish of the citizens, and promised to look after their "liberties,
commerce and happiness."[169]

[Sidenote: The fall of Pitt, 1761.]

George had not long been seated on the throne before he began to
display unmistakable signs of a determination to follow the precepts
instilled into his young mind by his mother, the Princess of Wales,
and to "be a king" in fact as well as in name. The six months that
elapsed before Parliament was dissolved[170] were marked with no great
changes, although indications were not wanting of what was likely to
take place. With the dissolution (20 March, 1761), however, important
changes were made in the ministry, and it became clear that the king
was resolved to rule by ministers of his own choosing. Bute, the
particular friend and adviser of the Princess of Wales, was appointed
one of the secretaries of state. His admission into the ministry could
not mean otherwise than sooner or later the dismissal of Pitt, for
on the great question of the day--the war with France--they were in
direct antagonism; and so it turned out. Pitt would gladly have made
peace[171] had not the honour of the country demanded a declaration of
war with Spain as well as with France owing to a secret clause in the
Family Compact which had come to his knowledge. The ministry refused to
declare war, and in the following October Pitt and his brother-in-law,
Earl Temple, resigned. In consideration of his great services a peerage
in her own right was conferred on Pitt's wife, whilst a pension of
£3,000 a year, for three lives, was bestowed on himself.

[Sidenote: His letter to Alderman Beckford, 15 Oct., 1761.]

Pitt's resignation, and more especially his acceptance of a pension,
gave rise to so many slanderous rumours and brought upon him so much
obloquy that he found it necessary to write to his friend, alderman
Beckford, explaining the exact position of affairs:[172] "A difference
of opinion with regard to measures to be taken against Spain, of
the highest importance to the honour of the crown, and to the most
essential national interests, and this founded on what Spain had
already done, not on what that court may further intend to do, was
the cause of my resigning the seals. Lord Temple and I submitted in
writing, and signed by us, our most humble sentiments to his majesty;
which being over-ruled by the united opinion of all the rest of the
king's servants I resigned the seals on Monday, the 5th of the month
(October), in order not to remain responsible for measures which I was
no longer allowed to guide." In the same dignified strain he tells his
friend of the honours bestowed on him by his sovereign, the acceptance
of which had set malicious tongues wagging. "Most gracious marks of his
majesty's approbation of my services followed my resignation. They are
unmerited and unsolicited; and I shall ever be proud to have received
them from the best of sovereigns."

[Sidenote: The City's vote of thanks to Pitt, 22 Oct., 1761.]

The letter was written on the 15th October (1761), and a few days later
(22 Oct.) the Common Council passed a vote of thanks to Pitt by a large
majority--109 votes to 15--acknowledging his many great and eminent
services, and testifying the City's gratitude not only for having
roused "the ancient spirit" of the nation from the pusillanimous state
into which it had fallen, but also for his having greatly extended
the sphere of trade and commerce. In conclusion the Court expressed
its sorrow at "the national loss of so able, so faithful a minister
at this critical conjuncture."[173] Pitt was highly gratified at this
recognition of his services, and in his acknowledgment of the vote paid
the following tribute to the City's loyalty and zeal:--"It will ever
be remembered to the glory of the city of London that through the whole
course of this arduous war that great seat of commerce has generously
set the illustrious example of steady zeal for the dignity of the crown
and of unshaken firmness and magnanimity."[174] This was no mean praise
coming from such a man.

[Sidenote: The king and queen at the Guildhall, 9 Nov., 1761.]

On lord mayor's day the king (following the usual custom of the
sovereign attending the first lord mayor's banquet after his accession)
came into the city and was entertained at the Guildhall, together with
the queen. Pitt also was a guest. He and Temple drove down together in
a carriage and pair, and were received with even greater acclamation
than the king himself. The entertainment was given in the most costly
style, the tables being loaded with "all the delicacies which the
season could furnish or expense procure."[175] It was, however,
unfortunately marred by a violent display of party feeling. Whilst Pitt
was received everywhere with cheers and clapping of hands, his rival,
Bute, was hooted and pelted, and would, it was thought, have come off
still worse had he not taken the precaution of surrounding his carriage
with a strong body of "butchers and bruisers." Beckford was believed
to have been at the bottom of the mischief. It was by his directions
that the Guildhall was packed with Pitt's supporters, and he led the
_claque_ on the arrival of the ex-minister.[176]

Pitt, on the other hand, was blamed for lending himself to such
an ostentatious display, which could not appear otherwise than
disrespectful to the king. Indeed he afterwards owned that he had done
wrong.

[Sidenote: A statue of the king for the Exchange, and pictures of king
and queen for the Guildhall.]

Ten days later (18 Nov.) the Common Council resolved to erect a statue
of the king in the Royal Exchange, and to have pictures painted of the
king and queen for the Guildhall.[177] Their pictures, by Ramsay, now
adorn the walls of the Guildhall Art Gallery.

[Sidenote: Instructions to City members, 22 Oct., 1761.]

The events which immediately followed Pitt's resignation enhanced
his reputation for political foresight, and Bute, who became prime
minister, found himself compelled, as indeed Pitt had predicted, to
declare war against Spain (Jan., 1762). Until this was done the City
was determined to leave him no peace. The Common Council, as was its
wont, drew up instructions for the city members as to the policy they
were to pursue in the coming parliament.[178] They were in the first
place to use their best endeavours to obtain the repeal of a recent
Act for the relief of insolvent debtors, and in the next to keep a
sharp eye on "the distribution of the national treasure," but above
all they were to oppose any attempt made by government to give up
recently acquired possessions, more especially in North America, and
they were to vote any supplies that might be necessary for carrying on
the war with vigour. The "present happy extinction of parties," the
nation's zeal and affection for their "native king," and the increase
of commerce were proofs (the Council declared) of the ability of the
country to carry on the war. Finally the city members were to vote
such supplies as were necessary to place the king above the menaces of
foreign interference, whilst supporting such measures as would conduce
to a safe and honourable peace.[179]

[Sidenote: John Wilkes, M.P. for Aylesbury, 1761.]

The new ministry soon found themselves in direct opposition not only
to the city members but to one who was destined ere long to prove
a veritable thorn in their side. John Wilkes, a man of shamelessly
immoral character, but of undeniable talent, had for the second time
been returned for Aylesbury. His expensive debaucheries had reduced
him to the direst possible straits, and he had taken to a political
career as a possible means of getting himself out of his pecuniary
difficulties. He had at the outset declared himself a staunch supporter
of Pitt, and to Pitt he had more than once looked for some crumb of
patronage to alleviate his distress. As soon as Parliament met Wilkes
seized the opportunity of the debate on the address to pass some
censures on the king's speech, or rather the speech of the king's
minister, although he affected to be ignorant as to which minister
he ought to attribute it. He declared that although the country was
nominally at peace with Spain it was in reality in a state of war,
and that the nation was being kept in the dark by the ministers, who
refused all information. Beckford joined in the debate, urging the
right of the country to "demand peace, sword in hand," and offering to
second Wilkes in moving for the Spanish papers.[180]

[Sidenote: Declaration of war with Spain, Jan., 1762.]

In January (1762) war was declared, and all the papers relative to the
rupture with Spain were laid before Parliament. No sooner was this
done than Wilkes wrote a pamphlet entitled "Observations on the Papers
relative to the Rupture with Spain," in which he vindicated the policy
of Pitt and exposed the folly of the existing ministry in having let
slip the best opportunity that ever offered of crushing Spain beyond
recovery. This was his first political essay, and at once stamped
Wilkes as a political as well as literary writer of no mean order.[181]

[Sidenote: City address on capture of Martinico, etc., 6 April, 1762.]

The success of the war exceeded expectation. One expedition reduced
Cuba, another Manila, whilst Spanish commerce was swept from the sea.
The surrender of the island of St. Lucia and the capture of Martinico
drew forth a congratulatory address to the king from the City, and
once more the citizens were assured of his majesty's desire to promote
their commercial interests.[182] The credit of the war was due to Pitt
for having foreseen the struggle, and for the preparations he had made
accordingly.

[Sidenote: The Peace of Paris, 10 Feb., 1763.]

All this time the thoughts of Bute were fixedly directed towards peace,
and on the 10th February, 1763, the Peace of Paris was signed and an
end put to the Seven Years' War.[183] The peace was distasteful to
the City as well as to the nation at large. The Court of Aldermen, it
is true, congratulated the king on having "happily concluded a very
just and expensive war by a necessary and advantageous peace,"[184]
but the Common Council said nothing. When the peace came to be debated
in the House of Commons it met with strong opposition from Pitt, who
spoke against it for more than three hours, although he was at the
time so ill that he had to be carried down to the House. By practising
a wholesale system of bribery the government managed, nevertheless,
to obtain so large a majority that the Princess of Wales exclaimed in
great exultation "Now my son is really king."

[Sidenote: Resignation of Bute, 8 April, 1763.]

The triumph of the king and his favourite were destined to be
short-lived. An important feature of the budget for the year was a
proposal to impose a tax upon cider. The proposal at once met with the
most determined opposition, not only from the cider counties but also
from the city of London, where anything in the nature of excise was
looked upon with horror. The Common Council raised a strong protest
against any such extension of excise duties at a time when there was
every prospect of a continuation of peace.[185] The Bill eventually
passed, but the unpopularity of Bute increased to such an extent that
he got sick of office and retired (8 April).

[Sidenote: Wilkes and the _North Briton_.]

A few days later (23 April) Parliament was prorogued, the king in his
speech alluding to the late peace as alike honourable to the crown and
beneficial to the people.[186] This gave occasion to Wilkes to make a
violent attack in the next number of his paper, called, in allusion to
Bute, the _North Briton_. Fourty-four numbers had appeared at the time
of Bute's resignation, and although each number had contained matter
more or less libellous no notice had been taken of them. No. 45 was
destined to become famous, for although it was not a whit worse than
any of its predecessors its prosecution was immediately ordered by
Grenville, who had succeeded to the head of affairs. On the last day
of April Wilkes was arrested on a general warrant (_i.e._, a warrant
in which no individual is specified by name) and lodged in the Tower,
whilst his house was ransacked and papers seized. These harsh and
illegal proceedings excited popular feeling and raised Wilkes to the
rank of a political martyr. Crowds flocked daily to visit him in his
confinement, among them being the leaders of the opposition, Temple and
Grafton. Early in May his arrest was pronounced illegal by Pratt, Chief
Justice of the Common Pleas, and he was discharged.

[Sidenote: No. 45 of _North Briton_. burnt at Royal Exchange, 3 Dec.,
1763.]

As soon as Parliament met, which was not until November (1763), Wilkes
complained of the breach of privilege in the seizure of himself and
his papers. He got no sympathy, however, in that quarter, although he
shortly afterwards succeeded in obtaining damages to the extent of
£1,000 against the under-secretary of state in a court of law.[187]
So far from sympathising with Wilkes the House ordered No. 45 of the
_North Briton_ to be burnt by the common hangman at the Royal Exchange
as a false, scandalous, and malicious libel.[188] Saturday, the 3rd
December, was the day appointed for carrying out the order, but
when the sheriffs attended for the purpose and the executioner began
to perform his duty a riot ensued, the magistrates were mobbed, and
the paper rescued from the flames. The Lords thereupon summoned the
sheriffs to give an account of their conduct. One of the sheriffs,
Thomas Harley, a brother of the Earl of Oxford, being a member of the
House of Commons, the permission of that House had to be asked before
his attendance could be enforced. It was left to Harley to do as he
liked; he might attend the Lords "if he thought fit."[189] Harley did
think fit, and on the Tuesday following (6 Dec.) attended with his
brother sheriff and Osmond Cooke, the city marshal. Being called upon
to give an account of what had taken place the previous Saturday,
Harley informed the House to the following effect, viz.: that the
sheriffs had met at the Guildhall at half-past twelve o'clock, and
thence proceeded to Cornhill to carry out the order of Parliament; they
there met the city marshal, who expressed a fear that the order could
not be carried out without military assistance; that, nevertheless, he
was determined, in spite of all opposition, to carry out the order if
possible; that he tried to get to the place in his chariot, but could
not, and so went on foot; that on arrival at the place where the fuel
was prepared he found the wood so wet that it could not take fire, "but
he read the order, and gave the paper with his own hands into the hands
of the executioner, who held it on the lighted torch, which he held in
his hand, till it was burnt, and that he saw it burnt pursuant to the
order." On his return--he went on to say--the window of his carriage
was broken, and he had to take refuge in the Mansion House,[190]
where he found the mayor (William Bridgen, who had recently succeeded
Beckford) doing business as usual.

[Sidenote: The mayor's conduct condemned.]

That the mayor should have shown such sympathy with the mob as not to
lend assistance to the sheriffs in putting down the disturbance roused
the anger of the Duke of Bedford, who broke forth against Bridgen and
the City. "Such behaviour," he said, "in any smaller town would have
forfeited their franchises. The Common Council had long been setting
themselves up against the Parliament, and last year had taken on them
to advise the king to refuse his assent to a law that had passed
through both Houses. He hoped their lordships would resent this insult
and disrespect to their orders."[191]

[Sidenote: Votes of thanks to the sheriffs.]

Harley's statement having been corroborated by the evidence of other
witnesses the Lords were content to ignore the mayor's conduct rather
than enter upon a serious quarrel with the City, and both Houses
concurred in passing votes of thanks to the sheriffs.[192] It was
otherwise with the Common Council. They upheld the conduct of the mayor
and condemned that of the sheriffs; a motion to pass a vote of thanks
to the latter being lost by the casting vote of the mayor, who gave as
his reason for so doing that he looked upon the motion as prejudging
Wilkes's case.[193]

[Sidenote: Lord Sandwich and Wilkes's _Essay on Woman_.]

In the meantime Lord Sandwich, a former friend of Wilkes and his
associate in the debauchery carried on by the so-called monks of
Medmenham, had produced before the House of Lords a copy of an obscene
parody on Pope's _Essay on Man_, which Wilkes had written for the
delectation of his intimate friends, but never intended to publish.
With much difficulty, and not without some treachery, Sandwich had
managed to obtain a copy of this infamous production, and he was
now base enough to produce it in evidence against his recent boon
companion, and to demand his punishment. The House condemned the poem
as a blasphemous libel, but the treachery and hypocrisy displayed by
Sandwich, whose own vices were notorious, raised a storm of public
indignation, and when the _Beggar's Opera_ was shortly afterwards
being performed at Covent Garden, and Macheath exclaimed, in the
words put into his mouth by Gay, "_That Jemmy Twitcher should peach
me, I own surprises me_," the audience were quick to apply the words
to the treacherous earl, who was ever afterwards known as _Jemmy
Twitcher_.[194]

[Sidenote: Wilkes expelled the House, 19 Jan., 1764.]

In January of the next year (1764) Wilkes ought to have appeared
before the House of Commons to answer for his conduct in relation to
publishing No. 45 of the _North Briton_. He had, however, fled to
France after receiving a wound in a duel, and was unable to travel, so
at least the medical certificates which he forwarded to the Speaker
alleged, and so we feel bound to believe, although the House of
Commons evidently entertained some doubts as to the serious nature of
his wound. The matter was debated in his absence, and in the end a
resolution was passed expelling him the House (19 Jan.).[195]

[Sidenote: Sentence of outlawry on Wilkes, 1 Nov., 1764.]

A month later (21 Feb.) Wilkes was found guilty in the King's Bench of
being the author of the offensive _North Briton_ and of the _Essay on
Woman_, and as he failed to appear sentence of outlawry was pronounced
against him in the following November.[196] The same day that judgment
was pronounced in the King's Bench the Common Council passed a vote
of thanks to the city members for their endeavours to obtain a
Parliamentary declaration as to the illegality of general warrants,
whilst it voted Pratt the Freedom of the City, and invited him to
sit for his portrait. The chief justice acknowledged the compliment
paid him by the City--"the most respectable body in the kingdom
after the two Houses of Parliament"[197] as he termed it,--and his
portrait, painted by Sir Joshua Reynolds, and formerly bearing a Latin
inscription ascribed to Dr. Johnson, now hangs in the Guildhall Art
Gallery. The vote of thanks to the city members well nigh cost the City
dear; for when application was shortly afterwards made to Parliament
for pecuniary assistance to help the City to discharge the debt on
Blackfriars Bridge--a debt which had been augmented by the destruction
by fire of a temporary bridge that had been erected--a member rose and
abused the Common Council for its late behaviour, declaring that the
City was entitled to no favour.[198]

[Sidenote: Chatham and the East India Company, 1766.]

Having quarrelled in turn with Grenville and Rockingham, the king
found himself compelled in July, 1766, to resort again to the "Great
Commoner" whom he created Earl of Chatham and made Prime Minister with
the office of Lord Privy Seal. His acceptance of a peerage produced
a general burst of indignation. According to Horace Walpole--who
never misses an opportunity of girding at the City in return for its
treatment of his father--"the city and the mob" (convertible terms in
his estimation), were angry, because in his new position, Pitt would
have less opportunity of "doing jobs" for them than when he was in the
House of Commons.[199] But however this may be, the state of the Prime
Minister's health had before the end of the year rendered him incapable
of "doing jobs" for the City or anybody else, and he left the control
of affairs in the hands of the Duke of Grafton and Charles Townshend.
Before withdrawing, however, he intimated his intention to the House
of bringing in a bill for regulating the East India Company's affairs.
Strange to say, the City failed to grasp the full portent of such a
bill, or to see any danger to themselves in this meditated attack upon
the chartered rights of others. Later on, when Fox introduced his
East India Bill, the City was wider awake. The motion for carrying
out Chatham's plan was not only made by a city alderman, viz.,
Beckford,[200] but the Common Council offered (June, 1767) Townshend,
a supporter of the motion, the Freedom of the City, in recognition
of "his well-tempered zeal in support of the undoubted legislative
authority of the king and parliament of Great Britain over all parts
of his majesty's dominions."[201]

[Sidenote: Wilkes and the Duke of of Grafton.]

In November of this year (1766), Wilkes, who had slipt over to England
in the hope of obtaining the king's pardon, wrote a very submissive
letter to Grafton asking for his mediation. The minister coldly
referred him to Chatham, a proceeding which so galled Wilkes that he
hurried back to the continent for fear of being laid by the heels, and
a year later published what purported to be a second letter to the
Duke of Grafton expressing the greatest disappointment at his Grace's
answer, and inveighing in the strongest possible terms against Chatham
as being an apostate to the cause of liberty.[202]

[Sidenote: Wilkes elected M.P. for Middlesex, 1768.]

When the general election came on in March, 1768, Wilkes again appeared
on the scene, and had the boldness, notwithstanding his outlawry, to
offer himself a candidate for the City. Every day he appeared on the
hustings, and displayed great activity in canvassing for votes, but it
was of no avail.

Not in the least dismayed, this irrepressible demagogue rallied his
forces and declared himself a candidate for the county of Middlesex.
There he was more successful. The election was very riotous; the
streets and highways leading to Brentford were in the hands of the
mob, who would allow no one to pass without a blue cockade in his hat
inscribed with the name of Wilkes, and the number 45. "It was not
safe to pass through Piccadilly; and every family was forced to put
out lights; the windows of unilluminated houses were demolished. The
coach glasses of such as did not huzza for _Wilkes_ and _liberty_
were broken, and many chariots and coaches were spoiled by the mob
scratching them with the favourite 45." This was the description of
the scene by an eye-witness. In the city matters were no better. The
windows of the Mansion House were smashed, Harley, the mayor, being
known to be no favourite of Wilkes. The trained bands were called out,
but proved insufficient to cope with the multitude, but at length peace
was restored with the aid of a military force from the Tower.[203]
The result of the poll was that Sir William Beauchamp Porter, who had
represented the county for over 20 years was turned out, and Wilkes
elected in his place.

[Sidenote: Committed to the King's Bench, 27 April, 1768.]

Determined to take the bull by the horns Wilkes now voluntarily
surrendered himself to the King's Bench and demanded to have the former
judgments against him reversed on technical grounds. It was decided,
however, that nothing could be done in this direction until he was in
legal custody by process of outlawry. A writ of _capias utlegatum_
was accordingly taken out, but for some time the sheriffs' officers
hesitated to execute it, so popular had he become, and the mayor had
to discharge some of them for neglect of duty. At length he was taken
into custody and committed to the King's Bench prison (27 April).
When he left the Court the mob stopt his coach on Westminster Bridge,
took out the horses, and themselves drew him as far as Cornhill. They
insisted that he should not go to prison, but were at last, persuaded
to disperse, and Wilkes quietly made his way to the King's Bench Prison
and there surrendered himself.[204]

[Sidenote: The king's letter to Lord North, 25 April, 1768.]

Throughout the whole business the prosecution had shown a great want of
resolution and decision, everyone trying to throw the _onus_ upon the
shoulders of someone else. The same indecision manifested itself in the
Cabinet as to whether or not Wilkes should be allowed to take his seat.
It was otherwise with the king, however. He had fully made up his mind
that Wilkes ought to be expelled the House. Two days before Wilkes's
committal he wrote to Lord North: "I think it highly proper to apprise
you that the expulsion of Mr. Wilkes appears to be very essential, and
must be effected; and that I make no doubt, when you lay this affair
with your usual precision before the meeting of the gentlemen of the
House of Commons this evening, it will meet with the required unanimity
and vigour.... If there is any man capable of forgetting his criminal
writings I think his speech in the Court of King's Bench on Wednesday
last reason enough for to go as far as possible to expel him; for he
declared 'Number 45' a paper that the author ought to _glory in_, and
the blasphemous poem a mere _ludicrous production_."[205]

[Sidenote: Riots at the King's Bench Prison.]

So long as Wilkes remained in the King's Bench, the neighbourhood was
a constant scene of rioting, and on Tuesday, the 10th May, when the
new Parliament met, the mob threatened to release him by force and
carry him triumphantly to Westminster. His outlawry had been argued
by his friend Glynn on the previous Saturday, but Lord Mansfield had
postponed giving judgment until the next term, and Wilkes had thus been
prevented taking his seat. Hence the display of feeling on the part
of the mob, which at length became so violent that the Riot Act was
read, the military fired, and a young man was shot. This roused their
indignation the more, and there was more bloodshed; but at last peace
was restored.[206]

[Sidenote: The Lords pass a vote of thanks to the mayor, 12 May, 1768.]

The conduct of Harley--the aristocratic lord mayor--during the
disturbance was so much approved that a motion was made in the House of
Lords two days after Parliament had assembled to petition the king to
confer some mark of royal favour upon him, but the motion was lost. The
House, however, instructed the chancellor to convey to Harley a vote
of thanks on their behalf for his efforts to preserve the peace of the
city.[207]

[Sidenote: Sentence pronounced against Wilkes, 18 June, 1768.]

On the 8th June Wilkes again appeared in Westminster Hall, when he
succeeded in getting his outlawry reversed. Ten days later, however, he
was condemned to pay a fine of £500 and to suffer imprisonment for ten
months for having written the offensive number of the _North Briton_,
and to pay another fine of similar amount and to suffer a further term
of twelve months imprisonment for his _Essay on Woman_. As if this
were not punishment enough he was ordered to find security for his
good behaviour for seven years, himself being bound in £1,000 and two
sureties in £500 each. Still Wilkes had something to thank his judges
for. They had spared him the pillory.[208]

[Sidenote: Wilkes elected alderman, Jan., 1769.]

Notwithstanding his imprisonment Wilkes was as irrepressible as ever,
and he nearly succeeded in setting both Houses by the ears over the
hard usage he had received. His colleague in the representation of
Middlesex having died, he nominated his friend and counsel, Glynn, for
the vacant seat, and got him in. Early in the following year (1769) he
contrived to get himself returned alderman of the Ward of Farringdon
Without, the rival candidate being forced to retire from the poll
for fear of raising disturbances in the ward--"even the constables
in the city were almost to a man devoted to Wilkes."[209] The Court
of Aldermen, however, refused to admit him, and ordered another
election.[210] This time he was returned unopposed. Still the Court
hesitated to admit him until they had been furnished with copies of the
proceedings against him in the King's Bench, and at length resolved to
take the opinion of counsel upon the following questions, viz.: (1)
whether the election of Wilkes was a valid election; (2) whether he was
entitled by law to be admitted by the court by virtue or in pursuance
of that election.[211]

[Sidenote: Opinions of counsel.]

The case as settled by the Court of Aldermen and submitted to counsel
is set out _in extenso_ in the minutes of the court held on the 25th
April,[212] when the opinions of the several counsel were read. The
attorney and solicitor general as well as Yorke, Glynn, and Leigh gave
it as their opinion, that the judgments pronounced against Wilkes did
not render him by law incapable of being elected an alderman of the
city, and that he might be admitted into office, but they expressed
a doubt whether the Court of Aldermen could be forced to admit him.
On the other hand, the Recorder and the Common Sergeant as well as
Fletcher Norton (who gave a separate opinion) declared Wilkes's
election, in their opinion, to be invalid. Had it been valid, the
Recorder and Common Sergeant believed there was no other objection to
his being admitted except the impossibility of his attending the Court
of Aldermen for the purpose; but Norton was of opinion that the crimes
of which Wilkes had been convicted were a sufficient justification
for the court to refuse to admit him, over and above his incapacity
at the present time to attend to the duties of the office.[213] Under
the circumstances it was deemed best to keep the aldermanry open until
Wilkes regained his liberty.

[Sidenote: Wilkes again expelled the House, 3 Feb., 1769.]

In the meanwhile Wilkes had appealed to both Houses against the
sentence passed on him. He demanded to be heard at the Bar of the
House of Lords in defence of his writings, but this was denied him,
and the writs of error which he had brought were argued by his
counsel, Glynn and Davenport. This was on the 16th January (1769). On
the 27th, the day that he was returned unopposed as Alderman of the
ward of Farringdon Without, he was brought before the Commons, but
nothing urged either by himself or his counsel could move them in his
favour and on the 3rd February, they for the second time voted his
expulsion.[214]

[Sidenote: Elected the second time for Middlesex, 16 Feb., 1769.]

No sooner had the House passed this resolution than Wilkes announced
his intention of again standing for Middlesex, and on the 16th
February, he was again returned without any opposition. On this
occasion he was proposed by two members of parliament who were shortly
to become his brother aldermen, viz., Townshend and Sawbridge. Again
the House declared his election void, and himself to be incapable of
sitting in the existing parliament.[215]

[Sidenote: Returned the third time, 16 March. 1769.]

Not a whit abashed Wilkes again offered himself as a candidate, his
only opponent being Charles Dingley. Upon the day of the election
(16 March), Dingley, who had on a previous occasion come to blows
with Reynolds, Wilkes's election agent, and had come off second best,
received such rough handling that he was obliged to retire and leave
the field to Wilkes, who was returned unopposed. The election was for
the third time declared void, and a fresh writ issued.[216]

[Sidenote: Returned the fourth time, 12 April, 1769]

The struggle began to be very serious. Whilst loyal addresses poured in
from various parts of the country, the City held aloof, and the conduct
of Samuel Turner, the lord mayor, who was a zealous Wilkite received
a distinct mark of approval from the Common Council.[217] In the
meantime a number of rich and influential men--among whom were Horne
the vicar of Brentford, who loved to mix himself up in political and
municipal matters, Townshend, Sawbridge, Oliver and others--had formed
themselves into a society for the purpose of helping Wilkes to pay his
fines and other liabilities and of supporting him and his cause. The
society came to be known as the Supporters of the Bill of Rights.[218]
The freeholders of Middlesex met at Mile End, and unanimously resolved
in spite of all opposition to stand by the representative of their
choice; whilst a procession of merchants and tradesmen on their way to
St. James's with a loyal address was roughly treated by the mob and
broken up.[219] It required a man of some courage to oppose Wilkes
at the forthcoming election, and he was found in Colonel Luttrell,
an Irishman, whose father was a devoted adherent of Lord Bute. So
desperate, however, did Luttrell's case appear that his life was
specially insured for the occasion.[220] Two other candidates stood,
but the election really lay between Wilkes and Luttrell, the first
being nominated by Townshend, and the latter by Stephen Fox, Lord
Holland's son. The polling took place on the 12th April, when Wilkes
was for the fourth time returned by an overwhelming majority. A huge
crowd immediately made its way to the King's Bench Prison with colours
flying and bands playing, to congratulate him upon his success. When
the result of the election was reported to the House, they not only
rejected Wilkes, but declared Luttrell to be elected, and ordered the
return to be amended accordingly.[221]

[Sidenote: Remonstrance of the livery, 24 June, 1769.]

Such a proceeding on the part of parliament raised a grave
constitutional question, and caused great commotion in the city. If it
lay with parliament of its own mere motion, and without the authority
of an Act, to deprive electors of their right of choosing their own
representatives, the livery of London would suffer with the rest of the
kingdom. The matter was warmly taken up by _Junius_, who strenuously
condemned this usurpation by parliament.[222] The mayor was asked to
summon a Common Hall "for the purpose of taking the sense of the livery
of London on the measures proper to be pursued by them in the present
alarming situation of public affairs." Turner declined to act in the
matter on his own responsibility, and referred the petition to the
Common Council who told him not to accede to the request (5 May).[223]
Thus thrown on their own resources the livery resolved at their
ordinary meeting on the following Midsummer Day when Townshend and
Sawbridge were chosen sheriffs, to petition the king himself against
the arbitrary action of the government. A petition to this effect had
been drawn up by some of the livery previous to the meeting of the
Common Hall. It purported to come from "the lord mayor, commonalty
and livery of the city of London," but upon the lord mayor objecting
to this, the title was changed to "the humble petition of the livery
of the city of London in Common Hall assembled." The petitioners did
not mince words. The king's ministers were charged with peculation,
and with illegally issuing general warrants. They had violently seized
persons and papers, and after defeating and insulting the law on
various occasions, had wrested from the people, the last sacred right
they had left, viz., "the right of election, by the unprecedented
seating a candidate notoriously set up and chosen by themselves."
Deprived of all hope of parliamentary redress, the petitioners turned
to the king, reminding him that it was for the purpose of redress
alone, and for such occasions as the present, that so great and
extensive powers had been entrusted to the crown.[224]

[Sidenote: Lord Holland's letter to the mayor, 9 July, 1769.]

Among the ministers whom the livery charged with peculation was Lord
Holland, to whom they had made special reference (although not actually
mentioning his name) as "a public defaulter of unaccounted millions."
Stung to the quick at this imputation, Lord Holland wrote a letter to
the lord mayor (9 July), complaining of the aspersion and referring him
for the falsehood of the accusation to Beckford, whom he had satisfied
(he said) as to the injustice of it.[225] Turner contented himself
with a curt reply that he was not answerable for the contents of the
petition. There was no love lost between Lord Holland and the citizens.
According to the words put into his mouth by Gray, the poet, he would
gladly have seen it reduced by fire and sword:--

    "Purg'd by the sword, and purified by fire,
    Then had we seen proud London's hated walls:
    Owls would have hooted in St. Peter's choir,
    And foxes stunk and litter'd in St. Paul's."

[Sidenote: Beckford elected mayor for the second time, 10 Oct., 1769.]

The address had been ordered to be presented by the lord mayor, the
sheriffs, and three of the city's members, but months passed by and
no reply was vouchsafed. The livery got impatient. Their attack on
the ministry was strengthened by the re-appearance of Chatham,[226]
after a prolonged illness, whilst their own position received material
support by Beckford consenting for the second time to occupy the
mayoralty chair. "I cannot resist the importunate request of my
fellow citizens"--he wrote from his house in Soho Square, the 12th
October,[227]--"their desires have overcome resolutions that I once
thought were fixed and determined. The feeble efforts of a worn out
man to serve them can never answer their sanguine expectations. I will
do my best, and will sacrifice ease and retirement, the chief comfort
of old age, to their wishes. I _do_ accept the office of lord mayor.
I shall hope for the assistance of your Lordship and my brethren the
Court of Aldermen. The advantage and good effects of their advice were
experienced on many occasions in my late mayoralty." Their position
would have been still more strengthened, had similar petitions been
sent in from other parts of the country, but London's example was not
in this case followed.[228]

[Sidenote: Resolutions of the livery, 10 Oct., 1769.]

On the day that the result of the poll was declared (10 Oct.) in favour
of Beckford as mayor for the ensuing year the livery passed several
resolutions. The first was that the outgoing lord mayor (Turner) should
be asked if he had received any answer to the recent petition. Secondly
that he should be called upon to produce Lord Holland's letter. They
in the next place publicly named Lord Holland as the paymaster to
whom they had referred in their petition as "a public defaulter of
unaccounted millions," and insisted upon a parliamentary enquiry into
his accounts. Should he be found such a defaulter as they alleged, it
was the duty of the city's representatives in Parliament to move for
his impeachment. These resolutions they ordered to be placed on record,
as part of the proceedings in relation to the election of a mayor, and
a copy of them was to be sent to each of the city's members.[229]

[Sidenote: Another address of the livery, 6 March, 1770.]

Here matters were allowed to rest until the following March (1770),
when the livery sought the assistance of the Common Council to get
Beckford to summon a Common Hall for the purpose of taking further
measures to secure their rights and privileges.[230] Why they did
not make a direct application to the mayor himself, as was the usual
practice, is not clear. The Court, after some hesitation, acceded
to their request, and a Common Hall was summoned accordingly.
Another address, remonstrance and petition was thereupon drawn
up (6 March).[231] "A bolder declaration, both against king and
Parliament"--Walpole writes to his friend[232]--was never seen. The
majority of the Court of Aldermen would have formally disavowed it,
but Beckford, who presided, refused to allow a motion to that effect
to be moved until the City's Records had been searched with the view
of determining the several powers of the Courts of Aldermen and Common
Council, and of the livery in Common Hall assembled.[233] After
referring to their former petition remaining still unanswered, the
petitioners proceeded to inveigh against Parliament and the ministry
for having deprived the people of their just rights. The majority in
the House (they said) had "done a deed more ruinous in its consequences
than the levying of ship-money by Charles the First or the dispensing
power assumed by James the Second." They told the king to his face that
the House of Commons as then constituted did not only fail to represent
the people, but it was "corruptly subservient" to his own ministers,
and they called upon his majesty on that account to dissolve the
Parliament and dismiss those ministers who had advised him badly.

[Sidenote: The remonstrance approved by _Junius_.]

This language was bold, but it conveyed no more than the truth. Its
truthfulness, no less than its boldness, attracted _Junius_, who thus
wrote approvingly of the attitude taken up by London: "The city of
London hath given an example which, I doubt not, will be followed by
the whole kingdom. The noble spirit of the metropolis is the life-blood
of the state, collected at the heart; from that point it circulates,
with health and vigour, through every artery of the constitution....
The city of London have expressed their sentiments with freedom and
firmness; they have spoken truth boldly; and in whatever light their
remonstrance may be represented by courtiers, I defy the most subtle
lawyer in this country to point out a single instance in which they
have exceeded the truth. Even that assertion, which we are told is most
offensive to Parliament, in the theory of the English constitution is
strictly true. If any part of the representative body be not chosen by
the people that part vitiates the whole."[234] Adopting the words of
the remonstrance, he declared that the principle on which the Middlesex
election had been determined was more pernicious in its effects than
either the levying of ship-money by Charles I or the suspending power
claimed by his son.

[Sidenote: Condemned by Goldsmiths, Weavers and Grocers.]

On the other hand several of the livery companies themselves, viz.: the
Goldsmiths, the Weavers, and the Grocers, had declared the remonstrance
to be indecent and disrespectful, and forbade the members of their
respective liveries to attend any Common Hall in future (except
for purposes of election) without express leave of their Courts of
Assistants. The authority of the mayor and aldermen over the livery
companies was thus openly defied. On learning of these resolutions
Beckford summoned a Common Hall to meet on the 12th April to consider
what course to take, but his precept was ignored by the recalcitrant
companies. Such disobedience was hitherto unheard of, and the matter
was reported to the livery committee, appointed the 28th September,
1769.[235] This committee was afterwards united with a committee of the
Common Council, and after due consideration the question of the rights
of the livery was submitted to counsel.[236] The result will be seen in
the next chapter.

[Sidenote: The king hesitates to receive the address.]

Unlike the former address, this was invested with a corporate character
by being ordered to be presented by the lord mayor, the city members,
the Court of Aldermen, the sheriffs and the Common Council. In due
course the sheriffs attended (6 March), to learn when the king would
be pleased to receive the address. They were told they had come at
an improper time, and must deliver their message on a court day. By
treating them in this manner the king hoped to hear no more of the
matter; it was--he told Lord Weymouth--the most likely means of putting
an end to "this stuff." He desired, however, that the opinion of Lord
Mansfield should be taken as to whether the sheriffs could claim to
be received "as on occasions that they addressed the crown."[237]
On the following day the sheriffs again presented themselves. After
the levée was over they were admitted to the closet, but not before
some questions had been asked as to the nature of the address to
be presented. Sheriff Townshend having made his formal request the
king replied that as the case was "entirely new" he would take time
to consider it, and would send an answer by one of his principal
secretaries of state. The question to be decided was whether the
address ought to be treated as coming from the citizens of London in
their corporate capacity or as only proceeding from a comparatively
small body of them, viz., the livery. If the former, it would, in
accordance with custom, be received by the king on the throne; if the
latter, the king would receive it at a levée or in any other manner he
might think fit. In order, therefore, to discover the precise nature
of the address the king directed Lord Weymouth to make the necessary
enquiries. Lord Weymouth accordingly wrote (8 March) to the sheriffs
asking in what manner the address was authenticated and what was the
nature of the assembly by which it had been adopted as it appeared to
be "entirely new."[238] Instead of answering the letter the sheriffs
the next day (9 March) again put in an appearance at St. James's,
accompanied by the Remembrancer. Being asked whether they came "with
a fresh message or with a message?" they answered "with a message."
The secretaries of state then appeared, and Lord Weymouth asked the
sheriffs if they had received his letter, and whether they came in
consequence of it or on any fresh business? They replied that they had
received his letter and had come in consequence of it. The following
dialogue is recorded as having then taken place:--

_Lord Weymouth_: "Would it not be more proper to send an answer in
writing through me?"

_The Sheriffs_: "We act ministerially. As sheriffs of London we have a
right to an audience, and cannot communicate to any other person than
the king the subject of our message."

_Lord Weymouth_: "I do not dispute your right to an audience, but
would it not be better and more accurate to give your message to me in
writing?"

_The Sheriffs_: "We know the value and consequence of the citizen's
right to apply immediately to the king, and not to a third person,
and we do not mean that any of their rights and privileges should be
betrayed by our means."

[Sidenote: Sheriff Townshend's speech to the king, 9 March, 1770.]

At last the king consented to see them, and Sheriff Townshend then
addressed his majesty in the following terms:--

"When we had last the honour to appear before your majesty, your
majesty was graciously pleased to promise an answer by one of your
majesty's principal secretaries of state; but we had yesterday
questions proposed to us by Lord Weymouth. In answer to which we
beg leave humbly to inform your majesty that the application we
make to your majesty we make as sheriffs of the city of London by
the direction of the livery in Common Hall legally assembled. The
address, remonstrance and petition to be presented to your majesty, by
their chief magistrate, is the act of the citizens of London in their
greatest court, and is ordered by them to be properly authenticated as
their act."[239]

[Sidenote: The king consults Lord North.]

To this the king vouchsafed no further reply than that he would take
time to consider the matter. The next day (10 March) he wrote to
Lord North: "The more I reflect on the present remonstrance from the
livery the more I am desirous it should receive an answer, otherwise
this bone of contention will never end; I therefore am thoroughly of
opinion that, as the sheriffs (though falsely) have insinuated that
it is properly authenticated, that the least inconvenience will be
receiving them on the throne."[240] All that the minister could do
to help the king out of his difficulty was to instance cases where
only "a certain number" were allowed to attend, but the king was not
satisfied, and expressed himself as being still of opinion that under
the circumstances he had better receive the address on the throne.[241]

[Sidenote: The king's reply, 14 March, 1770.]

Accordingly it was decided to receive it in that manner on Wednesday,
the 14th.[242] Having listened with composure, distasteful as the
address was, the king read an answer in which, after declaring his
readiness ever to listen to the complaints of his subjects, he
expressed concern at finding that any of them had been so misled
as to offer an address at once disrespectful to himself, injurious
to Parliament and irreconcilable with the principles of the
constitution.[243]

[Sidenote: Parliament and the remonstrance, 15-19 March, 1770.]

The next day (15 March) the House of Commons resolved to pray the king
that he would be pleased to lay the remonstrance and his answer before
the House. The king at once gave his consent, but the ministry betrayed
the greatest timidity. "The fright at court continues"--wrote Calcraft
to Chatham (17 March)--"and they are not only puzzled, but undetermined
what to do with the remonstrance, now it is got to parliament. The only
resolution taken is to be most temperate and avoid either expulsion or
commitment seeing the lord mayor and sheriffs court it." Again "the
ministers dread a resolution of the Common Hall against the advisers of
the strong words in his majesty's answer."[244] After long debate the
House contented themselves (19 March) with passing a resolution to the
effect that the document was an "unwarrantable and dangerous petition"
as well as a gross abuse of the right of petitioning the king.[245]

[Sidenote: Entertainment at Mansion House, 22 March, 1770.]

In the meantime Beckford, who with the two sheriffs, Townshend and
Sawbridge, and with Alderman Trecothick avowed their share in the
remonstrance, had issued invitations to a banquet at the Mansion House
to "a very numerous though a select number of persons" of both houses
of parliament. He had previously taken the precaution of sounding
Lord Rockingham, and in doing so had used the good offices of his
friend Lord Chatham. The entertainment would afford a good opportunity
(thought the mayor), for obtaining some guarantee of the future policy
of the Opposition whenever they should come into power, and he and
Horne had devised a plan for getting the guests to sign a formal
document committing them definitely to certain reforms. Such a document
Horne afterwards declared himself to have actually drawn up "in terms
so cautious and precise as to leave no room for future quibble and
evasion."[246] This device becoming known, Chatham wrote to say that
in the opinion of himself, Lord Rockingham and Lord Temple, "no new
matters should be opened or agitated at or after the convivium"[247]
which was fixed for Thursday, the 22nd March,--the eve of the day on
which both Houses were to present an address to the king touching the
remonstrance. The entertainment was one of the most magnificent ever
given by a private individual. The members were escorted to the city by
the livery of London on horseback through the crowded streets. Those
who failed to illuminate their houses ran the risk of having their
windows broken.[248] Chatham was prevented from attending by an attack
of his old enemy the gout.[249] Magnificent as was the entertainment
from a social point of view, from a political it was money thrown away.

[Sidenote: Wilkes regains his liberty, 17 April, 1770.]

Wilkes's term of imprisonment was now fast drawing to a close. His
release was looked forward to by his friends with great joy, by his
enemies with no little fear and concern. In November last (1769),
his spirits and the spirits of his party had been raised by a jury
awarding him no less a sum than £4,000 by way of damages in his long
protracted action against Lord Halifax,[250] by whose orders his papers
had been seized. Nevertheless his second fine of £500 remained yet
unpaid.[251] On the 17th April (1770) Wilkes regained his liberty, and
in order to prevent disturbance slipped away into the country, to the
house of his friend Reynolds, for a few days. On his return he was
immediately sworn in as alderman of the ward of Farringdon Without (24
April).[252] At the outset of his new career Wilkes behaved with the
greatest propriety. "I don't know whether Wilkes is subdued by his
imprisonment"--wrote Walpole to his friend--"or waits for the rising of
parliament, to take the field; or whether his dignity of alderman has
dulled him into prudence and the love of feasting; but hitherto he has
done nothing but go to city-banquets and sermons, and sit at Guildhall
as a sober magistrate."[253]

[Sidenote: A remonstrance by Common Council, 14 May, 1770.]

On the 14th May, he was nominated a member of the committee appointed
by the Common Council to draw up another humble address, remonstrance
and petition to the king, "touching the violated right of election,
and the applications of the livery of London, and his majesty's answer
thereupon." An address was accordingly drawn up--"much less hot than
the former"--calling upon the king to dissolve parliament and dismiss
his ministers.[254] It was adopted by the Common Council by a large
majority (viz. 98 votes to 46). At first the king was disposed not to
receive it at all. "I suppose this is another remonstrance" he wrote to
North, after telling the sheriffs to call again "if so I think it ought
not to have any answer."[255] After seeing a draft of it, however, he
changed his mind. He acknowledged that it was less offensive than he
had been given to understand, but he thought "the whole performance"
required no more than "a short dry answer."[256]

[Sidenote: The king's reply, 23 May, 1770.]

In the ordinary course the presentation would have been made by the
Recorder on behalf of the citizens. Eyre, however, refused to attend on
this occasion,[257] so that the address may possibly have been read by
the lord mayor himself. The king's reply was even briefer than usual.
He would (he said) have been wanting to the public and to himself had
he not expressed dissatisfaction at the former address. He declared his
sentiments to be unchanged, and he declined to use his prerogative in a
manner which might be dangerous to the constitution of the kingdom.[258]

[Sidenote: Beckford's memorable speech.]

It was now that Beckford made that memorable speech with which his
name will ever be associated (although claimed by Horne Tooke as
his composition), and which was afterwards inscribed, by order of
the Common Council, upon the pediment of his statue erected in the
Guildhall.[259] Deeming the king's answer unsatisfactory the mayor, to
the surprise of all present, and contrary to all form and precedent,
again stept forward, and, addressing the king, besought his majesty to
allow him--the mayor of the king's loyal city of London--to express
on behalf of his fellow citizens their sorrow at having incurred his
majesty's displeasure. He assured the king that there were no subjects
"more faithful, more dutiful, or more affectionate" than the citizens,
and he denounced the man who should attempt to alienate the king's
affection from his subjects in general, and from the city of London
in particular, as an enemy to the king and constitution. Even Walpole
allowed that the speech was "wondrous loyal and respectful," if a
trifle disconcerting. The king was so much taken by surprise that he
hesitated whether to stay or withdraw. He decided on the former, and
remained until Beckford had finished, when he immediately got up and
retired without a word. Chatham was immensely pleased at the spirit
displayed by Beckford on this occasion, and wrote to tell him so:
"The _spirit of Old England_ spoke that never-to-be-forgotten day."
His letter concludes with the following enthusiastic passage: "Adieu,
then for the present (to call you by the most honourable of titles)
_true Lord Mayor of London_; that is, _first_ magistrate of the
_first_ city of the world! I mean to tell you only a plain truth when
I say your lordship's mayoralty will be revered till the constitution
is destroyed and forgotten."[260] Beckford, in his reply, justified
his conduct. "What I spoke in the king's presence was uttered in
the language of truth, and with that humility and submission which
become a subject speaking to his lawful king: at least I endeavoured
to behave properly and decently; but I am inclined to believe that I
was mistaken, for the language of the court is that my deportment was
impudent, insolent and unprecedented. God forgive them all!"[261]

[Sidenote: Vote of thanks to Beckford for his speech, 25 May.]

When the matter came to be reported to the Common Council (25 May) two
aldermen, viz., Rossiter and Harley, objected to Beckford having made
a speech to the king without instructions from the Common Council,
whilst Wilkes and the two sheriffs, Townshend and Sawbridge, upheld
his conduct. The Court then desired Beckford to state what he had said
to his majesty. Thereupon the speech was produced and read, and this
being done a formal vote of thanks was passed to the mayor for having
presented the remonstrance, and "for his vindicating at the foot of the
throne the loyalty and affection of the citizens of London."[262]

[Sidenote: Vote of thanks to Chatham, 14 May, 1770.]

The same motive which prompted Beckford's action in March last on the
occasion of his magnificent entertainment to the Opposition had in the
meanwhile incited the Common Council to a similar indiscretion. On the
14th May--the day that the last remonstrance was prepared--the Court
passed a vote of thanks to Chatham for the zeal he had shown in support
of the rights of election and petition, as well as for his "declaration
that his endeavours shall hereafter be used that Parliaments may be
restored to their original purity by shortening their duration and
introducing a more full and equal representation."[263] Here the
wish was distinctly father to the thought. Chatham had made no such
declaration. The vote was nothing more or less than an attempt to "fix"
Chatham to a definite policy of reform just as Beckford had previously
tried to fix Rockingham and his party. Chatham was not to be thus
caught, and in his acknowledgment of the vote he declared that as to
any assurance he was supposed to have given that he was in favour of
shorter Parliaments there had been some misapprehension. With all
deference to the sentiments of the City he felt bound to say that he
could not recommend triennial Parliaments as a remedy for venality
in elections. He would not, however, oppose any measure for their
introduction if the country showed itself unmistakably in favour of
them.[264]

[Sidenote: The last days of Beckford.]

On the 30th May, Beckford again appeared at court at the head of a
deputation from the city to present a formal address of congratulation
from the Common Council on the birth of another princess. The address
had been passed unanimously by the Council, although Wilkes declared it
was no time for such compliments. The deputation met with some little
opposition on its way to St. James's, the gates at Temple Bar being
suddenly closed by the mob before the whole of the civic party had
passed through, and they were not admitted into the presence chamber,
until the lord mayor had promised not to repeat his former offence of
making a speech.[265] The next day Beckford laid the first stone of
the new gaol of Newgate.[266] This was his last appearance in public.
He had recently caught a chill whilst at Fonthill, and this had been
aggravated by his hasty return to town in order to attend to his
mayoralty duties, and the excitement consequent thereto. For some years
past he had not enjoyed good health, and age began to tell upon him.
Even his first mayoralty in 1762-3, he entered upon with reluctance,
and the day before his election had gone so far as to petition the
Court of Aldermen to be discharged from his aldermanry on the score
of ill-health.[267] He was, as we have seen, still more reluctant to
undertake a second year of office, and only consented to do so after
pressing solicitation. On the 12th June, he was so ill from rheumatic
fever that he was unable to attend a Court of Aldermen, and on the 21st
he died.[268]

FOOTNOTES:

[168] Repertory 164, fos. 367-369.

[169] Repertory 164, fos. 370, 379; Journal 62, fos. 159, 162. This
address of the Common Council, as well as similar addresses from
1760 downwards, will be found in a volume printed by order of the
Corporation in 1865.

[170] Parliament was dissolved 20 March (1761), and a new Parliament
summoned for May. Of the old city members three out of the four were
again returned: but the place of Barnard, now getting advanced in
years, was taken by Thomas Harley, a brother of the Earl of Oxford.

[171] When, speaking on the address, Alderman Beckford proposed to push
the war with more vigour than formerly, Pitt is recorded as having
fired up and to have asked his friend what new piece of extravagance he
wished for?--Walpole, "Memoirs of the reign of George III," i, 24.

[172] Chatham Correspondence, ii, 158.

[173] Journal 62, fos. 298, 299.

[174] Journal 62, fo. 302.

[175] A schedule of the different "services" at the various tables and
particulars of the cost (£6,898 5_s._ 4_d._) of the entertainment are
entered on record.--Journal 62, fos. 337-340b.

[176] Walpole, "Memoirs of reign of George III," i. 89, 90; Walpole to
Mann.--Letters, iii, 459.

[177] Journal 62, fo. 303.

[178] _Id._, fos. 298b-299.

[179] Horace Walpole was indignant at the Common Council presuming
to speak on behalf of the City of London, and to "usurp the right of
making peace and war." At the same time he could not shut his eyes to
the fact that the City held the purse-strings, and that without its
assistance supplies would run short.--Walpole to Conway, 26 Oct., 1761.
The same to Horace Mann, 14 Nov.--Letters, iii, 457, 459.

[180] Walpole, Memoirs, i, 91-93.

[181] Almon, "Correspondence of Wilkes," i, 65, 66.

[182] Journal 62, fos. 330b, 334b.

[183] Repertory 167, fo. 184.

[184] Repertory 167, fos. 280, 286, 291.

[185] Journal 62, fos. 72-73b, 75-76, 87b-88b, 131-131b, 134-134b

[186] Journal House of Commons, xxix, 666.

[187] Walpole, Memoirs, i, 332.

[188] Journal House of Commons, xxix, 668, 685.

[189] Journal House of Commons, xxix, 690.

[190] Journal House of Lords, xxx, 437.

[191] Walpole, Memoirs, i, 331; see also Grenville Papers, ii, 235.

[192] Journal House of Lords, xxx, 438; Journal House of Commons, xxix,
698.

[193] Journal 63, fo. 146b; Grenville Papers, ii, 237.

[194] Walpole, Memoirs, i, 309-314.

[195] Journal House of Commons, xxix, 723.

[196] Walpole, Memoirs, i, 385, ii, 35.

[197] Journal 63, fos. 166-167, 171.

[198] Walpole, Memoirs, i, 391.

[199] Walpole to Mann, 1 Aug., 1766. Letters, v, 8. "The city of
London"--he writes elsewhere--"had intended to celebrate Mr. Pitt's
return to employment, and lamps for an illumination had been placed
round the Monument. But no sooner did they hear of his new dignity,
than the festival was counter-ordered." Memoirs, ii, 359.

[200] Walpole. Memoirs, ii, 394.

[201] Journal 64, fos. 142b, 204. Before the freedom could be
conferred, Townshend had died (4 Sept.).

[202] The letter is dated from Paris, 12 Dec., 1767. Almon's Life of
Wilkes, iii, 184.

[203] Walpole. Memoirs, iii, 186-188. Walpole to Mann, 31 March, 1768.
Letters, v, 91-93. The City offered a reward of £50 for the capture and
conviction of the ringleaders. Journal 64, fos. 247b, 248.

[204] Walpole to Mann, 23 April, 1768.--Letters, v, 98; Walpole,
Memoirs, iii, 199.

[205] The king to Lord North, 25 April, 1768.--"Correspondence of
George III with Lord North" (W. Bodham Donne), i, 2.

[206] Walpole to Mann, 6 June, 1768.--Letters, v, 101; Walpole,
Memoirs, iii, 204-206.

[207] Journal House of Lords, xxxii, 152.

[208] Walpole to Mann, 22 June, 1768.--Letters, v, 110; Walpole,
Memoirs, iii, 228, 229.

[209] Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 297.

[210] Repertory 173, fos. 91-94, 114, 115.

[211] Repertory 173, fos. 140-142, 153-155.

[212] Repertory 173, fos. 264-314.

[213] _Id._, fos. 315-318.

[214] Journal House of Commons, xxxii, 178. Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 292,
298, 313-319, 324-325, 327.

[215] Journal House of Commons, xxxii, 228, 229.

[216] Annual Register, xii, 80, 82

[217] Journal 64, fo. 341b. Several wards met and drew up instructions
to the Common Council not to allow of an address to the king, "as
calculated to countenance the unconstitutional measures of the present
administration, rather than to express duty and affection to the best
of kings."--Annual Register, xii, 88.

[218] Annual Register, xii, 75. Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 339.

[219] Annual Register, xii, 82, 84.

[220] Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 353.

[221] Journal House of Commons, xxxii, 386, 387.

[222] "The arbitrary appointment of Mr. Luttrell"--he wrote to the Duke
of Grafton (8 July)--"invades the foundation of the laws themselves, as
it manifestly transfers the right of legislation from those whom the
people have chosen to those whom they have rejected. With a succession
of such appointments, we may soon see a House of Commons collected in
the choice of which the other towns and counties of England will have
as little share as the devoted county of Middlesex."--Letters of Junius
(Woodfall), i, 509.

[223] Journal 64, fo. 344b.

[224] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 146b-147b. The petition is printed
in a small volume of "city petitions, addresses and remonstrances,"
(1778), preserved in the Guildhall Library.

[225] Beckford denied this--Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 380.

[226] "That the moment of his [Chatham's] appearance, _i.e._, so
immediately after the petition of the livery of London set on foot and
presented by his friend Alderman Beckford, has a hostile look, cannot
be doubted."--Walpole to Mann, 19 July, 1769. Letters, v, 177.

[227] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 148b.

[228] "London, for the first time in its life, has not dictated to
England. Essex and Hertfordshire have refused to petition; Wiltshire
and Worcester say they will petition, and Yorkshire probably
will."--Walpole to Mann, 19 July, 1769. Letters, v, 177.

[229] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 149.

[230] Journal 65, fos. 62b-63b.

[231] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 152-153.

[232] Walpole to Mann, 15 March, 1770.--Letters, v, 229.

[233] Repertory 174, fos. 155, 156.

[234] Junius to the printer of the _Public Advertiser_, 19 March,
1770.--Letters of Junius (Woodfall), ii, 115.

[235] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 154.

[236] Journal 65, fos. 118b, 125.

[237] The king to Lord Weymouth, 6 March, 1770.--Jesse, Memoirs of
George III, i, 490-491.

[238] Lord Weymouth to the sheriffs of London, 8 March, 1770.--Cal.
Home Office Papers (1770-1772), p. 20.

[239] Gentleman's Magazine, xl, 111-112.

[240] The editor of the correspondence between the king and Lord
North gives the date of this letter as the 20th March--a mistake,
probably, for the 10th--as the remonstrance was presented on the
14th.--Correspondence, i, 20.

[241] The King to Lord North, 11 March, 1770.--Correspondence, i, 17-18.

[242] Lord Weymouth to the sheriffs, 12 March, 1770.--Gentleman's
Magazine, xl, 112.

[243] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 153b.

[244] Chatham correspondence, iii, 429, 430.

[245] Journal House of Commons, xxxii, 810.

[246] Horne to Junius, 31 July, 1771. Letters of Junius, ii, 298, 299.

[247] Chatham to Beckford, 10 March, 1770.--Chatham correspondence,
iii, 431, note.

[248] Annual Register, xiii, 82, 83. Walpole to Mann, 23 March, 1770.
Letters, v, 232. Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 115.

[249] "A real or political fit of the gout."--Walpole.

[250] Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 395. Annual Register, xii, 150.

[251] Annual Register, xiii, 80.

[252] Repertory 174, fo. 184.

[253] Walpole to Mann, 6 May, 1770. Letters, v, 235.

[254] Journal 65, fos. 80-82. Walpole to Mann, 24 May, 1770, Letters,
v, 238. It is supposed that Chatham had a hand in drawing it up. It is
certain, at least, that he approved of it, and that he and Beckford
were intimate friends at the time.--Walpole, Memoirs of reign of George
III, iv, 153.

[255] The king to Lord North, 14 May, 1770.--Correspondence, i, 26.

[256] The same to the same, 19 May, 1770.--Correspondence, i, 27.

[257] An order was thereupon made that the services of Eyre as a
standing counsel for the city should in future be dispensed with.
Two years later his connection with the city was severed and his
conduct rewarded by his being created one of the barons of the
exchequer.--Journal 65, fos. 117b, 121; Repertory 176, fo. 458.

[258] Journal 65, fo. 83.

[259] Journal 65, fo. 92. Horne Tooke was accustomed to exclaim "that
he could not be deemed a vain man, as he had obtained statues for
others, but never for himself!"--Stephen, Memoirs of Horne Tooke, i,
151, 157.

[260] Chatham to the Lord Mayor, 25 May, 1770.--Chatham Correspondence,
iii, 462.

[261] Beckford to Chatham, 25 May, 1770.--Chatham Correspondence, iii,
463.

[262] Journal 65, fos. 83-84; Gentleman's Magazine, vol. xl. (where the
date of the Common Council is given as the 28 May).

[263] Journal 65, fo. 82b.

[264] Journal 65, fos. 82b, 94. A year later he held more decided views
as to the advantage of short Parliaments. Writing to Earl Temple on
the 17th April, 1771, he remarks: "Allow a speculator in a great chair
to add that a plan for more equal representation by additional knights
of the shire seems highly seasonable, and to shorten the duration of
Parliaments not less so. If your lordship should approve, could Lord
Lyttleton's caution be brought to take these ideas, we should take
possession of strong ground, let who will decline to follow us. One
line of men, I am assured, will zealously support, and a respectable
weight of law, _si quid novisti rectius istis candidus imperti_."
This extract was read at a Common Council held the 13th April, 1780,
and was ordered to be entered on the Journal of the Court.--Chatham
Correspondence, iv, 155, note.--Journal 68, fo. 52.

[265] Annual Register, xiii, 111.

[266] Annual Register, xiii, 112.

[267] Repertory 166, fo. 358.

[268] Repertory 174, fo. 276. Annual Register, xiii, 119.



CHAPTER XXXVIII.


[Sidenote: Barlow Trecothick mayor, June-Sept., 1770.]

Upon Beckford's decease Trecothick was elected mayor for the remainder
of the year. It was no easy matter for the successor of one of
the wealthiest and most hospitable of mayors to avoid invidious
comparison, and at the close of his short term of office Trecothick
was satirised by Wilkes for not maintaining the City's reputation for
hospitality.[269] Trecothick was also out of favour with Wilkes for
having officially backed press warrants, the legality of which was
much disputed at the time. The mayor, however, justified his conduct
in this respect to the livery when they met at Michaelmas, and his
speech was very favourably received.[270] Wilkes on the other hand was
so strenuously opposed to press warrants that he went so far as to
release a man who had been pressed for the navy, although he had been
taken by virtue of a warrant from the Lords of the Admiralty, backed by
Trecothick.[271]

[Sidenote: Brass Crosby elected mayor, 29 Sept., 1770.]

When Michaelmas arrived, the livery refused to re-elect Trecothick--as
indeed Wilkes had foretold. Bankes was again passed over, and Brass
Crosby chosen mayor for the ensuing year. In character he was scarcely
less spirited and patriotic than Beckford, and he was made to suffer
in consequence. Very early in his mayoralty (21 Nov.) it fell to his
lot to carry up another address and remonstrance to the king for the
dissolution of parliament, and to listen to a curt refusal.[272]

[Sidenote: Opinion touching press warrants.]

In consequence of Wilkes's opposition to pressing for the king's
service, a system then constantly practised owing to the necessities of
the time, the new mayor, one of his most steady adherents, consulted
Lord Chatham on the legality of press warrants. Chatham advised him
to take the opinion of counsel on the matter, and this he accordingly
did, with the result that whilst he was advised that press warrants,
however objectionable, were legal, the lord mayor could not legally
be compelled to sign them. At the same time counsel left it to
the mayor's consideration "whether for the peace of the city, and
preservation of the subject, he would not conform to the practice of
most of his predecessors on such occasions." This decision being deemed
unsatisfactory, the City preferred to bestow premiums on voluntary
recruits, and the same course was taken by other towns.[273]

[Sidenote: The freedom of reporting parliamentary debates, 1771.]

It is, however, for the conspicuous part he took in the struggle
for the liberty of the press that Brass Crosby is best remembered.
Great jealousy had always existed in parliament as to reports of
debates held there, and the Commons had comparatively of recent date
(28 Feb., 1729) passed a resolution to the effect that it was an
indignity, and a breach of privilege, for anyone "to give in written or
printed newspapers" any account of the proceedings of the house.[274]
Notwithstanding this resolution, reports of debates continued to appear
in the public press, but always with an affectation of secrecy.

[Sidenote: The arrest of Wheble and Miller, 15 March, 1771.]

A scheme was now set on foot by Wilkes for embroiling the House of
Commons with the City. At his instigation certain printers in the city
commenced to publish the debates without any attempt at disguise,
printing the name of each speaker in full. Such a proceeding had always
been deemed a distinct breach of privilege. Some members of the House
speedily took offence, and the printers were ordered to attend. As
they refused to obey the summons, they were ordered into custody. This
was precisely what Wilkes had aimed at. On the 15th March, a printer
named John Wheble was apprehended by virtue of a proclamation, and was
carried before Wilkes, the sitting alderman, who immediately discharged
him, after binding him over to prosecute the man who had taken him,
for illegal arrest. The same evening a messenger of the House of
Commons attempted to arrest Miller, the printer of the _Evening Post_,
under warrant of the Speaker; but the messenger himself was taken
into custody on a charge of assaulting a freeman of the city, and
carried before the lord mayor and aldermen Wilkes and Oliver. These
magistrates declared the warrant to be illegal, not having been backed
by a magistrate of the city, and released Miller. They at the same time
bound over the messenger of the House of Commons to appear to answer a
charge of assaulting a citizen of London.[275]

[Sidenote: The king's letter to Lord North, 17 March, 1771.]

The king was furious at the authority of parliament being thus openly
defied by the civic magistrates, and wrote to Lord North (17 March) to
say that unless Crosby and Oliver were not committed forthwith to the
Tower by the House of Commons its authority would be annihilated;--"You
know very well I was averse to meddling with the printers, but
now there is no retracting, the honour of the Commons must be
supported."[276]

[Sidenote: His recognizance expunged by order of the House, 20 March,
1771.]

The House was no less indignant at being flouted by the City, than
the king, and not only called upon Crosby and Oliver, who were
members,[277] to answer for their conduct from their places, but sent
for the clerk of the Justice Room at the Mansion House and ordered him
in their presence to expunge the entry of the recognizance by which
their messenger had been bound over to appear at the next Quarter
Sessions to answer for his assault on Miller.[278]

[Sidenote: Crosby and Oliver before the House, 19 March, 1771.]

In the meantime Crosby, who was suffering from a severe attack of gout,
had attended in his place (19 March). Early in the morning handbills
were distributed in the city informing the inhabitants that it was
the intention of the mayor to attend Parliament that afternoon--"even
though he should be obliged to be carried in a litter"--to uphold
their rights and privileges, and calling upon them to escort him home
on his return from Westminster. Here is a description of what took
place taken from a contemporary newspaper;[279] "At two o'clock in the
afternoon the right hon. the lord mayor set out from the Mansion House
in a coach to attend the House of Commons, in pursuance of a summons,
to answer for his conduct on Friday last. His lordship appeared very
feeble and infirm, but in good spirits. Mr. Alderman Oliver and his
lordship's chaplain, Mr. Evans, were in the same coach. A prodigious
crowd of the better sort were at the Mansion House and in the streets
near it, who testified their approbation by repeated huzzas, which were
continued quite from the Mansion House to the House of Commons. On his
arrival there one universal shout was heard for near three minutes; and
the people during the whole passage to the House called out to the lord
mayor as the _people's friend, the guardian of the city's rights and
the nation's liberties_." Walpole minimises the display, and tells his
friend that although thousands of handbills were dispersed to invite
the mob to escort the mayor, not a hundred attended.[280] Having taken
his seat in the House Crosby justified his conduct by the oath that
he had taken on entering upon his mayoralty to preserve the liberties
of the citizens, and desired to be heard by counsel.[281] Before his
examination had proceeded far he was taken so seriously ill that he had
to ask leave to go home. This was accorded, and "about five o'clock
his lordship returned home, attended by a great number of people; and
the populace took the horses out of the carriage at St. Paul's, and
drew the coach to the Mansion House." The enquiry stood adjourned until
Friday (22 March). In the meantime, leave having been given to him to
appear by counsel, albeit with certain reservations, a committee was
appointed to employ such counsel on his behalf as they should think
fit, with power to draw on the Chamber to the extent of £500.[282]
When Friday came the Speaker informed the House that he had received a
letter from the lord mayor to the effect that he (Crosby) was so ill
that he could not leave home, but that he would attend in his place
as soon as his health permitted. Another adjournment was therefore
made until the following Monday (25 March), and Oliver's defence was
appointed for the same day.[283]

[Sidenote: Crosby and Oliver again before the House, 25 March, 1771.]

By Monday the lord mayor had sufficiently recovered to attend the
House. At two o'clock in the afternoon he again set out in his
coach accompanied, as before, by Oliver. Crowds again escorted them
to Westminster, and the approaches to the House were so densely
thronged that the Speaker gave orders to have them cleared. Even
Walpole acknowledges this.[284] After the orders of the day for their
attendance had been read Crosby explained how it was that no counsel
appeared on his behalf. In the first place the restrictions that the
House had placed upon the appearance of counsel--viz., that they should
only be heard upon such points as did not controvert the privileges
of the House--was such as to prevent counsel speaking on many points
material to his defence; and secondly the counsel whom he could depend
upon, and whom he wished to employ, were on circuit. He therefore made
his own defence. It was now ten o'clock at night, and the exertion he
had undergone had rendered him so weak that he again had to ask leave
to withdraw, promising to abide by the judgment of the House. On his
return to the city he met with another ovation, his coach being drawn
by the people all the way to the Mansion House.[285]

[Sidenote: Crosby adjudged guilty of breach of privilege.]

After Crosby's withdrawal the debate was continued. It was moved that
the lord mayor's discharging of Miller out of custody, and his having
held the messenger of the House to bail, was a breach of privilege.
To this was moved the previous question, but after long debate it
was rejected and the original motion passed, order being given for
the lord mayor to attend on the following Wednesday, if his health
permitted.[286]

[Sidenote: Oliver committed to the Tower, 25 March, 1771.]

Notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, the House called upon Oliver.
The alderman, however, did not detain them long. He declined to call
witnesses or to say anything in his defence, beyond asserting that he
had acted according to his duty, oath, and conscience. Again there was
a long debate lasting until three o'clock in the morning, when the
House resolved to send him to the Tower. The division was a small one,
many members having already gone home in disgust. Oliver was allowed
to go to his house in Fenchurch Street for a few hours before being
removed to the Tower by the sergeant-at-arms.[287]

[Sidenote: Speech of Alderman Townshend.]

During the debate, Alderman Townshend appeared in the House looking
very pale, having risen from a sickbed--"his hair lank, and his
face swathed with linen, having had his jaw laid open for an
inflammation"--and after commenting severely upon the arbitrary action
of the House in erasing a record entered in the lord mayor's book,
proceeded to twit the government with its obsequiousness to female
caprice and boldly declared their arbitrary measures to be due to
the baneful influence of the Princess Dowager of Wales.[288] Such a
declaration was not only in bad taste, but contrary to Parliamentary
usage. Nevertheless it was placidly listened to and only received a
tardy and weak denial from Lord North--a sign that the House felt the
insecurity of its position.

[Sidenote: "A table" to be provided for Oliver at City's expense, 26
March, 1771.]

On Tuesday (26 March) a Common Council sat, summoned by Trecothick,
who had been appointed (12 March), to act as _locum tenens_ of the
lord mayor during his "absence or illness." After transacting several
matters of business, the court resolved unanimously "that during the
confinement of Mr. Alderman Oliver in the Tower of London a table be
provided for him at the expense of this city, under the direction and
management of the committee appointed at the last court to assist the
lord mayor and the Aldermen Wilkes and Oliver in their defence on the
charge brought against them by the House of Commons."[289]

[Sidenote: Chatham's opinion on Oliver's committal.]

The committal of Oliver was only one of a series of blunders of
which Parliament had been guilty since the arrest of the printers.
The position of affairs was clearly defined in letters written by
Chatham at the time. "The state of the business seems to me clearly
this: the discharge of Miller, taken under the Speaker's warrant, I
think contrary to the established jurisdiction of the House, with
regard to printers of their proceedings and debates; but I hold also
as fully, that in a conflict of jurisdiction, the lord mayor and city
magistrates, acting under an oath of office and their charter, cannot
be proceeded against criminally by the House, without the highest
injustice and oppression." Again:--"the House becomes flagrantly unjust
and tyrannical, the moment it proceeds criminally against magistrates
standing for a jurisdiction they are bound to maintain, in a conflict
of respectable rights." He goes on to say that "nothing appears to me
more distinct, than declaring their right to jurisdiction, with regard
to printers of their proceedings and debates, and punishing their
member, and in him his constituents, for what he has done in discharge
of his oath and conscience as a magistrate."[290]

[Sidenote: The opinion of _Junius_.]

This view was also strenuously supported by _Junius_,[291] who was
emphatic that "as magistrates," Crosby and Oliver "had nothing to
regard but the obligation of their oaths, and the execution of the
laws. If they were convinced that the Speaker's warrant was not a legal
authority to the messenger, it necessarily followed that, when he was
charged upon oath with a breach of the peace, they _must_ hold him to
bail. They had no option."

[Sidenote: Crosby again attends the House, 27 March, 1771.]

On Wednesday (27 March), Crosby again attended in his place, as
directed, to hear the decision of the House in his case. He was
accompanied as before by an "amazing number of people" anxious to
learn the issue; "guards, both horse and foot, were ordered to be
in readiness, in case any tumult should arise. The city was all in
motion; and by its acclamations testified its satisfaction with his
conduct." Although he arrived at the House early in the afternoon,
it was past eight o'clock in evening before the House was ready to
take his business into consideration. Meanwhile the approaches to
the House were in the hands of the mob who threatened many of the
members with violence. Lord North, in particular, was made the object
of a violent attack. His coach was demolished and he himself narrowly
escaped being killed. Others, and among them Charles Fox, who had made
himself especially obnoxious to the citizens by speaking of Oliver
as an "assassin of the constitution," were also insulted, but not so
outrageously.[292] The justices confessed to the House their inability
to read the Riot Act, and declared that the constables were powerless.
The sheriffs of London--William Baker and Richard Martin--being
members of the House,[293] were thereupon desired to go themselves and
endeavour to disperse the crowd,[294] and at their intervention peace
was at length restored.

[Sidenote: Is committed to the Tower.]

The House being now prepared to proceed with the chief business of the
day, a motion was made for committing the lord mayor to the custody of
the sergeant-at-arms, instead of sending him to the gloomier quarters
of the Tower, on account of his ill-health. Crosby, however, at once
desired that no such favour might be shown him; he was quite prepared,
he said, to join his honourable friend in the Tower. An amendment was
accordingly moved that he should be committed to the Tower, and this
was carried by 202 votes to 39.[295] It was now past midnight. Crosby
returned to the Mansion House for a short rest, and at four o'clock in
the morning sent for a hackney coach and drove to the Tower.

[Sidenote: Letter of Alderman Oliver from the Tower, 29 March, 1771.]

A few hours later the Common Council resolved to furnish him with
a "table" at the City's expense, as they had previously done for
Oliver. Both prisoners acknowledged with gratitude the favour thus
shown to them by their fellow citizens, and both promised solemnly
to continue their efforts to maintain the rights and privileges of
the City, but the lord mayor declined the offer to furnish his table
during his incarceration, as he did not wish to put the City to any
additional expense on his account.[296] Oliver's letter contained
some very caustic remarks upon the attitude of the government towards
the City. "The last ten years have afforded the city of London, in
particular, every instance of neglect, unkindness, insult and injury;
their petitions have been rejected, slighted, ridiculed; their property
unjustly conveyed to others; their charters violated;[297] their laws
contemned; their magistrates imprisoned. The power that consumes us
has the plainest and most odious marks of despotism, abject abroad
and insolent at home. Whether our rights will in the end be peaceably
re-established or whether this violence will be pursued is more than
I can certainly declare, but this I will venture to say for myself
that they must either change their laws or the magistrates, for my
adherence to my duty shall be invariably the same, regardless of
consequences."[298]

[Sidenote: Supporters of the government beheaded in effigy, April,
1771.]

The temper of the populace at witnessing "the new and extraordinary
spectacle of the lord mayor of the city of London and one of its
principal magistrates being committed prisoners to the Tower," vented
itself in a very characteristic manner. On the 1st April a great mob
proceeded to Tower Hill following a hearse and two carts, in which were
figures representing the princess dowager, Lord Bute, the Speaker, and
both the Foxes. The figures were beheaded by a chimney sweeper, after
mock prayers, and then burnt. A like ceremony took place a few days
later with figures of Lord Halifax, Lord Barrington, Alderman Harley,
Colonel Luttrell, nicknamed "the usurper," Lord Sandwich, otherwise
known as "Jemmy Twitcher," Colonel Onslow, who had been made so furious
because a newspaper had called him "Cocking George," and De Grey, the
attorney-general. Their supposed dying speeches were, to the intense
amusement of the multitude, hawked about the streets.[299]

[Sidenote: The contest won.]

Wilkes, who had been no less an offender (if offence there was) in
holding the Speaker's warrant to be illegal, got off scot free. Three
times was he summoned to the bar of the House to answer for his
conduct, and three times he refused to obey unless the House would
acknowledge him as member for Middlesex. Ministers preferred to leave
him unmolested, resorting even to a subterfuge in order to allow him
to escape. It is true that, like Lord Shaftesbury in the reign of
Charles II, he had removed for safety from his house in Westminster
to lodgings in the city, but few can doubt his readiness, if need be,
to share the fate of his brother aldermen in so good a cause. In the
words of _Junius_, he was already a "wounded soldier" in the cause of
liberty, and could point to "real prosecutions, real penalties, real
imprisonment,"[300] and he deserves at least a part of the reward of
the victory thus gained for the freedom of the press.

[Sidenote: Crosby and Oliver regain their liberty, 8 May, 1771.]

More than one attempt was made by the committee appointed for the
defence of Crosby and Oliver to obtain their release on writs of Habeas
Corpus, but in vain. They remained therefore in confinement, receiving
a constant succession of friends and supporters, including Edmund
Burke and the Dukes of Manchester and Portland, until set free by the
prorogation of Parliament on the 8th May. The Common Council had, in
anticipation of that event, resolved (3 May) to go in procession in
their gowns, accompanied by the city officers to escort them from
the Tower to the Mansion House.[301] As Crosby and Oliver emerged
from the Tower gate they were welcomed with a salute of twenty-one
guns by the Artillery Company, and carried, amid universal shouts of
joy, to the Mansion House, from the balcony of which they bowed their
acknowledgments. In the evening the city was illuminated.

[Sidenote: Another address and remonstrance of the livery, 24 June,
1771.]

Even after their release the Common Council remained dissatisfied,
and determined to take counsel's opinion as to the possibility of
testing the legality of the action of Parliament. Counsel having given
an adverse opinion it was resolved to let the matter rest until the
meeting of the livery on Midsummer-day.[302] As soon as the livery
were informed how matters stood they drew up another address and
remonstrance calling upon the king to dissolve Parliament. This time
it was their intention to attend the presentation of the address in a
body, clad in their livery gowns.[303] The king, however, objected to
receiving so large a number, and the lord mayor was informed that only
the number "allowed by law" would be permitted to attend.[304] The
livery had to give way, and the address was presented in the manner
prescribed by the king. The answer they got was short and sharp; the
king contenting himself with expressing his concern that a part of his
subjects should have been so misled and deluded as to renew a request
with which he had repeatedly declared that he could not comply.[305]

[Sidenote: Election of Wilkes and Bull, sheriffs, 3 July, 1771.]

The more important business transacted at this Common Hall was the
election of sheriffs for the ensuing year. Wilkes had declared his
intention of standing, and had asked Oliver--at that time a prisoner
in the Tower--if he intended doing the same, regardless of the claims
of senior aldermen. Oliver hesitated as to the course he should
pursue, but finally wrote to Wilkes (11 April, 1771) expressing a
determination not to serve with him, inasmuch as their political aims
were not identical. Wilkes little relished this rebuff, and took
exception to the propriety of Oliver's reply; as for himself, he said,
"I am ready to serve the office of sheriff with you, sir, or any other
gentleman given me by the livery as a colleague, should they think
proper to elect me."[306] The election was watched with great interest
by the king, who was afraid that Wilkes might succeed in getting
elected, although supported only by "a small, though desperate," part
of the livery, and he wrote to Lord North expressing a hope that no
effort might be wanting to secure the election of Plumbe and Kirkman,
the two senior aldermen who had not served.[307] He was doomed to
disappointment. The livery declared for Wilkes and Frederick Bull, a
creature of Wilkes, and a poll was demanded. This lasted several days,
and on the 3rd July the result showed a large majority in their favour,
and they were declared duly elected. Oliver came out at the bottom of
the poll.[308]

The activity of court interference in this election was revealed by an
unhappy _contretemps_. A letter which "Jack" Robinson, Lord North's
secretary, had sent to Benjamin Smith, a partner of Alderman Nash, an
"opulent grocer" of Cannon Street, urging him to "push the poll" with
as many friends as possible, was carried by mistake to another Smith,
of Budge Row, a Wilkite, who immediately published it with an affidavit
as to its authenticity. The result was, as might be expected, the
greater discomfiture of the ministerial candidates.[309]

Walpole was no less struck with the irrepressibility of Wilkes's
character than annoyed at his being elected to an office which would
bring him into close contact with the king;--"Wilkes is another Phoenix
revived from his own ashes. He was sunk--it was over with him; but the
ministers too precipitately hurrying to bury him alive, blew up the
embers, and he is again as formidable as ever; and what will seem worse
he must go into the very closet whenever the city sends him there with
a message.... Wilkes in prison is chosen member of Parliament and then
alderman of London. His colleagues betray him, desert him, expose him,
and he becomes sheriff of London."[310] Walpole's fears as to Wilkes's
personal demeanour in office were groundless. As an alderman of the
city he might have made himself sufficiently obnoxious at court had he
so pleased, but he knew himself to be no _persona grata_ to the king,
and on that account was careful to keep out of his sight. That he knew
how to behave on occasion is shown by his conduct during his mayoralty,
when he surprised everybody, the king included, by his agreeable manner.

[Sidenote: Wilkes and the shrievalty.]

Although determined to act with propriety in his personal
relationships, Wilkes was no less determined to make himself as
obnoxious to the king and his ministers as he well could in his
official capacity as sheriff. "I will skirmish with the great almost
every day in some way or other," he wrote to _Junius_. Again, with
reference to the House of Lords, he informs his friend that "the
sheriff means the attack."[311] A few days previous to his entering
upon his duties he and his colleague, Bull, made a bid for popularity
by a spirited act. The presence of the military at executions had been
resented the previous year, and now in a short letter addressed to
the livery they announced their determination to follow the example
set by their predecessors in office and not to allow soldiers to
attend: "We are determined to follow so meritorious an example, and as
that melancholy part of our office will commence in a very few days
we take this opportunity of declaring that as the constitution has
entrusted us with the whole power of the county, we will not, during
our sheriffalty, suffer any part of the army to interfere or even to
attend, as on many former occasions, on the pretence of aiding or
assisting the civil magistrate.... The magistrate, with the assistance
of those in his jurisdiction, is by experience known to be strong
enough to enforce all legal commands, without the aid of a standing
army." _Junius_ thought this letter "very proper and well drawn."[312]

Another proceeding on the part of Wilkes failed however to meet with
like approval. The 25th October being the anniversary of the king's
accession, there was to be a thanksgiving service at St. Paul's
which the sheriffs in the ordinary course of their duties would be
expected to attend. Wilkes took it into his head that he would prefer
not to go "in a ginger-bread chariot to yawn through a dull sermon."
He accordingly prepared a letter to the lord mayor, asking that he
might be allowed to sit at Old Bailey instead of taking part in what
he called a "vain parade" on the anniversary of the accession of a
prince, whose government was so unpopular. Before sending this missive
he submitted it to _Junius_.[313] The latter thought it "more spirited
than judicious," and suggested that it was impolitic, to say the
least, for "a grave sheriff" to mark his entrance into office with a
direct outrage to the king, for outrage it was. He advises his friend
to "consider the matter coolly," but in case Wilkes persisted, he sent
him a more temperate form of letter.[314] The advice thus given was
followed, and Wilkes abandoned his intention.

[Sidenote: Letter of _Junius_ to Wilkes, 21 Aug., 1771.]

Wilkes had thus advanced another step in civic life, in spite of an
unfortunate habit he had of quarrelling with his best friends. He had
disgusted, or had himself thrown over, Horne, Sawbridge, Townshend
and Oliver, all of whom were members with him of the society known as
the Supporters of the Bill of Rights, and all had contributed towards
relieving him of his pecuniary difficulties. Townshend and Horne had
recently joined forces "to wrest the city out of Wilkes's hands," and
Horne had done his best in a quiet way to prevent Wilkes being returned
as sheriff, although he denied taking any part in the election.[315]
He even ridiculed the idea in a letter to Wilkes (10 July), commencing
"Give you joy, Sir,[316] the parson of Brentford is at length defeated.
He no longer rules with an absolute sway over the city of London."[317]
Wilkes was now to receive support from a quarter least expected.
Hitherto, the redoubtable _Junius_ had treated Wilkes with little
more than contempt.[318] He was now to become one of his warmest
supporters. It was not that _Junius_ entertained any great respect
for Wilkes; it was enough that Wilkes was opposed to the ministry,
and that he promised to be "a thorn in the king's side."[319] On the
21st August, about noon, Wilkes received a mysterious letter,[320] the
writer of which proved to be _Junius_ himself. After assuring Wilkes
of his willingness to support him so long as he (Wilkes) depended only
upon public favour and made common cause with the people, _Junius_
comes to the real purport of his letter. He was especially anxious
that Sawbridge should be chosen mayor at the coming election on
Michaelmas-day, and he uses all his art of persuasion upon Wilkes to
get him to support Sawbridge's candidature. He repudiates all idea
of self-interest in wishing to see Sawbridge in the mayoralty chair
in place of Crosby, who was reported to be seeking a second year of
office. "By all that's honourable I mean nothing but the cause"--his
letter concluded--"and I may defy your keenest penetration to assign a
satisfactory reason why _Junius_, whoever he be, should have a personal
interest in giving the mayoralty to Mr. Sawbridge, rather than to Mr.
Crosby."

[Sidenote: The reply of Wilkes, 12 Sept., 1771.]

The letter was very flattering, and Wilkes was pleased. "I am satisfied
that _Junius_ now means me well,"--he wrote in reply (12 Sept.)--"and
I wish to merit more than his regard, his friendship," but with his
usual independence he declined to desert Brass Crosby, to whom he had
promised his support before the arrival of _Junius's_ letter. He was
even prepared to do a little juggling in order to support Crosby's
re-election. "To make Crosby mayor, it is necessary to return to the
Court of Aldermen another man so obnoxious that it is impossible for
them to elect him. Bridgen I take to be this man. While he presided
in the city, he treated them with insolence, was exceedingly rude and
scurrilous to them personally, starved them at the few entertainments
he gave, and pocketed the city cash.[321]" Even if Bridgen were
re-elected by any chance, Crosby would probably be appointed his
_locum tenens_ (Wilkes proceeded to point out), and so in any event
all would be well. As for Sawbridge, little good could come of a
reconciliation, "I allow him honest, but think he has more mulishness
than understanding, more understanding than candour." Sawbridge
moreover had already declared, that if he were chosen mayor at the next
election he would pay fine rather than serve, "because Townshend ought
to be mayor"--a declaration which Wilkes characterises as bordering on
insanity.[322]

The correspondence thus commenced in so warm and friendly a manner was
continued for several months. Finding himself unable to prevail upon
Wilkes to become reconciled with Sawbridge, _Junius_ contented himself
with warning him at all hazards not to allow a "ministerial alderman"
to be elected into the mayoralty chair, and begging that if after a
fair canvas of the livery it was found that Bridgen had no chance of
being returned, he would give up the point at once, and let Sawbridge
be returned with Crosby--"a more likely way, in _my_ judgment, to make
Crosby lord mayor."[323]

[Sidenote: The election of Nash, Mayor, 8 Oct., 1771.]

When the election came on, Bridgen was not even nominated. The choice
of the livery was declared to have fallen on Sawbridge and Crosby.
Thereupon a poll was demanded on behalf of Bankes, Nash, Hallifax
and Townshend. Whilst the poll was proceeding _Junius_ issued an
impassioned address to the livery calling upon them to set aside
Nash--to whom he refers as the senior alderman below the chair, which
Nash was not[324]--and to return Crosby and Sawbridge, men who were
ready to execute the extraordinary as well as the ordinary duties of
the mayoralty, who would grant Common Halls whenever necessary, carry
up remonstrances to the king, and not be afraid to face the House of
Commons or to suffer imprisonment. Of Nash's private character he
declared he knew nothing, but as a public man he knew him to have done
everything in his power to destroy the freedom of popular election
in the city, and to have distinguished himself by thwarting the
livery. He concludes his address by apologising for his passionate
language.--"The subject comes home to us all. It is the language of my
heart."[325] The efforts of _Junius_ were of little avail. On the 8th
October, the result of the poll was declared, and Nash and Sawbridge
being returned (the former by a large majority), the Court of Aldermen
selected Nash to be mayor for the ensuing year. The "ministerial
candidate" had got in. During the election Wilkes and his brother
aldermen, Townshend and Sawbridge, were frequently at loggerheads,
whilst Nash was so grievously assaulted on his way to the Guildhall
that his life was in danger.[326]

[Sidenote: Gifts of plate to Crosby, Wilkes and Oliver.]

Upon Crosby's quitting office the Common Council passed him a vote
of thanks for the courage he had displayed in refusing to back press
warrants, and for his conduct in respect of the arrest of Miller. Early
in the following year he was voted a silver cup of the value of £200,
whilst Wilkes and Oliver were presented with other cups each of the
value of £100. A proposal that a piece of plate of the value of £400
should be provided at the City's expense and inscribed in honour of
these champions of the City's liberties, to form a part of the City's
plate, was not adopted.[327]

[Sidenote: Nash refuses to summon a Common Hall, Feb., 1772.]

Nash had not long been mayor before he came into collision both with
the livery and the Common Council. When a requisition was made to
him in February, 1772, to summon a Common Hall for the purpose of
instructing the city members to support Sawbridge in one of his many
attempts to obtain triennial parliaments, he refused to do so on the
ground that by an order of the livery of Midsummer-day last, the
question of the rights of the livery was about to be decided in a court
of law, informations having been laid against those companies who
had refused to obey the mayor's precept.[328] He thought that in the
meantime it would be well to suspend the exercise of his prerogative,
more especially as most matters of importance connected with the city
could be settled by the Common Council, which he professed himself
always ready to call when necessity required. Not satisfied with his
reply the livery held an informal meeting at the Half Moon Tavern in
Cheapside, and persuaded a number of members of the Common Council to
make a written application to the mayor to summon a court on the 18th
February, for the purpose of considering the request of the livery. The
mayor agreed to summon a court but declined to allow the application
of the livery to be placed on the paper of business. A Common Council
was eventually summoned for the 20th, when the several applications
of the livery and of the members of the court having been read, a
motion was made that the Common Council should give instructions to
the city members to support Sawbridge's bill. This motion being lost,
another was made and carried, desiring the lord mayor to summon a
Common Hall for the same purpose. Thereupon Nash addressed the court
in these words:--"I am very sorry this question has been put, I cannot
grant your request for the reasons given in my former answer to the
livery to which I refer you." After passing a resolution that such
members of the court as were also members of parliament, should be
requested to support every measure tending to shorten the duration of
parliaments, the court proceeded to consider whether it should not on
its own responsibility issue precepts for a Common Hall. It was at
length decided to leave this question to a committee.[329] _Junius_
was very disgusted at Nash's conduct. "What an abandoned prostituted
idiot is your lord mayor,"--is the choice expression he makes use of to
Woodfall, his printer. Again, "the shameful mismanagement which brought
him into office, gave me the first and unconquerable disgust."[330]
In the following May the committee just mentioned recommended that
counsel's opinion should be taken on the matter referred to them, but
by this time Sawbridge's motion had been rejected, and all immediate
necessity for an extraordinary Common Hall had passed away.[331] When
Nash quitted office, this refusal of his to summon a Common Hall was
remembered against him, and the customary vote of thanks was denied
him.[332]

[Sidenote: Instructions of livery to city members, _re_ short
parliaments, 24 June, 1772.]

Matters remained as they were until Midsummer-day, when the livery took
the opportunity of a meeting of Common Hall to draw up instructions to
the city members to support Sawbridge and short parliaments. The terms
of the address were scarcely such as a member of Parliament of the
present day would tolerate from his constituents:--"When we made choice
of you, sirs, to transact our business in Parliament we considered all
of you to be possessed of fortune sufficient to render you independent;
but such is the depravity of the present age that the more wealthy
seem the easiest to be corrupted. Altho' some of you may have approved
yourselves worthy of the confidence reposed in you, yet others, we are
sorry to be obliged to observe, have been deficient in their duty. It
becomes necessary, therefore, that we should exercise our indisputable
right of instructing you, our representatives." All the oppression
under which the country had suffered for the last thirteen years were
due (they said) to long parliaments. As for the existing House they had
not a good word to say. What (they asked) was to be thought of a House
"which, devoid of all decency, could force the poor timid servant of a
corporation to erase a judicial record--an House that could even punish
two members of its own body in a most arbitrary manner for acting with
integrity in a judicial capacity, nay! for adhering to their charters
and their oaths, and virtuously administering justice!" Experience
had taught them that what had been intended as a bulwark of their
liberties had become a mere engine of oppression. A worthy alderman
of the city (they declared in conclusion) had realised the danger of
septennial parliaments, and had more than once endeavoured to shorten
their duration, but unfortunately he had not received the support he
deserved. As Sawbridge would no doubt renew his motion in the coming
winter they insisted that each member should "afford him all possible
support in order to restore us to our antient right of annually
electing our representatives in Parliament."[333] Brave words, these!
but all to little purpose. The Septennial Act outlived this and many
another effort to obtain its repeal, and remains in force to this day.

[Sidenote: Townshend elected mayor, 24 Oct., 1772.]

The election of a mayor to succeed Nash was keenly contested. Bankes,
Hallifax and Shakespeare were the senior aldermen below the chair, but
these were set aside by the livery in favour of Wilkes and Townshend. A
poll was demanded, and the business of taking the poll lasted until the
8th October. The king was in a great state of excitement, and was kept
posted up by Lord North with each day's proceedings. "I trust by your
account of this day's poll," he wrote to the minister (3 Oct.),[334]
"that there can be no doubt that it will end favourably; the mob being
less quiet this day is a proof that to [_sic_] _riot_, not numbers, the
_patriots_ alone can draw advantage." Again on the 5th October, when
the voice of the city was evidently in favour of Wilkes, he writes:
"The unpromising appearance of this day's poll does not in the least
surprise me, knowing that Wilkes is not bound by any tyes, therefore
would poll non-freemen rather than lose the election." He fancied that
if Wilkes failed to get returned as one of the two to be submitted to
the Court of Aldermen for selection he would not be allowed to stand
again,[335] but here the king was in error. His hopes were damped by
Wilkes being returned at the head of the poll, followed closely by
Townshend, their respective votes being 2,301 and 2,278.[336] Although
Townshend and Wilkes were at the time personal enemies, yet many of
Wilkes's friends were induced to give Townshend their second votes, in
order to prevent a "court candidate" being successful. This at least
is Horace Walpole's account, who declares that Townshend "disdained
to canvass or even to attend the election," and that without the
assistance of Wilkes's supporters he would have had "scarce any votes."
On the other hand we must remember that, intense as was the personal
animosity at this time between Townshend and Wilkes, both of them
had one and the same political object in view, viz., the overthrow
of the government, and Townshend must have added considerably to his
popularity in the city by his recent refusal to pay his land tax on the
plea that the Parliament which had ordained it was no true Parliament
owing to the exclusion of Wilkes and intrusion of Luttrell.[337] The
king's only remaining hope was that the result of the poll might be
upset by a scrutiny demanded on behalf of Hallifax and Shakespeare. "I
hope the scrutiny will be conducted with great exactness," he again
writes to Lord North (6 Oct.), at the same time expressing a doubt
as to whether such a thing was to be expected from Oliver and Watkin
Lewes, who had succeeded Wilkes and Bull in the shrievalty. If these
did their duty he felt sure it would go hard with Wilkes, whose "little
regard to true votes" would soon be exposed, and "do him great injury,
even among his admirers."[338]

Again the king was doomed to disappointment. The scrutiny, according
to the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Common Hall preserved at the
Guildhall, continued until the 24th day of the month, when the votes
for each candidate were declared to be exactly the same as before,
and Wilkes and Townshend being returned to the Court of Aldermen for
their selection of one, that body chose Townshend to be mayor for the
ensuing year. According to Walpole[339] the scrutiny was not proceeded
with, and Wilkes was certain of being elected (Townshend being expected
to withdraw in his favour) had not alderman and sheriff Oliver, his
former friend, brought about his defeat by hastily collecting a Court
of Aldermen before the Wilkite aldermen could take their seats, and
getting Townshend named lord mayor. Such a proceeding on the part of
Oliver is scarcely probable, if, indeed possible, and receives no
corroboration from the City's record of what took place.[340]

[Sidenote: Riot at the Guildhall on lord mayor's day, 9 Nov., 1772.]

On lord mayor's day the partisans of Wilkes, smarting at their defeat,
raised a riot at night outside the Guildhall, where a ball was being
held. The assistance of the Artillery Company had to be called in, and
they remained on duty all night. The new lord mayor, who was somewhat
hot-headed, "proposed to sally out with drawn swords and fall on the
mob," but was restrained. He, however, caused some of the rioters to be
seized and committed to Newgate, and declared that he would bring home
the riot to Wilkes. The whole city was now, and had been for some time,
so split up into factions that even a vote of thanks to the Artillery
Company for striving to keep order was with difficulty passed.[341] "A
headstrong, self-willed spirit has sunk the City into nothing," wrote
Chatham at the beginning of the year.[342] The government could afford
to look upon Wilkes's disappointment and the unpopularity of Townshend
with complacency, the real damage was to the nation, which, to use the
words of Walpole, "saw those who would have gone farthest to stem the
encroachments of the crown divided and warring each other."[343]

[Sidenote: Resolution of Court of Aldermen _re_ short parliaments, 16
Feb., 1773.]

Following in the steps of Sawbridge, his brother alderman and colleague
during his shrievalty, Townshend introduced a motion before the
Court of Aldermen on the 16th February (1773) to the effect "that
a frequent appeal to the constituent part of the people by short
parliaments is their undoubted right and the only means by which they
can enjoy or maintain their right of a real representation."[344]
Wilkes was the only alderman who raised any objection to the motion.
He would willingly have given his vote against it, if only to spite
Townshend, but he dared not do so. The motion was therefore carried
unanimously.[345]

[Sidenote: Another remonstrance of the livery, 11 March, 1773.]

Three weeks later (11 March) a special Common Hall was summoned for the
purpose of drawing up another remonstrance to the king, and of pledging
the livery and the city members to use their utmost endeavours to
obtain shorter parliaments. This new remonstrance--a "flagrant piece
of impertinence," as the king styled it in a letter to Lord North (13
March)[346]--was said to have been the work of Wilkes, who drafted
it in such terms that his enemy the lord mayor "would be undone at
St. James's if he presented it, and stoned by the people if he did
not."[347] It was resolved that the remonstrance should be presented by
the mayor, the city members, the aldermen, the sheriffs and ten of the
livery in their gowns, attended by the Recorder and city officers.[348]
Wilkes showed considerable shrewdness in declining to attend, excusing
himself on the ground that he knew himself to be personally disliked
by the king. He would, he said, willingly have attended had he been
sheriff, but now that he was only an alderman there was no reason
for him to thrust himself where he was not wanted. "I am not used
to go into any gentleman's house who does not wish to see me."[349]
Even the livery seemed to shrink from having a hand in presenting so
disreputable an address, for only eight of them attended at St. James's.

[Sidenote: The king's reply, 26 March.]

The document was presented to the king on Friday, the 26th March. It
was (presumably) received on the throne, although the Common Council
do not appear to have been present to give it a corporate character.
A copy of it had previously reached the king's hands, and he had made
up his mind, as he told Lord North,[350] that a "dry answer, rather
bordering on contempt than anger," was the most suitable reply to make
to a representation at once "the most violent, insolent and licentious
ever presented." The answer he actually returned was more than "dry,"
and the deputation was dismissed with his majesty declaring that their
petition was so void of foundation, and withal so disrespectful, that
"I am convinced you do not yourselves seriously imagine it can be
complied with."[351]

[Sidenote: Wilkes again claims his seat, 26 April, 1773.]

A month later an opportunity was afforded Wilkes of again claiming
his seat in Parliament. War with France seemed imminent, and a call
of the House[352] was moved for the 26th April. The sheriffs of
London[353] thereupon sent a summons to Wilkes (_not_ Luttrell) as
member for Middlesex, and informed the Speaker of what they had done.
Wilkes also wrote a bold letter to the Speaker asserting his right. On
the day of the call Wilkes went to the crown office and demanded his
writ, which was refused him by the deputy-clerk. Thence he proceeded
to Westminster, attended by his friends and supporters. The guards
were held in readiness, but there was no disturbance. Glynn--recently
appointed Recorder of London--moved that Wilkes should be heard at the
bar of the House as to his complaint against the deputy-clerk, and the
motion was seconded by Sawbridge. The House was in no mood, however, to
meet one who had so often worsted them, and the motion was rejected by
227 votes to 124.[354]

[Sidenote: The powers of the livery defined, 1773.]

When Midsummer-day (1773) came round Plumbe and Kirkman were for the
fourth time rejected for the shrievalty in favour of Plomer and Sayre.
Plomer paid fine and Lee was elected in his place. The livery being
determined more than ever to win their independence and to break away
from the authority of the mayor, took the opportunity of their meeting
together to consult the new Recorder upon the question "whether the
livery of London legally assembled in Common Hall, either on this or
any other day, have not a right to enter upon any matter of public
grievance they may think proper?" Glynn at once replied that they had
an undoubted right, and that it was "beyond dispute that the right is
inherent in them."[355] This important _dictum_ negativing, as it did,
a decision of Glynn's predecessor,[356] was afterwards used by Wilkes
with effect in his famous letter to Lord Hertford (2 May, 1775).

[Sidenote: Plumbe's case.]

The aspirations of the livery were (at least for a time) damped by the
decision given a few weeks later in a case known as "Plumbe's case." It
will be remembered that in 1770 certain livery companies had objected
to the tone of a recent remonstrance, and had in consequence passed
resolutions forbidding their members to attend Common Halls except
for the purpose of elections. A joint committee of the livery and the
Common Council had thereupon been appointed to take counsel's opinion
upon the rights of the livery.[357] Among the counsel consulted on
the question was Glynn, and he and his brethren had given it as their
opinion (June, 1771) that the mayor for the time being might legally
summon a Common Hall; that it was the duty of those livery companies
to whom precepts were sent by the mayor to execute those precepts, and
that a wilful refusal was punishable by disfranchisement, the procedure
being by way of information filed by the common sergeant in the mayor's
court. Informations had accordingly been filed against the masters or
wardens of the several companies of Goldsmiths, Weavers and Grocers by
order of Common Hall,[358] but only one, viz., that against Alderman
Plumbe, of the Goldsmiths, was proceeded with. The question was tried
before a jury on the 14th July of this year (1773) with the result that
Plumbe was convicted and adjudged to be disfranchised.[359]

[Sidenote: Counsel's opinion on the powers of Common Hall.]

The powers of the livery were further defined in a legal opinion
delivered about this time by the Recorder and Common Sergeant on the
questions (1) Whether the lord mayor, aldermen and livery of London
in Common Hall assembled could do any corporate act except under the
powers given them by Acts of Parliament; (2) Whether an order of the
livery in Common Hall to the Town Clerk to affix his signature to such
a document as the last remonstrance would be a sufficient justification
for him in a court of law in case of a criminal prosecution; and
lastly (3) Whether individuals signing such a remonstrance be liable
to a prosecution of libel? To the first two questions counsel made
the following answer;--"From the best information wee can get of the
usage and constitution of the City the Common Hall is not empowered
to do any act strictly corporate not having the direction of the
City Seal. They can do no act that binds the estate of the City or
that effects the admission or removal of any of its members." Then,
referring to the former opinion of the Recorder just mentioned, they
proceeded to say;--"wee did in concurrence with Mr. Solicitor-General
and Mr. Dunning upon consideration give an opinion that a Common Hall
was a lawful assembly vested with legal powers. Wee find that opinion
warranted by Lord Coke's authority, and therefore without more research
and enquiry than can now be made, wee cannot alter our opinion." They
were further of opinion "that no Act of Common Hall can endanger the
Charters or Franchises of the city, and wee think that the right of
petitioning a necessary consequence of a lawful assembly." As a result
of their answer to the first question they believed that the Town
Clerk, being by office the clerk of a legally convened meeting of the
Common Hall, would not render himself criminally liable by giving his
signature to the acts and resolutions of that assembly. As to the
question of libel, that depended upon a variety of circumstances, but
in their private opinion counsel believed that no one presenting the
late remonstrance could be treated legally as a criminal.[360]

[Sidenote: Bull, mayor, elected M.P. for the City, Dec., 1773.]

At Michaelmas, Wilkes again put up for the mayoralty, but although
he was again returned at the head of the poll he was again rejected
by the Court of Aldermen in favour of his friend Bull.[361] Before
the end of the year Bull was also chosen member for the City in the
place of Ladbroke, who had died. A petition was laid before Parliament
against his election, and in favour of his opponent, John Roberts, a
court candidate, but was afterwards withdrawn.[362] The king had at
one time expressed himself to North as thinking it best not to offer
any opposition to Bull's election as member for the city, unless there
was a good hope of success. "If Alderman Bull can be with success
opposed, I should think it eligible; but if that is not pretty certain
it is best not to interfere."[363] On learning, however, that Roberts,
a former director of the East India Company, was about to stand he
wished him success.[364] Previous to his election Bull signed an
engagement (formulated by the livery at their meeting in March), to
use his best endeavours to shorten the duration of parliaments; to
exclude pensioners and placemen from the House; to establish a fair and
equal representation of the people in Parliament; and to redress the
grievances and secure the constitutional rights of his fellow subjects
in Great Britain, Ireland and America. He also solemnly promised not to
accept from the crown or its ministers any place, pension, contract,
title, gratuity or emolument whatsoever.[365]

[Sidenote: England and the American colonies,
1765-1774.]

It was during Bull's mayoralty that the relations between England and
her American colonies became so strained that in 1775 the two countries
were at open war. For the past ten years the colonies had displayed
more or less resistance to the British government. In 1765 the Stamp
Act was passed, and in the following year it had to be repealed.
The irritation caused by its imposition remained, however, and the
colonists began to ignore the authority of British Acts of Parliament.
In 1767 another Act was passed by Parliament imposing import duties in
America upon certain articles, and among them upon tea; but the Act was
rendered from the outset almost a dead letter through the resistance
offered to the execution of its provisions. Matters were not improved
by the repeal of all the duties, except that on tea, three years later
(1770), more especially when the Americans learnt that Lord North
openly acknowledged that he retained the tea duty, not on account of
its value, but simply in order to assert the right of England to tax
her colonies. The crisis came in 1773, when the tea-ships lying in
Boston harbour were attacked, and their cargo flung into the sea. In
September of the following year (1774) all the American colonies agreed
to combine in stopping commercial intercourse with Great Britain until
their grievances were redressed.

[Sidenote: The city and the Quebec Bill, 1774.]

In the meantime a Bill had passed the Lords, and been sent down to
the Commons, giving a constitution to Canada. The City presented a
strong petition against the Bill (3 June) as unduly favouring the
Roman Catholics, and begged the king to withhold his assent after the
Bill had passed both Houses.[366] It was to no purpose. The country
generally, and the clergy of the Established Church more particularly,
showed great indifference,[367] and the Bill became law. The mayor
received a letter of thanks from the Protestant settlers in Quebec,
through Francis Maseres, (Cursitor Baron) for what the City had done
in the matter; and the City thus encouraged resolved to continue its
efforts and endeavour to get the Act repealed as soon as possible.[368]
The king was strongly of opinion that the agitation in the City was
merely got up "just to make a noise" at the coming elections in Common
Hall,[369] and Walpole appears to have been much of the same opinion.
He believed it was a move on the part of Wilkes in order to carry the
election of sheriffs. By getting two friends appointed sheriffs he
would be in a position to get Reynolds, his own attorney and election
agent, appointed under-sheriff, and so "be more sure of the returning
officer against the general election," which was fast approaching.[370]
If this were so his scheme was frustrated for his nominees failed to
get elected.

[Sidenote: Wilkes elected mayor, 8 Oct., 1774.]

His star nevertheless was soon to be again in the ascendant. At the
next election to the mayoralty, he was not only again returned at the
head of the poll, but second to him was Bull, his friend, and actual
mayor. The other candidates who went to the poll were James Esdaile
and Brackley Kennet, both of them senior to Wilkes. Hallifax and
Shakespeare, the senior of all did not even go to the poll. Sawbridge
who was next below Wilkes did not press his candidature, as the
latter--according to Walpole--"had regained him by promising to bring
him into parliament for the city." According to the same authority
Wilkes "made" Bull decline the chair a second time, and hence it came
to pass that when these two were returned to the Court of Aldermen,
eleven voted for Wilkes, whilst only two, viz., Townshend and Oliver,
voted for Bull. "Thus, after so much persecution of the court, after
so many attempts on his life, after a long imprisonment in a goal,
after all his crimes and indiscretions, did this extraordinary man, of
more extraordinary fortune, attain the highest office in so grave and
important a city as the capital of England."[371] That night Alderman
Harley, an old opponent of Wilkes, had his windows broken, and the
culprit was carried before Wilkes himself.[372]

[Sidenote: Takes his seat as M.P. for Middlesex, Nov., 1774.]

Nor did his success end here. The mayoralty election was still pending
when parliament was dissolved (30 Sept.), and writs issued for a
new one to meet on the 29th November. Wilkes was again returned for
Middlesex and with him his friend, Glynn, the Recorder. The popularity
of Wilkes was indeed now so great that he was believed to be capable
of carrying no less than twelve seats. Prior to their election both
candidates signed an undertaking to use their best endeavours to
shorten the duration of parliaments, remove placemen and pensioners
from the House, advocate the repeal of the Quebec Act, and generally
to follow the line of policy adopted by the livery of London, and
recently accepted by Bull.[373] When the City elections came on, Bull
and Oliver kept their seats, although Oliver declined to enter into
any engagement. Wilkes kept his promise with Sawbridge (if any were
really given), and Sawbridge was returned together with Wilkes's own
brother-in-law, George Hayley. The irrepressible demagogue was at
last allowed to take his seat without any opposition. Had he been
permitted to have done so five years before, he would probably have
sunk into insignificance, but now he "forced his way triumphantly, and
came vested with the insignia of the first magistracy in England, and
supported by half a dozen members of his own nomination."[374] His
triumph was complete in 1782, when he succeeded in getting the House to
stultify itself by rescinding its proceedings touching the Middlesex
elections.[375] In the dogged persistence with which he fought the
House of Commons and finally came off victorious, he reminds us of no
one so much as of the late Charles Bradlaugh, member for Northampton;
in other respects the two characters will not bear comparison.

FOOTNOTES:

[269] See _Annals of the Mayoralty of the Right Hon. Barlow Trecothick,
Esq._, ascribed to Wilkes, printed in Stephens's Memoirs of John Horne
Tooke, i, 191, note.

[270] Annual Register, xiii, 161, 162.

[271] _Id._, xiii, 157.

[272] Journal 65, fos. 140 _seq._ The king was very angry at having
to receive more of this "stuff." "The idea of a fresh address,
remonstrance and petition is so extremely absurd, and considering the
time I may add puerile, that it deserves contempt."--The king to Lord
North, 15 Nov., 1770.--Correspondence, i, 39.

[273] Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 196, 197.

[274] Journal House of Commons, xxi, 238.

[275] Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 278, 287-289.

[276] Correspondence, i, 64.

[277] Crosby sat for Honiton, whilst Oliver had succeeded Beckford as
one of the members for the city. Wilkes was also summoned to attend,
but not as a member. He therefore disobeyed the summons, informing
the Speaker by letter that when admitted to his seat for Middlesex he
would attend, but not before.--Gentleman's Magazine, xli, 140; Annual
Register, xiv, 188.

[278] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 275.

[279] Annual Register, xiv, 83.

[280] Walpole to Mann, 22 March.--Letters, v, 286.

[281] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 269.

[282] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 275; Journal 65, fo. 210.

[283] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 279, 280.

[284] "Last night, when I went to bed at half-an-hour after twelve, I
had just been told that all the avenues to the House were blockaded,
and had beaten back the peace-officers who had been summoned, for it
was _toute autre chose_ yesterday when the lord mayor went to the
House from what it had been the first day." Walpole to Mann, 26 March,
1771.--Letters, v, 291.

[285] Annual Register, xiv, 84; Gentleman's Magazine, xli, 141.

[286] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 283-285.

[287] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 285, 286. Walpole to Mann, 26
March, 1771, Letters, v, 291. Calcraft to Chatham, 26 March; Barré
to the same, 26 March, Chatham Correspondence, iv, 125-127, 131-133.
Walpole, Memoirs of reign of George III, iv, 299, 300.

[288] Barré to Chatham, 26 March.--Chatham Correspondence, iv, 134.
Gentleman's Magazine, xli, 170. Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 300, 301.

[289] Journal 65, fos. 212-212b.

[290] Chatham to Calcraft, 26 March, 1771; The same to Barré. 26
March.--Chatham Correspondence, iv, 129-130, 136-137.

[291] Letters of Junius, iii, 376.

[292] Annual Register, xiv, 85. Gentleman's Magazine, xli, 141.
Calcraft to Chatham, 28 March, 1771.--Chatham Correspondence, iv,
138-140. Walpole to Mann, 30 March.--Letters, v, 292. Walpole Memoirs,
iv, 292.

[293] Baker sat for Plympton Earls, co. Devon, and Martin for Gatton,
co. Surrey.

[294] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 289.

[295] _Id., ibid._

[296] Journal 65, fos. 213, 214, 214b.

[297] Referring to Bills in Parliament for embanking the Thames for the
purpose of building Adelphi Terrace, which was deemed to encroach upon
the City's rights of conservancy.--Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 173.

[298] Journal 65, fo. 214b.

[299] Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 307; The _Middlesex Journal_, 2 April,
1771; The _London Chronicle_, 2-6 April.

[300] Junius to the _Public Advertiser_, 13 Aug., 1771; Woodfall,
Letters of Junius, ii, 307.

[301] Journal 65, fo. 222.

[302] _Id._, fo. 226.

[303] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 165.

[304] Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 328. The number "allowed by law" appears to
have been ten.

[305] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 167.

[306] The _London Chronicle_, 13-16 April, 1771.

[307] The king to Lord North, 26 June, 1771.--Correspondence, i. 76.

[308] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 161, 161b.

[309] Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 328. The letter will be found printed in
Woodfall's Letters of Junius, ii, 252, 253, note.

[310] Walpole to Mann, 6 July, 1771.--Letters, v, 313.

[311] Wilkes to Junius, 12 Sept. and 17 Oct., 1771.--Woodfall, Letters
of Junius, i, 299, 323.

[312] Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i, 322.

[313] Wilkes to Junius, 17 Oct., 1771. Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i,
323-325.

[314] Junius to Wilkes, 21 Oct., 1771.--Letters of Junius, i, 325-328.

[315] Horne to Junius, 13 July, 1771. _Id._, ii, 259.

[316] A hit at Wilkes's connection with the city. It was usual at one
time for the chamberlain thus to address a recipient of the honorary
freedom of the city. The expression went out of use, but was revived by
Wilkes when he became chamberlain.

[317] Horne to Wilkes, 10 July.--Stephens, Memoirs of John Horne Tooke,
i, 310.

[318] "Mr. Wilkes, if not persecuted, will soon be forgotten."--Junius
to the Duke of Grafton, 24 April, 1769. Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i,
478.

[319] Junius to Horne, 24 July, 1771. _Id._, ii, 267.

[320] The letter was placed in Wilkes's hand by a chairman, who said he
brought it from a gentleman he had met in the Strand. _Id._, i, 263,
note.

[321] It is strange to find Wilkes giving this character of a mayor,
who had shown him great partiality at the time that No. 45 of the
_North Briton_ was ordered to be burnt at the Royal Exchange--and who
in other respects displayed a distinct democratic tendency. Can it
be possible that Wilkes was hood-winking _Junius_, and that he would
have been equally pleased to have seen either Bridgen or Crosby in the
mayoralty chair?

[322] Wilkes to Junius, 12 Sept., 1771.--Woodfall, i, 297-304.

[323] Junius to Wilkes, 18 Sept., 1771.--Woodfall, i, 307-308.

[324] Both Sir Henry Bankes and Richard Peers were senior to Nash, and
both were nominated at the election.--Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 166.

[325] Woodfall, Letters of Junius, ii, 338-344.

[326] Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 346.

[327] Journal 65, fos. 250, 253. Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 165.

[328] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 162-163.

[329] Journal 65, fos. 278b-280b.

[330] Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i, 250.

[331] Journal 65, fos. 289b, 290. Journal House of Commons, xxxiii,
553. Walpole, Journal of reign of George III, i, 26, 42.

[332] Journal 65, fo. 311.

[333] These instructions were not entered on record until the following
Midsummer-day (1773).--Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 176b, 177.

[334] Correspondence, i, 110.

[335] _Ibid._

[336] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 171b.

[337] Townshend even allowed his goods to be seized rather than pay the
tax, and then brought an action for trespass. The case had come on for
hearing in June last, when Lord Mansfield, finding that counsel for
the plaintiff wanted the court to retry the judgment of the House of
Commons touching the case of the Middlesex election, stopt the case,
and ordered the jury to find for the defendant.--Walpole, "Journal of
the reign of George III," i, 124-126.

[338] Correspondence, i, 112.

[339] Journal of the reign of George III, i, 164.

[340] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 171b.

[341] Journal 65, fo. 311b.

[342] Chatham to Shelburne, 10 Jan., 1772.--Chatham Correspondence, iv,
187.

[343] "Journal of the reign of George III," i, 164, 165.

[344] Repertory 177, fo. 164.

[345] Walpole, Journal, i, 184, 185.

[346] Correspondence, i, 125.

[347] Walpole, Journal, i, 188, 189.

[348] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 175b.

[349] Walpole, Journal, i, 192.

[350] The king to Lord North, 13 March, 1773.--Correspondence, i, 125.

[351] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 176b.

[352] This was something in the nature of a "whip," the custom being
for the Speaker to send notice to the sheriffs to summon all their
members to attend on a certain day.

[353] Watkin Lewes and Oliver.

[354] Journal House of Commons, xxxiv, 283; Walpole, Journal, i,
194-197.

[355] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 176b.

[356] Gentleman's Magazine, xliii, 300.

[357] _Supra_, p. 94.

[358] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 162-163.

[359] This judgment was reversed in 1775, and from that day to this the
lord mayor has been unable to compel the attendance of the livery at
Common Hall.--Journal 66, fos. 36b, 349b-350b. See also "Case of Mr.
Alderman Plumbe" (Guildhall Library) where the judgments of the several
judges in error are set out with comments by James Roberts, the city
solicitor.

[360] This opinion was ordered to be entered in the Repertory of the
Court of Aldermen (19 Oct., 1773).--Repertory 177, fos. 439-445.

[361] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 178. The contest was so
equal that Wilkes only lost the election by the casting vote of
Townshend.--Walpole, Journal, i, 262.

[362] Walpole, Journal, i, 275, 297, 301, 325; Gentleman's Magazine,
xliv, 291.

[363] The king to North, 31 Oct., 1773.--Correspondence, i, 153.

[364] The same to the same, 12 Nov., 1773.--_Id._, i, 155-156.

[365] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 183.

[366] Journal 66, fos. 105b-106; Journal House of Commons, xxxiv, 765,
803; Gentleman's Magazine, xliv, 247, 283.

[367] Walpole, Journal, i, 376, 377.

[368] Journal 66, fos. 170-172, 178, 179.

[369] The king to Lord North, 18 June, 1774.--Correspondence, i, 192.

[370] Walpole, Journal, i, 380-382.

[371] Walpole, Journal, i, 420.

[372] Gentleman's Magazine, xliv, 491.

[373] Gentleman's Magazine, xliv, 444.

[374] Walpole, Journal, i, 427.

[375] Journal House of Commons, xxxviii, 977.



CHAPTER XXXIX.


[Sidenote: Wilkes and the Court of Aldermen.]

Wilkes had not long occupied the mayoralty chair before he came into
serious collision with the Court of Aldermen. In November (1774) an
election of an alderman for the Ward of Bridge Within took place, and
John Hart, one of the sheriffs, was returned at the head of the poll,
defeating his opponent, William Neate, by four votes. A scrutiny was
demanded, and, in spite of an objection raised by Hart on technical
grounds, was allowed to proceed. Whilst the scrutiny was proceeding
Hart appeared before the Court of Aldermen and claimed to be admitted
to his seat. Neate was also in attendance, but the Court declined to
hear him. Wilkes thereupon adjourned the Court until after the result
of the scrutiny was known. On the 24th November the votes were cast up
in the presence of Wilkes and his predecessor in office (under whom the
original wardmote for the election had been held), when there appeared
95 votes for Neate, as against 84 for Hart. The result of the poll
was thus reversed. Nevertheless, when the Court of Aldermen met the
next day they insisted upon Wilkes putting the question for Hart to be
called in and sworn, whilst they persistently refused to hear Neate or
his attorney, Reynolds--Wilkes's own friend and election agent. This
he positively refused to do, and the matter was allowed to stand over,
both parties having in the meantime applied to the King's Bench for
writs of _mandamus_.[376]

[Sidenote: Comments of the _Public Advertiser_, 28 Nov., 1774.]

The proceedings of the aldermen were published in the _Public
Advertiser_ of the 28th November, and were severely commented upon,
whilst the action of Wilkes was highly approved of. "The spirit of
injustice and violence which influenced the proceedings of the Court
of Aldermen on Tuesday"--it was reported--"predominated stronger on
Friday by the arrival of Mr. Harley. One of the candidates for the
vacant aldermanship of Bridge Within, William Neate, Esq., was refused
to be heard, and likewise his agent, Mr. John Reynolds. Mr. Houston,
the attorney who officiated at the wardmote, was not suffered to make
his report of the election. Mr. Alderman Kirkman acquainted the Court
that he had been served with a _mandamus_ from the Court of King's
Bench to swear in Mr. Neate, but no attention was paid to him. Mr.
Townshend and Mr. Oliver insisted on the swearing in of Mr. Hart
immediately, and Mr. Harley's natural violence and rage were brought
in aid to the intemperate and unjust spirit of the other two aldermen.
The lord mayor, however, had too much firmness to yield to an act of
palpable partiality and injustice, and prevented the disgrace, which
otherwise that Court would have received, by repeatedly refusing to put
the question."[377] The whole passage reads very much as if inspired
by Wilkes himself; but whether this were so or not, Wilkes entered
his protest against a resolution of the Court that the paragraph was
injurious to the honour of the Court and "not founded in truth,"
because he apprehended that it _was_ "founded in truth."

[Sidenote: Refusal by Wilkes to put a question reflecting upon himself,
29 Nov., 1774.]

Before the aldermen again met (29 Nov.) the city solicitor, acting
(apparently) upon instructions from Wilkes, had defended Hart's
_mandamus_, and at the next Court that officer was severely questioned
on the matter, and was told that the Court would not allow him his
costs. A motion was at the same time made to the effect that the lord
mayor having refused to put a question which the Court of Aldermen
was competent to decide, had violated the right of election in the
freemen of the city, as represented in that Court. It was, of course,
the business of Wilkes to put this question, but unlike Trevor, the
Speaker, who stultified himself before the House of Commons in 1695,
Wilkes positively declined, telling his brother aldermen that he
thanked God he was "not quite idiot enough" for that.[378] A week later
(6 Dec.) the Court passed a resolution to the effect that Neate had
not been duly elected, and Wilkes again protested. The Court thereupon
proposed to swear in Hart, but Wilkes again refused to put the question
for the reason that the parties had not been heard.[379] Matters were
thus brought to a deadlock. At length--on the 17th January, 1775--the
Court put itself in order by hearing Neate, and immediately afterwards
passed a resolution for calling in and swearing Hart. Wilkes no longer
raised any objection, and Hart was sworn.[380] Hart did not long
enjoy his victory, for by a judgment of the King's Bench, pronounced
in Easter term, 1776, he was excluded from intermeddling with the
aldermanry, and on the 18th June Thomas Wooldridge (_not_ Neate) was
admitted in his place.[381] As between Wilkes and the Court of Aldermen
the honours certainly lay with the former, and he did not hesitate to
tell the Court that he intended to pursue the same line of conduct
throughout his year of office in spite of all the Court might think or
do;--"I declared that I never would put a question to decide the merits
of a cause before this Court until both the parties had been heard.
The Court at last consented that Mr. Neate should be heard, and only
after he had been heard did I put the question.... The same line of
truth and impartiality I will steadily pursue thro' the whole course
of my mayoralty, regardless of any resolutions of this Court which are
repugnant to the great principles of justice or the fair rights of the
chief magistrate."[382]

[Sidenote: The new Parliament and the American colonies, 1775.]

The result of the recent general election proved to be in favour of the
ministry, and distinctly anti-American. The nation had declared for
war, and nothing that the City could do was of any avail to prevent
it. As soon as Parliament met (19 Jan., 1775) Chatham went down to
the Lords and urged the advisability of addressing the king for the
removal of the troops from Boston as a conciliatory measure. He was
determined, he said, not to let the matter rest, but would labour to
bring the country to a sense of the impending danger:--"I wish, my
lords, not to lose a day in this urgent, pressing crisis; an hour now
lost in allaying ferments in America may produce years of calamity;
for my own part, I will not desert, for a moment, the conduct of this
weighty business from the first to the last, unless nailed to my bed
by the extremity of sickness. I will give it unremitted attention;
I will knock at the door of this sleeping and confounded ministry,
and will rouse them to a sense of their impending danger."[383] The
citizens of London were among the few who supported Chatham at this
momentous crisis in the country's history, and they despatched the
Town Clerk to the earl's country seat with an address of thanks, which
was acknowledged in very flattering terms.[384] So far from showing
any disposition to conciliate the colonies by withdrawing troops and
repealing obnoxious Acts, the new House proceeded to consider a Bill
for cutting off the inhabitants of Massachusetts and other parts from
the Newfoundland fishery. To this the Common Council at once entered
their protest, both before the Lords and Commons. It was not to be
supposed, they plainly told Parliament, that a great number of men,
naturally hardy and brave, would quietly submit to a law which would
reduce them to the verge of famine.[385] The warning was to no purpose.
The Bill passed.[386]

[Sidenote: Remonstrance of livery, 5 April, 1775.]

At length matters looked so serious that the livery of London met
in Common Hall on the 5th April and drew up a respectful but solemn
warning to the king himself against the fatal policy pursued by
his ministers towards America. The measures which the government
had recently adopted were declared to be "big with all consequences
which can alarm a free and commercial people." They inflicted (said
the livery) a deep and perhaps fatal wound to commerce; they ruined
manufactures; they reduced the revenue and increased the taxes; and
they alienated the colonists. Here, as ever, commercial interests were
placed by the citizens in the foreground. But commercial interests
did not form the sole motive for this remonstrance. The City's own
liberties were at stake if the liberties of the subject in any part
of the kingdom were infringed;--"Your petitioners conceive the
liberties of the whole to be inevitably connected with those of every
part of an empire, founded on the common rights of mankind. They
cannot, therefore, observe without the greatest concern and alarm the
constitution fundamentally violated in any part of your majesty's
dominions. They esteem it an essential, unalterable principle of
liberty, the source and security of all constitutional rights that no
part of the dominion can be taxed without being represented."[387] The
livery resolved that this address or remonstrance should be presented
by the lord mayor, the city members, the Court of Aldermen (_not_ the
Common Council) and the sheriffs, and that they themselves should
also attend the presentation in a body (and not by deputation, as in
1771 and 1773). Having settled this business, they next proceeded to
pass votes of thanks to the Lords and Commons who had opposed "the
impolitic and inhuman Bill for prohibiting the people of New England
from the Newfoundland fishery, and for their opposition to other
arbitrary, cruel and anti-commercial measures" against their fellow
subjects in America. They also thanked Chatham and Burke for the plan
they had proposed for conciliating the American colonies; and lastly,
they passed a vote of thanks to such of the Commons as had recently
voted on Wilkes's oft repeated motion for expunging the resolutions of
the late Parliament respecting Wilkes and the Middlesex election.[388]

[Sidenote: The King's reply, 10 April, 1775.]

Notwithstanding the absence of the Common Council and the inordinate
number of the livery that had expressed their intention of being
present, the king submitted, rather than risk a contest with the City
with Wilkes in the mayoralty chair. With Wilkes's personal behaviour
at court the king was agreeably surprised, and owned that he had
never seen "so well-bred a lord mayor."[389] The conduct of the
mayor, however, took nothing off the asperity of the king's reply. He
expressed the "utmost astonishment" that any of his subjects should be
capable of encouraging the rebellious spirit which had displayed itself
in some of the colonies in North America. As to the Parliament, which
the livery had recently characterised as a "formidable instrument of
arbitrary power," instead of being the guardian of liberty, he declared
that he had every confidence in it and intended to carry out its
measures.

[Sidenote: Letter from the lord chamberlain to Wilkes, 11 April, 1775.]

The next day (11 April) the Earl of Hertford, the lord chamberlain,
wrote to Wilkes by the king's command, giving him notice that in future
his majesty would not receive on the throne any address, remonstrance
or petition except from the body corporate of the City.

[Sidenote: The lord mayor's reply, 2 May, 1775.]

The lord chamberlain's letter drew forth a long and spirited reply from
Wilkes[390] as to the legal position of Common Halls and the powers and
rights of the livery, in which he refers Lord Hertford to the opinions
of counsel delivered in 1771 and 1773.[391] He reminds his lordship
that the claim which he was making on behalf of the livery of London to
the right of presenting addresses to the king on his throne was of no
little importance, and not to be lightly abandoned or set aside;--"When
his majesty receives on the throne any address it is read by the
proper officer to the king in the presence of the petitioners. They
have the satisfaction of knowing that their sovereign has heard their
complaints. They receive an answer. If the same address is presented
at a levée, or in any other mode, no answer is given. A suspicion may
arise that the address is never heard or read, because it is only
received, and immediately delivered to the lord in waiting." It was on
the throne (the letter continued) that the king and his predecessors
had constantly received addresses of the livery, and "on the most
exact research" not a single instance had been found to the contrary.
Wilkes concluded by expressing his fears lest the unfavourable answer
the king had returned to the remonstrance should be considered by the
American colonies as a fresh mark of the king's anger towards them, as
well as of his displeasure against the faithful citizens of London. The
livery would comfort themselves with the assurance of the king's sense
of justice, which would sooner or later restore them to royal favour;
but the Americans might be driven to despair unless by the merciful
interposition of Providence the hearts of ministers were turned. Wilkes
took care that his letter received the necessary publicity.[392]

[Sidenote: Appeal from New York to the City, 5 May, 1775.]

The warning came too late; open hostilities had already commenced.
The attitude of the colonies towards the mother-country was clearly
defined in a letter addressed to the City of London by the committee
of Association of New York on the 5th May.[393] All the horrors of a
civil war, the letter protested, would never compel America to submit
to taxation by authority of Parliament, although it was perfectly ready
to make voluntary contributions "as Englishmen" to assist the king if
properly requisitioned. The writers appealed to the City of London,
well knowing its attachment to the cause of justice and liberty, and
they concluded their letter with an expression of confidence that it
would use its utmost exertions "to restore union, mutual confidence
and peace to the whole empire." The letter was laid before the Common
Council on Friday, the 23rd June, when it was ordered to be printed,
and a copy to be sent to every member of the Court.[394]

[Sidenote: Proceedings of Common Hall, 24 June, 1775.]

The next day being Midsummer-day the livery met as usual in Common
Hall for the purpose of electing sheriffs and other officers. Alderman
Hayley, the brother-in-law of Wilkes, was one of the sheriffs elected
and Alderman Newnham the other. The ordinary business of the day having
been got through Wilkes formally reported to the Common Hall the king's
reply to the last address of the livery, and next proceeded to lay
before them Lord Hertford's letter and his own reply. These having been
read the Town Clerk was ordered to enter both letters in the City's
Records, and a vote of thanks was passed to Wilkes "for his very able,
judicious and spirited defence of the rights and privileges of the
livery." The livery next proceeded to pass a resolution condemning the
conduct of those ministers who had advised the king not to receive
in future on the throne any address, remonstrance or petition from
the livery of London, as being subversive of the right of the subject
to petition the throne, and as calculated to alienate the minds of
Englishmen from the Hanoverian succession. Then turning from their own
grievances to those of America they passed a vote of thanks to the Earl
of Effingham for his courageous conduct in throwing up his commission
in the army rather than draw his sword against the lives and liberties
of his fellow subjects, and next proceeded to prepare another
remonstrance to the king on the American war.[395]

This new remonstrance was, if possible, stronger and more plain spoken
than any yet presented. The king was told that the power which he
and his ministers claimed to exercise over the colonies, under the
specious name of "dignity," was nothing less than "despotism," and
that as the livery of London would not suffer any man, or any body of
men, to establish arbitrary power over themselves, so they would not
acquiesce in an attempt to force it upon any of their fellow subjects.
They did not hesitate to declare that the majority of the members of
that Parliament, in which the king had recently avowed he placed entire
confidence, were "notoriously bribed to betray their constituents and
their country."[396] Notwithstanding Lord Hertford's recent letter,
they insisted upon the king receiving their address upon the throne,
and intimated their intention of attending the presentation in a body.
This was more than the king could stand, and he determined to put
his foot down. The address not being an address of the Corporation
of London, he expressed his intention of receiving it at his next
levée, and when objection was raised by the sheriffs to this course,
he told them that he was judge where to receive it.[397] This decision
being reported to the livery they resolved (4 July) to publish their
remonstrance, and not to present it. They at the same time passed a
number of resolutions condemning the king's advisers, and ordered the
sheriffs to place in the king's own hands a copy of these resolutions
as well as of those passed on Midsummer-day, signed by the Town
Clerk.[398]

[Sidenote: City Address to the king for cessation of hostilities, 7
July, 1775.]

On Friday, the 7th July, the Common Council took into consideration
the letter from New York, which had been read to the Court on the 23rd
June, and which had by this time been printed and circulated among the
members of the Council, as ordered. A motion was thereupon made that a
humble address and petition should be presented from the Court to his
majesty praying him to suspend hostilities in America, and adopt such
conciliatory measures as might restore union, confidence and peace to
the whole Empire. The motion was carried, but only by a majority of
fifteen; and the address having been drawn up by a committee appointed
for the purpose, was in due course read and approved.[399] It is clear
that the Common Council was half-hearted in the matter. According to
Walpole, it only voted the address in order to satisfy the Americans
who had appealed to London.[400] No doubt Court influence had been at
work;--"If the Common Council can on Friday be prevented from taking
any step with regard to the rebellion in America"--wrote the king to
Lord North--"it would be desirable," at the same time he comforted
himself with the thought that anything that the Common Council might do
would have but little real effect.[401]

[Sidenote: The king's reply, 14 July, 1775.]

The king received the address on the throne with becoming dignity, and
returned for answer that it was a duty he owed his faithful subjects
to enforce respect for the constitutional authority of the kingdom on
those of his American subjects who had openly resisted it. This answer
appears to have had considerable effect upon the Common Council, for
when, a week later, a motion was made to send a reply to the letter
from New York, together with a copy of the City's late address, and the
king's answer, the motion was lost.[402]

[Sidenote: Address of the livery to electors of Great Britain, 29
Sept., 1775.]

On Michaelmas-day, when his successor in the mayoralty chair was chosen
by the livery, Wilkes, who had recently refused to countenance by his
presence the proclamation of the Americans as rebels (23 Aug.),[403]
produced a letter he had received from the Congress at Philadelphia
appealing to the city of London, as the "patron of liberty," to mediate
for the restoration of peace. Thereupon an address to the electors of
Great Britain (prepared at a previous meeting of the livery held at the
Half Moon tavern in Cheapside) calling upon them to assist the livery
to bring to justice the authors of the evils that had arisen in this
country and America was also produced and read. The document pointed to
the increase of national debt and the decrease of national resources
that must supervene if a ruinous and expensive war was to be undertaken
against the American colonies. What was the object of the war? It could
not be the security of England's commerce, for that was not in danger;
neither could it be to bring the colonies into due subordination to
the mother-country, for the colonies themselves had repeatedly and
solemnly acknowledged their subordination and submission to England.
It appeared, then, that the object of the war was nothing else than to
establish the arbitrary power of the crown over their fellow subjects
in America--a measure which would greatly endanger the constitution
at home and increase the number of placemen and pensioners. All that
the colonies asked for was peace, liberty and safety. They had pledged
themselves to be ready and willing in time of war to show their
loyalty to the king and to assist him with money and men to the utmost
of their ability. What more could in justice be required? They had
recently made a final appeal in the hope that the effusion of blood
might be stayed, but to this appeal no answer had been vouchsafed.
"This, gentlemen," the address continued, "is the alarming state of
America, which fills us with anxiety and apprehensions. We lament the
blood that has been already shed; we deplore the fate of those brave
men who are devoted to hazard their lives--not against the enemies
of the British name, but against the friends of the prosperity and
glory of Great Britain; we feel for the honour of the British arms,
sullied--not by the misbehaviour of those who bore them, but by the
misconduct of the ministers who employed them to the oppression of
their fellow subjects; we are alarmed at the immediate, insupportable
expense and the probable consequences of a war which, we are convinced,
originates in violence and injustice, and must end in ruin. These
are the sentiments, gentlemen," concluded this impassionate address,
"which we take the liberty of communicating to you as the reasons upon
which we have acted; trusting that if they meet with your approbation
you will co-operate with us in endeavouring to bring the authors of
those evils to the justice of their country." This "decent but very
strong address," as Walpole called it,[404] was at once adopted as "the
address of the lord mayor, aldermen and livery of London in Common Hall
assembled," and was ordered to be published in the papers.[405]

[Sidenote: Petitions of Common Council in favour of peace, 25 Oct.,
1775.]

The day before Parliament re-assembled in October the Common Council
backed up the livery and prepared addresses to both Houses in favour
of a cessation of hostilities; but the nation was so distinctly in
favour of war that the City could avail nothing, and its petitions were
ordered to lie on the table.[406]

[Sidenote: Arrest of Sayre, an ex-sheriff of London, Oct., 1775.]

The tension of men's minds at this crisis was so great that all kinds
of rumours gained credit, and a certain comical element was introduced
in the midst of the prevailing gloom. A young American officer named
Richardson, who was confined in the Tower, solemnly declared on oath
that Stephen Sayre, an ex-sheriff of London, had paid him a visit and
privately offered him a large sum of money to assist in seizing the
Tower. This was only a part of the conspiracy. The king himself was to
be seized on his way to the House of Lords and forced to call a new
Parliament. Everybody, except the ministers, laughed at the folly of
such a charge. A council was summoned, and by order of the Earl of
Rochfort, secretary of state, Sayre was arrested and--in compliment
to the City, so it was said--committed to the Tower. He was, however,
shortly released.[407]

[Sidenote: Proceedings of Parliament, Oct.-Nov., 1775.]

Parliament met on the 26th without any disturbance, and the king in
his address showed a determination to prosecute the war with vigour.
Sawbridge, who had been elected successor to Wilkes in the mayoralty
chair, took occasion to compare the conduct of Lord Effingham with
that of Lord George Germaine, formerly Lord Sackville, who had
behaved so discreditably at the battle of Minden in 1759, and who
had recently accepted office under the ministry. The one had thrown
up his commission rather than engage in civil war, whilst the other
"had turned pale at the head of squadrons."[408] In the last week of
November, Alderman Oliver, in accordance with a resolution of the
livery of London of the 4th July, moved the House to address his
majesty, that he might be pleased to inform the Commons who were the
advisers of the several measures so obnoxious to the American Colonies.
The motion, however, found but little support except from Wilkes
and Sawbridge, and upon being pressed to a division, was lost by an
overwhelming majority.[409]

[Sidenote: Expenses of Wilkes's mayoralty.]

At the close of Wilkes's mayoralty he received the thanks of the
City for the splendour and hospitality that had marked his year of
office, as well as for "his vigilant and steady attachment to, and
his very able vindication of the constitutional rights of his fellow
subjects."[410] It would never have done for one who had so severely
taken Trecothick to task for failing to maintain the City's reputation
for hospitality, to have himself been deficient in that respect,
whilst occupying the mayoralty chair; but setting this aside, Wilkes
was naturally prone to lavish expenditure whether in or out of office.
The result was that the close of his mayoralty found him in serious
pecuniary difficulties. The lord mayors of that day derived their
income from various sources, among them, being the sale of those places
under the Corporation which happened to fall vacant during their
year of office.[411] No two mayors therefore enjoyed precisely the
same income, whilst their expenditure was then, as now, only limited
by their individual tastes, or the length of their private purses.
Wilkes's receipts during his year of office had amounted to £4,889
o_s._ 6-1/2_d._, whereas his expenditure had been no less than £8,226
13_s._[412] He was therefore out of pocket to the amount of nearly
£3,500, or perhaps we ought rather to say that he would have been out
of pocket to that extent, had he actually disbursed the money. This he
had not done, for the simple reason that he had none to disburse.

[Sidenote: Wilkes a candidate for the Chamberlainship, 1776-1778.]

His impecuniosity led him to consider seriously the advisability of
becoming a candidate for one or other of the more lucrative posts
in the gift of the citizens. Hitherto he had been averse to taking
such a course, but matters had now come to such a pass that when the
Chamberlainship of the City happened to fall vacant in February,
1776, through the resignation of Sir Stephen Janssen, he followed the
advice of his friends, and became a candidate for the post. He was
unsuccessful, however, being defeated by Benjamin Hopkins, a brother
alderman. This being an _interim_ election, Hopkins had again to seek
the suffrages of the livery at Midsummer. Wilkes again opposed him, and
was again defeated; this time by a crushing majority. Here it would
have been well if he had rested satisfied, and not offered any further
opposition when his more successful rival offered himself annually for
re-election, the appointment being virtually during good behaviour.
He was not, however, a man to let any scruples of delicacy stand in
his way, and, moreover, he was being sorely pressed by creditors.
Accordingly, he offered himself as a candidate, in opposition to
Hopkins, at Midsummer, 1777, and again in 1778, but on both occasions
he was defeated.[413]

[Sidenote: His creditors appeal to Common Council, Oct., 1777.]

In the meantime his creditors had again and again applied to him
for the discharge of his mayoralty debts, but could obtain no
satisfaction, beyond a cool assurance that he had expended the whole
of the allowance made him by the City in executing the duties of the
mayoralty; that their claims exceeded this allowance and he could not
therefore discharge them! Was ever impertinence more sublime? Any other
man they would have had laid by the heels, without further ado, but
Wilkes they feared to touch. After much patience and long suffering,
they made so bold as to appeal to the Common Council. This was in
October, 1777. Someone suggested the bestowal of an annuity of £500
upon Wilkes for his public services, but the City wisely decided that
the granting of any annuity to him, or the payment of his debts whether
contracted in or out of office, would establish a bad precedent.[414]

[Sidenote: Wilkes elected Chamberlain. Nov., 1779.]

At Midsummer, 1779, Hopkins offered himself, as usual, to the livery
for re-election to the Chamberlainship, and this time he was returned
unopposed. Wilkes had at last seen the futility of continuing the
struggle. Possibly the state of Hopkins's health may have had something
to do with Wilkes's withdrawal. This, however, is only conjecture. All
that we know is that in the following November Hopkins died, and his
rival at last succeeded in obtaining the much coveted post.[415] This
post--described by Wilkes himself as one of "profit, patronage and
extensive usefulness, with rank and dignity," and sufficient, after the
payment of his debts, to gratify every wish he could form at the age of
fifty-three[416]--he continued to fill with credit to the City (as his
friend Dr. Johnson predicted he would) until the day of his death (26
Dec., 1797), no one being found bold enough ever to oppose his annual
re-election.

[Sidenote: The Freedom of the City to Dr. Richard Price, 14 March,
1776.]

Early in 1776 England and America were startled by the appearance of a
small treatise entitled "Observations on the nature of civil liberty,
the principles of government and the justice and policy of the war in
America." The writer was Dr. Richard Price, a Dissenting minister, who
had devoted much of his leisure to the consideration of questions of
public interest, and more especially finance. The demand for his latest
work was so great that it outran the supply. The Freedom of the City in
a gold box was voted the author,[417] and two years later he received
an invitation to become a citizen of the United States, ample provision
being promised him for the rest of his life if he would go to America
and undertake the regulation of the finances of that country. The offer
was, however, declined on the score of old age.

[Sidenote: City address and king's reply, 22 March, 1776.]

The day that the Common Council voted Dr. Price the Freedom of the
City (14 March, 1776) it resolved once more to address the king with
the view, if possible, of obtaining the postponement of any further
military operations until America had had an opportunity of definitely
refusing such just and honourable terms as this country was willing
to offer. If this were done, England would free herself of any taint
or suspicion of injustice and oppression, whilst the refusal of the
colonies would then become rebellion. The king's reply was brief. He
avoided giving a direct answer to the City's proposal, but contented
himself with expressing his deep concern at the misery which the
colonies had brought upon themselves, and his readiness to extend mercy
and clemency as soon as the "existing rebellion was at an end."[418]

[Sidenote: Declaration of Independence, 4 July, 1776.]

The king's answer shows how little he was acquainted with the real
feeling of the colonists at this time. With them it was no longer
a question of clemency or redress. The idea of a total separation
from the mother-country had already taken shape. France had shown a
disposition to assist them, and thus avenge herself on England for the
Seven Years' war; but with or without France the colonies were bent on
separation, and on the 4th July the Declaration of Independence was
signed.

[Sidenote: Refusal of Sawbridge and Hallifax to back press warrants,
1776-1777.]

In anticipation of France openly declaring war against England, the
government caused warrants to be issued for pressing seamen. These
were executed with great cruelty, and met with much opposition.
When Parliament met on the last day of October, Wilkes took the
opportunity of an amendment being moved to the address to inveigh
against press warrants, as well as against the "savage and piratical,
as well as unjust, war" into which the country had been plunged by
the king's ministers. He told the House that the press-gangs did not
dare enter the City, knowing full well the character of Sawbridge,
the lord mayor.[419] "It is certain," he said, "that no pressing
has at this time been carried on in the city of London or its
liberties. No press-gangs have dared to make their appearance in that
jurisdiction.... The city has hitherto remained in perfect tranquility
by the vigilance, intrepidity and noble love of liberty which are
conspicuous in its present worthy chief magistrate."[420] Sir Thomas
Hallifax, who succeeded Sawbridge in the mayoralty chair,[421] was
equally stern in refusing to back press warrants in the City, and on
two occasions received a formal vote of thanks for so doing from the
Common Council, the first time being in February (1777) and the second
when he quitted office.[422]

[Sidenote: The City refuses to countenance the war.]

In 1777 the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended against all Americans, and
in 1778 public subscriptions were set on foot in support of the war.
The City did all it could to prevent the suspension of Habeas Corpus,
and absolutely refused to subscribe to any bounties or to in any way
countenance, or be instrumental in, the continuation of the war.[423]
The king expressed to Lord North the mortification he felt at the
City's attitude;--"I feared the city was not yet enough returned to
sobriety to be persuaded heartily to support the cause, and therefore
think the friends of government would have acted wiser in adopting a
public subscription unattended with the mortifying circumstance of a
defeat in the Corporation."[424]

[Sidenote: City address, 13 March, 1778.]

At last the ministers themselves began to show a change of front, and
conciliatory measures were introduced and passed.[425] Whilst the
consideration of these measures was pending, the Common Council drew
up another address to the king exhorting him to give effect to those
concessions which they feared might have been granted too late.[426]

[Sidenote: Announcement of alliance between France and America, 13
March, 1778.]

The fears entertained by the citizens were well founded. On the very
day that their address was presented, the French ambassador delivered
to Lord Weymouth a declaration that the king of France had entered into
a treaty of commerce and amity with the Independent States of America,
and that any attempt to interfere with that commerce between those two
countries would be resented by his master. A few days later Benjamin
Franklin was formally received at Versailles as ambassador for the
United States of America.[427] In the face of this new danger, both
Houses rallied round the throne, with vows of support in maintaining
the honour and dignity of the crown and nation, although in both Houses
there were not wanting those who were in favour of petitioning the
king for the removal of those ministers who had brought about all the
mischief. The insulting message sent by France touching interruption
of commerce with America, had in fact rather strengthened the ministry
than otherwise, and a proposal in the Court of Aldermen to summon
a Common Hall for the purpose of agitating for their removal fell
flat.[428]

[Sidenote: The death of Chatham, 11 May, 1778.]

Chatham now became one of the foremost advocates for the maintenance
of the supremacy of Great Britain over its dependencies, however
opposed he had been to the fatal policy that brought the country
to such a crisis; and it was to him that Lord North, who had long
wished to withdraw from the ministry, advised the king to apply for
aid. Even if the king had been willing to trust Chatham, which he was
not, the state of the Earl's health would scarcely have allowed him
to accept a position of such responsibility. His days were in fact
numbered. On Tuesday, the 7th April, he unexpectedly appeared in the
House of Lords, having risen from a sick bed with the sole object of
opposing a motion of the Duke of Richmond, virtually conceding the
independence of the American Colonies. When the Duke had finished his
speech, Chatham, slowly and with difficulty, rose from his seat. In
words that at first were scarcely audible he explained that ill-health
had prevented him from attending, at so important a crisis, to his
parliamentary duties. He had that day made an effort, almost beyond
his strength, to attend the House where, perhaps he might never speak
again, and to express his indignation at the suggestion that had been
made of yielding up the sovereignty of America. "My lords," he said, "I
rejoice that the grave has not closed upon me: that I am still alive
to lift up my voice against the dismemberment of the ancient and most
noble monarchy," and he concluded a spirited and affecting speech by
exhorting his countrymen to make an effort to maintain their supremacy
[that supremacy to which he himself had contributed so much] and, if
they fell, to fall like men.[429] Even as he spoke, his words began to
falter, and on rising to make a second speech, he staggered and fell
back in a fit of apoplexy. To all appearance he was in a dying state.
He rallied however, but only for a few weeks, and on the 11th May he
died.

[Sidenote: His funeral, 9 June, 1778.]

The City lost no time in petitioning Parliament that the remains of the
statesman "whose vigour and counsels had so much contributed to the
protection and extension of its commerce," might rest in St. Paul's,
and the Lord Chamberlain was asked to give timely notice of the funeral
in order that the Common Council might pay their last token of respect.
The Chamberlain promised to accede to this request, but the City's
petition to Parliament met with no further notice than an order that
it should lie on the table.[430] Having failed in this direction the
City determined to approach the king himself on the subject, and a
"remarkably decent and respectful" address was prepared for the purpose
in the Common Council.[431] Unfortunately the City had incurred the
king's displeasure not only on account of its recent addresses, but
also for the respect and affection it had always entertained towards
Chatham, who for years had been the object of his special aversion.
When asked to name a day for the reception of the address, the first
question was as to its nature. He was afraid of having to listen to
more "stuff." His curiosity, however, on the point was not gratified.
The sheriff (Clarke) respectfully declined to inform him of the nature
of the address, and for his "prudent conduct" was rewarded with the
thanks of the Common Council.[432]

At length Friday, the 5th June, was appointed for receiving the
address. By that time arrangements had been made for the interment to
take place in Westminster Abbey, and the king notified the citizens of
the fact in a somewhat dry and ungracious manner.[433] Although the
ceremony was fixed for the 9th no notice had been sent to the City,
notwithstanding the Lord Chamberlain's promise. The Common Council
therefore, finding themselves thus trifled with, rescinded their
resolution to attend.[434] Indeed the attitude taken up by the king and
his ministers throughout the whole business was singularly childish and
undignified.

[Sidenote: The City's monument to Chatham.]

The citizens, on the other hand, though prevented from showing their
respect at the grave-side of the deceased statesman, were resolved
to erect a memorial to one who, when in power, had never (as they
declared) allowed them to return from the throne dissatisfied. A
sculptured monument by Bacon, with an inscription from the pen of the
great Edmund Burke, was in due course erected in the Guildhall, for the
express purpose that citizens might "never meet for the transaction of
their affairs without being reminded that the means by which Providence
raises a nation to greatness are the virtues infused into great men;
and that to withhold from those virtues, either of the living or the
dead, the tribute of esteem and veneration, is to deny themselves the
means of happiness and honour."

FOOTNOTES:

[376] Repertory 179, fos. 10-14, 17-20, 54-65.

[377] _Id._, fos. 24-25.

[378] Repertory 179, fo. 24.

[379] _Id._, fos. 65-68.

[380] _Id._, fos. 96, 97.

[381] Repertory 180, fos. 288-294.

[382] Repertory 179, fo. 194.

[383] Chatham Correspondence iv, 378, note.

[384] Journal 66, fos. 179, 181b.

[385] Journal 66, fos. 185-185b, 188b-190, 191-192.

[386] Journal House of Commons, xxxv, 182, 241; Journal House of Lords,
xxxiv, 365.

[387] On the 7th March a pamphlet had been published entitled "Taxation
no Tyranny; an Answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American
Congress,"--from the pen of Dr. Johnson.--Boswell's Life of Johnson
(Napier), ii, 289.

[388] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 186b-188.

[389] Walpole, Journal i, 484. Wilkes's winning manner was never more
conspicuous than when, a year later (15 May, 1776), he first met Dr.
Johnson at dinner. The story how he succeeded in completely winning
over the learned lexicographer who had hitherto looked upon Wilkes as
little more than a low demagogue, is admirably told in Boswell's Life
(iii, 108-117). They afterwards became very good friends, and Johnson
was fain to confess that "Jack was a scholar" and "Jack had the manners
of a gentleman," and that "although Jack had always been at him, he
would do Jack a kindness rather than not."--(_Id._, iii, 208.)

[390] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 189b-191.

[391] See Plumbe's case. _Supra_ pp. 138, 139.

[392] Walpole's Journal i, 487. It is printed in the Gentleman's
Magazine, xlv, 220-222, and in the Volume of Addresses, etc. (ed. 1778)
in the Guildhall Library.

[393] Journal 66, fos. 236-237b.

[394] Journal 66, fo. 238.

[395] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 188b-191.

[396] _Id._, fos. 191-192.

[397] Walpole, Journal i, 495.

[398] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 192b, 193.

[399] Journal 66, fos. 239b-240b.

[400] "They could not help doing it, to satisfy the Americans on their
address to them."--Walpole, Journal i, 496.

[401] The king to Lord North, 5 July, 1775.--Correspondence i, 253.

[402] Journal 66, fo. 241.

[403] Walpole, Journal i, 500; Gentleman's Magazine xlv, 405.

[404] Walpole, Journal i, 503.

[405] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 193b-195b.

[406] Journal 66, fos. 259b-260b; Walpole, Journal i, 501, 502; Journal
House of Commons, xxxv, 405; Journal House of Lords, xxxiv, 489.

[407] Walpole, Journal i, 508, 509; Walpole to Mann, 28 Oct., 1775;
Letters vi, 277; Annual Register xviii, 167, 239-243.

[408] Walpole, Journal i, 523.

[409] Journal House of Commons, xxxv, 462. Walpole, Journal i, 524.

[410] Journal 66, fo. 261b.

[411] In November, 1776, an alteration was made in this respect, and it
was ordained that for the future the sum of £1,000 should be paid to
each mayor in lieu of the sale of offices. Journal 67, fo. 8b.

[412] Journal 67, fo. 9. The respective amounts of receipts and
expenditure by some of his more immediate predecessors in office, are
recorded as having been as follows:--

                     Receipts.      Payments.
  1768. Turner     £5,731  5 10   £7,749 12  4.
  1770. Crosby      4,251 11  6    6,685 10 11.
  1772. Townshend   3,896  0  0    7,592 16  9.
  1773. Bull        5,647 13  8    9,293 10  0.



[413] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 199, 200, 205-205b, 211.

[414] Journal 67, fos. 85b, 100.

[415] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 217b.

[416] Almon, Wilkes's Correspondence v, 37.

[417] Journal 66, fos. 296, 354.

[418] Journal 66, fos. 296-297, 299b.

[419] Walpole, Journal ii, 77.

[420] Parliamentary History, vol. xviii, cols. 1,402, 1,403.
Notwithstanding Wilkes's statement, instances are recorded of men
having been pressed in the City; but their instant discharge was
demanded.--Journal 67, fos. 12b-13, 43-43b.

[421] On coming into office Hallifax invited the ministers to his
banquet. They had not been asked to the lord mayor's banquet for the
last seven years.--Walpole, Journal ii, 84.

[422] Journal 67, fos. 42b, 95.

[423] Journal 67, fos. 42, 107.

[424] The king to Lord North, 17 Jan., 1778.--Correspondence ii, 122.

[425] Walpole, Journal ii, 222, 223.

[426] Journal 67, fos. 126-8.

[427] Walpole, Journal ii, 223.

[428] Repertory 182, fo. 184.

[429] Parliamentary History xix, 1,022, 1,023.

[430] Journal 67, fos. 137b-138b, 149b. Journal House of Commons,
xxxvi, 990.

[431] Journal 67, fo. 148.

[432] Journal 67, fo. 150; Annual Register xxi, 243.

[433] Journal 67, fo. 149b.

[434] _Id._, fo. 150.



CHAPTER XL.


[Sidenote: Court martial of Admiral Keppel, Jan., 1779.]

The extension of the sphere of war owing to the French alliance
with America brought great difficulties to the ministry. A powerful
fleet under Keppel was sent into the Channel, and in July engaged
the French fleet off Ushant, but the action was indecisive, and both
fleets retired, the one to Brest, and the other to Plymouth. Keppel
had signalled Sir Hugh Palliser, his second in command, to bear up
with his squadron, and renew the action, but Palliser's ship was much
crippled, and he was either unable or unwilling to comply. Mutual
recriminations followed, and as both admirals were in Parliament and
political adversaries, Keppel being in Opposition, whilst Palliser was
a Lord of the Admiralty, the charges led to a fierce Parliamentary war,
and eventually Keppel had to submit to a court martial. The trial took
place at Portsmouth, and lasted over a month. The result was anxiously
awaited by the City and the country. At length, late in the evening of
the 11th February (1779), a courier brought the news that Keppel had
been honourably acquitted. The whole of London was at once one blaze
of illuminations. Palliser had to make his escape out of Portsmouth
for fear of violence, and a house in Pall Mall once occupied by him
was completely gutted by the mob and its contents burnt in St. James's
Square. The gates of the Admiralty were taken off their hinges. Lord
Sandwich had his windows smashed, so had Lord North, and greater damage
would have been done but for the interference of the military.

[Sidenote: Vote of thanks and Freedom of City to Keppel, 12 Feb., 1779.]

The next day (12 Feb.) the Common Council passed a vote of thanks to
Keppel "for his spirited behaviour on the 27th of July last in his
attack on the French fleet, for his glorious and gallant efforts to
renew the engagement in the afternoon of that day, efforts rendered
unsuccessful thro' the want of obedience to his orders by the
Vice-Admiral of the Blue."[435] They further voted him the Freedom of
the City in a box of heart of oak, in testimony of the respect and
gratitude which they entertained of his long and faithful services
to his country.[436] That night the illuminations were repeated, but
stringent measures were taken to prevent tumult.[437] The vote of
thanks was conveyed to the admiral without delay, but circumstances
prevented the Freedom being conferred on him until the following
December. On the first occasion, Keppel was entertained with a few of
his most intimate friends at the London Tavern;[438] on the second the
admiral entertained a deputation from the Common Council at his own
house in Audley Square. He and Lord Howe had by that time become so
disgusted with the government that they had signified their intention
of withdrawing their services from the navy so long as the ministers
remained in power;[439] but he assured his guests that his zeal for
the public good had in no wise abated, notwithstanding his withdrawal
from the command of the fleet.[440] The friendly attitude of the City
towards Keppel could not have been otherwise than distasteful to the
king who looked upon "poor" Palliser as an ill-used man, and had even
suggested his appointment to the command of the North American fleet
until the recent affair had blown over.[441]

[Sidenote: Spain declares war, 17 June, 1779.]

The situation in which ministers found themselves was daily becoming
more difficult, when Spain rendered it worse by allying herself (June,
1779) with France and America against Great Britain. North had again
and again intimated his readiness to resign, but the king would not
hear of it, and the minister yielded to his master's stronger will
and consented to remain in office against his own convictions. With
this increase of danger Parliament again rallied round the throne,
and voted loyal addresses. At the same time the leading Whig lords
protested against the affairs of the country being left in the hands of
a ministry that had proved itself so incapable;--"In such a situation
a change of system appears to us to be our indispensable duty to
advise."[442] This too was the opinion of a large body of citizens, but
the Common Council declined to hamper the king with another address on
the subject.[443]

[Sidenote: Economical reform.]

The country for the most part was in favour of prosecuting the war
with vigour, notwithstanding the addition of a fresh enemy. At
the same time there was increasing dissatisfaction at the national
expenditure and the excessive use of court influence over Parliament.
The Opposition took advantage of this feeling, and in December motions
were brought before the House of Lords in favour of economical reform.
These were rejected, and the further consideration of the matter was
postponed until the 8th February (1780). The Common Council sympathised
with the Dukes of Devonshire, Grafton, Manchester, Portland and other
Whig lords in their endeavours to promote reform, and passed them a
vote of thanks. The Corporation was convinced that the cause of all
the existing trouble lay in the "enormous and undue influence of
the crown," and promised them support. Each of the lords wrote to
acknowledge the vote of thanks, and their answers were given a wide
circulation.[444]

[Sidenote: Committees of Association, 1779.]

Before the question came on again the country had become thoroughly
roused. Committees of Association--as they were called--sprang up in
all directions, their object being to impress upon Parliament the
necessity of economy and the abolition of sinecures. Petitions flowed
in from all parts. Yorkshire took the lead, but was closely followed by
London.[445] The day that the City's petition was laid before the House
(11 Feb.) Burke introduced a Bill for carrying out economical reform,
but the measure had to be abandoned owing to the opposition it met with
in committee.[446]

[Sidenote: Dunning's motion, 6 April, 1780.]

Although Burke's Bill had failed to pass, the movement continued to
gain force both in and out of Parliament, and on the 6th April Dunning
moved his famous resolution that "it is the opinion of this committee
that the influence of the crown has increased, is increasing, and ought
to be diminished." This resolution, with but a slight variation, was,
after a hot debate, carried by a majority of eighteen.[447] It was
followed by two other resolutions in the same direction, one (moved
also by Dunning) to the effect that it was competent for the House to
reform the Civil List, the other (moved by Thomas Pitt) that it was
the duty of the House to remedy the abuses mentioned in the petitions.
Both were carried, and the movers were accorded the thanks of the City
(which they in due course acknowledged[448]), but when it came to
taking further action on these resolutions the House raised so many
objections that all thought of carrying them into effect had to be
abandoned.

[Sidenote: The City's letter to Lord Shelburne, 7 April, 1780.]

As time went on the Committees of Association, not content with
their legitimate work--the work for which they were originally
established--viz., economical reform, took upon themselves to push
parliamentary reform, a matter on which the country was not as yet
agreed. The City approved of their action, having long been anxious
to see a recurrence to short parliaments and a change made in the
mode of representation, but in other places the new departure caused
alarm. In Wiltshire, Lord Shelburne's county, the Association had
been disavowed[449] owing to its recent action, and his lordship
had in consequence written a letter to the county upholding the
Association. Soon after this Shelburne was wounded in a duel, and upon
his recovery the City took the opportunity of sending him a letter of
congratulation, and at the same time of testifying their appreciation
of his letter to the county of Wilts;--"The noble and manly proof
which your lordship has given in your letter to the county of Wilts of
your decided concurrence in the undoubted right of the people to short
parliaments and the necessity of a more equal representation cannot but
increase our regard, esteem and confidence; and your lordship in your
further prosecution of those great constitutional objects may depend on
the most firm and determined support of the city of London."[450]

[Sidenote: Lord Shelburne's reply, 12 April, 1780.]

The earl in reply assured the Common Council that the support of the
City of London was the most honourable incentive he was capable of
feeling, as well as the strongest preservative against despondency.
As regards the proposals for shortening the duration of parliaments
and a more equitable representation, which the counties, cities and
boroughs of England were combining to obtain, they would certainly
meet his zealous concurrence whenever they should appear "to be the
public sense." Without wishing to influence others, he was bound at so
critical a juncture to confess that his own opinion was in favour of
both proposals.[451]

[Sidenote: The City accepts a Form of Association, 13 April, 1780.]

The day that the earl's answer was read before the Common Council
(13 April) a Form of Association was submitted for their approval.
It followed the lines of the Yorkshire Association, and subject to
certain alterations it was recommended for acceptance by the City of
London.[452] The main point was that subscribers to the form pledged
themselves to support only those parliamentary candidates who were in
favour (1) of cutting down public expenditure, (2) of shortening the
duration of parliaments, and (3) of establishing greater equality in
parliamentary representation by allowing the several counties of Great
Britain to elect in a due proportion 100 members at least in addition
to their present number. The Common Council at once approved of the
form, and ordered the Town Clerk to subscribe to it in the name of the
Corporation. The citizens were to be recommended also to subscribe to
it as being the best plan for effecting the objects in view. The Court
at the same time deemed it opportune to place on record the passage in
Chatham's letter to Lord Temple of the 17th April, 1771, in which the
writer signified his approval of shorter parliaments and more equal
representation, and this was accordingly entered on their Journal.[453]

[Sidenote: Outcry against Sir George Savile's Act.]

Scarcely had the ministry managed to escape from Dunning's attack
before they were threatened by a new danger. This time they did not
stand alone; the strife of parties ceased in the presence of a common
danger. For some time past an agitation had been set on foot against
a Bill which Sir George Savile had carried in 1778, for the relief of
Catholics from some of the hardships inflicted upon them by law. The
cry of "No Popery" had been raised, and in March last a motion had
been made in the Common Council against any proceedings in Parliament
calculated to favour Papists. The consideration of the motion was
adjourned, and did not come on again until the 31st May, when the
court came to a resolution that the passing of any Acts of Parliament
in favour of Papists, or the repealing of any Acts against Popery,
was repugnant to the true interests of the country. It, at the same
time, directed the City's representatives in Parliament to support
any movement for the repeal of Savile's Act, so far as it related "to
the establishment of seminaries for the education of youth, and the
purchasing of lands within the realm."[454] Protestant associations
were formed in different parts of the country, and on all sides a cry
was raised against catholic emancipation.

[Sidenote: Lord George Gordon at Westminster, 2 June, 1780.]

The chief leader of the movement was the crack-brained fanatic, Lord
George Gordon, who led a mob some thousands strong, wearing blue
cockades, through the city to Westminster with a petition which he
desired to lay before the House of Commons. A motion that the petition
should be brought up was seconded by Alderman Bull. This took place
on Friday, the 2nd June. Whilst Lord George was thus engaged, the
mob clamoured to be admitted into the House and would have forced an
entrance, but for the arrival of a party of horse and foot guards.
Foiled in their attempt to intimidate the House, the mob dispersed in
various directions, and proceeded to sack and burn the Roman Catholic
chapels attached to the Sardinian and Bavarian embassies, standing in
Duke Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields, and Warwick Street, Golden Square,
and having so far wreaked their vengeance they retired to rest for the
night.[455]

[Sidenote: Riot in Moorfields, 4 and 5 June, 1780.]

Matters were not allowed to rest here. On Saturday afternoon (3 June),
Kennet, the lord mayor, received a letter from Lord Stormont, secretary
of state, forewarning him of the likelihood of tumults arising within
his jurisdiction and strongly recommending him to take the necessary
steps for preserving the peace. The day passed off quietly, however.
A few people gathered in Ropemakers Alley, Little Moorfields, where
stood a Roman Catholic chapel, but no disturbance took place. On Sunday
afternoon (4 June) matters took a turn for the worse, and the mayor,
being informed that a very great concourse of people had assembled in
Moorfields in a riotous manner, and was threatening the chapel, at once
sent for the marshals and their men and instructed them to procure
as many constables as possible, and disperse the mob. In the evening
the mayor himself went to the scene of riot, and stayed there until
three o'clock in the morning. In the course of the night he received
another and more urgent letter from Lord Stormont;--"I cannot but hope,
and trust from your lordship's known zeal and activity that every
effectual legal method will be used by you to preserve the public
peace by guarding it against those dangers to which it stands exposed."
The mayor was quick to grasp the situation. There were not nearly
sufficient constables procurable to put down the riot, and those that
were present declined to exert themselves to save the property of Roman
Catholics. Kennet therefore took the only course open to him, and sent
to the Tower for military assistance. The commander, however, was slow
to give the aid required, and could be prevailed upon to send no more
than 73 men, all told, and even these were sent in detachments. The
force was utterly inadequate to cope with the crowd, but fortunately
the mob were by this time ready to listen to the appeals of the mayor
and aldermen, and quiet was at length restored. The mayor went home
to seek a much needed rest, leaving one of the sheriffs on the spot
in case of emergency. On Monday morning (5 June) a fresh riot broke
out, and the mayor sent again to the Tower. A detachment of horse and
foot was despatched to his assistance, but by the time it arrived the
chapel and several houses adjoining had been burnt and destroyed.[456]
The principal object of attack outside the city was Savile House in
Leicester Fields, the house of Sir George Savile himself, the indirect
author of all the mischief, and this was sacked by the mob.

[Sidenote: The conduct of the civic authorities impugned.]

Upon hearing of this fresh outbreak the secretaries of state,
Lords Stormont and Hillsborough, wrote a joint letter to the mayor
expressing concern and surprise that houses in the city should be
demolished in broad daylight, and--as they were informed--"without
the least interposition of the civic magistrates to preserve the
public peace."[457] This was scarcely true. The mayor, aldermen and
sheriffs appear to have done their duty, but they experienced no
little difficulty in getting the marshalmen and constables--who were
no friends to the Catholics, and had no real wish to save them from
the mob--to do theirs. One marshalman, in fact, openly refused to
obey the summons that was sent him, declaring that he would not go to
protect any such Popish rascals, and for this he was suspended from
office.[458] The mayor, in reply, justified himself (and with reason)
by laying the blame upon the commanding officer at the Tower, who had
failed to supply him with the requisite assistance. Lord Stormont
accepted the mayor's explanation, and immediately sent copies of his
letter to the field officer of the guards with directions to send to
the city forthwith a detachment of foot guards and light dragoons, as
well as to the commanding officer at the Tower, directing him to supply
the lord mayor with such assistance as he might require.[459]

[Sidenote: More rioting, 6 June, 1780.]

On Tuesday morning (6 June) a Court of Aldermen sat, and the mayor
reported all that had taken place since the previous Saturday. He
was recommended to take the most effectual methods he could devise
for preventing further tumult, and the Court promised to defray all
expenses.[460] During the day the city was quiet, but at night the
rioters split themselves up into various parties, and whilst one
party was engaged in sacking and burning Lord Mansfield's house in
Bloomsbury Square, another attacked the house of Sir John Fielding, and
others broke into old Newgate and Clerkenwell prisons, and set free the
prisoners.

[Sidenote: The king's letter to Lord North, 6 June, 1780.]

Writing to Lord North late that night the king expressed surprise
that Lord Gordon was still allowed to be at large, and complained of
the "great supineness of the civil magistrates," whereby the rioters
received encouragement;--"I fear without more vigour that this will
not subside; indeed, unless exemplary punishment is procured, it
will remain a lasting disgrace, and will be a precedent for future
commotions."[461] The fact was that many justices of the peace had run
away, and it was with the greatest difficulty that a magistrate was
found to read the Riot Act in Bloomsbury, and when found it was too
late to save Lord Mansfield's house.

[Sidenote: The City in the hands of the mob, 7 June.]

Early next morning (7 June) the mayor despatched a letter to the
secretaries of state asking for more troops, and at half-past two
o'clock a reply was sent that he should have such additional force as
could be spared. In the meanwhile he was urged to take every possible
measure for protecting the Bank of England, which there was reason to
believe was about to be attacked.[462] On receipt of this letter the
mayor summoned a Common Council to meet that evening at six o'clock.
It was at once resolved to direct the sheriffs to raise the _posse
comitatus_. The services of the Military Association were offered and
readily accepted. Many officers of the City's militia volunteered for
duty, and they were desired to place themselves at the disposal of the
sheriffs, who were instructed more particularly to protect the Mansion
House, the Guildhall and the Bank of England.[463] The measures were
not taken a whit too soon. Two attempts were made on the Bank, but in
each case the rioters were repulsed. The King's Bench and Fleet prisons
were fired; and as many as thirty-six fires, all blazing at one time
and in different quarters of the city, might be seen from one spot.
Houses were pillaged in all directions. In Broad Street the Artillery
Company and the London Association were ordered to fire on the mob,
and several were killed.[464] The streets were flooded in many places
with raw spirits from wrecked distilleries, and as many (if not more)
perished from excessive drink as from the firing of the military,
although by an order of Lord Amherst, the adjutant-general, the latter
were authorised to act without waiting for directions from the civil
magistrates.[465] The return of the number of killed and wounded during
the disturbances was 458.[466]

[Sidenote: City petition for repeal of Savile's Act, 8 June, 1780]

In the meanwhile troops had arrived in London from their various
quarters in the country, and were encamped in the public parks.
Their presence served to intimidate the rioters and order began to
be restored. Before the Common Council of Wednesday evening broke
up, it resolved to petition Parliament for a repeal of Savile's Act,
and the next day (8 June) the petition was drawn up. It set out, in
effect, that since the Act made in the 11th and 12th years of King
William III, entitled "an Act for the further preventing the growth
of Popery," the Papists had experienced no persecution, and the state
had enjoyed perfect tranquility, and that the repealing of part of the
Act had occasioned much discontent and produced dangerous tumults.
The petitioners therefore prayed that the repealing Act should be
itself repealed as being in their opinion "the most probable means
of immediately quieting the minds of the people." The sheriffs and
the remembrancer were instructed to present the petition to the House
of Commons without delay, but rather than listen to a debate for a
repeal of the Act, of which General Conway had given notice, the House
suddenly adjourned until the 19th.[467]

[Sidenote: Instructions of Lords of the Council, 9 June, 1780.]

On Friday morning (9 June) the Lords of the Council issued a warrant
for the arrest of the arch-mover in the recent troubles, and before
nightfall Lord George Gordon was lodged in the Tower. Their lordships
at the same time directed the lord mayor to make diligent search
for all idle and disorderly persons, and to commit them for trial.
All guns, pistols, and other offensive weapons were to be seized. A
difficulty arose as to where to keep prisoners or those awaiting trial,
now that Newgate and the other prisons were no longer serviceable. The
mayor suggested the Tower, but the Lords of the Council would not hear
of such a thing. They recommended him to commit his prisoners to some
of the city halls or other public buildings, as he might deem most fit,
and they (the lords) would furnish a sufficient force to guard these
temporary prisons. The Court of Aldermen lost no time in carrying out
the instructions thus given.[468] That evening the mayor was desired
to meet the Lords of the Council at the Cockpit, Whitehall. What took
place at the interview does not appear to be recorded.[469]

[Sidenote: The civic and military authorities at variance, June, 1780.]

A proposal to form an armed association of householders for future
protection, brought the City into variance with the military
authorities. No sooner was the proposal set on foot than Colonel
Twistleton who was in command of the troops in the city, informed the
adjutant-general of it. The latter at once signified his disapproval
on the ground that "no person can bear arms in this country but under
officers having the king's commission," and he instructed Colonel
Twistleton (13 June) to see that all arms in the hands of persons who
were not of the City militia, or authorised by the king to be armed,
were given up. The existing London Association which had been on duty
since the beginning of the riots, on learning this order, flatly
refused to surrender their arms, on the ground that by the articles
of the Bill of Rights, all his majesty's Protestant subjects were
permitted to have arms for their defence suitable to their condition
and as allowed by law.[470] The Court of Aldermen could not understand
this interference of the military in the City's affairs, and directed
the lord mayor to apply to Colonel Twistleton for a copy of the orders
under which he acted in the city. Thereupon that officer produced the
original orders of the 7th June, signed by the adjutant-general.

[Sidenote: Letter to Lord Bathurst, 14 June, 1780.]

This did not satisfy the Aldermen, and by their directions the lord
mayor addressed a letter to Earl Bathurst, the president of the Council
(14 June), informing him that in pursuance to his orders they had made
diligent search for disorderly persons implicated in the late riots,
and had "taken to their assistance the house-keepers in each district,
who have armed themselves" under the directions of the Court for the
purpose of supporting the civil magistrate, but the Court's attention
having been drawn to Lord Amherst's letters to Colonel Twistleton, they
desired some explanation, as those letters militated against former
orders from the Lords of the Council. The Court further desired to
know whether Lord Amherst's order of the 7th June was to continue in
force.[471]

[Sidenote: Lord Bathurst's reply, 15 June.]

In reply to this letter, the President of the Council explained that
Lord Amherst's letters had been misunderstood, "for when he speaks of
the arms in the hands of the city militia or other persons authorised
by the king to be armed, he certainly includes the arms in the hands
of the citizens and house-keepers, who by virtue of an order of the
Court of Lieutenancy are required to keep them in their houses." As
regards the order of the adjutant-general of the 7th June, he was of
opinion that it had better remain in force so long as the presence of
the military in the city was necessary for the preservation of peace.
His letter concluded with a warning lest the armed house-keepers
should expose themselves to the military, who in a tumult would have
difficulty in distinguishing them from the rioters.[472]

[Sidenote: The City's second letter to Lord Bathurst. 17 June, 1780.]

This reply being deemed unsatisfactory, the lord mayor wrote a second
letter (17 June) pointing out that Lord Amherst's orders to Colonel
Twistleton, of the 13th, would, if literally executed, disarm those
very persons without whose assistance it would have been impossible for
the civic authorities to have executed the Order of Council of the 9th
instant. This (he explains) is what was meant in his former letter,
when he said that Lord Amherst's letters militated against the orders
first received from the Lords of the Council, and the Court of Aldermen
now desired him to submit to his lordship's consideration "whether some
further explanation might not be necessary to prevent a construction
which would leave the civil magistrate without power to act at all, for
want of necessary support."[473]

[Sidenote: Lord Bathurst's reply, 20 June, 1780.]

The lord mayor's letter having been submitted to the Lords of the
Council, the President replied, three days later (20 June), that in
the opinion of their lordships the matter had been fully explained
in his letter of the 15th. With regard, however, to the alleged
impracticability of executing the Orders of Council of the 9th instant
without the assistance of the inhabitants of the several wards who had
armed themselves, the Council was of opinion that in times of danger
"a reasonable number of inhabitants, armed according to the nature and
circumstances of the case, may attend the peace-officers, as assistants
to them, for the preservation of the public peace, until the danger
be over." He concluded by reminding the aldermen that the privilege
enjoyed by subjects of carrying arms under the Bill of Rights (to
which they had referred in the mayor's last letter) did not extend to
mustering and arraying armed bodies without the king's permission.[474]
The next day (21 June) the Duke of Richmond moved in the Lords that
the adjutant-general's orders contravened the Bill of Rights, but the
motion was negatived without a division.[475]

[Sidenote: Another letter to Lord Bathurst, 24 June, 1780.]

Still the Court of Aldermen were far from being satisfied. They foresaw
that difficulties were likely to arise in the execution of their duty
if the military were to be allowed to act independently. They desired,
therefore, the lord mayor once more to address the President of the
Council with the view of getting the order of the adjutant-general
respecting the military acting without previous directions from the
civil magistrates, withdrawn. Accordingly on the 24th June Kennet
wrote again to this effect,[476] but the only answer vouchsafed to
this was the passing of a Bill of Indemnity for the acts of the
military.[477] It was useless, therefore, for the Court of Aldermen
to proceed further in the matter, and they had the wisdom to ignore
a series of propositions which one of their number introduced later
on (18 July) touching the rights of the citizens to bear arms and the
noninterference of the military powers.[478]

[Sidenote: Speech of Wilkes in the House, 19 June, 1780.]

When Parliament resumed its sitting on the 19th Wilkes, who had
displayed great zeal during the riots, not only made an attack on the
lord mayor for not having taken proper precautions to prevent their
occurrence in the city, but he declared that the petition drawn up and
approved by the Common Council on the 8th had been improperly procured,
having been moved in the Court after many of the members had gone
home under the impression that business was over. He next proceeded
to attack his former friend and colleague, Alderman Bull, who (he
said) had not only omitted to take steps to quell the rioters, but had
allowed the constables of his wards to "wear the ensigns of riot in
their hats," and had been seen leaving the House of Commons arm-in-arm
with Lord George Gordon himself. Bull could only reply that it was true
that constables of his ward had worn the cockades, but he had made four
of them remove them.[479] Permission was eventually given for bringing
in a Bill for securing the Protestant religion.

[Sidenote: City address to the king on late riots, 28 July, 1780.]

On the 8th July a motion was made in the Common Council for presenting
an address to the king "expressing the grateful thanks of this Court
for his majesty's care and attention to the citizens of London
in granting them such aid as became necessary to subdue the late
dangerous riots, they being too formidable for the control of the civil
authority." To this the previous question was moved and lost, and the
original motion was at length carried, but when it came to nominating
four aldermen and eight commoners to draw up the address, there were
not found sufficient aldermen present, and the matter had to be
postponed.[480] It was eventually passed on the 24th, and presented on
the 28th, when the king made a suitable reply.[481]

[Sidenote: City claims for damages during the riots.]

The riots over, and the ringleaders (all except Lord George Gordon
himself) brought to justice, it remained to pay the costs. To make
good all the damages involved much time and expenditure. The new
gaol at Newgate on which so much money had been spent, and which was
approaching completion at the outbreak of the riots, was completely
"gutted," only the external walls being left standing. The keeper's
house was demolished, and much damage done to the neighbouring Sessions
House. For all this the City sent in claims for compensation,[482] and
in course of time succeeded in getting from Parliament three several
sums of £10,000 to assist in defraying the expense of rebuilding
Newgate.[483] The cost of maintaining the military force quartered in
the city during the riots was no slight one, and had to be provided
for by the Common Council. One ward alone, that of Farringdon Within,
sent in a bill exceeding £350 for victuals supplied to a party of light
horse quartered at the Oxford Arms in Warwick Lane, and the Sessions
House, to a detachment of foot guards quartered in St. Paul's, and
several companies of militia at Christchurch, Newgate.[484] There were,
moreover, legal expenses incurred by the City in defending actions
brought against the sheriffs by various inhabitants of the city for
damage done to houses.[485]

[Sidenote: A new Parliament, 31 Oct., 1780.]

Whilst the riots brought a respite to Parliament from the importunity
of associations, their suppression brought temporary support to the
king, who embraced the opportunity of dissolving Parliament before the
court party lost ground.[486] Parliament was accordingly prorogued on
the 8th July, and on the 1st September, was dissolved, another being
summoned to meet on the last day of October. Only two of the old
city members were re-elected. These were Bull and Hayley. The places
of Sawbridge and Oliver were taken by two other aldermen, namely,
Kirkman--who commanded the light horse volunteers during the riots--and
Nathaniel Newnham. Sawbridge, however, recovered his seat upon
Kirkman's death, which occurred within a few days after his election.
A year later (Sept., 1781) Hayley died, and Lord George Gordon, whom
a jury had recently acquitted of high treason, made some show of
contesting the seat. He soon, however, discovered that the City would
have none of him, and withdrew before the election came on. The seat
was won, after a severe contest, by Sir Watkin Lewes the outgoing lord
mayor.[487]

[Sidenote: The City's Committee of Correspondence dissolved, 15 March,
1781.]

The late riots had somewhat cooled the ardour of the associations.
Many of them, according to Walpole,[488] had been formed chiefly with
a view to the coming Parliamentary elections, and now that these were
over, the various committees became less active. The City's Committee
of Correspondence was dissolved, and the civic authorities after some
wavering refused to allow country associations the use of the Guildhall
for fear of renewed disturbances.[489]

[Sidenote: Proceedings of Common Hall, 6 Dec., 1781.]

The news of the capitulation of Cornwallis and his army at Yorktown
which reached London on Sunday, the 25th November (1781), induced the
livery to urge the king once more to put an end to the war. A Common
Hall was summoned by special request to meet on Thursday, the 6th
December. Alderman Bull being too ill to attend and to consult his
constituents as he wished, contented himself with addressing a letter
to the "Gentlemen of the Livery" calling upon them to continue to be an
example to the nation, as they always had been. With their assistance
he hoped to see a change effected which should put an end to the evils
from which the country was suffering. This letter having been read to
the livery they proceeded to consider the terms of a new remonstrance,
which was produced ready cut and dried. After expressing concern at
the king's recent speech in Parliament, declaring his intention
to persevere in a system of measures which had already proved so
disastrous, the document plainly told the king that he had been deluded
by his ministers, and the consequences of that delusion had been the
almost total extinction of trade and commerce, and the annihilation
of public and private credit. "Your majesty's fleets"--it went on
to say--"have lost their wonted superiority. Your armies have been
captured. Your dominions have been lost." The petitioners expressed a
desire publicly to declare not only to the king, but to Europe and to
America itself, their abhorence of the continuation of the unnatural
and unfortunate war, which could only tend to the alienation of the
American colonies with whom they still hoped to live on terms of
intercourse and friendship so necessary to the commercial prosperity
of the kingdom; and they concluded by imploring his majesty to dismiss
his present advisers as a pledge to the world of his determination to
abandon a system incompatible with the interests of his crown and the
happiness of his people.[490]

The remonstrance was ordered to be presented by the lord mayor, the
city members, the Court of Aldermen [_not_ the Common Council], the
sheriffs and ten of the livery--the number permitted by Stat. 13,
Chas. II, c. 5--attended by the Recorder and city officers; and
notwithstanding all previous objections on the part of the king it was
resolved that the sheriffs should enquire when his Majesty would be
pleased to receive it on the throne. The result was such as might have
been, and no doubt was, expected. When those "fellows in fur,"[491] as
George called the sheriffs, attended at court to deliver their message,
the king told them he would consider the matter, and would let them
know; and in due course Lord Hertford addressed (10 Dec.) the following
letter to the mayor:--"It is well known to be the settled custom for
the King to receive upon the Throne an address from the City of London
only in their corporate capacity, and the same was signified by a
letter written by me, in obedience to His Majesty's command, on the
eleventh of April, 1775, to the then Lord Mayor. In consequence thereof
I am commanded by His Majesty to acquaint you that His Majesty will
receive at the levée on Friday the 14th inst. the Address, Petition
and Remonstrance of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Livery in Common Hall
assembled. I have, etc." To this the mayor replied by referring the
lord chamberlain to Wilkes's letter of the 2nd May, 1775, as to the
question of custom. With regard to the present address, petition and
remonstrance he contented himself with representing to his lordship
that as the resolution of the livery was that it should be presented
to the king on the throne, the persons directed by the said resolution
to present it could not dispense therewith by presenting it in any
other mode.[492] The remonstrance was in consequence never presented,
although Walpole believed it to have been presented at the levée.[493]

[Sidenote: Resolutions of Common Hall, 31 Jan., 1782.]

Thus baulked in their design the livery proceeded at another special
Common Hall (31 Jan., 1782) to pass a number of resolutions condemning
the king's advisers and maintaining the necessity of shorter
parliaments and fairer representation. They declared that the Committee
of Correspondence appointed by the Common Council in February, 1780
(and since abolished) had "proved themselves firm friends to the
people," and they resolved to appoint a similar committee from among
themselves, and to petition the Common Council to grant the use of
their new council chamber[494] to the committee for the purpose of
occasionally meeting therein.[495] When the petition was laid before
the Court on the 5th February it was refused, but in the following
April it was granted, and the Committee of Correspondence was permitted
to meet in the council chamber, or in any other part of the Guildhall
that might be most convenient.[496]

[Sidenote: The fall of North's ministry, 20 March, 1782.]

The ministry was now fast tottering to its fall. On the 22nd February
General Conway moved the House of Commons to address the king for the
purpose of restoring peace and giving up all thoughts of subduing
America by force. After prolonged debate the motion was lost by one
vote only.[497] Five days later (27 Feb.) the City agreed to a petition
to the House imploring the Commons to interpose and prevent the
continuation of the war,[498] and that same day the attack was renewed
by Conway, who moved that the use of force to put down the colonies was
impracticable. This time he was more successful.

His motion was carried by a majority of nineteen,[499] and a few weeks
later (20 March) North resigned.

[Sidenote: City's address on change of ministry, 12 April, 1782.]

Much to his annoyance, the king found himself compelled to place the
Opposition in office, with Rockingham as prime minister and Fox and
Shelburne as secretaries of state, and to consent to negotiations
for peace being opened on the basis of an acknowledgment of American
independence. As soon as the change of government had taken place the
Common Council presented a loyal address to the king expressing their
warmest thanks for having complied with the wishes of the people and
taken into his confidence men who were respected by the country for
their constitutional principles. They trusted that with the assistance
of these new advisers, and with the blessing of Providence, the dignity
of the crown would be restored, and prosperity and unity promoted
throughout the king's dominions. The king thanked the City for their
address, and assured them that the dignity of the crown, the union of
his people and the interests and prosperity of his dominions must ever
be the principal objects of his care.[500]

[Sidenote: Parliamentary reform, 1782.]

The new ministers were pledged to do something towards purifying
Parliament, and accordingly they carried a measure disqualifying
contractors from sitting in the House of Commons, unless their
contract should have been made at a public bidding. It was thought
that government contractors might be too easily moved to support the
party that happened to be in power. Alderman Harley, who sat with Sir
George Cornewall for the county of Hereford, was one of those whom the
Bill affected, inasmuch as he held a contract for supplying the army
in Canada, Nova Scotia, Carolina, New York and the West Indies with
money. He rose from his seat in the House and boldly defended himself.
He had never (he said) asked for the contract; he was not in the habit
of asking favours of ministers; "he got his contract in consequence of
an address which the late Lord Suffolk intended to have moved to the
king, that his majesty would be pleased to confer upon him some mark
of his favour ... he was afterwards offered a pension which he would
not accept, saying at the same time that he had rather have something
in the way of his profession; on this he got the gold contract,
which he fulfilled for twelve years with the fairest character, and
he now felt himself hurt indeed that he should be treated as if he
were a criminal, in being forced to give up a valuable branch of his
business, or renounce the honour, which he held so high, of sitting in
Parliament."[501] The measure was carried on the 1st May. As Harley
retained his seat, and continued to hold it until 1802, it is presumed
he gave up his contract. On the 7th, William Pitt, the second son of
the late Earl Chatham--who had already displayed such oratorical powers
in defence of Burke's economical reform Bill that Burke himself, no
less delighted than surprised, had declared him to be not a chip of
the old block, but "the old block itself"[502]--moved for a committee
to examine into the state of the representation of the country. The
motion was rejected by only a majority of twenty, the closest division
that the reformers ever achieved until 1831, the eve of their ultimate
success.

[Sidenote: Military reform, May, 1782.]

The ministers now turned their attention to a reform of another kind.
On the same day that Pitt made his motion in the House, Lord Shelburne,
one of the secretaries of state, sent a letter to the lord mayor
enclosing copies of a plan for augmenting the home force, and of a
circular thereon he had sent to the chief magistrates of principal
towns. His majesty (the letter said) expected that "his faithful
citizens of London" would set an example to the rest of the kingdom, as
they had so often done before, in gathering forces for the protection
of their sovereign and their country; the more so, as the city of
London had greater interests at stake. The Common Council not only
voted (17 May) a sum of £5,000 to put the City militia on a proper
footing, but resolved to invite subscriptions in the several wards of
the city, and to send copies of Shelburne's letter to all the chartered
and trading companies of the city.[503] The matter had already (9 May)
been laid before the Court of Aldermen, and the lord mayor had been
requested to wait upon Lord Shelburne, to thank him for the letter,
and to assure him that the Court would at once proceed to accomplish
his majesty's wish "and to do justice to his majesty's most gratifying
sentiments of the exemplary loyalty and zeal of his faithful citizens
of London."[504]

[Sidenote: Rodney's naval victory, 12 April, 1782.]

On the 18th May, news arrived that the French fleet under De Grasse
had been defeated by Rodney in the West Indies (12 April). The City
presented a congratulatory address to the king, who in reply (5 June)
assured his "good city of London" of his constant attention to their
commerce and happiness.[505] Rodney who had previously been in disgrace
was now raised to the Peerage; but a proposal to entertain him at a
public banquet at the City's expense fell through.[506] In October,
however, the Common Council unanimously passed a vote of thanks to
him for the service he had rendered to the commercial interests of
the City, and the committee appointed to convey the same entertained
him and his friends at a banquet given at the London Tavern--[507]an
event which Horace Walpole had cause to remember, for the windows of
his house in Berkeley Square were smashed by the mob which accompanied
Rodney home from the City.[508]

[Sidenote: The wreck of the Royal George, Aug., 1782.]

In the meantime the British navy suffered a severe loss by the
capsizing of the Royal George off Spithead. The vessel was reckoned the
finest ship in the navy. The unfortunate circumstances, which carried
her to the bottom with 800 souls, including Kempenfelt, the admiral,
who was at the time writing in his cabin, have been immortalised in
Cowper's well known lines:--

    "Toll for the brave!"
      The brave that are no more!
    All sunk beneath the wave
      Fast by their native shore!

It was, possibly, this loss which prompted the Common Council to
consider the question of raising a sum of money (the Corporation
itself contributing £10,000) for the purpose of presenting the king
with a man-of-war, to be called the "City of London." It will be
remembered that in 1665, when the ship "London" suddenly blew up on
her way up to the Hope from Chatham, the City made good the loss then
sustained by the navy. It was proposed now to follow the precedent
then set, but after several adjournments the proposal was allowed to
drop.[509]

[Sidenote: The relief of Gibraltar, Sept., 1782.]

In September Lord Howe set sail to relieve Gibraltar, which had endured
a siege of three years and more. It was defended by General Elliot,
afterwards raised to the peerage as Lord Heathfield, and the sufferings
of the garrison had at times been terrible. When Shelburne succeeded
to the premiership, on the death of Rockingham in July, negotiations
for a peace with America and her allies were far advanced, but before
a peace was signed France and Spain were anxious above all things to
regain Gibraltar. Accordingly on the 13th September a tremendous attack
was made on the fortress by the combined fleets. The forts replied
with red hot shot, and eventually succeeded in destroying the floating
batteries. Just when these were silenced Lord Howe appeared in the bay,
and the combined fleet, not venturing to attack him, withdrew. The
siege had attracted the eyes of all Europe, and in February (1783) the
Common Council appointed a committee to consider the most suitable mode
to be adopted by the City to express their respect to Elliot and Howe
and the officers of the army and navy employed in "the glorious defence
and relief of Gibraltar."

[Sidenote: Copley's picture at the Guildhall.]

Two artists were consulted on the matter, namely, West and Copley. The
former was of opinion that it would be better to have two pictures
instead of one, inasmuch as the defence of the Rock by Elliot and
the relief by Howe were two distinct subjects. Copley, on the other
hand, thought that both subjects could be treated in one picture of
sufficient size to fill one of the side windows of the Common Council
Chamber. The cost of such a picture he estimated at £1,500, but rather
than lose the commission he was prepared to paint it for 1,000 guineas.
His offer was in course of time accepted,[510] and his picture now
adorns one entire wall of the Guildhall Art Gallery.[511]

[Sidenote: The Peace of Paris, 3 Sept., 1783.]

This great success, following so close upon Rodney's victory in the
West Indies, convinced the allies that England was not by any means so
prostrate as her failures in America had led them to believe, and they
now showed a disposition to negotiate. Accordingly in January (1783)
preliminaries of peace were signed at Paris. A provisional treaty had
already been concluded with America, by which the independence of
the United States was formally acknowledged. The news was received in
the city with the greatest joy, and the Common Council congratulated
the king on his having paid "final attention" to the petitions of his
faithful citizens and people. They took the opportunity of expressing
their firm conviction that the commercial interests of this country and
of North America were inseparably united--a sentiment with which the
king declared in his reply that he entirely concurred--and hoped that
the stipulations of the treaty would restore commercial intercourse
between the two countries.[512] The preliminaries of both treaties were
converted into definitive treaties on the 3rd September, and on the
6th October the peace was proclaimed in the city of London in the same
manner as at the proclamation of peace with France on the 22nd March,
1763.[513]

FOOTNOTES:

[435] Walpole makes the following comment upon this paragraph:--"The
French will not like the _éclaircissement_ of the court martial by
which it is clear that they were beaten and fled. The city which does
not haggle, has expressed this a little grossly in their address to
Keppel."--Walpole to Mann, 18 Feb., 1779. Letters vii, 179.

[436] Journal 67, fo. 200b.

[437] Walpole, Journal ii, 345.

[438] Journal 67, fos. 2O9b-212.

[439] Walpole to Mann, 9 March, 1779. Letters vii, 182.

[440] Journal 67, fos. 329b-331b.

[441] The king to Lord North, 29 Jan. and 19 Feb.,
1779.--Correspondence ii, 224, 232.

[442] Journal House of Lords, xxxv, 802.

[443] Journal 67, fo. 268-271.

[444] Journal 67, fos. 331b-333b. Journal 68, fos. 5b-12b.

[445] Journal 68, fo. 13.

[446] Walpole, Journal ii, 366, 367, 374.

[447] When that staunchest of Tories, Dr. Johnson, was asked by
his friend Boswell if he had not felt vexed at the passing of
such a resolution he characteristically replied, "I would have
knocked the factious dogs on the head, to be sure, but I was not
_vexed_."--Boswell's Life of Johnson (Napier) iv, 154.

[448] Journal 68, fos. 47-47b, 49-50.

[449] Walpole to Mason, 13 and 17 April, 1780.--Letters vii, 352, 353;
Walpole, Journal ii, 378, 379.

[450] Journal 68, fo. 46b.

[451] _Id._, fo. 49.

[452] "The Form of Association prepared by the committee appointed by
the Court of Common Council to correspond with the committees appointed
or to be appointed by the several Counties, Cities and Boroughs in the
kingdom."--Journal 68, fo. 51.

[453] Journal 68, fo. 52.

[454] Journal 68, fos. 29-29b, 61.

[455] Walpole to the Countess of Ossory. 3 June, 1780.--Letters vii,
377.

[456] Repertory 184, fos. 204-207.

[457] Repertory 184, fo. 207.

[458] _Id._, fo. 209.

[459] Journal 68, fos. 65, 65b.

[460] Repertory 184, fo. 210.

[461] The king to Lord North, 6 June, 1780.--Correspondence ii, 324.

[462] Journal 68, fo. 65b.

[463] Journal 68, fo. 66. Notwithstanding these precautions--and it is
difficult to see what more could be done--Walpole declares that "the
Lord Mayor Kennet and Sheriff Pughe behaved shamefully."--Journal ii,
408.

[464] This incident is depicted in a well known engraving, where the
Mayor is represented, with his hat off, giving the command to fire.
A prominent figure in the group is the surgeon, Sir William Blizard,
tending a wounded man, whilst an attempt is being made on his own life
by one of the rioters.--See Raikes's History of the Hon. Artillery
Company ii, 68.

[465] Repertory 184, fo. 246; Walpole, Journal ii, 407-409; Walpole to
the Countess of Ossory, 7 June, 1780.--Letters vii, 386-389.

[466] Annual Register xxiii, 262.

[467] Journal 68, fo. 67. Walpole, Journal ii, 409, 410.

[468] Repertory 184, fos. 228-236.

[469] _Id._, fo. 232. According to the Gentleman's Magazine (Vol. 50,
p. 295) it would appear that the mayor was put on his defence for we
read: "The lord mayor of London was summoned before the privy council;
but discharged the same evening." A modern writer goes so far as to
say "the lord mayor was tried and convicted of criminal negligence."
(Bright, Hist, of England iii, 1,094). Another goes still further, and
states that he was "prosecuted by the attorney general for a gross
neglect of duty and was convicted, but his death prevented the passing
sentence." (See note by editor of Letters of George III to Lord North,
ii, 324). As a matter of fact Kennet did not die until two years later,
and he continued to perform his civic duties to the last.--Repertory
186, fo. 196.

[470] Highmore, Hist, of Hon. Artillery Company, p. 332. On the 16th
June, the Court of Aldermen passed a vote of thanks to the association,
as well as to the corps of light horse volunteers, serving under
Alderman Kirkman, who had been the first to call the attention of
the Court of Aldermen to Lord Amherst's orders. (Repertory 184,
fos. 251-253.) The Common Council also acknowledged the services
of both bodies, by resolving to present the first mentioned corps
with a handsome pair of colours, and the second with a pair of
standards.--Journal 68, fos. 72b-73.

[471] Repertory 184, fos. 243-248.

[472] Repertory 184, fos. 249-250.

[473] _Id._, fos. 254-256.

[474] Repertory 184, fo. 267.

[475] Journal House of Lords, xxxvi, 151.

[476] Repertory 184, fo. 270.

[477] Journal House of Commons, xxxvii, 929.

[478] Repertory 184, fos. 309-312.

[479] Hansard, Parliamentary History xxi, 701, 702; Walpole, Journal
ii, 418.

[480] Journal 68, fo. 338. The entry is misplaced.

[481] _Id._, fos. 70, 74b.

[482] _Id._, fos. 71, 77b-78.

[483] _Id._, fos. 159b, 196b, 296. Journal 69, fo. 257b.

[484] Journal 68, fos. 164b, 165.

[485] _Id._, fo. 152b.

[486] Walpole, Journal ii, 425.

[487] Walpole, Journal ii, 468-471.

[488] _Id._, 453.

[489] Journal 68, fos. 127-128.

[490] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 227b-228b.

[491] Walpole, Journal ii, 484.

[492] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 229.

[493] Walpole, Journal ii, 484.

[494] Now known as the old council chamber.

[495] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 229-230.

[496] Journal 68, fos. 198, 221b.

[497] Journal House of Commons xxxviii, 814.

[498] Journal 68, fo. 217b.

[499] Journal House of Commons, xxxviii, 860, 861; Walpole, Journal ii,
5O5-5O9.

[500] Journal 68, fos. 221-221b, 226.

[501] Hansard, Parliamentary History xxii, 1, 335.

[502] Walpole, Journal ii, 446.

[503] Journal 68, fos. 226b-228.

[504] Repertory 186, fos. 187-194.

[505] Journal 68, fos. 230, 238b.

[506] _Id._, fo. 251.

[507] _Id._, fos. 265, 290.

[508] Walpole to Mann, 26 Nov., 1782.--Letters viii, 309.

[509] Journal 68, fos. 273b, 284, 293, 296.

[510] Journal 68, fos. 298, 317. Considerable additions having been
made to the picture as originally designed, a further sum of 300
guineas was voted to the artist, on condition, however, that he repaid
Alderman Boydell the sum of 200 guineas which the worthy alderman
had advanced to enable him to proceed to Germany for the purpose of
painting certain portraits of Hanoverian officers for his picture.
Copley objected to the Common Council taking cognisance of what was a
private pecuniary transaction, and declined to pay Boydell out of the
sum voted by the City. Thereupon the Common Council rescinded its vote,
and paid 200 guineas to Boydell direct. This was in March, 1794. Five
years later Copley changed his mood, and petitioned the Court for the
other 100 guineas and for the return of the sketch of his picture. Both
requests were granted.--Journal 70, fo. 259; Journal 74, fos. 63, 164b,
221; Journal 75, fo. 108; Journal 79, fo. 33. In 1817 this picture was
lent to the British Institution for exhibition.--Journal 91, fo. 89b.

[511] The picture is so large, measuring over 24 feet in length,
that it necessitated certain structural alterations in the old
Council Chamber, where it was originally placed in 1793, at a cost of
£300.--Journal 73, fo. 309b.

[512] Journal 68, fos. 307-307b, 310-310b.

[513] Repertory 187, fos. 310, 311.



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.



CHAPTER XLIV.


[Sidenote: Repeal of Corporation and Test Acts, May, 1828.]

In November (1826) a new Parliament met. Of the old city members only
one--viz., Matthew Wood, the popular alderman--retained his seat. He
was joined by two other aldermen, one of them being the no less popular
Waithman, and a commoner. The questions most pressing were Catholic
Emancipation and Parliamentary Reform. The latter had been long urged
by the City. As regards the emancipation of Catholics, the City had at
one time shown considerable opposition. In 1790, the Common Council
expressed itself as anxious to strengthen the hands of those friends of
the established church who had twice successfully opposed in Parliament
the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts--a necessary preliminary to
Catholic emancipation--and had called upon the city members and those
of the Common Council who had seats in Parliament, to resist any future
attempt that might be made in the same direction.[789] Since that time
the citizens had changed their minds, and we find them now (May, 1827),
passing resolutions against the iniquity of making the solemn ordinance
of the Lord's Supper "a qualification and passport for power," and
congratulating the king upon his having placed Canning, a notorious
friend of Catholic emancipation, in power.[790]

Canning unfortunately died before he was able to accomplish anything
in this direction, and his successor, Goderich was deficient in
moral backbone; but early in 1828 the Duke of Wellington became Prime
Minister, and upon a motion made by Lord John Russell, a Bill was
introduced for the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts. A simple
declaration that an applicant for office would not compromise the
Established Church, was to be substituted for the old sacramental test.
During the passage of the Bill through the Lords, the City endeavoured
to get certain amendments introduced, for the purpose chiefly of
protecting members of the Common Council from incurring penalties and
forfeitures imposed by the Bill, but in this they failed.[791] The Bill
passed, and a great step towards Catholic emancipation was thus gained.
The same principle which prompted the City to urge the repeal of
these Acts, also prompted them in later years to petition Parliament,
and themselves to pass resolutions in favour of the abolition of
unnecessary oaths.[792]

[Sidenote: The Catholic Emancipation Bill, April, 1829.]

Renewed activity on the part of the Catholic Association in Ireland,
and the return of O'Connell for County Clare, hastened Catholic
emancipation. The question was taken up by Peel, hitherto an
anti-Catholic. He succeeded in winning over the Duke of Wellington, and
the latter at last persuaded the king to promise some concession at the
opening of Parliament on the 5th February, 1829. The City voted Peel
the Freedom in a gold box and thanked the Duke of Wellington.[793] The
Common Council at the same time presented addresses to both Houses
praying them to support the measures about to be introduced.[794] A
Bill, giving effect to the intentions of the Government, was brought
in on the 5th March. The king who had reluctantly consented to its
introduction resisted to the last, but was compelled to give way, and
on the 14th April the Bill became law.

[Sidenote: Addresses on accession of William IV, June-July, 1830.]

The other pressing question of the day, viz., Parliamentary Reform,
awaited settlement under a new king and a new Parliament. On the 26th
June, 1830, George IV died, and his eldest surviving brother, the Duke
of Clarence, was welcomed by the City as his successor under the title
of William IV. The City--both Aldermen and Common Council--lost no
time in presenting the usual congratulatory addresses,[795] but not a
word was said on the subject that was about to move the country from
one end to the other. A month later (28th July) the livery prepared a
long address, in which, disclaiming "the fulsome strains of unmeaning
flattery," such as they declared had been poured into the royal ear
"from more than one body of men in the city of London already," they
respectfully but firmly laid before the new king a representation of
what they believed to be the true state of affairs. The chief grievance
of the country, they said, lay in the fact that the great body of the
people who paid taxes, had no control whatever over those who falsely
called themselves the representatives of the people; and they expressed
their long-confirmed and deep-rooted conviction that this and all other
evils had arisen from the people not being properly represented in
the House of Commons. Notwithstanding former rebuffs they desired that
their address should be received by the king on his throne. As this
could not be--although the king expressed his willingness to receive it
at the next levée, or through the secretary of state--the address was
not presented at all.[796]

[Sidenote: A General Election, July, 1830.]

The accession of a new king necessitated the dissolution of Parliament
and fresh elections. These took place amid great excitement, for
already the country was agitating by means of political unions for
Parliamentary reform. At their close it was found that the Government,
although losing many seats, still retained a majority. No change was
made in the city members.

[Sidenote: Opening of the new parliament, 2 Nov., 1830.]

When parliament met on the 2nd November, the country was on the tip-toe
of expectation as to what the ministry would do. Would the Duke of
Wellington continue to ignore the manifest will of the nation or would
he give way? He did the first. He not only declared that the country
was satisfied with the existing state of things, but he pledged himself
to oppose any measure of Parliamentary reform that might be proposed
by others. Here was a distinct challenge to the reformers, a challenge
which they were not slow to take up. That same night Brougham, who had
been returned to Parliament for Yorkshire, free of expense, gave notice
that on the 16th, he would bring forward a motion for reform. Before
that day arrived the ministry had resigned.

[Sidenote: The king's visit to the city postponed.]

In the meanwhile, the new king had received a cordial invitation to
dine at the Guildhall on any day most convenient, and his majesty had
graciously accepted the invitation, and had named the 9th November,
lord mayor's day.[797] He chose that day for the reason probably that
it was customary for a new sovereign to honour the citizens with his
presence on the first lord mayor's day after his accession. Extensive
preparations had already been made to give the king a befitting
reception, when on the 7th November, Sir Robert Peel informed the
outgoing mayor by letter, that his majesty had been advised to forego
his visit to the city, for fear lest his presence might give occasion
to riot and tumult, and endanger the property and lives of his
subjects. The fact was, that the lord mayor elect (Sir John Key) had,
on his own responsibility, written to the Duke of Wellington warning
him of danger. A copy of his letter was read before the Common Council
on the 8th, when exception was taken to it as being "indiscreet and
unauthorised." After considerable debate, a resolution was at length
drawn up to the effect that in the opinion of the court "neither riot
nor commotion was to be apprehended had his majesty and his royal
consort ... condescended to honour the city of London with their
presence; and that had evil disposed and disaffected persons made
attempts to excite commotion or disturbance on that occasion, the
most perfect reliance might have been placed on the good feeling and
spontaneous exertions of the great mass of the population of London
to co-operate with the civil power in effectually suppressing such
attempts and preserving the public tranquility."[798] This was all very
well. Nevertheless, in spite of all precautions taken by the civic
authorities, and although the king and his ministers, who had given so
much offence by opposing the popular will, refrained from entering the
city, an affray actually took place at Temple Bar, in which one of the
city marshals was severely wounded in the head.[799]

[Sidenote: Resolutions of Co. Co. _re_ Reform. 15 Nov., 1830.]

On the 15th November, the day that the Wellington ministry received
its _coup de grace_, a Common Council was summoned to sit at the
Mansion House, in order to consider Brougham's motion, which was to
be made in parliament the following day. It then passed the following
resolutions:--[800]

"RESOLVED that this court, as the representative body of the citizens
of London, having at various times expressed its opinion of the
propriety and necessity of a revision of the present state of the
representation of the commons in parliament, is called upon in an
especial manner at the present moment (after the declaration of the
first minister of the crown, that the representation is satisfactory to
the country), to make a renewed avowal of its conviction that the House
of Commons as at present constituted is as far from being satisfactory
to the country as it is from being a real representation of the people.

"RESOLVED that the power now exercised by various peers and other
interested persons of returning a large portion of the members, is
wholly incompatible with the true end and design of a House of Commons,
which in principle and in practice, ought to be a representation not
of a private, but of general interests, an effectual control upon
taxation and the public expenditure, and the organ by which the commons
of the realm may fully exercise that share in the legislature to which,
by the constitution they are entitled.

"RESOLVED that petitions founded upon these resolutions, be forthwith
presented to both Houses of Parliament, praying them to institute a
full and faithful inquiry into the state of the representation with
the view to the remedying of such defects therein as time and various
encroachments have produced, so as to give real effect to the essential
principles of the constitution, namely, that members of parliament
shall be freely chosen, that peers shall not interfere in elections,
and that in the House of Commons, the king may with truth, be said to
meet his people in parliament." Before the petitions could be laid
before parliament,[801] the ministry had resigned.

[Sidenote: The Reform Bill introduced, 1 March, 1831.]

The new prime minister was Lord Grey, who, as a young man, had urged
the necessity of parliamentary reform as early as 1792. Among those
who were content to accept office under the new ministry, although in
an inferior capacity, was Lord John Russell, who had also done good
service for the cause, and who was now to be entrusted with the task
of introducing the long looked for Bill. On the 1st March (1831) the
first Reform Bill, which for the last sixty years the City had been
anxiously awaiting, and for which it had agitated with all the forces
at its command, was at length brought in.

[Sidenote: The Bill approved by Common Council and Livery.]

As soon as the provisions of the Bill became known the Common Council,
who had hitherto refrained from expressing any opinion upon the
nature of the change that had taken place in the ministry, hastened
to express their satisfaction to the king at the policy adopted by
his new ministers;--"We beg to assure your Majesty that having long
entertained a deep and increasing conviction of the necessity of a
reform in the representation of the people in the Commons House of
Parliament, we have looked forward with the greatest anxiety to the
course which your Majesty's ministers would adopt in reference to
that important subject; and we now feel ourselves imperatively called
upon, humbly and dutifully, to express to your Majesty our entire
satisfaction at the principles of the measure that has been introduced,
under their sanction, to the Honorable House of Commons."[802] The
livery, too, presented an address in much the same terms, although by
the provisions of the Bill nonresident liverymen were threatened with
exclusion from the franchise. The Bill, they said, afforded a clear
proof of the sincerity and honesty of his majesty's ministers, and
entitled them to the best thanks and lasting gratitude of the country.
They further presented addresses in the same strain to both Houses
of Parliament.[803] The Court of Aldermen, on the other hand, were
as little enamoured of reform as the Lords, and thought it best to
say nothing beyond what they were committed to in the address of the
Common Council.

[Sidenote: Dissolution of Parliament, 22 April, 1831.]

The debate on the first reading lasted seven nights. When the second
reading came on the Bill passed, but only by a bare majority. A hostile
amendment was subsequently carried in committee by a majority of eight,
and thereupon the government withdrew the Bill, and Parliament was
dissolved in order that the question might be submitted to the country
(22 April). A special Court of Common Council was summoned to meet on
the 27th, when the committee which had been recently appointed to watch
the proceedings in Parliament relative to the Bill, reported the fact
of the dissolution, and recommended the City to place on record its
"cordial gratitude" to the king for having thus given the country an
opportunity of expressing its wishes. A resolution was thereupon passed
to that effect. This was followed by another resolution expressing
a fervent hope that at the general election about to take place all
minor considerations might give way to the one great duty of promoting
the country's welfare, and that only such members would be returned
as would unequivocally pledge themselves to support his majesty's
ministers in carrying the great question of reform to a successful
issue. By so doing they would overthrow "a faction arrayed in hostility
against the liberties of their country, and seeking to maintain
themselves in the usurpation of a power unknown to the constitution,
and no less injurious to the prerogatives of the Crown than distinctive
to the legitimate rights of the People."[804] The lord mayor had
already received notice that in view of the elections which were to
take place in the city on the 29th orders had been given that no troops
should enter or be quartered in the city for one day at least previous
to the day of election nor until one day at least after the closing of
the poll. These steps were taken pursuant to Stat. 8 George II, c. 30,
but the Court of Aldermen affected some surprise and the Town Clerk was
instructed to ascertain whether similar orders had usually been given
on the occasion of previous elections.[805]

[Sidenote: The Reform Bill passes the Commons, 21 Sept., 1831.]

The elections, which were carried on amid the greatest excitement,
and no little riot and disorder, proved strongly in favour of the
reformers. In the city the three aldermen, viz., Wood, Waithman and
Thompson, who sat in the last Parliament, were again returned, but
William Ward, who had been one of the city's representatives since
1826, was strongly advised not to put up again for fear of some
personal violence being offered him,[806] and his seat was taken by
Venables, another alderman. The Bill, in a slightly amended form, was
again brought in, and eventually passed the Commons (21 Sept.).

[Sidenote: The Bill rejected by the Lords, 8 Oct.]

The livery of London, as well as the Common Council, had been anxious
to petition the Lords to give their assent to the Bill, even before it
had left the Commons. The livery, indeed, had drafted their petition
two days before the Bill passed the Commons.[807] The Common Council
were less precipitate, and waited until the 27th before they drew up
their petition.[808] The Court of Aldermen again kept silence. The
country waited with anxiety to see what the Lords would do. It had
not long to wait. On the first reading the Bill was thrown out by a
majority of forty-one (8 Oct.).

[Sidenote: City address to the king on rejection of Bill by Lords, 8
Oct., 1831.]

The opponents of the measure believed and hoped that the fate of the
ministry was now sealed. The day that the Bill was rejected by the
Lords another Common Council was summoned for the purpose of taking
into consideration what under the circumstances was best to be done.
It forthwith resolved to draw up an address to the king expressive
of the City's bitter disappointment at the Lords "having turned a
deaf ear to the nation's voice, and thrown out the great Bill for
consolidating the peace, prosperity and liberties of the people," and
of its continued confidence in his majesty's ministers. The address
concluded with a solemn warning that unless the country received some
assurance that a Bill, similar to that which had been just rejected,
would soon be passed, nothing could prevent "the most fearful national
commotions."[809]

[Sidenote: The king's reply, 12 Oct.]

The king received the address very graciously and thanked the City for
its expressions of confidence and loyalty. He assured the citizens
of his desire to uphold the just rights of the people, and of his
determination to further the promotion of such measures as might seem
best calculated for that purpose; and he concluded by recommending
those present to use all their influence with their fellow citizens for
the purpose of preventing acts of violence and commotion.[810]

[Sidenote: Address of the livery, 10 Oct., 1831.]

The livery were scarcely less prompt in assuring the king of their
loyalty, and their confidence in the existing government:--"We venture
humbly to represent to your majesty our belief that under the present
trying and difficult circumstances, the security of public credit and
the preservation of the public peace depend upon their continuance in
office." No other ministers, they went on to say, would possess the
same esteem and confidence of the country, and they only were in a
position to carry the Bill.[811] At the same time they passed a vote of
thanks to the ministers "for their honest, firm, and patriotic course
of conduct."

[Sidenote: Agitation in the country, Oct.-Nov., 1831.]

The City's prognostications of evil arising out of the Lords' refusal
to bow to the will of the nation were fully justified. The streets of
London and other large towns became the scenes of disorderly riots. At
Derby the houses of those opposed to reform were attacked by the mob
and their windows smashed. The ancient castle of Nottingham, once a
royal residence, was fired and reduced to a pile of smoking ruins. At
Birmingham a meeting was held at which those who were present pledged
themselves to pay no taxes if the Reform Bill were again rejected,[812]
whilst at Bristol, nearly a whole square was burnt by the mob.[813]
The political unions that had sprung up all over the country resolved
to increase their strength by the formation of a National Political
Union, which should have its head-quarters in London. To this end, a
meeting was held in Lincoln's Inn Fields, on the 31st of October, with
Sir Francis Burdett in the chair. The proceedings, however, took such
a radical turn that before long Burdett withdrew his name from the
association. The government, too, became alarmed at the prospect of a
meeting announced to be held on the 7th November. Orders were given
to swear in special constables, the whole of the recently established
(1829) police force was to be held in readiness, and a large body of
troops was quartered in the neighbourhood of the capital ready to put
down any disturbance that might arise. On the 4th November--three days
before the proposed meeting--a royal proclamation was read before
the Court of Aldermen calling upon all his majesty's liege subjects
to assist the civil magistrates in putting down disturbances as soon
as any should appear, and to aid in the preservation of the peace.
Thereupon a resolution was passed to the effect that each member of the
Court in his respective ward should immediately enroll and swear in a
number of special constables to assist the magistracy upon any tumult,
riot, outrage or breach of the peace occurring within the city.[814]
Thanks to the precautions thus taken, and to the advice given to
the leaders of the movement by Lord Melbourne, the meeting was not
held.[815]

[Sidenote: Votes of thanks to Sir John Key, mayor, Nov., 1831.]

On the 9th November, Sir John Key, the lord mayor, entered upon his
second year of office, having been re-elected by the livery, and
forced upon the Court of Aldermen for a second term.[816] The Common
Council, as was usual, acknowledged his services of the past year,
and more particularly his "vigilant superintendence of the police,"
which had conduced so much to the peace of the city, with a formal
vote of thanks.[817] Two days previously (15 Nov.), when a similar
vote had been proposed in the Court of Aldermen, it failed to pass
for lack of a _quorum_,[818] and the matter was allowed to drop. The
livery had already tendered him their thanks, not only for the zeal
he had displayed in the cause of parliamentary reform, but also for
his consenting to undertake another year of office and for upholding
the election rights of the livery against the "secret tribunal" of the
Court of Aldermen.[819]

[Sidenote: Lords Grey and Althorp voted the Freedom of the City, 26
April, 1832.]

On the 12th December (1831) the Bill was again brought in by Lord John
Russell and on the 23rd March (1832), it passed the Commons. The second
reading of the Bill took place in the Lords on the 14th April, and was
carried by a majority of nine; after which both Houses rose for the
Easter recess. Before they met again the Common Council had voted Earl
Grey and Viscount Althorp, the chancellor of the exchequer, the Freedom
of the City, (both of whom graciously acknowledged the compliment),
and had drawn up a petition to the Lords, to be presented by the Duke
of Sussex, praying them to pass the Bill with the least possible
delay.[820]

[Sidenote: Resignation of the ministry, 9 May, 1832.]

When, after the recess, the Bill came again before the Lords (7 May),
the government found themselves beaten on an amendment introduced by
Lord Lyndhurst, who had been chancellor in Wellington's ministry.[821]
Grey who had been constantly urged to advise the king to create a
sufficient number of new peers to insure the passing of the Bill, now
asked him to cut the Gordian knot by the creation of fifty new peers.
The king, however, was becoming frightened at the determined attitude
of the country, and declined. Thereupon the minister tendered his
resignation (9 May).

[Sidenote: City petition to Parliament, 10 May, 1832.]

The news that the ministers had resigned was received with howls of
indignation throughout the country. The papers appeared with a black
edge of deep mourning. The National Union decreed that whoever should
advise a dissolution was an enemy to the country. The day following
the resignation of the government a special Court of Common Council
met and drew up a petition to the House of Commons, expressing their
mortification and disappointment at finding that his majesty had
refused his ministers the means of carrying the Bill through the House
of Lords. They, too, like the National Union, were of opinion that
whoever advised his majesty to withhold from his ministers the means
of ensuring the success of the Reform Bill, had proved themselves
the enemies of their sovereign, and had "put to imminent hazard the
stability of the throne, and the tranquillity and security of the
country," and they prayed the House to withhold all supplies until the
Bill had passed.[822] The city members and those of the Common Council
who had seats in Parliament were urged to support the prayer of the
petition, and to decline voting any supplies until the Reform Bill
should have been satisfactorily secured, and a joint committee of all
the aldermen and commoners of the city was appointed to sit from day to
day, to promote the object they had so much at heart.[823]

[Sidenote: Proceedings of Common Hall, 11 May, 1832.]

The next day (11 May), the livery met in Common Hall and drew up
an address to the king. The defeat of the Bill, to pass which the
electors of the country had specially sent their representatives to
Parliament--the defeat of the Bill by a small majority in the House of
Lords, had (they said), "spread terror and dismay" among his majesty's
subjects, and threatened the credit, the tranquillity, the institutions
of the country. At such a crisis the livery of London could not do
less than pray his majesty to "adopt such measures as are provided
by the constitution" (in other words, create a sufficient number of
peers) for the purpose of removing all obstacles to the Bill.[824]
Not content with appealing to the king, they called upon the House of
Commons to exercise their right, given them for the good and welfare of
the nation, and to refuse any further supplies until the Bill should
have become law.[825] They, further, passed a number of resolutions
upholding the conduct of Lord Grey and his colleagues in the ministry,
and condemning those, who like the Duke of Wellington and others,
were at that moment attempting "to mislead and delude the people by
pretended plans of reform," after defeating "the people's Bill."[826]

[Sidenote: Another City address to the king, 14 May, 1832.]

For a whole week the country was kept in a state of suspense, anxiously
waiting to see whether the Duke of Wellington, who had declared his
willingness to accept office and to give his support to a less complete
measure of reform, would succeed in forming an administration or not.
Whilst negotiations were being carried on the Common Council met (14
May), and drew up a long and strongly-worded address ending with a
declaration that they--the lord mayor, aldermen and Common Council
of the city of London--would be wanting in their duty to themselves
and to posterity, if they did not express their overwhelming sorrow
at the resignation of his majesty's late honest ministers, and their
serious apprehension that unless Lord Grey and his colleagues were
promptly recalled and allowed to pass the Reform Bill unmutilated and
unimpaired, the country would witness those "calamities which have
affected other nations when struggling to be free."[827] There would,
in fact, be a revolution, such as had been witnessed in France at the
close of the last century.

[Sidenote: Re-call of Earl Grey's ministry, 18 May, 1832.]

When the sheriffs applied for an appointment to be made for the
reception of the address, they were put off from time to time.
Thereupon, the matter was taken up by the recently appointed joint
committee, and on the 18th, they had an interview with Earl Grey, but
by that time matters had been accommodated, and there was no longer
any occasion for presenting the address. The Duke of Wellington had
three days before (15 May), communicated to the king his inability to
form a ministry, and on the evening of the 18th, formal announcement
was made to both houses that Earl Grey and his colleagues had been
recalled and were in a position to carry through the Bill unimpaired
in efficiency and without mutilation.[828] The Common Council took an
early opportunity of expressing their utmost satisfaction at the turn
of affairs, and passed resolutions to that effect, which were ordered
to be delivered to the secretary of state, and also to be published in
all the morning and evening newspapers.[829]

[Sidenote: The Reform Bill becomes law, 7 June, 1832.]

The question naturally arose whence this confidence of the recalled
ministry? Was the House of Lords to be swamped by the creation of a
batch of new peers, or had an arrangement been made for securing the
withdrawal of the requisite number of opposition peers? The answer was
soon forthcoming. When the Bill again came before the lords, the Duke
of Wellington left the house, and was followed by about a hundred other
peers. The bishops withdrew in a body, and the Bill, with some trifling
alterations, which the Commons readily accepted, was passed by a large
majority (4 June), and three days later received the royal assent.

[Sidenote: The rights of the livery saved.]

The Bill as introduced in December last, had to undergo some
alterations in order that the proposed plan of reform might embrace
the livery franchise peculiar to the city of London. The necessity
of amendments in this direction did not escape the attention of the
committee appointed on the 21st April (1831), to watch the course of
the Reform Bill and to give support to Earl Grey's ministry; and the
day after the Bill had received the royal assent, this committee had
the satisfaction of reporting to the Common Council that the most
important of the amendments proposed by them had been adopted and
introduced in the Act.[830]

[Sidenote: Celebration of Reform at Guildhall, 11 July, 1832.]

The citizens were immensely pleased at the success which, after so
long a struggle, had at last attended their efforts to secure a better
representation of the people in the House of Commons. The measure was
not and could not be final, but it was a step, and a long step in the
right direction, and as such, the Common Council resolved that it
should be publicly celebrated, and honour given to those to whom honour
was due in effecting its accomplishment. An Irish and a Scottish Reform
Bill were still before parliament, but as the passing of these measures
was looked upon as a foregone conclusion, they were not allowed to
stand in the way of the City's proposed celebration of the passing of
the English Bill. Earl Grey and Lord Althorp had not yet received the
Freedom of the City voted in April last. It was therefore arranged
that the Freedom should be conferred upon these ministers with all
the pomp and ceremony that befitted the occasion on Wednesday, the
11th July,[831] and that the presentation should be followed by an
entertainment at the Guildhall, given to all those members of the House
of Commons who had voted for the third reading of the Bill, as well as
to those peers who had voted against Lord Lyndhurst's amendment, and
such other noblemen and gentlemen as had lent their aid to the cause.
In acknowledging the honour conferred upon him Earl Grey paid befitting
tribute to the City's influence in the commercial world, its loyalty
to the constitution, and its love of freedom "never more conspicuously
manifested" than during recent events.[832] A book containing the
autographs of the principal guests, among whom was the Duke of Sussex,
is preserved in the Guildhall library, as well as a medal struck in
commemoration of the passing of the Bill.[833]

[Sidenote: A retrospect.]

With this signal triumph of the people, to which the city of London had
contributed so much, the present work is brought to a close. No good
end would be served by entering the domain of contemporary politics.
Enough has been set out in these pages to convince the impartial
reader that the city of London is no mean city; that it possesses a
record equal, if not indeed superior, to that of any other city in
the Universe, ancient or modern, and that its wealth and influence
have ever been devoted to the cause of religious, social and political
freedom. Notwithstanding anything its detractors may say, the City has
not only marched with the age, it has for the most part been a leader
of public opinion, and has shown itself in advance of the age. It
is to three notable aldermen of the city, viz., Oliver, Crosby, and
Wilkes, be it remembered, that the country is indebted for the liberty
of the press, and the freedom of reporting Parliamentary debates, so
long jealously withheld. Had it not been for the determined attitude
of these aldermen the country might have waited still longer for
Parliament to be brought to realise that its proceedings are (so to
speak) public property. It was Wilkes, again, and his brother aldermen
who made a successful stand against the pernicious, if lawful, custom
of pressing men for the king's service, the result being that whilst
the rest of the kingdom was over-run with press-gangs, the city of
London was quit of them, or if any ventured to seize the person of a
citizen, they were soon made to surrender their prey.

[Sidenote: Enfranchisement of Jews.]

If other evidence, beyond what appears in these pages, were wanting in
proof of the enlightened policy pursued by the Corporation of London,
it will be found in the fact that Jews were enfranchised and admitted
into the city's council and to all municipal offices long before they
gained admission into the council of the nation. In December, 1830,
the Common Council passed a Bill for extending the Freedom of the City
to all natural born subjects, not professing the Christian religion
but in other respects qualified, upon their taking the Freeman's oath
according to the forms of their own religion.[834] Five years later
David Salomons, a Jew, was admitted to the shrievalty. In 1847 he was
elected alderman, and in 1855 became lord mayor. In the meanwhile,
repeated attempts had been made to get Parliament to pass a Bill for
altering the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, in such a manner that
Jews might be relieved of the necessity of making a declaration "upon
the true faith of a Christian." The House of Commons had again and
again passed Bills to this effect, but they had always been rejected by
the Lords, who steadily refused to give their assent to the admission
of Jews, notwithstanding the entreaties of the city of London.[835]
The election of Alderman Salomons to the mayoralty was regarded by the
livery of London as "a triumph to liberal principles," and as affording
a prospect "of the ultimate triumph of the cause of toleration by the
admission of the members of the Jewish persuasion to the legislature,
and the highest offices of the State."[836] Their hopes were now
destined to be soon realised. A compromise was at last effected, and
three years later (23 July, 1858), a Bill was passed allowing either
House by a resolution to modify the form of oath required from its
members.

[Sidenote: Baron Rothschild, M.P., for the City.]

For years the City had been content to suffer for its principles. Ever
since 1847 it had continued to return a Jew to Parliament, in the
person of Baron Lionel Rothschild, in spite of the fact that he was not
allowed to take his seat. As soon however as the Bill became law, the
House of Commons passed the necessary resolution, and on the 26th April
the Baron took his seat, and the City recovered its full representation
in Parliament. Both Alderman Salomons and Baron Rothschild commemorated
their respective victories by endowing scholarships in the City of
London School, open to candidates of every religious persuasion; and a
like scholarship was founded by a committee known as the "Committee of
the Jewish Commemoration Fund."[837]

[Sidenote: The City's finances.]

The city of London was, as we have seen, known in earliest times as
the king's "Chamber," and the Chamberlain was the king's officer. The
City in fact served as the purse of the nation, until such time as
the establishment of the Bank of England did away with the necessity
of direct applications to the Corporation for loans, to enable the
government of the kingdom to be carried on. Like the nation itself,
the City has had its times of pecuniary distress, and nothing but the
most careful nursing of its estate has enabled it to tide over its
difficulties. More especially was this the case at the close of the
civil war, and again, for some years after the Great Fire, as well as
at the commencement of the reign of Queen Anne.

[Sidenote: The City's public spirit.]

The City has not wasted its substance. Large sums have been expended
upon local improvements, upon the erection of markets, upon bridges,
not forgetting that latest marvel of engineering skill, the Tower
Bridge, upon the City's schools, upon the erection of the Guildhall
library with its adjacent Museum and Art Gallery, as well as upon the
establishment and maintenance of one of the most successful Schools of
Music ever known in this country. At the close of the year 1882, the
Corporation had, within a comparatively recent period, expended nearly
six and a half millions, out of its own funds, upon improvements within
the city and liberties--improvements which benefited the inhabitants of
the metropolis generally no less than the citizens themselves.[838]
Nor has the Corporation stayed its hand at the city's boundaries.
During the short period of ten years preceding 1882, a sum of more
than £300,000 was expended out of the city's cash for providing open
spaces for the people, including Epping Forest, Wanstead Park, West Ham
Park, and Burnham Beeches, but irrespective of the later acquisitions
of Coulsdon and other adjacent commons in the county of Surrey,
since dedicated to the public.[839] An area exceeding 6,000 acres in
all, has thus been preserved for posterity and placed beyond risk of
purprestures and encroachments.

[Sidenote: The City and the Metropolitan Board of Works.]

From the time when the Metropolitan Board of Works was first
established in 1855, down to its disestablishment in 1889, the
Corporation contributed large sums of money to assist that body in
carrying out the stupendous work of the Thames Embankment, a work of
which Londoners may well be proud, and were engaged jointly with the
Board in freeing from toll the bridges of Staines, Walton, Hampton
Court, Kingston and Kew, on the Thames, as well as Tottenham Mills and
Chingford bridges on the Lea.

[Sidenote: Abolition of coal and wine dues, 1889.]

Since the abolition of the coal and wine dues in 1889, the whole of
which had been devoted to carrying out improvements, erecting public
buildings, and freeing bridges, in and near the metropolis,[840] the
work of the Corporation, as well as of the London County Council (the
successor to the Metropolitan Board of Works), in this direction has
been sorely crippled. It was popularly supposed that the coal dues
affected the price of coal and gas, and that as soon as the dues were
abolished the price of these commodities would at once go down. The
result has proved to be far otherwise. An income of more than half a
million sterling, produced in such a way as to afford the minimum of
burden to the taxpayer, and expended in such a way as to produce the
maximum of benefit to the whole of the metropolis, has been lost to the
City and the London County Council, whilst the consumer not only pays
the same price as before for his coal and gas (the middle-man pocketing
the tax), but finds himself saddled with an increased rate.

[Sidenote: The City as Port sanitary authority.]

One more remark and we have done. As conservators of the river Thames,
the Corporation did much to improve its navigation, but in 1857 the
conservancy was taken away from the City and became vested in a board.
In 1872, however, the Corporation became the sanitary authority of
the Port of London under somewhat remarkable circumstances. When the
Public Health Bill of that year was framed, the Local Government
Board long hesitated as to whom the duty of acting as the sanitary
authority of the Port of London should be committed. At the last moment
the Corporation stept in and volunteered to undertake the duty free
of expense. The government readily accepted the offer, and to this
patriotic act on the part of the municipality as well as to the energy
of its executive officers, it is largely due that this vast metropolis
enjoys comparative immunity from cholera and zymotic diseases and that
the city itself, besides being the best paved and the best lighted, is
also the most healthy city in the civilised world.

                            END OF VOL III.

FOOTNOTES:

[789] Journal 72, fo. 70.

[790] Journal 101, fos. 174-177, 180.

[791] Journal 102, fos. 152-153.

[792] Journal 104, fos. 196b-198b. Journal 106, fos. 236-237, 239b-241b.

[793] Journal 102, fos. 377-377b.

[794] Journal 102, fos. 376-376b.

[795] Journal 104, fo. 201. Repertory 234, fo. 743.

[796] Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 274-280, 283-284.

[797] Journal 104, fos. 321-322, 323.

[798] _Id._, fos. 364b-366.

[799] Repertory 235, fo. 13.

[800] Journal 104, fo. 374.

[801] The petition to the commons was presented on the 16th Nov.--the
day that the Duke of Wellington resigned; that to the lords on the
25th.--Journal House of Commons, lxxxvi, pt. 1, 87; Journal House of
Lords, lxiii, 128.

[802] Journal 105, fo. 133.

[803] Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 295-299.

[804] Journal 105, fos. 258-259b.

[805] Repertory 235, fos. 376, 377.

[806] Annual Register lxxiii, 154.

[807] Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 304-306.

[808] Journal 105, fos. 376-377, 379b-380, 387b-389.

[809] Journal 105, fos. 389b-391b.

[810] _Id._, fo. 392.

[811] Common Hall Book, No. 10, fo. 312.

[812] Annual Register lxxiii, 281, 282.

[813] _Id._, lxxiii, 291-294.

[814] Repertory 235, fos. 711-714.

[815] Annual Register lxxiii, 296, 297.

[816] On Michaelmas-day the livery returned Key and Alderman Thorp. The
Court of Aldermen selected Thorp, but he declined to take office. At a
subsequent election the livery again returned Key and with him Alderman
Thompson. The Court of Aldermen thereupon called upon Thompson, but
he also declined to serve, and a third election had to take place.
Again Key was returned, together with Alderman Kelly, and the Court
of Aldermen finding the livery bent on having their own way, selected
Key.--Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 308-310, 313-320.

[817] Journal 106, fo. 1.

[818] Repertory 236, fos. 4, 5.

[819] Common Hall Book, No. 10, fo. 320.

[820] Journal 106, fos. 245b-248.

[821] Annual Register lxxiv, 155.

[822] Journal 106, fos. 275-276.

[823] _Id._, fo. 276b.

[824] Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 327-332.

[825] _Id._, fos. 332-333.

[826] Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 328-329.

[827] Journal 106, fos. 280b-283.

[828] Journal 106, fos. 326b-328. Annual Register lxxiv, 175, 185.

[829] Journal 106, fos. 328-328b.

[830] Journal 106, fos. 377-377b.

[831] Just a twelvemonth had elapsed since the freedom had been
conferred on Lord John Russell (9 July, 1831), for undertaking the
introduction of the Reform Bill. Ten years later (1841), he was
returned as one of the members for the city, and continued to represent
it until his elevation to the peerage.

[832] Journal 106, fos. 378-379b. Journal 107, fos. 119b-129b.

[833] For description of this medal and of other medals struck from
time to time by order of the Corporation, see _Numismata Londinensia_,
edited with descriptive notes by Mr. Charles Welch, F.S.A., the
Guildhall Librarian, (London, 1894).

[834] Journal 105, fos. 5-6.

[835] Journal 126, fo. 31. Journal 127, fo. 345. Journal 129, fo. 379.

[836] Common Hall Book, No. 10, fo. 637.

[837] Hust. Roll, 372 (2), 373 (3), (4).

[838] See prefatory note to returns made by the Chamberlain pursuant to
an order of the Court of Common Council, 26 Oct., 1882. (_Printed._)

[839] Chamberlain's returns (_Sup._).--"Expenditure for benefit of
metropolis, etc." pp. 12, 13.

[840] For a list of metropolitan improvements and public works carried
out by means of these dues, see "Ten years' growth of the City of
London"--being a report of local government and taxation committee of
the Corporation (1891), James Salmon, Esq., Chairman, pp. 130-139.



APPENDIX A.


TABLE OF CONTENTS.

    No. 1. Reply from the City to a letter from King Henry V
            (Printed in _Memorials_), asking for wine and provisions
            for the army at Rouen. Dated 8 Sept. [1418].

    No. 2. Proclamation for speeding men to the English army in
            Normandy. [1418.]

    No. 3. Letter from King Henry V to the City, notifying the
            capture of Pontoise. Dated Mantes, 5 Aug. [1419].

    No. 4. Reply to the above. Dated 6 Sept. [1419].

    No. 5. Letter from the Duke of Clarence to the City on the same
            subject. Dated Mantes, 5 Aug. [1419].

    No. 6. Reply to the above. Dated 6 Sept. [1419].

    No. 7. Letter from Henry V to the City, informing the citizens
            of his movements in France. Dated Mantes, 12 July [1421].

    No. 8. Reply to the above. Dated 2 Aug. [1421].

    No. 9. Letter from the Duke of Bedford to the City, claiming
            the government of the realm at the death of Henry V. Dated
            Rouen, 26 Oct. [1422].

    No. 10. Letter from the Mayor and Aldermen of the City to the
            Duke of Bedford. No date [1424].

    No. 11. Another letter from the same to the same. No date
            [1424].

    No. 12. Letter from the Earl of Salisbury and of Perche to the
            City, announcing the success of the war in France. Dated 5
            Sept. [1428].

    No. 13. Reply to the above. Dated 12 Oct. [1428].

    No. 14. Letter from Henry VI to the City, asking for a loan.
            Dated Rouen, 10 Nov. [1430].

    No. 15. Letter from Cardinal Beaufort, notifying the Mayor,
            Sheriffs and Aldermen of the City, of his intention to
            return forthwith to England. Dated Ghent, 13 April [1432].

    No. 16. Letter from the Mayor and Aldermen of Calais to the
            City of London, asking for assistance. Dated 27 June [1436].

    No. 17. Letter from Henry VI to the Mayor, Aldermen and
            Sheriffs of London, touching the peace of the City. Dated
            Lichfield, 3 Sept., 35 Hen. VI [1456].

    No. 18. Letter from the same to the City, ordering the seizure
            of certain ships of war in the Thames. Dated Coventry, 10
            March [1456-7].

    No. 19. Letter from the same to the same, touching the peace of
            the City. Dated Kenilworth, 22 March [1456-7].

    No. 20. Letter from the City to Henry VI, touching the capture
            of Sandwich by the French. Dated 3 Sept. [1457].

    No. 21. Reply to the above. Dated Northampton, 5 Sept. [1457].

    No. 22. Reply of Bishop Waynfleete, the Chancellor, to letter
            from the City, similar to No. 20 _supra_. Dated Waltham, 5
            Sept. [1457].

    No. 23. Letter from the Earl of Kendal, Lord Scales and others
            besieged in the Tower, to the Lord Mayor, asking why war
            was being made upon them. No date [circ. July, 1460].

    No. 24. Reply to the above. No date.

    No. 25. Agreement touching the surrender of the Tower by the
            Earl of Kendal, Lord Scales and others. Dated 16 July, 38
            Hen. VI [1460].

    No. 26. Minutes of the proceedings of the Common Council upon
            the return of the Earl of Warwick to England and the flight
            of King Edward IV. October, 1470.

    No. 27. Letter from Thomas Fauconberge (commonly known as the
            "bastard Falconbridge,") to the City, declaring his
            peaceable intentions towards the City. Dated Sittingbourne,
            8 May [1471].

    No. 28. Reply to the above. Dated 9 May [1471].

    No. 29. Account of the invasion of the City by the Kentish
            rebels. 12 May, 1471.

    No. 30. Letter from King Henry VII to the City, announcing the
            betrothal of his daughter, the Princess Mary, to Charles of
            Castile. Dated Richmond, 28 Dec. [1507].

    No. 31. Petition of Dean Colet to the Common Council that he
            might be allowed to purchase certain lands and tenements
            for the purpose of enlarging his school; 15th Jan., 3 Henry
            VIII [1511-12].

    No. 32. Letter from Henry VIII to the City, desiring 300 men
            for the navy against a threatened invasion by the King of
            France. Dated Greenwich, 30 Jan. [1512-13].

    No. 33. Letter from Cardinal Wolsey to the City, touching a
            loan of 4,000 marks. Dated 3 Sept. [1522].

    No. 34. Letter from Henry VIII to the City requesting a
            benevolence. Dated Greenwich, 25 April [1525].

    No. 35. Order of obsequies to be celebrated in the City on the
            death of the Lady Jane Seymour, 10 Nov., 1537.

    No. 36. Extract from letter from Sir Richard Gresham to Thomas
            Cromwell, lord Privy Seal, touching the purchase of certain
            houses in Lombard Street belonging to Alderman Monoux, for
            the purpose of a site for an Exchange. Dated 25 July [1538].

    No. 37. Letter from Henry VIII to Alderman Monoux, desiring
            him to part with the property above-mentioned. Dated
            Chichester, 13 Aug. [1538].

    No. 38. Another letter from the same to the same, on the same
            subject. No date.

    No. 39. Letter of thanks from Henry VIII to Alderman Monoux for
            acceeding to the King's former request. Dated Westminster,
            25 Nov. [1538].

    No. 40. Proclamation of Henry VIII, forbidding public hunting
            and hawking in the suburbs of London. Dated Westminster, 7
            July, 37 Hen. VIII [1545].

    No. 41. Letter from King Edward VI and the Protector Somerset
            to the City, asking for a force of 1,000 men as a
            protection against conspirators. Dated Hampton Court, 6
            Oct. [1549].

    No. 42. Letter from Lords of the Council to the City, touching
            the conduct of the Duke of Somerset. Dated 6 Oct. [1549].

    No. 43. Letter from Queen Mary to the City, desiring a
            contingent of 1,000 men to be ready for active service at a
            day's notice. Dated Richmond, 31 July, 1557.

    No. 44. Another letter from the same to the same, asking for
            500 men to be immediately despatched for the relief of
            Calais. Dated Greenwich, 2 Jan. [1557-8].

    No. 45. Letter from Queen Elizabeth to the City, desiring 250
            soldiers for service at sea under the High Admiral, Lord
            Clinton, against the French. Dated Greenwich, 17 May, 2
            Eliz. [1560].

    No. 46. Letter from the same to the same, desiring that Sir
            Thomas Gresham might be discharged from serving the offices
            of Mayor, Alderman and Sheriff. Dated Westminster, 7 March,
            5 Eliz. [1562-3].

    No. 47. Proclamation against the Earls of Northumberland and
            Westmoreland or their rebellion against the Queen's
            majesty. Dated Windsor Castle, 24 Nov., 1569.

    No. 48. Letter from Queen Elizabeth to the City on the occasion
            of the discovery of the Babington conspiracy. Dated Windsor
            Castle, 18 Aug., 1586.

    No. 49. Speech delivered by a member of the Common Council upon
            the same occasion.

    No. 50. List of ships furnished and victualled by the City to
            meet the Armada, 1588.

    No. 51. Government order to victual ships furnished by the City
            against the Armada. 24 July, 1588.

    No. 52. List of all the ships furnished by the City against
            Spain in 1558.

    No. 53. Letter from King James I to the City, upon his
            accession. Dated Holyrood House, 28 March, 1603.

    No. 54. Reply to the above. Dated 29 March, 1603.

    No. 55. Another letter from King James I in answer to the
            foregoing. Dated Newcastle, 11 April, 1603.

    No. 56. Letter from the Lords of the Council to Sir Arthur
            Chichester, Deputy in Ireland, as to the course to be
            pursued with the City's Commissioners appointed to view the
            Irish Estate. Dated Whitehall, 3 Aug., 1609.

    No. 57. Letter from Speaker Lenthall to the Lord Mayor, asking,
            on behalf of Parliament, for a City loan of £60,000. Dated
            Covent Garden, 15 Jan., 1640-1.

    No. 58. Another letter from Speaker Lenthall, on the same
            matter. Dated Covent Garden, 6 Feb., 1640-1.

    No. 59. A third letter from the same, on the same matter. Dated
            Charing Cross, 19 Feb., 1640-1.

    No. 60. Letter from the Earl of Essex to the City, desiring a
            loan of £100,000 for the maintenance of the Parliamentary
            army. Dated Northampton, 13 Sept., 1642.

    No. 61. Letter from the same, announcing the appointment of
            Skippon as Sergeant-Major-General in the Parliamentary
            army. Dated Hammersmith, 16 Nov., 1642.

    No. 62. Resolution of the Common Council for putting the City
            and suburbs into a posture of defence; 23 Feb., 1642-3.

    No. 63. Letter from the Mayor, &c., of Gloucester to the City
            of London, touching the removal of Colonel Massey. Dated 29
            May, 1645.

    No. 64. Letter from the Mayor, &c., of Plymouth, to the same,
            enclosing copy of petition to Parliament for relief against
            the depredations of the Royalists. Dated 5 Sept., 1645.

    No. 65. The City's petition to King Charles I, in reply to His
            Majesty's letter of the 19 May, 1646.

    No. 66. Letter from Fairfax and the Council of War to the
            Commissioners of the City of London, forbidding further
            enlistments. Dated 14 June, 1647.

    No. 67. Letter from the same to the Mayor, Aldermen and Common
            Council of the City, touching the removal of the army and
            the safety of the King's person. Dated St. Albans, 15 June,
            1647.

    No. 68. The City's reply to the two preceding letters. Dated 18
            June, 1647.

    No. 69. Letter from Fairfax to the City in answer to the above.
            Dated St. Albans, 21 and 22 June, 1647.

    No. 70. Letter from the City to Fairfax, informing him that
            Commissioners had been despatched to remain at the
            head-quarters of the army. Dated 25 June, 1647.

    No. 71. Letter from Fairfax to the City, notifying the removal
            of the army to the bridge. Dated Berkhamstead, 25 June,
            1647.

    No. 72. Letter from Fairfax to the City, enclosing copy of
            proposals forwarded to Parliament from the army. Dated
            Reading, 8 July, 1647.

    No. 73. Letter from the City to Fairfax, deprecating any
            attempt to intermeddle with the liberties and privileges of
            the City. Dated 28 July, 1647.

    No. 74. Minutes of Common Council touching a recent disturbance
            in the City; 11 April, 1648.

    No. 75. Letter from Fairfax to Skippon upon his re-appointment
            to the command of the City's forces. Dated Windsor, 10 May,
            1648.

    No. 76. A narrative of the proceedings of the Court of Common
            Council held the 13 Jan., 1648-9, presented by order of the
            Court to the House of Commons.

    No. 77. Letter from the Council of State to the Mayor and
            Aldermen of the City, for defacing statues of James I and
            Charles I. Dated Whitehall, 31 July, 1650.

    No. 78. Another letter from the same, ordering the entire
            removal of the statue of Charles I at the Royal Exchange.
            Dated Whitehall, 14 Aug., 1650.

    No. 79. Letter from the Council of State to the City, for
            removal of ordnance to the Tower. Dated Whitehall, 19 Nov.,
            1653.

    No. 80. The City's humble Petition and Representation to the
            Lord Protector, promising to stand by him against the
            enemies of the nation; 16 March, 1657-8.

    No. 81. Letter from Sir John Langham to the Court of Aldermen,
            declining to resume the Aldermanry from which he had been
            deposed by Parliament, on the score of ill-health. Dated
            Crosby House, 18 Sept., 1660.

    No. 82. Letter from the Earl of Manchester to the Court of
            Aldermen, desiring that the Butchers of the City might
            continue to supply offal to the King's "Game of Bears" as
            formerly. Dated Whitehall, 29 Sept., 1664.

    No. 83. The City's address to King Charles II, congratulating
            him upon his escape after the Rye House Plot. 2 July, 1683.

    No. 84. Letter from the Duke of Newcastle to the Lord Mayor,
            informing him of the Pretender having set up his Standard
            in Scotland. Dated Whitehall, 4 Sept., 1745.

    No. 85. Another letter informing the Lord Mayor of the
            Pretender having entered Derby, and desiring him to put the
            City into a posture of defence. Dated Whitehall, 6 Dec.,
            1745.

    No. 86. Proceedings relative to the expunging of the
            recognisance entered into by William Witham, Messenger of
            the House of Commons, as narrated by James Morgan, Clerk
            to the Lord Mayor, to the Committee appointed to assist in
            defending Crosby, Wilkes and Oliver. 22 March, 1771.

    No. 87. Letter from Charles Fox, Chairman of the Westminster
            Committee, to the Town Clerk of London, suggesting a
            general meeting of the Committees of Association. Dated St.
            James's Street, 20 Feb., 1780.

    No. 88. Letter of thanks from Edmund Burke to the same, for the
            City's approval of his Bill for Economical Reform. Dated
            St. James's Square, 6 March, 1780.

    No. 89. Letter from Charles Fox to the same, forwarding copy of
            proceedings of the Westminster Committee of Association,
            and giving particulars of the proceedings of the House of
            Commons upon Dunning's motion. Dated St. James's Street, 10
            April, 1780.



APPENDIX A.


No. 1.

    Reply from the City to a letter from King Henry V [Printed in
        _Memorials_] asking for wine and provisions for the army at
        Rouen. Dated the Feast of Nativ. of B.V.M. (8 Sept., 1418).

                        Letter Book I, fo. 216.

Our most dred most soveraign lord and noblest kyng to the soveragn
highnesse of your kyngly mageste with all maner of lowenesse and
reverence mekly we recomende us Nat oonly as we oughte and shulde but
as we best can and may with alle our hertes thankynge your soveraign
excellence of your gracious lettres in makyng gladsom in understondyng
and passyng confortable in favoring of our poure degrees which ye
liked late to send us from your hoost afore the cite of Roan. In which
lettres after declaracõn of your most noble entent for the refresshing
of your hooste ye recorde so highly the redinesse of our wille and
power at alle tymes to your plesaunce and thankyn us therof so hertely
that treuly save oonly our preier to hym that al good quiteth never
was it ne mighte it halfe be deserved. And after suing in your forsaid
gracious lettres ye praye us effcuelly [_sic_] to do enarme as mani
smale vessels as we may with vitaille and specially with drinke for to
come up as fer as they may in to the river of Seyne. And nat only this
but in the conclusion of your soveraign lettres forsayd ye fede us so
bounteuesly with behest shewyng of your good lordship to us in tyme
comyng as ye have ever don that now and ever we shulle be the joyfuller
in this life whan we remembre us on so noble a grace. [O how may the
simplesse of pouere lieges better or mor clerly conceyve the graciouse
love and favorable tendresse of the kyng her soveraign lord than to
here how your most excellent and noble persone more worthi to us than
alle wordly richesse or plente in so thynne habondance of vitaill homly
disposed so graciously and goodly declare and uttir un to us that ar
your liege men and subgitz yor plein luste and plesaunce as it is in
yor sayd noble lettres worthily conteyned. Certein trewe liege man is
þer non ne feithful subgit coude þer non ne durste tarie or be lachesse
in any wyse to the effectuell praier or comaundement of so soveraign
and high a lord which his noble body peineth and knightly aventureth
for the right and welfare of us alle].[841] Oure most dred most
soveraign lord and noblest kyng plese it your soveraign hignesse to
understonde how that your forsaid kyngly praier as most strait charge
and comaundement we willyng in alle pointes obeye and execute anon fro
þe resceit of your of your [_sic_] sayd gracious lettres which was þe
xix day of August nigh none unto þe makyng of þese symple lettres what
in getyng and enarmyng of as many smale vessels as we myght doyng brewe
boþe ale and bere purveing wyne and oþer vitaillee for to charge with
þe same vessels we have don our besie deligence and cure as god wot. In
which vessels wiþoute gret plente of oþer vitails þat men of your cite
London aventuren for refresshing of your host to þe costes where your
soveraign presence is Inne we lowely send wiþ gladdest wille unto your
soveraign excellence and kyngly mageste by John Credy[842] and John
Combe poure officers of your sayd cite bringers of these lettres tritty
botes of swete wyne that is to seye ten of Tyre, ten of Romeney, ten of
Malvesy and a thousand pipes of ale and bere with thuo thousand and
five hundred coppes for your hoost to drinke of which we besech your
high excellence and noble grace for our alder comfort and gladnesse
benignely to resceyve and accepte nat havyng reward to þe litelhed or
smale value of the gifte it self which is simple but to þe good will
and high desir þat þe poure yevers þerof hav to þe good spede worship
and welfare of yor most soveraign and excellent persone of which spede
and welfare and al your oþer kyngly lustes and plesaunces we desire
highly be the sayd berers of thes lettres or oþer whom your soveraign
highnesse shal like fully to be lerned and enfourmed. Our moost dred
most soveraign lord and noblest kyng we lowely besech the kyng of heven
whos body refused nat for our savacõn wordly peyne gilteles to endure
þat he your graciouse persone which for our alder good and proffit so
knythly laboureþ litel or noght chargyng bodily ease in al worship and
honure evermore to kepe and preserve. Writen at Gravesende under þe
seal of mayralte of your sayd cite London on þe day of þe Nativite of
our Lady the Blisful Mayde [8 Sept.].


No. 2.

    Proclamation for speeding men to the English army in Normandy. 6
        Henry V, A.D. 1418.

                        Letter Book I, fo. 217.

Be ther a proclamacõn made that al maner men þe which wil toward the
Cite of Roan or any other place in the coste of Normandie þere to bein
service sould or wages wiþ þe kyng our soveraign lord whom god save and
kepe or wiþ ony other persone of his host or retenu make and apparale
hem redy in alle haste betuen this and souneday þat next comith atte
ferthest for to be wiþ inne shipbord in their best and most defensable
harneys and covenablest ariaye to Seyle toward þe costes above sayd an
in þe mene while come they to þe Mair of þys Citie and heshal ordeyne
and dispose hem redy Shippyng in this port and vitaill free toward þe
costes abovesayd.


No. 3.

    Letter from King Henry V to the City notifying the capture of
        Pontoise. Dated Mantes, 5 Aug. [1419].

                        Letter Book I. fo. 236

                              By þe kyng.

Trusti and welbeloved we grete yow wel and late you wete to your
comfort that we been in good heele and prosperite of our persone
blessed be god which graunte you always soo to bee Ferthermore as
touching tithing we signifie unto yow þat god of his grace worshiped be
he hath sent in to our handes our toun of Pontoyse and hough profitable
þe havyng of it is unto us John Palyng þe bringer of þis can enfourme
you. And we pray you thankeþ god þerof and of alle his gracious soondes
þat he sendeth us and for asmoch as our adverse partie wool noo pees
nor accord have wiþ us but finally have refused al meenes of pees We be
compelled ayein to werre thorough þair default as he wot þat al knoweþ.
To whoos mercy we trust for our good wil and redinesse to þe pees
to have þe better spede heraftur þe which we recomende to your good
prayers wiþ al our herte and god have you in his kepyng Yeven under our
Signet at our town of Mant þe v day of Augst.


No. 4.

    Reply to the above. Dated 6 Sept. [1419.]

                           _Id. Ibid._

Our most dred and most souveraign ertly lord we recomande us unto þe
souveraign excellence of your kyngly mageste in þe most humble and
lowely wyse þt any pouere or simple lieges can best imagine or devise
lowely thankyng your souveraign excellence and noble grace of þe right
gracious and right confortable lettres which ye liked late to sende us
fro your town of Maunt be Johan Palyng. The which lettres with al maner
of honour and lowely reverence we have mekly resceyved and understonde.
And trewely most dred and souveraign lord gladder ne moor confortable
tithinges might never have come nor in better tyme for to satisfie
and refresche þe fervent desir of your poure lieges þat have loong
thrusted aftur knowlech of your prosperite than were your sayd gracious
lettres the which amongs al oþer special graces most principalich for
our hertly confort conteyned þe souveraign helþ and parfit prosperite
of your most souveraign and gracious persone. The which Crist of his
souveraign mercy and noble pite plese alwey to kepe in al maner of
worship and joye. Our most dred and souveraign erthly lord whan we
remembre us hough þat your kyngly might and power grounded in the
trewe pees of god is so vertuosly soonded wiþ þe spirit of meknesse in
devout and continuel thankyng of god in al his soondes and trust of
good prayers of your peple as your said lettres make gracious mencõn:
Trewely we ar meved be as gret consideracõn and as resonable cause as
ever were liege men to pray as we have and shulle yet god will for þe
good and gracious spede of your most excellent and gracious persone and
to thanke god lowely þat ever he sent us so gracious and so vertuose a
souveraign lord to regne and have lordship up on us. Our most dred and
most souveraign lord yef it like your souveraign highnesse to here of
þastat of your citee London plese it your kyngly mageste to conceyve
þat in more quiet ne pesibler rest as ferforth as absence of you þat ar
our most gracious and most souveraign lord may suffre was never erthly
citee nor place blessed be god. Our most dred and most souveraign lord
we lowely beseche god the kyng of pees whos grace excedeth þe merit of
hem þat pray þat he vouche sauf your kyngly mageste stabilissh in al
vertu and evermore kepe your most excellent and souveraign persone in
al joy and prosperite to his plesaunce. Writen at your said citee of
London under þe seal of mairalte þerof the vie day of September.


No. 5.

    Letter from the Duke of Clarence to the Mayor and Aldermen of
        London notifying the capture of Pontoise. Dated Mantes, 5 Aug.
        [1419]

                       Letter Book I, fo. 236b.

Right trusty and Welbeloved We grete you well often tymes with al our
herte. And forasmoche as it is confortable and likyng to you to here of
þe tithinges in this parties. We do you to understonde þat the morwe
after þat the werre began at this tyme by twene my lord þe kyng and his
adversaire of Fraunce by cause þat he wolde naught applie nor accorde
to right and resoun he assigned certein peple to passe to Pountoise
Where the Frensh kyng lay during the time of this convencõn. And so
thei have wonne the forsaid toun by assaulte ithonked be god thorough
the whiche wynninge my forsaid lord hath passage to Parys. Ferthermore
We do you to understonde that Roger Tillyngton, Skynnere, our
welbeloved servaunt desurth gretly to be freman and enfranchised amongs
you at þis tyme. Wherefor We pray you entierly With al our herte þat
ye wol for contemplacõn and favour of us to admitte and resceyve the
forsayd Roger to be enfraunchised amongs you so þat he may knowe þat
þis our praier may availle hym and stonde in stede as our gret trust is
in you Right trusty and Welbeloved þe Holy Trinite have you evermore in
his kepyng I writen at Maunt Under our Signet the v day of Augst.


No. 6.

    Reply to the above. Dated 6 Sept. [1419]

                           _Id. ibid._

Right High right mighty Prince and excellent lord We recomaunde us
unto þe high lordship of your gracious excellence in as humble Wyse as
any poure men best can or may ymagine and devise Thakyng your lordly
excellence in as lowely maner as office of writing may conteyne for
þe high and favorable remembraunce which your gracious Lordship hath
to þe Citee of London in signifieng to us be your gracious lettres
writen at Maunt the v day of Augst of our most dred and most souveraign
erthly lordes prosperous helth and victorious spede and eke of youres.
The Which god of His souveraign grace and noble pite With encrees of
al honur and Joye ever kepe & mainteigne. Right high right mighty
Prince and excellent Lord yef it like your lordly excellence to here
of thastat of the Citee of London. Plese it your gracious Lordship to
conceyve þat in moor quiet ne pesibler rest blessed be god was never
erthly Cite nor toun in absence of her most souveraign & gracious
Lord. Right high right mighty Prynce and excellent lord þe Prynce of
all hevenly knyght hood have you in his holy kepyng. Writen at þe sayd
Citee London under þe seal of Mairalte þerof þe vje day of September.


No. 7.

    Letter from Henry V to the City informing the citizens of his
        movements in France. Dated Mantes, 12 July [1421].

                        Letter Book I, fo. 263.

Trusty and welbeloved we grete yow wel And for asmuch as we be certein
that ye wol be joyful to here good tiding of oure estat and welfare
we signiffie unto yow that we be in good heele and prosperite of oure
personne and so been oure brother of Gloucestre oure beluncle of
Excestre and al the Remenant of lordes and other personnes of oure
oost blessed be oure lorde whiche graunte yow soo for to bee witting
moreover that in oure comyng by Picardy we hadde disposed us for to
have taried sumwhat in the cuntre for to have sette hit with goddes
help in better gouvernance and whils we were besy to entende therto
come tidinges unto us that he that clepeth hym Daulphin was commen doun
with a greet puissance unto Chartres and thoos parties purposinge hym
for to leye siege as we were enfourmed unto the saide toun of Chartres.
Wherefor we drow us in al haste unto Paris as wel for to sette oure
fader of France as the saide good toune of Paris in seure gouvernance
and from them unto this oure toun of Mante at whiche jolace we arrived
on Wodnesday last to thentente for to have yeven secours with goddes
grace unto the saide toun of Chartres and hider comme unto us oure
brother of Burgoigne with a faire felaship for to have goon with us to
the saide secours the whiche oure brother of Burgoigne we fynde right
a trusty lovyng and faithful brother unto us in al thinges. But in
oure comyng from Paris unto this oure toun of Mante we were certified
uppon the weye by certain lettres that were sent unto us that the saide
pretense Daulphin for certein causes that meved hym hath reised the
saide siege and is goon in to the cuntre of Touraine in greet haste as
hit is saide and we truste fully unto oure lord that þorow his grace
and mercy al thinges here that we shall have to doo with shall goo wel
from hensforth to his plesance and worship whom we beseche devoutely
that hit soo may bee and to have yow in his keping. Yeven under oure
signet in oure oost at oure toun of Mante the xij day of July.


No. 8.

    Reply to the above. Dated 2 August [1421].

                        Letter Book I, fo. 263.

Our most dred and most soveraign erthly lord we recomaunde us un to
your kyngly power and soveraign highnesse in as meke wyse and lowly
maner as eny simple officers or pouere lieges most hertly can ymagine
or divise Thankyng with al our hool myght and konnyng your soveraign
excellence and noble grace of þe right confortable and joyfull lettres
which ye liked late to sende us from your town of Mante þe which
lettres with al maner of humble reverence we have lowly resceyved and
understonde. By whos tenure amonges al other blessed spede and gracious
tithynges. For which we thanke highly and ever shall þe lord almyghty
ware we most inwardly comforted and rejoysed whan we herd þe certeinte
of your prosperouse helth after which we have longe desired and which
god of his eendles pite ever kepe and mainteign And of þestate of
your cite London yef it like your soveraign highnesse to heere and
understonde Plese it your kyngly Mageste to conceyve þat in pesibler
degree tretabler governance ne joyfuller rest as ferforth as absence
of yow þat are our lord most soveraign under god may suffre was never
erthly cite nor place blessed be god in whos vertu stondeth al kyngly
gladnesse which of his infinit power and most habundaunt grace alwey
dresse and continue your spede to his high worship and plesaunce and
sende yow grace with report of wordly victorye upon us and all your
other lieges longe for to regne. Writen at your saide cite of London
under þe seal of þe Mairalte þerof þe ij day of Augst.


No. 9.

    Letter from the Duke of Bedford to the City claiming the government
        of the realm at the death of Henry V. Dated Rouen 26 Oct,
        [1422].

                         Letter Book K, fo. 2.

Right trusty and welbeloved we grete yow wel with al oure herte And
for asmuche as hit liked our lord but late a goo to calle the kyng our
souverain lord that was from this present world un to his pardurable
blisse as we truste fermely by whos deces during the tendre age of the
king oure souverain lord that is nowe the gouvernance of the Reaume of
England after the lawes and ancien usage and custume of þe same Reaume
as we be enfourmed belongeth un to us as to þe elder brother of our
saide souverain lord that was. And as next unto þe coroune of England
and havyng chief interesse after the king þat is oure souverain lord
whom god for his mercy preserve and kepe. We praye yow as hertely and
entirerly as we can and may and also requere yow by þe faithe and
ligeance that ye owe to god and to þe saide coroune that ye ne yeve in
noo wyse assent conseil ne confort to any thing that myght be ordenned
pourposed or advised in derogacõn of þe saide lawes usage and custume
yif any suche be or in prejudice of us Lattyng you faithfully wite that
our saide prayer and requeste procedeth not of ambicion ner of desir
that we might have of worldly worship other of any singuler comodite or
prouffit that we might resceyve thereby but of entier desir and entente
that we have that the forsaide lawes usage and custume ne shulde be
blemysshed or hurt by oure lachesse negligence or deffaulte ner any
prejudice be engendred to any personne souffisant and able to þe whiche
the saide gouvernance myght in cas semblable be longyng in tyme comyng
Making pleine protestacõn that it is in no wise oure entente any thing
to desire that were ayenst the lawes and custumes of the saide lande
ner also ayenst the ordonnance or wil of oure saide souverain lorde
that was savyng our right to þe whiche as we trowe and truste fully
that hit was not oure saide souverain lordes entente to deroge or doo
prejudice. And god have you in his keping Writen under oure signet at
Rouen þe xxvj day of Octobre.


No. 10.

    Letter from the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London to the
        Duke of Bedford. No date [A.D. 1424.]

                        Letter Book K, fo. 18b.

Right high right myghty and right honourable Prince we recomaunde us
un to your Lordly excellens in þe most humble and servisable maner
that we can best ymagine and devise Thankyng lowly your noble grace
of þo gracious lettres in makyng gladsom in undyrstandyng and passyng
comfortable in favoring of our pouer degrees Whyche you liked late
to sende us from Craille upon case[843] [_sic_] in Normandie be þat
worshypfull and wel avised man John Salveyn your esquier whyche hath
made us notable report and right comfortable exposiciõn of þestate
and tidinges of þat londe blessed be god. Bot amonges alle other more
gladder ne more comfortable tidinges myght now have come nor in better
tyme to satisfie and refressh þe fervent desire of us that long have
thursted after knowlech of your prosperite þan were seid gracious
lettres þat yaven us ful enformacõn and singler comfort of þe gode
hele and disposicõn of your persone whyche Crist of his soveraign mercy
and pite infenite ever preserve and mainteigne in Joye and honoure to
his plesaunche. Right high right myghty and right houourable Prince of
þat þat your lordly clemence so benigly voucheþ sauf as is purported in
þe parclose of your seid lettres to have assercion be comers be twene
of your gode desires enclinyng your excellence to þaccomplissement of
hem at alle tymes, it excedeth in estimablich our power and konnyng to
yeve you thankynges þerof recompensable in every wyse. Bot god þat is
guerdoner of every gode dede quite rewarde yow in stede of us where we
may not. And for we truste and knowe verilich þat hit pleseth yow to
here of þestate of þe cite of London to whiche ye have evyr be right
gode Lorde and favorable we certefie un to your gracious Lordship þat
in more quiete ne pesibler reste was never Cite nor place blessed be
god whiche of his incomperable bounte send you gode and graciouse lif
to þe plesaunche of hym and comfort of us and alle your oþer welvillers
long for to lede Writen at London.


No. 11.

    Another letter from the same to the same. No date [A.D. 1424.]

                        Letter Book K, fo. 21.

Right high right mighty And right honurable Prince we recomaunde us
to þestate of your lordly excellence in as humble maner as eny ordyr
of writing can expresse for bountees & bienfaites innumerable which
þe liberal grace of your high and gracious lordship without our meryt
or desert hath ever shewed us heretofore but at þis tyme in especial
for þo passing gladsom and confortable letters of credens þat plesyd
you late to sende un fro Vermeil[844] on perche be þat worshipful &
wel avised esquier Stephen Hatefelde on of your kervers which made us
noble assercõn ioyfull report and comendable credence of þe cronicable
and victoriouse esploit þat our lord almyghty be special influence of
his grace as it semeth and singler mediacõn of your knyghtly corage
sent un to þat blessed innocent and gracious Prince our soveraign Lord
whiche esploit and victorie as devoutly as we can or may we yelde and
ever shall humble þankinges and grace to þe lord of hevenis which in þe
balance of his infenit merci and pite as it semyth so favourably weyeth
þe right and Innocence of our seid soveraign lord during his tendre
age þat he will not suffre hym in nowise to be Injuried be malice or
circumvencõn of his enemyes Bot hath purveid sent and stablisshed you
right high right myghty and right honourable Prince to be a special
mene and supporter in þis parte for tuicõn and conservacõn of his right
and Innocence to singler comfort and consolacõn of all his people
blessid be god whiche of his incomperable bounte send you good and
graciouse lif to þe plesaunche of hym and comfort of us and all your
oþer Welvillers Long for to lede. Writen at London &c.


No. 12.

    Letter from the Earl of Salisbury and of Perche to the Mayor and
        Aldermen of the City of London announcing the success of the
        war in France. Dated 5 Sept. [1428]

                        Letter Book K, fo. 55b.

Right trusty & entierly welbeloved frendes we grete you hertely wel
And for asmuche as we trust fully that ye desire to here of þe good
tydinges of þat which vureth wel to oure sovereing lord in the conquest
of his enemys here in þis lande We do yow to witte þat þe vure & spede
seth our last comyng in to þis lande hath be so good that I am ever
behold to þanke god besechyng hym to continue hit for his mercye and
after þe Wynnying of many diverse tounes castelles & Forteresses we
laied siege afor þis toune of Yenville and after diversez aprochemenes
made þerto as was on sonneday sevenyght which was the xxix day of
August we gate þe said toune of Yenville be þe most notable assault þat
evere we sawe. And sethen þe castell was yolden un to oure grace and
many oþer tounes castelles & stronge chirches god hath sent hem in to
þobbeissaunce of oure sovereing lord blessed most god be somme yolden
to oure grace somme to our wil somme wonne be assault & somme oþer wyse
þe nombre of whiche is more þan xl And so þanked be god þer comyth in
dayly places to þobbeissaunce to þe Recovering of which we þenke to
do all diligence as we behold with out sparyng of labour or pein. And
for our gret & singler comfort We pray you oft tymes to signifie us be
wryting of youre Welfare. And þat we may fynd your faveur and Frendship
in alle þinges þat we have or shal have to don in oure absence and so
to continue your good frendship like as hit liked yow to do what tyme
we were þer present. For which we thanke yow and hold us muche behold
to do for yow what we can or may to which we wol ever be redy with al
our power. And þe holie trinite have yow always in his blessed keping.
Writen at Yenvile the v day of Septembre.

Item we do you to wite that seth the wryting of þis we have had
tydinges frome our brother Sire Richard Haukeford whome we had sent
to Ride afore þe toune and castel of Meun sur leyre[845] þat blessed
be god he hath do so good diligence that he hath goten þe sayd toune
castel & peuple yolden to þobbeissaunce of oure soverein lord Which
toune & castell ben ryght notable & hugely fourneshed of peuple and
vitaile yuoughe blessed be god for alle þe kyngis puissaunce here a
good while. And to þe sayd toune is a faire brigge overe þe gret River
of leyre which ys bot v leges oute of þe cite of Orliens.

                   [A schedule of 38 towns follows]


No. 13.

    Reply to the above. Dated 12 Oct. [1428]

                        Letter Book K, fo. 55b.

Right worshipful & ryght mighti lord we recomaunde us to your gret
lordsship & noble grace in as humble maner as we can or ought Thankyng
it fro þe deppest of our hertis of þe gentill lettres writene at
Yenvile þe v day of Septembre last þt ye liked to sende us be your
herauld.... Which lettres after the resceit of hem whith dhue reverence
And after þat thei were publisshed and redde to fore þe Commens of
þis Cite putte us all in singler comfort & Joye because of þe fervent
& special desir we hadde afore to here comfortable tidynges of your
good spede and welfare. And mekely we þanke our lord of heven for þe
gret & greüx oevre þat it liked hym to sende you of his mercy so sone
after youre First comyng at þis tyme in to þo parties as your seid
lettres make noble mencioun Beseching hym of his infinit pite continue
& encrese it to his plesaunce. Right worshipful & ryght mighty lord of
þat þt it liketh youre high lordship so favorably to wryte & desire
in yor seyd lettres to here & know of oure welfare & offre us your
good lordship in tyme comyng plese it yow to wite þat þe sayd Cite
is in gret pees tranquillite & good accorde and we þat are þe simple
governors þerof in good hele & disposicõn of our personnes blessed be
god. And be cause we perceyve wel þat þis desire & ofre procedeth of
your gret gentilesse & good grace & not of our merit ne desert so þt it
excedeth incomparablich our puissaunce to recompense it be thankinges
or ought elles. Therefore we pray to god þat is almyghti to acquite &
guerdone it in stede of us. But we & suche service as we can do þough
it be simple or mene of value shal ever be Dressed & apparailled to
your plaisirs. Whiles we lyve God knoweth which of his endles grace
kepe & preserve your noble lordship in alle þe actes of knyghthode to
Hys plesaunche. Wrytten at London þe xii day of Octobre.


No. 14.

    Letter from King Henry VI to the City asking for a loan of 10,000
        marks. Dated Rouen, 10 Nov. [1430].

                        Letter Book K, fo. 84.

Trusty and welbeloved we grete yow wel and signiffie un to yow þat
amonge alle þevident tokens of trewe affeccioun and of kyndenesse
þat our sugettes of oure Royme of England hav shewed and shewen un to
us for þavantyng forward of oure present voiage þe tender love and
kynde acquitail of oure goode and trew cite of London bothe un to our
progenitours of noble memoire in like cas, and al so un to us is noght
owt of our remebrance but writen and wel emprinted þeryn for þe which
we have and purpos to have our said citee as þe principalle and most
notable of our said Royme and yow as our kynde and trewe suggettes
þe moore specialy recommended and can yow singuler thank and as owre
entencioun is to shew yow perseverance of goode lordship semblably we
trust þat on yowre part ye wol put yow in yowre trewe dewire and kynde
acquitaille un to us att alle tymes and namely at our nede as ye have
wel done al weyes hedir toward and soþe hit is þat be cause of many
costlew charges long to declare our necessitee is at þis tyme suche þat
on lesse þan it be in short tyme releved suche inconveniences þat god
defende been noght unlike to falle boþe til us and oures, as shuld be
right displesant til alle oure trewe suggettes and to yow in special
whom we wold entierly desirous of our welfare. Wherfore siþ we have
founden yow redy and welwilling to chevese us of good at alle tymes ar
þis, þat nede hape required, and oure necessitee is suche at þis tyme
as was never gretter. We pray yow hertely and also right entierly,
as ye desiere þe seurte of oure personne and þe wel and worship of
boþe oure Roymes þat continuing un to us þe kynde tendirnesse in oure
absence þat ye shewed un to us in oure presence ye wol at þis tyme
make un to us a prest of xml marc repaiable at suche tyme and of seure
repaiment as may bee accorded be twix our counsaille þer and yew of
which chevance we trust ye wol not faille us consideryng þat þe said
some may do us more ese and service in our present necessite þan
perventure shuld þe double and muche more an oþer tyme whan þat whan
þat [_sic_] our nede war lasse. To þe whiche loone we trust þat our
personel beyng here among our enemyes in þis our tendir age shal muche
þe more meve yow for to take yow nigh to serve oure desire. Wyting for
certain and withouten dowte þat in perfourming at þis tyme of our
prayer ye may do un to us soo notable and þanklewe service þat we wol
wel considre hit in tyme comyng and be þe more enclined to shewe you
favorable and good lordship. Wyting also þat we wold noght desire of
yow þis charge as nowe be cause of þe charges þat ye have borne un to
us ar þis, ner urgent and verray necessite required us þer to and our
lord have yow in his kepyng. Yeven under our signet at our toun of
Rouen þe x day of Novembre.


No. 15.

    Letter from Cardinal Beaufort to Mayor, Sheriffs and Aldermen
        of the City informing them of his intention of returning to
        England. Dated Ghent, 13 April [1432].

                        Letter Book K, fo. 105.

My ryght trusty and with al myn herte entierly welbeloved frendis I
grete yow wel as hertily as I can. Desiring evermore to knowe of the
welfare and prosperite of yowe alle and of ech of yow and of al þe
good commune of þe noble citee of þe which ye bee for my singuler joye
and gladnesse. Biseching oure blessed lord evermor to give yow as good
welfare as ye can desire and as I wold for my self. And wol ye wite
þat nought wiþstanding divers adversitees þat I soeffre ayeinst Reson
and gentilesse I hadde pourposed me to have goon to þe court of Rome
to doo þe duetee þat loongeþ to myn astat trustyng always þat þe moost
xren prince my souverain lord of whos disposicioun I ne have noo doubte
and also his wise counsail of his Royaume in engeland wel advised
wolde have doon me Right and favour also al þing considered aswel in
myn absence as yn my presence. Nevertheless as in to þis tyme I feele
right littel or noon as me þenkeþ And þerfore nought wiþstanding þat
oure holyfader haþ sent un to me for to come to hym in haste I wol
leeve al þing for a tyme and retourne agein into engeland and bee þer
yif god wol a boute þe bigynnyng of þis parlement to knowe þe causes
why I am þus straungely demeened and declare my self as a man þat have
nought deserved soo to be treted. Mi right trusty and wiþ al myn herte
entierly welbeloved frendis I þanke yow wiþ al þentierness of my herte
of youre good love favour and will wich I have ever founden in yow
paying you of youre good continuance and douteth not ye schull þerinne
doo to god plesance for he is al trouþe to þe Kyng my soverain lord
noo trespas nor offence but to hym comen to more age which with goddis
mercy shal in haste growe singuler plesir, and to your self worshipp.
My right trusti and wiþ al myn herte entierly welbeloved frendis yef I
can or may goodly eny thing doo to your ese ye certiffie me þerof as to
hym þat to my trewe pouer wol faithfully parfourme hit right gladdly
and wiþ al myn herte þat knoweþ our blessed lord whom I hertily beseche
to have yow evermor in his gracioux proteccioun and keping. Written att
þe good town of Gaunt þe xiiie day of Averil.


No. 16.

    Letter from the Mayor and Aldermen of Calais to the Mayor and
        Aldermen of the City of London asking for assistance. Dated 27
        June [1436].

                        Letter Book K, fo. 148.

Ful worshipfull wise & discrete sires we recommaunde us un to you in
as goodli wise as caan be þought and in as mochell as we fynde of
olde governaunce of þis toun that oure predecessours hadde in cours
to wryte to your worshipfull estate to be mene and movers toward þe
kyng our souveraigne lord and þe gracious lordes of is counseill for
þe relevying & sustentacioun of þis said toun the yeveth us occasioun
to wryte to yow attys tyme. Of which it were to longe to wryte the
particuler circumstaunces of þe mischiefs and disese þat is suffred
here to our unportable distresse and hevynesse. With more þt we sende
to yow at this time how þarmynakz[846] þt been in Rewe prese fast and
have prayhed a boute Samme de boys[847] and takyn mony prisouners
and brent þe toun of Staples. And as it is said of presumpcioun þey
purpose & avaunte to override þe lordshipes heere of Guysnes & oþer
and to renne heere a fore þis toun. So ferforth þat þe pore tenauntz
forsake þe land & drawe þeim in to þe said toun & castelx and leve þe
villages desolate the which yef þei were destruyed that god defende
were pryved of our sustenaunce of levying and conforte & þe people
anyentysed for evyr prayeng & besechyng you as ye þt be þe principall
of all þe citees of þe Roiaulme of Engelond that it like to yor trew
affeccioun that ye have & owe to have to þe said toun to contynue &
exercise þe commendable promocioun as your said worthy predecessours
hadden in use for þe salvacioun of þe said toun. As ye þat were trust
singulerly in and as a principall membre oweth to do & ministre to
is parties atte reverence of god whom we be sech preserve you ever &
graunt yow parfite conclusyoun of yor desires with good lyf and long.
Wrytene at Cales þe xxvij day of Juyn.


No. 17.

    Letter from Henry VI to the Mayor, Aldermen and Sheriffs of London
        touching the prevention of disturbance within the City. Dated
        Lichfield, 3 Sept., 35 Hen. VI [1456].

                        Letter Book K, fo. 287.

                             By the king.

Right trusty and trusty and welbeloved we doubt not but that it is in
yor remembraunce what inconvenience have late fallen and more were
likly to have falle if it had not myghtly have be resisted not oonly
by suche as with multitude of people otherwise then that their power
& degree wold have entred oure chambre and citee of London by what
meanes it is not unknowen unto you, but also by thinsolence of evil
disposed and mysgoverned people of our saide citee whereof as nowe ye
have þe governaunce the which thing hath be to the breche of our peas
and grete trouble of our people and whereof we have had cause to be
gretely displeased. And we willyng to eschew all suche inconveniences
from hensforward will and charge you straitely that considered that our
saide citee is called and named oure chambre and so we holde it wherein
shuld be rest and peas and the whiche ought to be of goode governaunce
to ensample of all this oure Reaume that from hensforthward ye ne
suffre any persone or persones of what estate degree or condicioun that
he or they be of at any tyme to entre into oure saide cite and chambre
but peasiblie and with moderate nombre of people according to his and
their estate and degree. And also þat not onely aftre their entree
into our saide citee and chambre ye have suche awaite & and [_sic._]
attendaunce that they ne make any assemblees nor gadringes of any suche
evil disposed people as is abovesaide but also þat ye have suche awaite
& attendaunce to oure saide citee and chambre þat by the people beyng
in or resorting to or saide citee no gadringes nor assemblees be made
the which in any wise may sowne or shuld be to þe breche of or peas or
trouble of our people. And if any suche hap to be as god defend þat ye
lette it as ye wol answere unto us at your perill. And furþermore we
wolle and charge you on þe feith and ligeance that ye owe unto us þat
ye kepe or saide citee in due obeisaunce unto us as ye ought to doo.
And not to suffre any such multitude of people entre into our saide
citee neiþer to be in þe same but as ye may be at alle tymes of power
to suppresse them and to be governours for us of þe same as reason
wille ye shuld. Yeven under our privee seal at Lychefeld the iij daye
of Septembre the yeer of or regne xxxvth [1456].


No. 18.

    Letter from King Henry VI to the City ordering the seizure of
        foreign ships of war in the Thames. Dated Coventry, 10 March
        [1456-7].

                       Letter Book K, fo. 288b.

                             By the king.

Trusty and welbeloved We be enfourmed by a full grevous and a
lamentable complainte made unto us and our counseill by marchantz
estraungiers of Italie beyng heere within þis that where as they nowe
late by vertue of our lettres patentz have shipped certeyn wolles
wollencloth and other marchandises in diverse shippes of Zeland and
paied truely alle duetees belongyng unto us And upon that have their
Cokettes[848], there have certeyn shippes of werre aswell of Caleis
as of Sandewiche encountred the said shippes of Seland within the
Themyse at Tilbery or there nigh. And in maner of werre assaulted them
and doo their werst to take and despoile them the whiche demeanyng
is full gretely ayenst our honeur and worship in especial sith the
saide marchantes been heere undre our sauf conduit and ligue. It is so
also an example to discorage every marchaunt, and thereof must ensue
not onely grete disclaundre to this our land but also the subversion
of thentrecourse of marchandise. Wherin resteth gretly the welefare
of our subgettes, With the whiche horrible dede, we be right gretely
displeased as we have cause so to be. And will in no wise suffre that
it passe over unpunysshed, And forasmuche at this straunge demeanyng
is commytted and doon undre the boundes of yor franchises and in suche
place where ye have jurisdiccõn and power by suche franchises as ourre
noble progenitours and we have graunted unto you as it is doon us to
understande. It is yor parte to resiste correct and reforme the said
wronges wherefore we by thavise of or grete Counseil woll that callying
to yor remembraunce our lawes made in þt behalve and in especial the
statue made by our noble progenitor King Edward the third in the ixth
yeer of his regne and oþer statutes made in þat behalve ye immediatly
aftre pereceivyng of thees our lettres sette remedye in þe matier
abovesaid. And þat ye take þe said shippes of Werre and malefactours
and commytte theym to prisoun there straitely to be kept and to have
as they have deserved, And provide that þe said shippes of Seland and
marchandise be at their full fredome, and restored to their goodes if
any be take fro them. Letyng you wite for certeyn if ye be remysse or
necligent in þe punisshing of þis mysgovernaunce and executyng this
our comaundement, as we thinke ye have be in oþere afore this, ye shall
renne into þe peyne provided by our lawes aswele in yor franchise as
oþerwise. Wherto we shall entende withoute any grace to be shewed to
you. And if so bee ye doo effectuelly yor devoir in this matier þat
sitteth us right nigh to hert we shal thanke you. And lete you have
knowliche þat ye have doon us singler pleasir. Yeven undre or privee
seal at our citee of Coventre the x daie of Marche.


No. 19.

    The same to the same touching the peace of the City. Dated
        Kenilworth, 22 March [1456-7].

                           _Id., ibid._

                              By þe king.

Trusty and welbeloved we grete you wele and late you wite that certeyn
of yor breþeren aldermen of our cite of London hath shewed unto us by
þe declaracõn of your Recorder of þe good diligence that ye entended
to have put you in to þe performyng of our commandement yeoven unto
you by our lettres of prive seal in case our said lettres had come
unto you in convenable tyme as for tharrest and attachement to have be
made of certeyn shippes and persones þat late in our Ryver of Thamyse
made gret attemptatz ageynst our ligue and sauf conduct of þe which
yor goode disposicioun and benivolence we hold us wele content and can
you þerfore right goode thankes charging you that if it hapne any of
þe said shippes or mysdoers to repaire herafter unto or saide citee or
unto þe franchise þerof that thenne ye doo put them undre arrest and to
be kept in sure warde abiding the determinacon of our lawes the which
we wol in all wise be executed. And over this we charge you in yor
effectuel devoir to see that our peas be kept at alle tymes within our
saide citee And if any misgoverned persone of what estate or condicioun
so ever he be make any stiring riot or attempt any thing to þe breche
of or paix within oure saide citee and franchise of þe same þat thenne
ye doo yor peyne to suppresse them and to put hem in warde and so þat
they be duely punisshed according to their demerites. In which thing
doyng ye shal mynistre unto us cause of grete plaisir and deserve of us
þerfore right good and especial thanke in tyme to come. Yeven under our
signet at or Castell of Kenelleworth the xxij daye of Marche.


No. 20.

    Letter from the City to Henry VI, touching the capture of Sandwich
        by the French. Dated 3 Sept. [1457].

                        Letter Book K, fo. 292.

Of al erthely princes our moste high moste redoubted sovereyn lord and
moste Christian kyng. We youre symple officers and feithfull humble
lieges Mair and Aldermen of yor true citee and chambre of London
recomande us unto yor most souvereyn excellence & noble grace in als
humble and lowly wise as we moste hertly canne ymagine and devise
humblely beseching yor moste noble grace to be enformed of þe full
piteuous and lamentable tidings þat late have comen unto or knowliche
bothe by writing in certeyn and credible reaporte made to us touching
thynfortunate entrepruise late hadde upon yor towne of Sandewiche by
yor enemyes and adversaires of France and Bretaigne whiche in a grete
armee and with grete noumbre of shippes on Sondaie last passed aboute
vj of the clok in þe mornyng arrived to lande at yr saide towne of
Sandewiche. And there after diverse scarmysshes gate and entred þe
towne and it have dispoiled and pilled unto thuttermoste they have
also full cruelly slayne diverse and many of your people and taken
prisoners þe moste parte of the þrifty men of þe same towne and also
have taken & ladde awaie þe shippes in the haven þere aboute þe nombre
of xxxij grete and smale diverse of theym charged with wolles and oþere
marchandises of no litle estymacõn and value to þe grete hurt of all
this your reaume, and suche othir shippes as they myght not with them
wele convey from thens have broken fired and brent and many oþere grete
and outrageous violences have there commytted and doon þat pitee is
to hire like as in þe copies of ij lettres entre-closed within thise
is made expresse mencõn. And thise doon yor saide enemeys with their
vessels pillaige and prisoners withdrowe them unto the Downes where
they dailie encrecen in gretter nombre both of people and vessels
entending not as it is seide therby to ceasse of their cruell and
malicious purpose but utterly to destroye þe navire of this yor land
as it sheweth in open experience by that they have late also attempted
and doon at yor towne and porte of Fowey and oþere places. And then
to take an entrepruise upon this yor royalme þe whiche if it ne were
þe sonner myghtly lette and manly withstonde by yor saide highnesse
and myghti power myght of liklihode growe unto þe grete jeoparde of
your saide reaume as god defende. In eschewing of whiche daungerous
myschiefz and grete perils we yor said humble lieges wiþ grete &
undelayed diligence have had rype comynycacõn with þe grete partie of
yor comons of yor saide citee whom to þe pleasir of god and of you
sovereyn lord and to þe defence and saufgarde of this yor reaume we
fynde to their power full wele-willed and towardly disposed to take
upon them the charge in hasty wise to vitaille manne and setteforthe
diverse shippes heer beyng in yor ryver of Thamyse with þe nombre of mt
mt persones or neer thereby they to be redy to attende & assist such
armee and power as shall like yor highnesse by thavise of yor Counsell
to provide and ordeyne to þe resistence recountre and rebuke of yor
saide enemyes by goddis mercy. So þat it may like yor moste high and
noble grace to comaunde them so to doo. And þeruppon to yeove them
sufficient auchorite undre yor grete seal. And to open and declare þe
premisses unto your saide higenesse more at large. We send towardes þe
same at this tyme or broþer Thomas Cook, alderman pleynly instruct of
or entent in this behalve. To whom in moste humble wise we besiche yor
said highnesse to give full feith & credence in the premisses Moste
high moste redoubted sovereyn lorde and most Christian kyng we devoutly
besiche þe kyng of all kynges whos reaume shall endelesly last and
endure your blessed soule and noble body from either of þeir enemyes
evermore to protect kepe and defende þat ye mowe in þis world upon us
and alle yor oþer lieges wiþ reporte of worldly joye and victorie long
tyme regne & endure to þe singuler conforte of us all. Written at yor
saide citee of London þe third daie of Septembre.


No. 21.

    Reply to the above. Dated Northampton, 5 Sept [1457].

                           _Id. Ibid._

Trusty and welbeloved we grete you oftentymes wele. And lete you wite
þat this same daie or welbeloved Thomas Cook oon of your brethren hath
in yor behalve presented yor lettres and also declared full notablie
yor credence unto us by the which we have understande the fervent
desire and true ligeaunce þat ye tendirly and humbly here unto or
royal estate, the whiche hath gretely renoveled and recomforted us
Whereof aswele as of the notable aide that ye have graunted at this
tyme unto us in right notable nombre of men of werre shippes and all
other necessaires expedient for theym to þe repressing and rebuke of
thoultrageous malice of oure enemyes of Fraunce now travarssing the
narwe Se as it is saide we thanke you with as goode wille and hert as
we can trusting for undoubted and also praying you þat considering þis
Somer season passeth fast ye wille in all possible haste prepare and
advaunce yor saide exploit for the whiche we have comaunded Chauncellor
of Englond to yeove you auctorite so to doo undre oure grete seal.
And have written to or port of Hull and oþere to drawe them and their
ships towardes þe Se in their moste defensible and warrely araye and to
ioigne and accompaignie theyme with you under the leding and guiding of
god and of suche lordes and capitaignes proved in þe werre as we have
full hope shall be to the grete renõmee of us and seurtee of you and
alle our true subgettes and to thutter confusioun and reproche of or
auncien enemy adverse of Fraunce. Yeoven undre oure Signet at our towne
of Northampton the v daye of Septembre.


No. 22.

    A letter similar to No. 20 (_supra_) was sent to Bishop
        Waynfleete the Chancellor, to which was made the following
        reply. Dated Waltham, 5 Sept. [1457].

                       Letter Book K, fo. 292b.

Right Worshipfull and right entierly welbeloved sirres I recommende me
unto you in þe moste herty wise. Puttyng you in knowliche þat I have
receved yor lettres direct unto me by Roger Tonge yor comon clerc in
þe whiche I have understande not onely yor grete trouth to þe king
our aller sovereigne lord and to this his Reaume but also I see and
cleerly understand yor worshipfull coraige special love tendernesse
and affeccõn þat ye bere to his highnesse and to þe defence prosperite
and wele of this his Land to my special reioysing and conforte for þe
whiche I thank you all as entierly as it is possible to me so to doo.
I am certeyn that þe kinges highnesse will yeove you a grete Laude &
speciall thankinges & alle the land hath cause to do þe same. Your
worshipfull Demeanyng in this case and in this tyme of so straite
necessite shall be an example to all þe land aftre I besiche you
right hertly to contynue yor saide goode & worshipfull entent to yor
perpetuell laude & worship hereaftre. In suche tyme as I shall come
next to þe kinges high presence & to thassemblyng of þe lordes of his
land I shall not forgete but I shall remembre open and declare yor
worshipfull demenyng at this tyme. And where as I have ever be wele
willyng to þe wele of þe cite afore this tyme by occasioun of this
yor so thankfull demeanyng ye shall have me. Doutelese ever heraftre
more redy & right glade to doo suche thinges as may be to þe welefare
honer and prosperite of þe same. And how be it þat this may be thought
a burthyn and a charge for þe season I doute not but þe goodenesse
of almyghty god shal encrece you þe more for this so meritory a werk
in tuicioun & defence of þe land and in eschewing of inconveniences
happely muche gretter than as yet ben knowen. Furthermore I pray you
to yeve feith & credence to suche thinges as þe said Roger shall open
unto you in my behalf. And þe Holiegoste have you alwey in his guydyng.
Written at Waltham þe vth day of Septembre.


No. 23.

    Letter from the Earl of Kendal, Lord Scales & others in the Tower
        to the Mayor asking why war was being made upon them. No date
        [_circ._ July 1460].

                         Journal 6, fo. 250b.

Sirs it is yor saying that ye be the kinges trew liegemen and soo be
we wherfore we wul desire of you to wite the cause why ye make us
werre. And that we may understande how ye may joyne your sayinges and
youre dedes togiders, And also what shuld bee the cause that ye take
prisouners and we shuld nat defende us ayenst you and of this abovesaid
we pray of you an answer for we cast us no more to accomber you wt oure
writing, &c.


No. 24.

    Reply to the above. No date.

                           _Id. ibid._

Like it your lordshipps to understande and with for certain that
according to oure sayn ... we have ever bee, nowe we bee, and ever
will bee the kinges treu subgettes and hum ... liegemen. And where ye
by youre bill desire of us to wite þe cause why we mak ... you werre,
&c. Therto we answer and seye that ye and your ffelesship have began
and made no werre by diverse assault shetyng of gonnez and otherwise
by the which the kinges treu liege people aswell the inhabitauntz of
this citee men women and children as oþer have be murdred slayn maemed
and myscheved in sundry wise. And soo that þat hath be doon by us is
onely of youre occasioun in oure defence. And suche as we take for
prisouners been for the attemptatz occasiouns and assaultz by theym
doon as aforesaid in breche of the kinges peas, and for dispoillyng
of the kinges treu people of their vitaillz and goodes without due
contentacõn or paiement hadde in that behalve contrary to good equite
and all lawe, &c.


No. 25.

    Agreement touching the surrender of the Tower by the besieged
        Lords. Dated 16 July 38 Hen. VI. [1460].

                          _Id._ fo. 256.

Be it remembred that we William Hulyn maire of the citee of London and
the aldermen and þe comunes of the same agree us by thise presentz to
holde ferme and stable and to performe in every pointe in that that in
us shall bee alle suche appoyntementz touchyng the gyvyng over of the
Toure of London by therle of Kendale the lord Scales, the lord Lovell,
the lord Hungerford and Sir Edmond Hampden and oþer nowe beyng wtin
the same tour, and the receyving of the tour aforesaid by the erle of
Salisbury to the kinges use as be made by the same erle or his deputees
on that one partie, and the said erl of Kendale lord Scales, lord
Lovell, lord Hungerford and Sir Edmond Hampden and oþer or that othre
partie. In witnesse wherof to thise same presentz we have put our comon
seal writen at London aforesaid the xvj day of July the xxxviijth yeer
of the reign of King Henry the vjte [1460].


No. 26.

    Minutes of proceedings of the Common Council upon the return of the
        Earl of Warwick to England and the flight of King Edward IV.
        Oct., 1470.

                       Journal 7, fos. 223b-224.

                             Translation.

Be it remembered that on the 1st day of October it was noised abroad
throughout the city that Edward the Fourth King of England had fled,
for which cause the Queen Elizabeth who had fortified the Tower of
London quitted the same Tower and fled to the sanctuary at Westminster
and sent the Abbot of Westminster to Richard Lee the Mayor and the
Aldermen to inform them on the Queen's behalf that the men of Kent
and many others from divers parts of England in great numbers were
purposing to enter the city and lay siege to the said Tower and the men
at arms whom the said Queen had left behind in the same Tower; that
the same Queen desired that the said Tower should be delivered into
the hands of the Mayor and Aldermen because the said Queen was afraid,
it was said, that unless the said Tower was so surrendered the said
Kentishmen and others would invade the said sanctuary of Westminster
to despoil and kill the said Queen. And be it remembered that the said
Tower was on the Wednesday next following delivered into the hands of
the Mayor and Aldermen and of Geoffrey Gate, knight & others of the
council of the lords Clarence and Warwick on condition that all who
were then within the said Tower should remain safe & secure with their
goods and be conducted in the city of London either to the Sanctuary
at Westminster or Saint Martin according as they might wish. And be it
remembered that the lord Henry the Sixth who on the said Wednesday and
for many years past had been confined in a certain cell (_in quodam
Argastulo_) within the said Tower, was conducted by the said mayor and
Aldermen to a certain chamber adorned with handsome furniture which the
said Queen Elizabeth had fitted up and in which, being _enceinte_, she
purposed being brought to bed. And be it remembered that the aforesaid
Mayor and Aldermen for the safe custody of the said Tower and the said
lord the King Henry the Sixth then living in the same placed in the
said Tower the persons underwritten, namely

                    [Here follows a list of names.]

And each of the said Commoners had with him in the same Tower 2 men at
arms to wait upon him.

And be it remembered that all the foregoing was executed by authority
of the common council assembled in the church of Saint Stephen in
Walbrok.

Also be it remembered that on the 5th day of October the Archbishop
of York entered the Tower of London with a large band of men at arms
and took command of the said Tower and relieved the said Aldermen and
Commoners of the custody of the same And be it remembered that on
Saturday the 6th day of October George Duke of Clarence and Richard
Earl of Warwick entered the City by Newgate about the third hour after
noon with a large army and rode through _le Chepe_ to the said Tower of
London and took away the lord the King Henry the Sixth and brought him
the same day before nightfall to the Bishop of London's palace.

Be it remembered that as soon as it was notified that Edward the Fourth
had fled the Mayor and Sheriffs every day to wit for 10 days rode about
the City with armed men both before nine and after nine; the following
men being sent by the masters and wardens of the misteries to the
Guildhall every morning to attend upon the said Mayor and Sheriffs.

 [Here follows a schedule of the number of men sent by each mistery.]


No. 27.

    Letter from Thomas Faucomberge, captain of Kent, to the City of
        London. Dated "Sydyngbourne," 8 May [1471].

                        Letter Book L, fo. 78.

To the worshipfull my feithfull trusty and welbeloved frendes the
Comminaltie of the Citee of London youre feithfull trewe lover Thomas
Faucomberge Capteyn and leder of oure liege lorde king Henrys people in
Kent at this tyme sendith hertly recommendacioun lettyng witte that I
am enfourmed howe the partie of the usurper of our saide liege lordes
Crownne hath made you to understande that I with the kynges people
shulde purpose to robbe ryfell and despoile the Citee of London if I
came therein. Wherefore they exorted you to make us werre and kepe
us oute of the Citee. Certaynly frendes god knoueth whome I calle to
recorde. It was never myn entent ne purpose and therfore I beseeche
you to give no credence to theire false suggestioun and surmyse. But
trusty frendis sethen it is soo that I have taken upon me with the
helpe of Almyghty god and the true comons to revenge his quarell ayenst
the saide usurper and his adherentis and to sike hym in whate parties
he be within the Reaume of Enland to abrigge the peynfull labour and to
shorte the wey of the kinges people hertly sette and disposed ayenst
the saide usurper desire and praye you courteisly to passe through the
Citee in oure wey. And we shall neiþer take vitaille ne ware withouten
payment be ye therof certayne. And that I promytte you on myn honour
for he is not within the kyngis hoste in my company that breketh the
kyngis crye but he shal have execucioun accordyng to his offences.
No more unto you at this tyme saffe we have desired of the Maire and
Aldermen to have an answere hereof by Fryday ix of the clokke at the
blak ethe. And Almyghty Jesus have you and the goode Citee in his
blessed garde. Writene at Sydyngbourne hastely the viijth day of Maij.


No. 28.

    Reply to the above. Dated 9 May [1471].

                           _Id. ibid._

Worshipfull sir we receyved your lettres writen at Sydyngborn the
viijth day of the present month of Maij by the whiche we understande
that it is comyn unto youre knoulege that if ye and youre ffeleaship wt
the which ye be accompanyed shulde come unto the Citee of London like
as ye write ye entende to doo that thanne ye wolde rifell and dispoile
the saide citee ye desire us by the saide lettre that we shulde yeve
no credence to noon suche surmyse seiyng and takyng recorde of god
that ye never entended so to doo. Prayng us to suffre you and youre
saide ffeleaship to passe through the saide Citee of London uppon
youre journey to perfourme and execute suche thinges as in your saide
lettres ben more largely expressed. Sir we lette you witte that whanne
the kgng kyng Edward þe fourth oure soveraigne lord after his grete
victorye hadde uppon Ester day last passed beside Barnet daparted oute
of the saide Citee of London. He charged and commaunded us upon oure
aligeaunce that we shulde kepe the same saffely and suerly to his beof
and use not suffryng any persone what degree or condicioun or estate
whereof gaderyng or makyng assembles of any people contrary to his
lawes wt oute auctorite of his high commaundement to entre therin ffor
the whiche cause and many oþer we ne darre may ne wille suffree you to
passe through the same Citee, lettyng you witte for certayne that we
understand that if ye and youre saide feleaship shulde come and entre
in to the same that youre saide feleaship wolde beof like condicioun
as other of like disposicioun have bene in tyme passed as by sondry
precedentis it appereth unto us right largely. And it shulde not lye
in youre power to lette your saide feleaship frome dispoilage and
robery. Wherefore we advertise you for that love and service that we
afore tyme have ought unto that noble knyght youre ffader[849] and oure
goode lorde whose steppes we wolde that ye shulde folowe and for verrey
favour that we have born and bere unto you for the goode disposicioun
and vertue that in tyme passed we have knouen to be in you that ye
spare and absteyne you self from suche unlawfull gaderyng & asumbleng
of people the whiche if ye soo doo we doubte not but it shal not
onely be unto you grete honour and worship but also to youre prevaile
and cause the kyng the rather to be youre goode and graciouse lorde.
Moreover Sir we have receyved a proclamacioun sent from you in the
whiche amonge oþer articles we understand that ye by the commaundement
of Henry late kyng of this Reaume Margarete late quene and Edward late
called Prynce by thavise of the Erle of Warwyk whom ye suppose to be
alyve[850] as we ben enfourmed and oþer ye be ordeigned Captayne of the
Navye of Englond and men of warre both by þe See and by lande. Right
worshipfull Sir we mervaile gretely that ye beyng a man of soo grete
wisdame and discrecioun shulde be disceyved by simple seynges and
fayned tales we certifie you upon oure worshippes and trouthes that
bothe the saide Edward late called Prynce and therle of Warrewyk ben
slayne and dede for we knoue for certayne not onely by the reaporte
of men of grete credence bothe of this citee and by other which were
wt the saide Erle of Warrewyk in the felde whanne he and his brother
Marqueys Montagu were slayne but also by open lying of theire bodyes in
the chirche of Poules by the space of ij dayes whiche many of us didde
see and understand for certayne to be the bodies of the saide Erle of
Warrewyk and Marqueys Also Sir the saide Edward late called Prince
Therle of Devynshire lord John of Somerset lord Wenlok Sir Edmund
Hampden Sir Robert Whityngham, Sir John Lewkenore, John Delves wt other
moo were sleyne upon Saturday last passed at Tewkesbury. And the Duke
of Somerset lord of Seint Johannys Sir Gerveys of Clifton Sir Thomas
Tresham wt oþer moo to the noumbre of xij persones ben taken and ben
beheded on Monday last passed as we ben veryly enfourmed at Tewkesbury
aforsaide where god yaffe the kyng oure saide soverayn lord the victory
as we certeynly understande not onely by lettres signed with oure
saide soveraigne lordys owne hande whereof we sende yow a copye herein
enclosed and by writynges senden from lordes and gentilles there beyng
present unto divers and many persones beyng wtin in the saide Citee
of London but also by the reaporte of many credible persones and men
of worship and by oþer servauntes of the same Citee. Whereof some
were sent unto the hooste of oure saide soveraigne lord the king and
some unto the hooste of the saide Edward late called Prynce to see
and understand the disposicioun of bothe þe saide hoostes and to make
reaporte unto us accordyng to the trouth whiche faiethfully have made
reaporte unto us of the disposicioun and gugdyng of bothe the saide
hoostis and howe and in what manere and fourme the saide Edward late
called Prynce and oþer were taken and slayne. Wherefore we fryndely
exorte you and stire you not onely to absteyne youre silf from suche
unlawfull gaderynges and assembles of people and gevyng feith and
credence to any symple feyned and forged tales contrary to trouth as
it is rehersed, but also to take accepte and obey the kyng, kyng Edward
the iiijth for your soveraigne lord the grete victories aforerehersed
which god hath gevyn hym by his myghty power considered like all the
lordes spirituell and temporell of this lande and we also have agreed
for to doo. And ye soo doyng shal cause the kyng rather to be youre
goode lorde and therby ye shal eschewe grete ieobardies parelles and
inconveniences that myght enshewe of the contrary. And also ye shal
not onely have oure good willes and benevolences in all thinges that
hereafter ye shall have to doo wt us but also we shall be meane to the
kynges highnesse trustyng that by oure praier he shalbe unto you the
rather goode and graciouse lord lettyng you witte for certayne that ye
nor youre hooste shal not come within the said Citee. Writen at London
in the yeldehall the ix day of Maij.


No. 29.

    Account of the invasion of the City by the Kentish rebels on Sunday
        the 12th May 1471.

                           Journal 8, fo. 7.

                             Translation.

Be it remembered that the Mayor and Aldermen with the assent of the
Common Council fortified the banks of the river Thames from Castle
Baynard as far as the Tower of London with men at arms, bombards, and
other implements of war to prevent an attack by the seamen who had
brought a large fleet of ships near the Tower, and the said bank was
held by the Aldermen and the rest of the citizens in great numbers.
Be it remembered also that on Sunday viz: the 12th day of May in the
eleventh year of Edward IV, [1471] Kentish seamen and others, rebels
of the lord the king made an attack upon London bridge and on the new
gate there and set fire to divers houses called _berehouses_ near
the hospital of Saint Katherine; and afterwards on the 14th day of
May being Tuesday the eleventh year aforesaid about eleven o'clock
in the morning of the said Tuesday the said Kentish seamen and other
rebels made an attack with great force and set fire to 13 tenements
upon London bridge. The said Kentish seamen and others to the number
of 5000 persons also made an attack from the Thames upon the gates of
Aldgate and Bishopsgate and set fire to divers tenements. The citizens,
however, sallied out of the gates and made a stout resistance and put
them to flight, and nearly 300 men fell in battle and in flight besides
those who were drowned in endeavouring to get on board their ships at
Blakewall &c. And afterwards viz.: on the eve of the Ascension the
aforesaid eleventh year our said lord King came with a great multitude
of armed men to the city of London and there to the honour of the same
city created knights John Stokton the Mayor, Richard Lee, Matthew
Philip, Ralph Verney, John Yong, William Tailor, aldermen, Thomas
Urswyk the Recorder, George Irlond, William Hampton, Bartholomew James,
Thomas Stalbrok and William Stokker, aldermen. And the same lord the
King conferred upon them knights' badges.


No. 30.

    Letter from King Henry VII to the City announcing the betrothal of
        his daughter the Princess Mary to Prince Charles of Castile.
        Dated Richmond, 28 Dec. [1507].

                        Letter Book M, fo. 138.

                              By the king

Trusty and welbeloved we grete you well. And forasmoche as wee doubt
not but yt is and shalbe to you and to all other our true subiectes
right joyfull and confortable to here and understande from tyme to
tyme specially of suche causes and matiers as redounde to the grete
honour exaltacioun universall weal suertie and restfulnes of us this
our realme and our subiectes of the same we signifie unto you that by
or grete labour studie and police thys grete and honourable aliaunce
and mariage betwixt the prince of Castile and or right dere doughter
the lady Marie ys nowe or lorde bethanked betwixt or ambassadours
and the oratours aswell of or brother and cousyn the king of Romans
as of the seid yonge prince at or towne of Calays accorded aggreed
concluded and finally determyned wt a grete ample and large amitie
and consideracioun to the suertie strenght defence and comfort aswell
of us and of the seid prince as of either of our realmes contrayes
dominions and subiectes and considering the noble lynage and blode
whereof the seid yong prince ys descended whiche ys of the grettest
kinges and princes in Cristendome remembring also the regions landes
and contrays by rightfull enheritaunce he shall succede with the
manyfolde commodities and goodenes that may folowe and ensue to us and
this or realme aswell by the seid aliaunce and amitie as also by the
free and sure entercourse of merchaundise that our and hys subiectees
may and shall have in the regions and contrayes of us bothe specially
being soo nye joyned togeder as they be we thinke verraly that thought
the same shalbe right chargeable yet for the honor suertie weale and
profite of this or seid reame noon so noble mariage can any where be
founde. So that by meane therof and thother aliaunce whiche we have wt
or good son the King of Scottes[851] this or reame ys nowe environd
and in maner closed on every side wt suche myghti princes or good
sonnes frendes confiderates and alies that by the helpe of or lorde
the same ys and shalbe perpetually establisshed in rest and peace and
welthy condicioun to or grete honor and pleasor the reioysing and
comfort of all or loving frendes confiderates and alies, the feare
and discomfort of or enmyes that wold entende or presume to attempt
any thing to the contrary. The premisses therefore considered we do
advertise you of the same to thentent that like as we doubt nat but
ye and every of you wol take pleasor and comfort in hering thereof.
So with convenient diligence uppon the sight of these or lettres ye
wol cause demonstraciouns and tokens of reioysing and comfort to be
made in sundry places wt in or citie there aswell by making of ffyres
in suche places as shall thinke convenient as otherwise in the best
and confortable maner that ye can so that therby it may be evidently
knowen what gladnesse and reioysing ys generally takyn and made by you
and other or subiectes for perfecting of the seid honorable matiers
like as we knowe right well that the subiectes of the seid yong prince
for their parte have doon and wol semblably do accordingly lating you
wite that we have directed or like lettres to diverse other cities and
townes wtin or seid reame semblably to do for theyr part. Yeuen under
or Signet at our maner of Richemond the xxviij day of Decembre.


No. 31.

    Petition of Dean Colet to the Common Council that he might be
        allowed to purchase certain lands and tenements for the purpose
        of enlarging his School; 15 Jan. 3 Henry VIII. [1511-12].

                         Journal 11, fo. 147b.

      To the honorable Comon Counsell of the Citie of London.

Shewith unto you the Honorable Comyn Counsell of the Citie of London
yor lover and Bedman John Colet Deane of poules. That where he hath
made sute unto you afore this tyme for certeyn mesuage or tenement in
the olde Chaunge and ye have not sufficiently yitt knowen his mynde in
that behalf that it woll nowe lyke you to understande his mynde more
plainly whiche ys this. That ys to sey That where he hathe edified and
ordeyned a scole for your Childern bothe for lernyng and for good made
maners in poules Churche and nowe to the more examplefying and makyng
profite of the same in every pointe And also the more commoditie and
weale of yor sonnes that nowe and hereafter shall resorte to the seid
Scole because he sethe that it moche behoveth hym to his purpose to
have suche house and tenement in the old Channge lying at the bakside
of the said scole in the Est parte of the same that is to sey betwixt
the tenement nowe in the tenour of Reynold Pwe Citezen and Marchaunt
haberdassher of London on the South parte and the tenement nowe in the
tenure of John Evers Citezein and Marchaunt haberdassher of London
on the North parte conteynyng in lenght from the South to the North
xxviij fote of assise and in brede from the Est to the West x fote ix
Inches and a half of assise nowe being in the tenure of the seid John
Evers paying a yerely Rent of xxxv s. Therfore he instantly praieth
you and requireth you that ye wyll voutesave to lett hym have the seid
tenementes for convenient and reasonable price suche as shalbe sene to
indifferent men according to the true valour of the seid tenementes and
[_sic_] this grauntyng ye shall doo the seid John Colet a gret pleasor
and also a thing of gret commoditie to your childern, and the seid John
Colet Deane of poules shall pray for your good prosperious contynuance
to almyghty God all way who ever kepe you amen.


No. 32.

    Letter from King Henry VIII to the City desiring 300 men for the
        service of the Navy against a threatened invasion of England by
        the King of France. Dated Greenwich, 30 Jan. [1512-13].

                          Journal II, fo. I.

Trusty and welbeloved we grete youe well. And forasmoche as we have
perfite knowleage that or enemye the Frenche kyng hathe prepared a
strong navye furnysshed wt men of warre to entre and lande in diverse
parties of this or realme in this nexist moneth of Februarij for to
brenne slee robbe and distroye all that they may overcome. We entendyng
to prevent his conspired malice and to defende or reame and subgiettes
from all suche invasions by strength of a navye to be shortly sett
to the see. Wol therefore & commaunde youe that almaner excuses
utterly sett a parte ye furthwt upon the sight hereof doo prepaire
and arredye the nomber of ccc able persones sufficiently harneysed to
serve us on the see so that they be here at Grenewiche by the xvth day
off Februarij nexist commyng at the farthest any or former lettres
wrytinges to contrary notwtstondyng and that in the mean season ye do
send unto us some persone to receyve money for jakettes and conducte
money and that ye faile not hereof as ye tender our honor the suertie &
defence of this or realme and woll annswer therefore unto us at their
utturmost perill. Yeven under or Signet at or manor of Grenewiche the
xxx day of Januarij.


No. 33.

    Letter from Cardinal Wolsey to the City, touching a loan of 4000
        marks. Dated Westminster, 3 Sept. [1522].

                         Journal 12, fo. 196b.

Right honorable and my welbelovid frendes I parceyve by the relacõn of
Sir John Dauncy howe towardly and benevolently ye at this present tyme
of necessite, do use applye and endevor yor selfes to shewe gratuite
honor and pleasure unto the kynges grace, and that the rather at my
contemplacõn and desire, ye be mynded and contentid nowe to avaunce
unto his highnes by way of lone the summe of iiijml merkes which is
not only a manyfest and evydent demonstracõn of the perfite zele that
ye have to the furtheraunce of the kynges affaires, but also therbye
I do see what good inclynacõn and lovyng myndes ye be of to do unto
me acceptable and thankfull pleasure assuryng you that the kynges
highnes woll not faile so to remembre this yor gentill demeanor as ye
shall have cause to thynk the same well employed and bestowed. And for
my parte I thank you asmoch as though an other season ye gave unto
me thries that valure, offeryng that eny goodes of myn or that I can
make of my frendes shalbe as alliable unto yor commodities weales and
profites hereafter as ye do shew you to be unto the satisfacõn of my
desire and request, promysyng you also that wtin xv dayes next ensuyng
I shall see you entierly repayed of the same And in all such thynges
as may concerne thadvauncemet and comon weale of you and that Citie
ye shall assuredly have my favor and good furtheraunce as thise yor
merites condyngeiely do requyre. At my place besides Westmynster the
iijde daye of Septembre.

                     Yor assured lovyng ffrende
                                                    T. Cardinalis Ebor.


No. 34.

    Letter from Henry VIII to the City requesting a benevolence. Dated
        Greenwich, 25 April [1525].

                        Letter Book N, fo. 278.

Trusty and right welbiloved we grete you well. Lattyng you wytte that
by the reaporte and relacioun of the moost reverende fadre in God our
most trusty and mooste enterly welbiloved counsaillor the lorde legate
Cardynall Archebisshope of Yorke Primate of Englande and Chauncellor
of the same Whom we appoynted to practyse wt you for an amyable
graunte to be made unto us towards the supportacõn of or charges for
our intended vyage in to Fraunce for recoverey and atteignynge of our
crown and rightes there We to our singuler contentation understonde
that ye lyke most lovynge and kynde subgettes have shewed yor selffes
as conformable and well mynded to accomplyshe our desire purposed and
shewed unto you by the sayde moost reverende fadre in that behalffe
as cowde be imagined or devised And that there lakketh yn none of you
any maner towardnes or herty good wille with all effecte to performe
the same For the whiche your good demontracõn evidently provynge the
feithfull and mooste lovynge myndes that you alwaies have borne and
contynually doo bere unto us, ye do geve us right good cause to devise
and studie howe we may be as gracious soverayne lorde unto yow, as
ye bee good subgettes unto us: and surely yor towarde conformytes &
demeanors heryn be so imprynted in our harte and mynde that we shall
never forgett the same but yn all your resonable causes and pursuytes
woll have suche consideracõn and respecte therunto as shalbe to yor
comfortes gevyng you for this yor benevolent demeanor our right hartye
thankys. Nevertheless in asmoche as by reaporte and informacõn of
the said moost reverende fader we perceyve that albeyt ye be of this
towarde molinacõn and disposicioun as is aforesaid, yet your powers and
abilities be not equyvalent and correspondent unto yor good myndes ne
ye may commodiously performe the same without your grete detryment and
extreme hynderance & decay: We moche more esteme the prosperite of this
our realme and the weale of you or lovynge and kynde subgettes then we
doo ten suche realmes as Fraunce is. And not willynge you in any wise
to be so overcharged in this benyvolent graunte as shulde be to yor
extreme impoverishing have of our herty affeccõn and love towardes you
at this tyme directed our other lettres and instruccõns unto the said
most reverend fader willyng and desirynge hym to shewe and declare
unto you what waies of moderacõn we have devysed to be taken with you
in this behalff. By whome ye shall perceyve that we noo lesse doo
tendre your weales then we doo the attaynynge of or said rights and
crown whiche of necessite in avoydynge the greate dishonor that by the
contrary may ensue to us and this our realme and subgettes we must
attempte to recover. Trustyng therefor verelye that lyke as we have
tendre respecte unto you and your commoditie soo ye will as liberall
and good subgettes regarde the importance of our said intendyd viage
with the honor and Reputacõn of us and this own realme accordyngly
Yoven undre our Signet at or Maner of Grenewiche the xxv day of Aprill.


No. 35.

    Order for Obsequies to be celebrated in the City on the death of
        the lady Jane Seymour, 10 November 1537.

                       Letter Book P, fo. 135b.

At thys courte yt ys agreed that a Solempn herse shalbe made in poules
wyth iiij great Candlestickes wth iiij great Tapers and the herse to
be garnysshed wth xxx other great Tapers wth ij Braunches of vyrgyn
waxe and the same to be garnysshed wth blacke clothe and wth the Quenes
armys and upon Monday next at after noone the great belles in Every
churche at one of the Clocke to be Ronge and so contynue tyll three
and then all the belles in Everye churche to Rynge tyle vj of the
clocke And my lorde Mayre and the Sheryffes to contynue by the space
of xiiij dayes And also agreed that all the Aldermen shall goo in blak
and agreed that at twoo of the clocke at after noone to assemble here
upon Monday next and that at after noone a Solempn Obytt to be kept
at powles and on the morrowe the Masse And that of every Churche twoo
preestes shall gyve attendance Every one in theyre Surplesses and the
said Preestes to be devyded in fyve places in our Lady Chappell Saint
Georges Chappell and Saint The Great Chappels on the North and South
partes and that warnynge be gevyn by the clerkes of Every churche
to the churchewardens of Everye Churche and one offycer of my lorde
mayres to goo west and an other easte Also to gyve warnynge to the
churchewardens and that the belles of Every churche upon Tuesday next
shall begynne at ix of the clocke and contynue untyll xj of the clocke
afore noone And than the great belles of every churche to rynge alone
tyll xij of the clocke be strycken And that my lorde for hys Offycers
viij blacke Gownes shall have and Every one of the Sheryffes to have
iiij a pece At the costes of thys Cytie And that Mr Recorder shall have
xxxiijs iiijd. The Chamberleyn the under-chamberleyn and the Towne
clerk Every one of them xxs a pece by the commaundement of my lorde
Mayre.


No. 36.

    Extract from letter from Sir Richard Gresham to Thomas Cromwell,
        lord Privy Seal, touching the purchase of certain houses in
        Lombard Street belonging to Sir George Monoux, Alderman of the
        City of London, for the purpose of a site for an Exchange.
        Dated 25 July [1538].

               Brit. Mus. MS. Cotton, Otho E x, fo. 45.

* * * The Last yere I shewyd yor goode lordeshipe a Platte that was
drawen howte for to make a goodely Bursse In Lombert strete for
merchaunts to Repayer unto I doo suppose yt wyll coste ij ml_l_ and
more wyche shalbe very beautyful * * and allsoo for the honor owr
soveragne * * ther ys serteyn howssys in the sayd * * longyn to Sir
George Monnocks and excepte * * maye purchesse them the sayd Bursse
can [not] be made Wherefor yt maye please yor good lordshipe [to] move
the kynges highnes to have his most gracious lettyrs [di]rectyd to the
sayd Sir George Wyllynge and allsoo [co]maundynge hym to cawsse the
sayd howssys to be [so]led to the Mayer and Comminaltye of the City of
London for suche prices as he dyd purches them for and that he fawte
not but to accomplyshe hys gracious commaundement the Lettyr must be
sharply made for he ys of noo jentyll nature and that he shale gyffee
Further credens to the mayer I wyll delyver the Lettyr and handyll hym
the best I can, and yf I maye obtayngne to have the sayde howyssys
I dought not but to gather oon ml_l_ towarde the buildynge or I
departe howte of myn office ther shale lacke noo goode wylle In me. And
thus or lorde preserve yor goode lordshippe in prosperous helthe long
to contynew. At London the XXV daye Juylly.


No. 37.

    Letter from King Henry VIII to Alderman Monoux desiring him to
        part with certain property whereon to erect an Exchange. Dated
        Chichester, 13 August [1538].

                         Journal 14, fo. 124.

                             By the Kynge

Trusty and welbelovyd we grete you well. And where as we under stande
that ye have certeyn howsyng and tenementes abowt lombard strete in our
Citye of london whiche ar veray mete and expedyent for certeyn intended
purposes to the weale and commen furtherance of merchauntes and
entrecours of the same wtyn that or Cytye lyke as or trusty and Ryght
welbelovyd servaunt Sr Rychard Gresham maior of the same and other hys
brethern there can declare unto you Forasmoche as we tender moche that
theyre good mynde and purpose in that byhalf may take effect And not
dowbtyng but beyng brought up there ye have a good zeale and affeccõn
to the same we have therfore thought hartely to requyre you that nowe
shewyng the same ye woll nowe vouchesave at or intercessyon to bestowe
upon suche a common weale and furtheraunce so moche of yor sayd howsyng
as shall nede for thaccomplysshement of the same freely and frankely
Or at the least wt so reasonable an agreament indelayedly to be made
betwene you and the sayd Gresham as they maye have cawse to thynke that
ye want no good affeccõn towardes the sayd cytye And also that ye have
suche good respect to our requisicõn herein as apperteigneth Assuryng
you that yor gentle confirmite so to doo shalbe by us thankfully
accepted and remembred accordyngly Yeven under or signet at or citye of
Chichestre the xiij daye of August.


No. 38.

    Another letter from King Henry VIII to the same urging him to part
        with property required for an Exchange, on reasonable terms. No
        Date [1538].

                           _Id. ibid._

                              By the Kyng

Trusty and welbelovyd we grete you well And where as we have lately
dyrected to you or letters hartely desyeryng you at or request frankely
and frely to gyve certeyn yor howses that ye have in lombardstrete yn
that or Cytye of London for a burse or place apte for merchauntes to
resorte to orelles upon suche a reasonable agreament and convencõn
as ye cowlde fynde yn your harte for or sake to conclude wt theym yn
that byhalf wheryn ye shulde doo unto us acceptable pleasure not to
be forgotten whensoever oportunytye shall requyre Wherupon as we be
enformed or trusty and Ryght welbelovyd servaunt Sir Rychard Gresham
Knight late Maior of or sayd Cytye have wt other of hys brethern
Aldermen of the same bene lately wt you for thaccomplysshement therof
at whiche tyme ye hooly remytted the matter to thorderyng of or trusty
and welbelovyd counsailor Sir Richard Ryche chauncelor of or corte
thaugmentacõns of or crowne wt whome also the sayd Sir Rychard Gresham
wt other of hys brethern thaldermen of that or Cytye concluded and
agreed to pay yerely for ever an annuall rent of twenty markes by
yere for the sayd howses yet thys notwtstandyng thorough the evell
counsayll and dethortacõn of certayn persones of frowarde disposicõn
whiche lytle regarde or pleasure and yor estymacõn contrary to or
expectacõn and lesse to the furtherance of the common wealth of that or
Cytye have dysturbed the sayd good purpose to or no lytill marvell we
therfore muche desyeryng the same to take effect do eftsones desyre and
hartely requyre you that ponderyng and weyng wt yorself the benefite
and commodytye that shall ensue therof to or common wealth and to the
beautifitye of that or cytie and chamber of London to condescende to or
desyre and conclude the sayd graunte accordyngly wtout further delaye
Requyryng you that of yor gentle conformytie herein to be used on yor
behalf (the contrary wherof we nothyng loke for) ye woll advertyse us
wt convenyent dylygence by thys brynger Sir Rychard Gresham to thintent
that accordyng to yor procedynges hereyn we maye gyve unto you or
condigne thankes and also remember the same whan occasyon shall serve
to yor no lytle benefit accordyngly Yeven under or Signet &c.


No. 39.

    Letter of thanks from Henry VIII to Alderman Monoux for acceding to
        the King's former request. Dated Westminster, 25 Nov. [1538].

                         Journal 14, fo. 124b.

                             By the Kynge

Trusty and welbeloved we grete you well And perceyvyng by the relacõn
of or Ryght trusty and Right welbelovyd counsailor the lorde privie
seale howe at the contemplacõn of or lettres lately dyrected unto you
for yor lovyng graunte to be made unto the merchauntes of or citye of
London for theyre reasonable money to have of you suche yor howses and
tenementes situate and lyeng yn Lombardstrete as shulde be mete for a
burse wherunto the merchauntes of or said Cytye shulde for the trafique
of marchaundyses have dayly concorse and accesse to the beautifyeng
of or sayd Cytie and the advauncement of or common wealth of the same
ye have lyke a lovyng subiect conformed yorself unto the same And
have of yor owne gentlenes shewed and declared more conformitye unto
theyre sute and Request than we desyred of you by or sayd lettres
lyke as for yor gentle Accomplysshement thereof we geve unto you or
cordyall and condynge thankes So we assure you we shall have the same
yor towardnes yn the performyng hereof yn suche remembrance as whan
occasyon shall serve yn yor lawfull pursuytes the same shall redownde
unto yor benefyte accordyngly Yeven under or signet at or Royall palace
of Westminster the xxv day of Novembre.


No. 40.

    Proclamation by Henry VIII forbidding public hunting and hawking in
        the suburbs of London. Dated 7 July, 1545.

                         Journal 14, fo. 240b.

Forasmoche as the Kynges moste Royall Maistey is moche desyrous to
have the Games of hare partriche ffesaunte and heron preserved in and
abowte his honor at his paleys of Westmynster for his owne disporte and
pastyme That is to save from his said paleys at Westmynster to saint
Gyles in the feelde and from thens to Islyngton to or ladye of the Oke
to Hyghegate to Harnesey parke to Hampstede Hethe and from thens to
Shotehophyll to Wyllesdon to Acton to Cheseweke to Chelsehethe and so
from thens to his said paleys of Westmynster to be preserved and kepte
for his owne disporte pleasure and Recreacõn. His Highnes therefore
straytlye chargethe and Commaundeth all & singuler his subiectes of
what Estate Degree or condicõn soever they be that they ne any of them
do presume or attempte to hunte or hawke or in any manener of meanes
to take or kyll any of the said Games wthin the precincte aforesaid as
they tender his favour and wull exchewe further punysshement at his
Maiestyes wyll and pleasure. * * * Dated Westminster, 7 July, 37 Henry
VIII [1545].


No. 41.

    Letter from King Edward VI and the Protector Somerset to the
        City asking for a force of 1000 men as a protection against
        conspirators. Dated Hampton Court, 6 Oct. [1549].

                        Letter Book R, fo. 39b.

Trustye and welbeloved we greate yowe well we charge and commaunde
yowe moste ernestlye to gyve order wth all spede for the defence &
preservacõn of that or Cytie of London for us. And to levye owte of
hande & to putt in order as menye as convenyentlye yowe maye well
weaperred & arayed keapyng good watche at the gates. And to sende us
hether for the defence of or person one thousand of that or cytie of
trustye & faythfull men to attende upon us & or most intyerly belovyd
uncle Edwarde Duke of Somersett governor of or personne and protector
of or realmes domynyons and subiectes well harnessed & wth good &
convenyent weapon. So that they do make their repayer hether unto us
this night if yt be possyble or at the leaste tomorrowe before none.
And in the meane tyme to do what as apperteyneth unto yor duetye
for ours & or seid uncles defence agayns all suche as attempte anye
conspyracie or enterpryse of vyolence against us or or seid uncle, and
as yow knowe best for or preservacõn & defence at this presente. Yoven
under or Signett at or honor of Hampton corte the vjth of October the
third yere of or reign.

Poscript--Ye shall further gyve credyte to or trustye & welbeloved
Owen Claydon the bearer herof in all suche thynges as he shall further
declare unto yowe on the behalf of us & or seid uncle the lord
protector.


No. 42.

    Letter from Lords of the Council to the City touching the conduct
        of the Duke of Somerset. Dated 6 Oct. [1549].

                        Letter Book R, fo. 40.

After or right hartye comendacõns unto yor good lordship knowyng yor
hartye loves & earnest zeales to the preservacõn of the person of the
kynges maiestie & of this realme: and other his maiesties realmes &
domynyons we have thought good to advertyse yowe that notwthstanding
all the good advyse & counseyll that we cowde geve to the Duke of
Somerset to steye hymself wthin his reasonable lymyttes and to use his
governement nowe in the tender age of his maiestye in suche sorte as
might tende to his highnes suertye to the conservacõn of his estate
& to his owne honor. The seid duke neverthelesse styll contynuing
in his pryde covetousnes & ambycyon ceaseth not daylie by all the
wayes & meanes he can devyse to enryche hymself wthowte measure
and to empoveryshe his matie he buyldeth in iiij or v places moste
sumptuouslye & leaveth the poore souldiers unpayed of their wages
onvyttaylled and in all thynges so unfurnysshed as the losses lately
susteyned to the greatest dyshonor that ever came to the kynge & this
realme do declare; he soweth daylie dyvysyon bytwene the nobles &
gentlemen of the commens he rewardeth & enterteyneth a nomber of those
that were capteyns of the commens in this late insureccõns & fynally in
such wyse subverteth all lawes justyce & good order as yt is evydent
that puttyng his truste in the commens & perceyving that the nobles
and gentlemen shuld be an impedyment to hym in hys dyvyllyshe purposes
he laboureth fyrste to have theym destroyed & thyncketh after easelye
inough to achive his desyer wth yt appeireth playnly is to occupye the
kinges maiesties place for his doinges who so ever lyste to beholde
theym do manyfestlye declare that he myndeth never to render accompte
to his maiestie of his procedynges. These thynges wth manye moo to
large to recyte consydered we pondred wth orselfes that eyther we muste
travayle for some reformacõn or we muste in effecte as yt were consent
wth hym to the destruccyon of or soveraign lorde & cuntreye, wherepon
laying aparte all respectes and restyng only upon or duetyes we joyned
in counseyll & thought quyetlye to have treated the matter wth hym,
who perceyvyng that we joyned for the kynge & wold have suche order
as might be for the suertye of his maties person & the commen welthe
streight put hym self in force & resteth at pleyn point as yt appereth
eyther to go thurrough wth his detestable purpose in sorte as he hathe
done or to trye yt by the sworde. Nowe for asmoche as we see presentlie
that onles there be a reformacõn the person of the kinges matie is in
moste certeyn daunger & this realme or naturall countrey lyke to be
destroyed wth or posteryties, lyke as we have agayne fully resolved wth
godes helpe eyther to delyver the kynges matie & the realme from this
extreme ruyne & destruccyon or to spend or lyves for the declaracõn of
or faythfull hartes and duetyes so knowinge yor hartye good wylles &
troth to his maiestye & therefore nothinge doubtyng of yor redynes to
joyne wth us in or godly purpose we thought good to lett yowe knowe the
verye trouthe of or enterprice & in the kynges maties behalf so requyre
yowe not onlye to put good & substancyall order for watche and warde
but also to have an earnest contynuall regarde to the preservacõn wthin
yor cytie of all harneys weapons & munycõns so as none be suffred to
be conveyed to the seid duke nor any others attendyng aboute hym and
besydes that yow from hensforth obey no letters proclamacõns nor other
commaundements to be sent from the seid duke and thus we byd yor L.
moste hartely farewell from London the vjth of October.


No. 43.

    Letter from Queen Mary to the City, desiring a contingent of 1,000
        men to be held ready for active service at a day's notice.
        Dated Richmond, 31 July, 1557.

                         Journal 17, fo. 54b.

                             By the Quene

Trustie & welbeloved we grete yow well and lett yow wete yt the warres
beinge open betwixte us and Fraunce and the Kynge our deerest Lorde
& husband passed the seas in persone to pursue the enemye we have
gyven order as mete is (or honor and suertie so requiering) to have a
convenyent force putt in a perfytt readynes to attend upon or persone
aswell for the defence & suertie thereof as to resiste suche attempes
as may be by any forrein enemye or otherwise made agaynst us & or
Realme and therefore will & comaunde yow that of the hole manred of
that or Cytie of London aswell in lyberties as wthowt yow do appoynte
the nomber of one thousand hable souldyers wherof as many to be
horsemen as may be and the resydewe to be hable footemen the horsemen
to be well horssed & armed & of the footemen the fourthe parte to be
harquebutiars or archers One other fourthe parte or more to beare pykes
and the residewe of the said footemen to be bylles all well harnessed
and weaponed to serve us in or saide defense having & kepinge the
same nomeber in suche order as under the leadynge of mete Captaynes
gentlemen of enherytaunce or their heires apparaunte by yow lykewyse
to be named they may be readye by the xvjth of August nexte at the
furthest and from thensfourthe to contynue in suche a redynes as at all
tymes after they maye be hable upon one dayes warninge to repaire unto
us or suche other place as we shall appoyncte for our servyce Takinge
also suche order as the said Captaynes to bee by yow named may in the
meane tyme knowe and be acquaynted wth theire soldiers and the soldyers
lykewyse withe their Captaines And because we have wrytten or specyall
lettres to the persones named in the scedule inclosed to furnyshe for
or servyce suche nombers of men as they ar hable to make Our pleasure
is yow shall forbeare in the settinge fourthe of theis numbers to
take any the tenaunts or others under the rules or offyces of the
said persones or of any others appoynted lykewyse to serve us And our
pleasure is yow shall have also lyke respecte to the tenaunts & others
under the rules and offyces of those noble men and gentlemen now gon
with or armye into Fraunce And of yor doinges herein or pleasure is yow
shall advertise us by yor Lettres wth as muche spede as you possibly
maye And theis or Lettres Shalbe unto yow suffycient warraunte and
dyscharge for yor doinges in that behalfe Yoven under or Sygnet at or
manor of Richemond the last of July the fourth and fyveth yeres of or
raignes [1557].


No. 44.

    Letter from Queen Mary to the City asking for 500 men to be
        immediately dispatched for the relief of Calais. Dated
        Greenwich, 2 Jan. [1557-8].

                          Journal 17, fo. 55.

Trustie and welbeloved we greate you well and where ye did this last
Sommer put in a readynes the nomeber of one thowsande men to attend
upon or person at all tymes whan we shuld calle for the same Havinge
receyved certein advertisementes from or Towne of Callice that the
Frenche hathe approched theither and myndeth to attempte sum exployte
on or said Towne and other or pieces there we have thought good for the
better metinge wth suche attemptates as shalbe by them offered to sende
a furder supplye of men thither and therfore requyre & comaunde yow
furthwth upon the recipte of theise or letters wth as muche dylygente
spede as ye may possyblye to putt in a reddynes the number of fyve
hundreth hable footemen and to se them furnyshed wth armure and weapon,
whereof as many of them to be harquebutters as yow can gett and the
rest to be furnyshed wth bowes and pykes so as the said number be ready
to sett fourthe towardes or said Towne under the conducte of suche
captaynes as we shall appoynte by Frydaye nexte at the furthest For
whose conducte money we have alredy given order they shall receyve the
same at or said Towne of Callyce at their arryvall there And because
this or servyce requyrethe moche expedycõn and haste, ye shall not
neade to staye for the makinge of any cotes for the said number but to
send them fourthe withe all spede Wereof we requyer you not to fayle as
we specyallye truste yow And theise or lettres shalbe yor suffycient
warraunte & dyscharge in this behalfe. Yeoven under or Sygnet at or
Mannor of Grenewiche the seconde of January in the fourth and fyfthe
yeres of or raignes [1557-8].


No. 45.

    Letter from Queen Elizabeth to the City desiring 250 soldiers for
        service at sea under the High Admiral, Lord Clinton, against
        the French. Dated Greenwich, 17 May, 2 Eliz. [1560].

                        Journal 17, fol. 238b.

  ELIZABETH R.

Right Trustie and welbeloved we grete you well. Because we certaynly
understand that notwthstandinge our desire and good contentacõn at
diverse tymes declared to have a treatie wth the frenche for the
redresse and staye of the notable Iniuries and attemptes commytted
agaynst us and the right of our Crowne and for the wthdrawinge of their
forces out of Scotland the whiche can not be permytted there as they be
wthout greate daunger not onlie to or towne of Barwick but also to the
state of or realme consideringe the false pretence made and certeyne
other depe practises by them agaynst this Realme. To the furderaunce
of whiche treatie they offer in speche and good wordes accesse of
personages to mete wth somme of ours; yet their preparations to the
seas be daylie so great as greater can not well be whiche surely with
convenient providence on our parte and by goodes goodnes we nede not
feare. Thearfore meanynge to be ready for the defense and honour of or
Realme aswell to treate wth the frenche for accorde and quietnes as
for wthstandinge of there furder attemptes specially by sea we have by
advyse of our Counsell thought convenient to send our navie furthwth to
the seas, and therwth or right trustie and right welbeloved Counsellor
the lord Clynton our highe Admirall to governe the same, and wth or
said Navie to wthstande suche force as he shall fynde on the frenche
parte upon the seas to damage either our owne subiectes and marchauntes
tradynge the seas or the subiectes of any other our frendes or to
invade or attempte to lande upon any parte of or sea costes. And for
the better furnyture of or said navie wth souldiores we will that there
shalbe levyed wthin that our Cytie of London and the liberties of the
same the nomber of two hundred and fyftie hable men whereof or meanynge
ys, that the one halfe shoulde be archers and thother harquebuttiers,
and as sone as ye have levied the same, our pleasure is that ye shall
commytt them to several captaynes for every hundred, and cause them
to be arrayed wth armoure and weapon mete for that service to be redy
in or Cytie of London the xxiiijth of this monethe and to departe to
or navie wth or Admirall at suche tyme as he shall prescribe and for
their conducte money the same shalbe delivered to you by order of or
Treasorer of Englande. And theise or lettres shalbe yor sufficient
warrant for the levyenge of the said nomber of two hundred and fyftie
men accordinglie. Yeoven under or signet at our mannor of Grenewiche
the xvijth of Maye the seconde yere of or reigne [1560].


No. 46.

    Letter from Queen Elizabeth to the City, desiring that Sir Thomas
        Gresham might be discharged from serving the offices of Mayor,
        Alderman and Sheriff. Dated Westminster, 7 March, 5 Eliz.
        [1562-3].

                         Journal 18, fo. 137.

Trustie and welbeloved we gret you well; And wheras our faythfull
servante Sr Thomas Gresham knighte is one of the citizens and fredome
of or citie of London, and by reason therof maye perchance hereafter
be called upon or elected to serve in the office of maior alderman
or shref wthin our saide citie of London or countye of Middlesex.
Forasmuche as the same Sr Thomas Gresham not onlye in tymes past
hathe ben employed in or service about our weightye affayres in the
partyes of beyond the sea concerninge the state of or Realme, But also
hereafter duringe his lif muste and shalbe employed aboute or like
weightye affayres in or service concerninge the state of oure realme
from tyme to tyme as our pleasure shalbe to appoynte. These ar to
signifye unto you that those & other speciall consideracõns us movinge
our request and expresse pleasure is that at yor nexte comen assembly
or comen counsayle daye to be holden wthin our saide cittye ye do cause
it to be fyrmely and perfectley ordered and of recorde emongest yon
regestred by an absolute acte of comen counsell that or saide servante
Sr Thomas Gresham from hensfourth duringe his life shalbe free and
clerely discharged of and from the saide offices of maior, alderman
and shriff afore mencõned and of and from every of them and not at any
tyme to be elected or charged wth the same offices or any of them. And
that ye fayle not herof as ye tender or favor. And of yor procedinges
in observacõn of this our request, that ye do furthwith after yor nexte
comen counsell daye assertayne us by writing from you to the intent we
maye have consideracõn of the same as shall appertayne. And sowe bidd
you fare well from or palace at Westminster the vijth daye of Marche in
the fyveth yere of our reigne [1562-3].


No. 47.

    Proclamation against the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland
        for their rebellion against the Queen's Majesty. Dated Windsor
        Castle, 24 Nov., 1569.

                         Journal 19, fo. 202b.

                            By the Queene.

The Queenes maiestie was sundry wise aboute the latter ende of this
sommer infourmed of some secrete whisperinges in certaine places of
Yorkshire, and the Bishopricke of Durham that there was lyke to be
shortly some assemblies of Lewde people in those partes tendinge to a
rebellyon: Whereof, because at the first the informacõns conteyned no
evident or direct cause or proofe therfore her Maiestie had the lesse
regarde therto, untill upon certayne convencõns and secrete meetinges
of the Earles of Northumberlande and Westmerlande, wth certen personnes
of suspected behavor, the formor reportes were renewed and thereof also
the saide two Earles were in vulgare speaches from place to place
expresslye noted to be the auctors, whereupon the Earle of Sussex,
lorde President of her Maties councell in those north partes, gave
advertisment of the like brutes, addinge nevertheles (to his knowelege)
there was no other matter in dede but lewde rumors, sodaynly raised and
sodaynly ended. And yet shortely after he sent for the two Earles wth
whom he conferred of those rumors: who as thei could not deny but that
thei had harde of suche, yet (as it nowe afterward apperethe) falsely
then dissemblinge, thei protested themselves to be free from all suche
occasions, offeringe to spende theire lyves against any that shulde
breake the peace and so muche trusted by the said lorde president upon
theire othes, they were licensed not only to departe, but had powre
geven to examyn the causes of the said brutes. Neverthelesse the fire
of theire treasons wch thei had covered was so greate, as it did newly
burst out mo flames. Whearupon her Maiestie beinge alwais lothe to
enter in any open misport of any of her nobilitie, and therfore in
this case desirous rather to have bothe the saide Earles cleared from
suche sclaunders and her good people that lived in feare of spoile
to be quitted comaunded the lord President (as it semed) havinge
than discovered somewhat further of theire evill purposes, dyd onely
at the first write to them to come to hym to consult upon matters
apperteynynge to that councell, whereunto they made delatory and
frivolous answeres: and so beinge once agayne more earnestly required,
thei more flatly denyed. And last of all her Maiestie sent her owne
private letters of comaundement to them to repaire to her presence
all wch notwthstandinge, thei refused to come: And havinge before the
delivery of her Maties letters to them assembled as great numbers as
they could (wch were not many, for that the honester sorte dyd refuse
them) thei did enter into an open and actuall rebellion armynge and
fortifyinge them selfes rebelliously in all warlike maner and have
invaded houses and churches and published proclamacõns in there owne
names to move her Maties subiectes to take theire partes, as personnes
that meane of theire private auctorite to breake and subvert Lawes
threateninge the people that if thei cannot atchive theire purposes,
then strangers will enter the Realme to fynyshe the same. And wth this
they adde, that they meane no hurte to her Maties personne a pretence
always first published by all traitors. And as for reformacõn of any
greate matter, it is evident thei be as evill chosen two personnes
(if there qualities be well considered) to have creditt, as can be
in the whole Realme. And nowe her Maiestie manifestly percyvinge in
what sorte these two Earles beinge both in povertie, the one havinge
but a very small porcõn of that wiche his auncesters had and lost,
and the other havinge almost his whole patrimony wasted, do go aboute
throughe the perswasion of a nomber of desperat persons associated as
parasites wth them to satisfie there privat lacke and ambicioun wch
cannot be by them compassed wthout coveringe at the first certeine
highe treason against the quenes Maties person and the Realme, longe
hidden by suche as have heretofore provoked them, wth the cover of some
other pretended generall enterprises hathe thought good that all her
good lovinge subiectes shulde spedely understand howe in this sorte the
said two Earles contrary to the naturall propertie of nobilitie (wch is
instituted to defende the prince beinge the head and to preserve peace)
have thus openly and traitorrously entred into the first rebellyon and
breach of the publique blessed peace of this Realme that hath heppened
(beyonde all former examples) duringe her Maties raigne wch nowe haithe
contynued above eleven yeares, an acte horrible against god the only
gever of so longe a peace; and ungratefull to there soveraigne Lady
to whom thei two particularly have heretofore made sundry professions
of there faith and lastely most unnaturall and pernicious to theire
natyve cuntrey that hath so longe enyoied peace, and nowe by there only
mallyce and ambicioun is to be trobled in that felicitie. And herewth
also her Maiestie chargeth all her goode subiectes to employ there
hole powers to the preservacõn of comon peace (wch is the blessinge
of almightie god) and spedely to apprehend and suppresse all maner of
personnes that shall by any dede or word shewe them selfes favorable
to this rebelliouse entreprise of the said two Earles, or any there
associates who as her Maiestie hath already willed and commaunded to
be by the forsaid Earle of Sussex, her liefetenaunt generall in the
northe, published rebells and traitors against her Crowne and dignytye
so dothe her Matie by these presentes for avoidinge of all pretences
of ignoraunce reiterat and eftsonnes notifie the same to her whole
Realme, wth all their adherentes and favorers to be traitors, and so
to be taken and used to all purposes not doubtinge but this admonicõn
and knowlege geven, shall suffice for all good subiectes to retaine
them selves in there dwetes, and to be void from all seducinge by
these foresaid rebells and traitors or there adherentes and favorers,
whatsoever there pretences shalbe made or published by them selves, or
suche as have not the grace of god to delighte and lyve in peace, but
to move uprores to make spoile of the goodes and substances of all good
people, the true proper fruytes of all rebellions and treasons geven at
the Castell of Windsor the xxiiij daie of November 1569 in the twelfth
yere of her Maties raigne.

                          god save the quene.


No. 48.

    Letter from Queen Elizabeth to the Mayor and Aldermen of the City
        of London on the occasion of the discovery of the Babington
        conspiracy. Dated Windsor Castle, 18 August 1586.

                          Journal 22, fo. 52.

Right trustie and welbeloved we grete you well being given tunderstand
howe greatlie our good and most Loving subiectes of that Cittie did
reioyce at the apprehension of certayne develish and wicked mynded
subiectes of ours that through the greate and singuler goodnes of god
have of late ben detected to have most wickedlie and unnaturallie
conspired not onelie the takinge awaie of our oune lief, but also to
have stirred upp (as mutche as in them laye) a generall rebellion
throughout our whole realme: we could coulde [_sic_] but by our owne
lettres witnes unto you the grate and singuler contentment we receyved
uppon the knowledge thereof assuringe you that we did not so mutche
reioyce at the escape of the intended attemp against our owne person,
as to see the greate Joye our most Lovinge subiectes tooke at the
apprehension of the contrivers thereof, wch (to make their Love more
apparent) the have (as we are to our greate comfort enformed) omitted
no outwarde shewe, that by anie externall acte might witnes to the
worlde, the inward love and dutifull affeccion they beare towardes us,
and as we have as greate cause wth all thankfulness, to acknowledge
godes greate goodnes towardes us throughe the infinit blessinge he
layeth uppon us as manie as ever Prince hadd, yea rather, as ever
creature hadd; Yet doe we not for anie worldlie blessinge receyved from
his devine Matie so greatlie acknowledged them, as in that it hath
pleased him to inclyne the hartes of our subiectes. Even from the first
begynninge of our reigne, to carrie as greate Love towardes us, as
ever Subiectes carried towarde Prince, whiche ought to move us (as it
dothe in verey deede) to seeke wth all care and by all good meanes that
apparteyne to a christian Prince, the conservacion of so loving and
dutifull affected subiectes. Assuringe you that we desire no longer to
Live, then while we maie in the whole course of our governement carrie
our self in sutche sorte, as maie not onelie nourish and contynewe
their Love and goodwill towardes us, but also increasse the same we
thinke meete that theise our lettres should be also commynicated in sum
generall assemblie to our most Lovinge subiectes the commons of that
cittie. Geven under our signet at our castell of Wyndesor the xviijth
daie of August 1586 in the xxviij yere of our Reigne.


No. 49.

    Speech made by a member of the Common Council 22 Aug., 1586, upon
        the occasion of the discovery of the Babington conspiracy.

                          Journal 22, fo. 52.

Right worshipfull my good countreymen & citezens of this most noble
cittie of London. Since the late brute and report of a most wicked and
tray terouse conspiracie, not onelie to take awaie the leif of our most
gracious soveraigne whom god graunt longe to lyve & raigne over us but
also to stuer upp a generall rebellion throughout the whole realme;
the greate and universall ioye of you all of this cittie, uppon the
apprehension of divers of that most wicked conspiracy a late declared
and testified by manie outward actes & shewes hathe wrought in the
quenes most excellent maiestie sutche a gracious contentement, that it
hathe moved hir highnes, by hir letters signed wth hir owne hand to
signifie unto my L. Maior of this cittie, and his bretherein, her most
noble and pricelie acceptacioun thereof And that in sutche sorte as
there by maie appeare that hir highnes hath not more no not so mutche
reioyced at the most happie escape of the wicked mischeif intended
against hir owne person as att the ioye wch her lovinge subiectes
and namelie you of this cittie of London looke at the apprehension
of the practizers of that intended treason By occasion whereof hir
highnes brought to a thankfull rememberance, and acknowledginge of
godes infinite blessing bestowed on hir, comparable wth anie prince or
creature in the worlde no worldly thinge more or like accompteth of
them of the heartie love of hir lovinge faithfull subiectes many wayes
and many tymes before nowe but especially by this our greate ioye in
this sorte at this tyme and uppon this occasion shewed.

And that hir exceadinge greate love and exceptacion of our reioycinge
maye the more appeare unto you, it hath pleased hir highnes in the same
letter to declare that she desireth no longer to live amonge us, then
she shall maynteyne contynue norish & increase the love and goodwill of
her subiectes towardes hir And this her highenes hath willed to be made
knowen unto you all wth this, that she will not faile wth all care and
by all good meanes that apperteyne to a Christian prince to seke the
conservacion of you all so lovinge and dowty full affected subiectes
This hir maiesties pleasure in parte nowe declared & more to be made
knowen to you by hir owne letters, wch you shall heare redd, my lorde
maior and his bretheren have required me to declare unto you all that
they doe hartelie reioyce and thank god for the happie daie of the good
acceptacion of this your greate ioye. And my L. himself hathe willed me
to give you all hartie thankes in his name for that in the tyme of his
service your dutifull behaviours have gotten to the cittie so noble &
worthie a testimonie of dewtie & loyaltie of so worthie & noble a quene.

Now for asmutche as godes blessinges wonder fullie abounde & one ioye
cometh uppon an other let us not be unthankfull to god but acknowledge
his goodnes, attribute the same (as in deede we ought) to the sincere
religion of allmightie god most godlie established by the quenes most
excellent matie wch hath taught us to knowe god a right our dowtie to
our soveraigne and to love our countrey, and hath made us dutifull &
obedient subiectes reioycinge att all good thinges happeninge to hir
matie hir realme or to anie in hir noble service the true effectes of a
true & good religion. Whereas the contempners thereof & the immoderate
affectors of the Romish religion & suspersticions, beinge voide of the
true knowledge of god, have declyned from god, their allegiance to
their prince their love to their countrey, And have become inventors of
mischifes, brutors and spreaders abrode of false and sediciouse rumors,
sutche as ioye at no good thinge but contrarie wise reioyse at everie
evell successe, the badges and markes of their profession, who have
before this, & in this realme and other hir highnes dominions stirred
upp rebellion forrein invasion, and manie tymes practized the verey
deathe & destruccion of the quene hir self the ruyne & subversion of
the whole realme the proper effectes of their romishe religion.

We have behelde thes thinges & seene in our daies the ruyne and
mischeifes invented against others fall uppon the inventors themselves
& have knowen the wicked and violent handes of divers of them
devilishlie to kill & murdre them selves whom most trayterouslie then
woulde, and most happilie the could not slea the Lordes annoynted.

As we have knowen all thes thinges, so god be thanked, that by a better
religion, havinge ben better taught, we have ben no partakers of their
wicked devises, But have put to our helpinge handes as occasion hath
served, and over redie to ever throwe the auctors & devisers there of.

And I have no doubt, but we of this noble cittie, who hetherto have
ben alwaies redie dutifullie & faithfully to serve hir maiestie uppon
all occasions (her highnes now so graciouslie acceptinge onely of our
reioycinge at the apprehension of her enemies ever the least parte of
the dutie of a good subiecte to so good a quene) wilbe redie everie
one wth all yt we can make, & wth the uttermost adventure of all our
lives spedilie to be revenged uppon all sutche as shall vilanouslie &
trayterouslie attempe or put in ure anie mischeif to her noble person,
and in the meane tyme will have a better eye and eare to all suspicious
miscontented persons to their sayenges and doinges to their false
brutes and reportes, to the places and corners of their haunt & resort,
to their harbours companions, ayders & maynteyners.

God upholde and contynue his religion amonge us & increase our zeale
therein wch hathe made us so lovinge & loyall and so beloved &
acceptable subiectes to so worthie a prince, & roote out the wicked
& romishe religion that hath made so manie disloyall & trayterous
subiectes, to whom is bothe odious & irkesome the longe lief and
prosperouse reygne of our most noble quene Elizabeth. God confounde all
sutche traytors and preserve hir hignes longe to live and raigne over
us.


No. 50.

List of ships furnished and victualled by the City to meet the Armada,
1588.

State Papers Dom. Vol. ccxii. No. 68.

At Plymmowthe xixno Julij 1588.

A note of all the shipps nowe at sea under the chardge of the Lorde
Admerall wth their nombers of men and tyme of victuallinge wch is
reduced nowe to ende in them all together the xth of Auguste.

                                       Men.

             { The Hercules            120 }
             { The Tobie               110 }
             { The Senturyon            90 } Theis shipps
             { The Marget and John      84 } beinge set furthe
             { The Mynyon               84 } by the Cyttie are
             { The Assention            84 } victuallid by them
             { The Red Lyon             84 } alreadie until the
             { The May Flower           84 } xth of Auguste and
             { The Primrose             80 } shalbe here furnyshid
  The London { The Teger                72 } with a
  Shippes    { The guyfte of god        64 } moneths victuall
             { The B. Burre             64 } more at the
             { The Brave                64 } Cytties chardge
             { The golden Lyon          64 } accordinge to yor
             { The Royall defence       60 } Lo: order.
             { The Thomas bonaventur    60 }
             { The releif               16 } }
             { The Moneshine            30 } } instead of theis to
             { The Pasporte             30 } } have 2 pynnasses
             { The Dyana                16 } }


No. 51.

    Government order to victual ships furnished by the City; 24 July,
        1588.

                State Papers Dom. Vol. ccxiii. No. 15.

Mr. Quarleis theis are to praie you presentlie to victuall theis
shippes hereunder written nowe at the seas wth my Lo: Admirall wth one
moneths victuall of xxviij daies to begyn the xth of August 1588 and
to end the vijth of September followinge both daies included Of wch
monnethes victualls you are to victuall the said Flete for the fyrst
xiiij daies at Portesmouth The other xiiij daies the victuall to be
sent to Dover. This to be doune with all spede possible and so fare
you well from my house at Stroude the xxiiijth of Julie 1588

       *       *       *       *       *

  1   The Hercules          }
  2   The Tobie             }
  3   The Senturion         }
  4   The Marget and John   }
  5   The Mynion            }
  6   The Assention         }
  7   The Red Lion          }
  8   The Tygar             }
  9   The Mayflower         }  Of London.
  10  The Prymrose          }
  11  The gift of god       }
  12  The bark Burle        }
  13  The Brawle            }
  14  The golden Lion       }
  15  The Riall defence     }
  16  Thelen Nathan         }
  20  The foure pynnasses   }


No. 52.

    List of all the ships furnished by the City against Spain in 1588.

            State Papers Dom. Vol. ccxxxvii, fos. 15b-16b.

The whole flete sett out in 88 against the Spaniards and wch were payed
by Q. Eliz: and how many were payed by London and the Porte Townes?

Queene Eliz: whole armye at Sea against ye Spanish forces in anno 1588.

       *       *       *       *       *

Shippes set forth and payde upon ye charge of ye City of London anno
1588

                                  Men.
  The Hercules                    120      George Barnes
  The Tobie                       110      Robert Barratt
  The May flower                   90      Edw: Bankes
  The Mynion                       90      John Dale
  The royall defence               80      John Chester
  The Assention                   100      John Bacon
  The Guift of God                 80      Thom: Luntlowe
  The Prime Rose                   90      Rob: Bringborne
  The Margarett and John           90      John Fisher
  The goulden Lyon                 70      Rob: Willton
  The Dyana                        40
  The B. Burre                     70      John Sarracole
  The Tigar                        90      Willm Cæsar
  The Brane                        70      Willm Furth
  The Red Lyon                     90      Jarvis Willes
  The Centurion                   100      Samuel Foxcraft
  The Pastporte                    40      Chr. Colethurst
  The Mooneshine                   30      John Brough
  The Tho. Bonaventure             70      William Alldrige
  The Releife                      30      John King
  The George Noble                 80      Henery Billingham
  The Anthony                      60      George Harper
  The Tobie                        70      Chr. Pigott
  The Sallamander                  60           Damford
  The Rose Lyon                    50      Barn. Acton
  The Antellope                    60           Dennison
  The Jewell                       60           Rowell
  The Paunce                       70      Willm Butler
  The Providence                   60      Rich. Chester
  The Dolphin                      70      Willm Hare
  ----------------------           -----------------
  30 Shipps and Barques          2130 men.


No. 53.

    Letter from King James I to the City upon his accession to the
        throne. Dated Holyrood House, 28 March 1603.

                          Journal 26 fo. 75b.

Trustie and welbeloved we greit you hartelly well beinge informed
of youre great forduartnes in that iuste and honorable action of
proclaminge ws youre Souverane lord and King immediatlye after the
deceas oure late darrest Sister the quene, wherin you have gevin
a singulare good proufe of your ancient fidelitie, a reputation
hereditarie to that oure Citie of Lundon, beinge the Chamber of oure
Imperiall crowne and ever free from all shedowes of tumultous and
onlawful courses wee could not omitt wth all the speid possible wee
might to give you hereby a teast of oure thankfull mynde for the
same and withall assurance that you cannot crave anie thing of ws
fitt for the mentenance of yow all in generall and everie one of yow
in particulare but it shalbe moast willingly performed by avs whose
speciall care shall ever be to provide for the continewance and
incresse of your present happines desiringe yow in the meane tyme to
goe constantly forduart in doinge all and whatsumer things yow shall
find necessary or expedient for the good goverment of oure said Citye
in execution of Justice as yow have bene in wse to doe in oure said
darrest Sisters tyme, till oure pleasure be knowen unto yow in the
contrare This not douting but ye will doe as ye may be fully assured
of oure gratious favour towards yow in the hieghest degrie, we bid you
hartely farewell Halyrudhous the 28 of Marche 1603.


No. 54.

    Reply to the above. Dated 29 March, 1603.

                          _Id._, fo. 76.

To the most high & mighty Prince our most dread & gracious Soveraigne
Lord King James ye First King of England, Scotland, France & Ireland.

Most mighty prince & our most dread & gracious Soveraigne Wee cannot
expresse the great comfort and exceeding ioy conceived here for this
great blessing of Almighty God in preserving yor sacred Matie for
this yor right and yor right for yu and yu for us yor Liege people of
this yor Realme wch is increased & redoubled by the perfect union and
concurrence of all yor Maties faithful subjects throughout yor Realme
especially of this yor Highnes City in harty love & loyall affeccõn
towards yor Highnes a Prince so famous and renowned through the world
for yor great wisdome piety iustice Magnanimity & other great &
princely vertues whereby our selves and all other yor Loyall Subjects
of this your Land are made assured of ye continuance and increase of
that happy peace holy religion & other great & infinite blessings of
Almighty God, which wee have enjoyed soe many yeares by the happy
governmt of or late gracious and glorious Queene of famous memory.

What thancks sufficient can wee render to Almighty God for this his
mercy and unspeakable goodnes towards this Land whoe hath thus tempered
or great sorrow wth a greatr comfort & repaired this or great losse of
a Mother with the advantage of a greater gain in the succession of yor
Highnes as a Father which is accompanied wth the union of both Kingdoms
to the great Strengthening of yor Highnes and noe lesse terror of ye
Enemies (if any be) of yor Highnes person & estate.

Touching or selves to whom the Charge & preservacõn of this yor Chamber
and principall City is comitted as wee have endeavored with all or
powers to advance yor Highnes most iust clayme and rightfull title to
the Succession of this yor Kingdome soe or future care & indeavour
shall extend it selfe to ye very uttermost of our witts & power to
preserve ye same wth all humble duty & circumspeccõn for yor Highnes
use agt all power & opposicõn both of this Land (if any happen as God
forfend) and the whole world. For assurance of wch or Loyalty & devoted
loves towards yor Highnes Wee have sent unto yu or speciall Messenger
to witt or Secretary & Remembrancer Mr. Doctor Fletcher a man (wee
heare) non unknowne unto yor Highnes As alsoe to returne unto us the
Significacõn of yor Highnes pleasure and direccõn in such matters as
shall conduce to the well ordering of this yor Chamber Wch wee humbly
pray Almighty God & intreate yor Highnes for yor owne and yor peoples
sake may be accelerate wth all safety and due caucõn of yor person to
the publique ioy both of or selves and yor whole Realme From London
this xxixth of March 1603.

                        Your Maties most humble & loyall
                        Subjects

                        The Maior & Aldermen of your Highnes
                        Citty & Chamber of London.

  Robert Lee Maior
  John Hart
  John Spencer
  Stephen Slaney
  Henry Billingsly
  Stephen Soame
  John Garrard
  Jo: Croke Recorder
  Tho: Bennett
  Tho: Lowe
  Wm Glover
  Wm Romeney
  Leonard Halliday
  John Watts
  Rich. Goddard
  Henry Rowe
  Edw. Holmden
  John More
  Robt. Hampton
  Roger Larke
  Humf. Weld
  Tho: Cambell
  Wm Craven
  Henry Anderson
  James Pemberton
  Jo: Swinarton, Sherriffe


No. 55.

    Letter from King James I to the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of
        London, in reply to the foregoing. Dated Newcastle, 11 April
        1603.

                          Journal 26, fo. 80.

  JAMES R.

Right trustie and welbeloved wee greet you well Althoughe before the
Comeynge of yor Lettres and this gentleman sente unto us wee had wth
greate Contentment by Comon reporte understood of your forwardnes in
Joyninge wth ye nobillitie of this our Realme in the publishinge of
oure righte to the succession of this Crowne. Yet weare wee not a
little gladd to finde ye same confirmed by soe honeste and diutifull a
testimonie thereof under yor owne handes and by ye speeche of a persone
of soe greate truste wth you and chieflie that you are not lead into
this devosion onlie by the undoubted belief of oure righte, but alsoe
for ye assurance you have of oure zeale to ye preservacõn of Religion
for that wee have alwaies accompted those accõns that aryse oute of
religious groundes to be the beste founded. And as wee doubte not
but that in that poynte we shall give you and ye reste of or people
satisfaction. Soe maie you be assured that in all other thinges,
wherein wee shall understande that anie breache or wronge hath bene
done to ye liberties and priviledges of that or Cittie wee wilbe readie
to restore whatsoever shalbe justelie expected of us as we have more
at lardge spoken to this gentleman and will by oure actes when wee
shalbe amongest you make knowne to yor selves esteeminge you worthie
to be helde in noe lesse accompte of us then you have byne to anie of
or progenitors whoe esteemed you moste. Given under or Signet at or
Towne of Newcastle ye xjth daie of Aprill 1603 in ye firste yeare of or
raigne of England.


No. 56.

    Letter from the Lords of the Council to Sir Arthur Chichester,
        Deputy in Ireland, as to the course to be pursued with the
        City's Commissioners, appointed to view the Irish Estate. Dated
        Whitehall, 3 Aug., 1609.

  Transcripts, &c., Irish Government (Public Record Office), Vol. I,
                               fo. 500.

After or very harty comendacõns to yor Lp. we have written unto your
Lp. and the Counsell there a letter wherein we have in generall
recommended certaine cittizens appointed by the Citty of London to view
the Derrye and Colrane and the cuntrie between them; And in this have
thought it expedient to declare or minde somewhat more particulerly,
because we shoulde be sorry that any endeavor or informacõn should
be lacking that might either satisfie or encourage them For when
we consider how slowly this busines hath yet gon forward since it
was first intended, how fit & able the Citty is for a work of yt
importaunce, of what good use their example wilbe to draw on others
and lastly what reputacõn it will give both abroad and at home to ye
action yt is like really to be effected we are moved to recommend
them the more earnestly unto yor Lp. to take order that all occasions
of discouragement may be prevented which som indiscreete persons may
unprovidently suggest, if choice be not made of such to conduct and
accompany them, who for their experience and understanding shalbe
able both by discourse and reason to controule whatsoever any man
shall reporte, either out of ignorance or mallice, and to give the
undertakors satisfaccõn when they shalbe mistaken or not well informed
of any particuler. For which purpose the conductors must have care to
lead them by the best waies and to lodge them in their travaile, where
if it be possible, they may have English entertainement in Englishmens
howses. And howsoever we have had the opportunitye heere to lay the
first hand upon this offer, and to make the project unto the Cittie
thereby to drawe them on to entertaine the same for an entraunce into
the business yet that it may be both begun and well followed we send
the same here inclosed and must leave it to your lordship to perfect.
Wherein we thinck it fit. That those yt be sent in their company be
so well prepared before hand to confirme and strengthen every part
thereof by demonstracõn as they may plainely apprehend & conceive
the comodities to be of good use and profit; on the other side, that
matters of distast as feare of the Irish, of the souldiers, cess and
such like be not so much as named, seeing you knowe that discipline and
order will easilie secure them. And if there be any thing conteyned
in the Project, whether it be the Fishing, the Admiralty or any other
particuler wch may serve for a motyve to enduce them; Although yor
lordship or any other have interest therein yet you shall make no doubt
but his Maty will have such consideracõn thereof that no man shalbe
a looser in yt wch he shall parte wth for the furtheraunce of this
service. And thus not doubting of yor Lps discreete carriadge of this
busines yt cannot besides your generall dutie but be glad in your owne
particuler to have so good neighbors to yor plantacõn we byd yor Lp.
very hartely Farewell. From Whitehall the third of August 1609.


No. 57.

    Letter from Speaker Lenthall to the Lord Mayor asking, on behalf of
        Parliament, for a City loan of £60,000. Dated Covent Garden, 15
        Jan., 1640-1.

                         Journal 39, fo. 167.

  My Lord,

The greate necessetie of supplyinge the Kinges Army and providinge for
the Northen Counties without which the peace of the Kingdome wilbe much
endangered is such that the Howse of Commons is inforced to thinke
upon a more present way of raysinge moneyes then can bee effected in
the Course of Subsidies. Whereupon they have directed mee to pray your
Lorpp. to call a Comon Hall with as much speede as conveniently you may
and to comend to the Cittizens of London the Loane of £60000 by such
as shall freely and willingly contribute thereunto. Which they intende
not as any burthen unto them, but as an occasion of further expressinge
of theire good affeccõns to the publiq. Whereof they have soe often
had experience and they will soe provide that the Sume now desired to
bee lent shalbe truly repaide out of the Subsedies wth interest for
the time it shalbe forborne wherein not doubtinge of yor Lopps Care in
the best way you may to further this request for ye Comon safetie of
the Kingdome and to receyve an answer as speedily as the bussines will
permitte, ffrom my house in Covent Garden this instant 15th of Januarij
1640.

              I rest Your Lopps. verie loveinge ffreind
                                                 Wm Lenthall, Speaker.


No. 58.

    Another letter from Speaker Lenthall on the same matter. Dated
        Covent Garden, 6 Feb., 1640-1.

                           _Id. ibid._

  My Lord,

The present necessity requiringe the sume of £60000 for the good of
the Kingdome to be advanced sooner then by way of subsidies it can
be levied as hath bin formerly signified vnto yor Lorpp. by Aldran
Pennington. The house hath commaunded me this day againe to intimate
unto you their desire that wth the help of such Citizens as are
willing to lend particuler sumes you will take such Course that £60000
may presently be paid into the Chamber of London that soe it may be
disposed of as the house shall direct. Wherein not doubting of yor
Lorpps care I rest from my house in the Coven garden the sixth of
ffebruary 1640.

                    Yor Lorpps very loving freind
                                                 Wm Lenthall, Speaker.


No. 59.

    A third letter from Speaker Lenthall on the same matter. Dated
        Charing Cross, 19 Feb., 1640-1.

                         Journal 39, fo. 180.

  My very good Lord and Gentlemen,

I have formerly by my lres directed by order of the house of Comons
vnto yor Lorpp signified their desire to borrow of the City sixty
thousand pounds for the presente supply of the Kings Army and releif of
the Northern partes conceived to tend principally to the gen'all safety
of the whole kingdome.

We could not but take notice of the forwardnes of the Citty to comply
and albeit there hath bin some protraccõn, yet we now expect the
expression of it in a speedie payment. I am therefore required by the
house of Commons to desire yor Lopp forthwth to call a Comon Hall, and
in that to signifie unto them our desires, Their former ingagement by
promise and the expectacõn of the present performance the urgent and
instant necessity of the Kingdome admitting of no delay wthout great
hazard of insueing danger to us all wch we desire may be prevented.

We have taken care for the secure payment of this £60000 by the bill
of subsidies already passed whereof I thought it fitt to Certifie yor
Lorpp resting

               Yor Loving faithfull friend to serve you
                                                  Wm Lenthall, Speaker

  from my house at Charing
  Crosse 19 ffebruarij 1640.


No. 60.

    Letter from the Earl of Essex to the City desiring a loan of
        £100,000 for the maintenance of the Parliamentary army. Dated
        Northampton, 13 Sept. 1642.

                          Journal 40, fo. 38.

My lord and gentlemen I receaved so great expressions of affeccõn both
to ye cause, and to myselfe from ye cittye of London at my departure
from you, that I cannot dispaire but to obtayne any suite from you
that shalbee an advantage to ye Comon wealth Upon a true judgment of
ye condicõn of our affaires and of that of ye enemye, I am confident
that wee may bringe this business to a quick and happy conclusion God
doth blesse us wth so good successe dailey & the other parte by their
plundring and burninge of townes and houses grow so odious, that they
grow weaker wee stronger everywhere. Yet are wee in one great straight,
and such a one as if it bee not speedily remedyed, may quash all our
hopes, and endanger that peace, and libertie which wee so much strive
for. Our treasure wch must maintayne ye army grows neere an ende, and
you well know our army consists of such as cannot bee kept one day
togeather wthout pay, what a ruine it would bringe uppon us all if a
disbandinge should happen I leave to your judgments. My desire unto
you is that you would supply us wth the speedy loane of one hundred
thousand pounds which I am confident would wth Gods blessinge bringe
these unhappy distraccõns to an ende quickly. Vour citty hath hitherto
had ye honor (next to God) to bee the chiefest safetye of the Kingdome
and Parlyament. This will render you to all posterity the ffinishers
of this great worke. If any thinge of particuler love or respect to
mee may bee any argument herein I shall take it for ye greatest honor
that hath befalne mee and will oblige myselfe to acknowledge it by the
utmost and most faithfull indeavors of your ffaithfull ffriend Essex.
From the rendezvous att Northampton 13o Sept. 1642.


No. 61.

    Letter from the Earl of Essex to the City on the appointment
        of Skippon to the rank of Sergeant-Major-General in the
        Parliamentary army. Dated Hammersmith, 16 Nov. [1642].

                         Journal 40, fo. 41b.

My lord and gentlemen. Havinge a due regarde both to the publique trust
and to the good and wellfare of the cittye of London I have made choice
of Serjeant Major Skippon to bee Serjeant Major Generall of the army
under my comaund beinge well assured of his fidellïtye and abillity to
discharge that trust. And yet knowinge of what concernement his present
imployment in ye citty may be I have thought fitt to give your Lorpp
and you gentlemen notice hereof wth this assurance that in this choice
I have had a speciall regard as to the publique so particulerly to the
securetye of the cittye of London. And that in it I do not intende
wholy to deprive you of him but so as his service may be rendered
usefull both to this armye and to your cittye whose good and wellfare
I shall carefully provide for ye uttmost of my power and do rest your
ffaithfull ffriend Essex. From my quarter at Hammersmith this 16th day
of November 1642.


No. 62.

    Resolution of the Common Council for putting the City and Suburbs
        into a posture of defence, 23 Feb. 1643.

                          Journal 40, fo. 52.

That a small fort conteyning one bulwark and halfe and a battery in
the reare of the flanck be made at Gravell lane end. A horne worke wth
two flanckers be placed at Whitechapell windmills. One redoubt wth two
flanckers betwixt Whitechapell church and Shoreditch. Two redoubts
with flanckers neere Shoreditch church wth a battery. At the windmill
in Islington way, a battery and brestwork round about. A small redoubt
neere Islington pound. A battery and brestwork on the hill neere
Clarkenwell towards Hampstead way. Two batteries and a brestworke at
Southampton house. One redoubt wth two flanckers by St Giles in the
Feilds, another small work neere the turning. A quadrant forte wth
fower halfe bulwarks crosse Tyborne high way at the second turning
that goeth towards Westminster. At Hide parke corner a large forte wth
flanckers on all sides. At the corner of the lord Gorings brick wall
next the fields a redoubt and a battery where the court of Guard now
is at the lower end of the lord Gorings wall, the brestwork to be made
forwarder. In Tuttle feilds a battery brestworke, and the ditches to
be scowred. That at the end of every street wch is left open to enter
into the suburbs of this citty defenceable brestworkes be made or there
already erected repayred wth turnepikes muskett proof, and that all the
passages into the suburbs on the northside the river except five vizt.
The way from St. James towards Charing Crosse, the upper end of Saint
Giles in Holborne, the further end of St. John Street towards Islington
Shoreditch church and Whitechappell be stopped up. That the courtes
of guard and the rayles or barrs at the utmost partes of the freedome
be made defensible and turnepikes placed there in lieu of the chaynes
all muskett proof. And that all the shedds and buildings that joyne to
the outside of the wall be taken downe. And that all the bulwarkes be
fitted at the gates and walls soe that the flanckes of the wall and
streets before the gates may be cleared and that the gates and bulwarks
be furnished with ordnance.


No. 63.

    Letter from the Mayor, &c., of Gloucester to the City of London,
        touching the removal of Colonel Massey. Dated 29 May 1645.

                         Journal 40, fo. 132.

When we were in suche distresse by a close seige, that our freindes
held our condicõn desperate, and our enimies did assure themselves of
prevailing over us; by Gods providence we had reasonable releif from
your famous and ever renowned citie wch doth now embolden us to present
unto you our present estate, which is in breife. That our heartes wth
the heartes of the country in generall are surrounded wth feare and
greife for the removall of Collonell Massey from us, whose endeavors
amongst us God hath soe wonderfullie prospered. Wee represented our
sadd sense thereof and our reasons in particuler by peticõn to the
honoble houses of parliament, but such meanes was used by some for the
accomplishment of their owne ends therein that our peticõn was not read
in the howses. So that wee are like to be deprived of him, and thereby
much distraccõn, if not confusion sorely threatned to us and this
countrey, thereby to the encouragement of the enimy and discouragement
of or friends. Therefore we doe humbly apply ourselves unto you
desiring you to interpose for us to the Parliament for his contynuance
wth us. Wherein you will not only doe us a singuler favour, but we are
confident much further the publique service thereby, and which shalbe
most gratefully acknowledged by

                                             Your humble Servants
                                                    Luke Nurse Maior
                                                    [and seven others.]
  Gloucester 29 of May 1645.


No. 64.

    Letter from the Mayor, &c., of Plymouth to the City of London,
        enclosing copy of petition to Parliament for relief against the
        depredations of the Royalists. Dated 5 Sept. 1645.

                         Journal 40, fo. 144b.

The greate zeale you have ever manifested for the good of the kingdome,
and the forwardnes you shewed to contribute your assistance to us upon
all occacõns doth imbolden us at this tyme of our extremity to beseech
you to stretch out yor helping hand to us you know we have bin long
beseiged, and we have often moved the Parliamt, the Committee of the
West, and the Generall for releif, and all this summer it hath bin
promised, but or hopes are hitherto frustrate. We have therefore sent
the peticõn (whereof the enclosed is a copie) to Sir John Young and
Mr. Waddon Burgesses for this towne, and indeed this is the last and
only visible meanes that unde God is left us. We beseech you that you
wilbe pleased to second our peticõn by your owne desires in our behalf.
And wee shall not cease to pray for the contynuance of yor peace and
encrease of all other blessings and rest

                                            Yor most humble servants
                                                 Justinian Pearde Maior
                                                     [and four others.]

  Plymouth at the Committee
  for Govermt,
  5 Sept. 1645.


No. 65.

    The City's petition to King Charles I in reply to His Majesty's
        letter of the 19th May 1646.

                         _Id._, fo. 187.

Most humbly acknowledging the speciall grace and favour of yor matie
in condescending soe particulerly to communicate unto this city yor
royall and pious resolucons to comply wth your Houses of Parliament for
setling of truth and peace in this distracted kingdome signified by
yor late gratious lettre of the 19th of May last to the representative
body thereof. In wch as the petrs cannot but see the speciall hand of
Almighty God soe they must and doe from the bottome of their hearts
blesse his holy name that at length he hath opened such a dore of hope
by enclyning your maties heart to looke downe upon the affliccõns of
yor people and from thence take comfort to themselves that he will
confirme and increase those good resolucons in yor matie.

As for this city the petrs esteeme it their duty now againe as they
have formerly done to declare unto yor royall matie and the whole
world, that, according to their Protestacõn and Covenant they have
alwayes, and doe still reteyne the same loyall thoughts towards yor
matie as ever and as becometh subiects to doe from which they shall
never recede.

And as next unto the good guidance of Almighty God they doe humbly
comitt and submitt the meanes and maner of their future peace and
happines unto yor mats great and faithfull Councell the two Houses of
Parliament.

So they shall contynue their instant prayers to the Throne of all Grace
to dispose yor maties royall heart to comply with such proposicõns as
from them shalbe represented unto yor maty for the settlement of true
religion and peace in all yor kingdomes and the mainteynance of the
union betweene the two nations. And then the petrs shall not doubt but
yor matie (wch is their earnest prayer) will with honor and joy returne
unto this yor antient city, and that yor throne shall in yor royall
selfe and your posterity be established in all yor kingdomes to the
great honour of yor matie and to the comfort of all yor good subiects
amongst whome the peticõnrs shall alwayes strive to approve themselves
inferiour to none in loyalty and obedience.

                 And as in dutie bound shall pray &c.


No. 66.

    Letter from Fairfax and the Council of War to the Commissioners of
        the City of London forbidding further enlistments. Dated 14
        June, 1647.

                         Journal 40, fo. 222.

Being informed that divers souldiers are daily listed under officrs,
in and about the cities of London and Westmr, and parts thereto
adiacent, besids the trayned bands and usuall auxiliaries. We strongly
apprehend that (notwithstanding all your desires and labour of peace)
the kingdome is like to be precipitate by some persons into a new
warr. Therefore (before we can answere that part of yor cities lettre
to remove to 30 miles distance from London) we desire the citie
would use their indeavors, to prevent all such listings, and therein
deale soe effectually as that nothing be for future done towards
such listinge or raising any forces, and those already raised may be
forthwith discharged. But if this cannot be done, we shalbe forced by
an unwilling necessitie to apply our indeavors to breake all designes
of that kinde. And therein we hope to receive the concurrance of yor
citie, professing, we have nothing else in our eye, but yors our owne,
and this poore kingdomes good and quiett.

Hereof we desire to here speedily from you, but so from time to tyme,
as oft as may be, which we shall owne as a seale of that reciprocall
love, wch the cities lettre purports to this army, and shall on our
part be most earnestly endeavoured to be maynteyned.

  June 14th 1647.


No. 67.

    Letter from the same to the Mayor, Aldermen and Common Council of
        the City, touching the removal of the army and the safety of
        the King's person. Dated St. Albans, 15 June, 1647.

                         Journal 40, fo. 222b.

We are very glad our lettre from Royston of the tenth of this instant
June had soe good a recepcõn wth you: whereof you have given us
assurance by yor lettre of the twelfth of this instant,[852] and by
those worthy aldermen and others the members of yor citie whome you
sent unto us, to whose hands we yesterday returned such answere (to
that part of yor lettre for our removal to thirty miles distant from
London) as the present exigence of affaires could possibly admitt. To
wch we add this sincere assurance that soe soone as we shall receive
the next resolucõn from the Parliament in relacõn to the proceedings
upon the papers nowe given in unto them (whereof likewise yor
comissioners have received a coppie from us). We shall then imediately
give you such further answere and satisfaccõn to that particuler,
as the nature of those results will permitt, wth respect only had
to the necessary prosecution of those pressing concernements of the
kingdome, comprized in those papers (whereunto) (for) the iustnes
and reasonablenes of our desires, and their consistance wth the true
honour, iust power and priviledges of parliament, the liberty of the
subiect and safety of yor citie and kingdome we do referr you.

As to yor desire (expressed in the instruccõns to yor comissioners)
of or care for the safetie of his maties person, while amongst us.
We had upon his first comeing into our quarters assigned, and have
since contynued in attendance about his maty, a guard of two regimts
of horse, of as faithfull men, and under as trustie a commaund as
this army doth affoard, neyther shall our future care be wantinge in
any further provision necessary for the safetie of his royall person.
And nowe we cannott but take notice, as of the past, most free and
forward ingagemts of yor famous citie in the same cause, wch we are
now desiring to see a period to, and accomplishment of, soe of yor
contynued readines to close wth us in our iust and necessary desires to
the same ends: as alsoe of yor present professed averssenesse to ingage
in any thing that may tend to any further warr or distraccõn in this
kingdome. For all wch we cannott but returne (after our praises to God)
thankes to you and yor citty. And we assure you that the sence thereof
hath a deep impression in our spiritts to find (as we doe hitherto)
the hand of God working all mens hearts to go cleere, and unanimous
concurrence wth our owne, in our desires for the present setling and
securing the rights liberties and peace of the kingdome, beyond wch we
have noe aymes or ends of our owne.

  St. Albans June 15th 1647.


No. 68.

    The City's reply to the two preceding letters. Dated 18 June 1647.

                         Journal 40, fo. 224b.

Yor answere of the 14th and lettre dated the 15th of this instant June,
wth copies of the papers given into the Parliamt we the maior aldermen
and commons in common councell assembled have received and perused,
and by our committee we have ben further informed of them, and of yor
many seasonable expressions of the reallity of yor intencõns to promote
the peace and welfare of the Parliamt and kingdome, and in particuler
of this city, wch how acceptable it is to us will best appeare by our
proceedings thereupon.

We take it very kindely that though you were informed divers souldiers
were daily listed under officrs in and about the Cities of London and
Westmr and parts thereto adiacent, besides the trayned bands and usuall
auxiliaries, yet you conceived (and that most truly) it was wthout the
privity or consent of this Court, and did not suspect the sincerity
of our heartes in what by or last was represented unto you, wherein
for yor further satisfaccõn be pleased to take notice that since the
returne of our comittee from St. Albans, yor said answere and lettre
and a narrative of the severall passages twixt you and our committee,
and yor desire that the citie should use their indeavor to prevent all
such listings and therein deale soe effectually, as that nothing be for
the future done towards such listings or raising any forces, and that
those already raised might be forthwth discharged: and the resolucõn
of this court, and the Committee of the Militia of this city and parts
adiacent upon the whole being all by our direccõn made knowne to both
Houses of Parliamt they were pleased to make severall votes thereupon;
whereunto (as to those thinges) we desire to be referred.

By all which we hope the great desire of this court and citie to
cherish a right understanding and keep a good correspondence twixt yor
Excellencie yor Councell of Warr, Armie and this Citie will evidently
appeare, and shortly draw from you a more full answere satisfaccõn
and assurance, that your army shall noe way preiudice the Parliament
(whose power and priviledges are the principall meanes to preserve the
liberties of the subiects of this kingdom) nor this Citie (who have
lost soe much blood and spent soe much treasure in defence thereof) and
in order thereunto that it shalbe forthwith removed to, and contynued
at a further distance from London.

  London 18 of June 1647.


No. 69.

    Letter from Fairfax to the City acknowledging receipt of letter of
        the 18th June. Dated St. Albans, 21 and 22 June, 1647.

                         Journal 40, fo. 225b.

Wee received yors of the eighteenth of this instant, whereof though all
passages were not soe answearable to our expectacõn as wee hoped yet
we apprehend the same good affeccõn in you towards this armie as was
expressed in yor former letter. And that not onelie from the assureance
of the worthy gentlemen, (yor comissioners) againe sent to us, But
alsoe from that informacõn we have received of yor extraordinarie
indeavors, to procure monie for the armie; To prevent further raysinge
or listinge of souldiers and to procure those alreadie listed to be
disbanded, (some persons of yor militia onelie, haveinge bin active
for the raysinge of them without yor privitie). As likewise from that
letter (fild with respecte) which you prepared and intended to us,
And beinge sent to the Parliament was obstructed by some persons, who
(labouringe to imbroyle the kingdome in a new warre) would not have
the fforces alreadie raised to be disbanded who excepted against yor
discoverie to the House, That some persons onelie of the militia had
ioyned in the raysinge of the new forces, who alsoe would prevent a
right understandinge betweene yor cittie, and this armie, knowinge a
firme corrospondence betweene them would make the designes of all such
men hopeles, And though our takinge notice of these thinges seemes not
regular, yet beinge soe publiquelie done, we thought fitt to mind you
of them.

Now although wee have confidence of the reall and cleare intentions
of yor lorpp and aldren, and the commons of yor cittie to promote the
peace of this kingdome, and the iust desires of this armie, alsoe to
prevent all tendencies to a new warre, or anie further blood, and
therefore hold our selves obliged to yeeld all possible compliance to
what you desire of us, yet addinge to the former grounds the manie
informacõns which daylie come to us of the continued underhand workings
of some persons still to list men, that divers agents are sent into
severall parts of the kingdome to leavie forces and Worcester the place
appointed for a generall randezvouz, whither the fforces designed for
Ireland (that were parte of this armie) are by some of the committee
at Darbie House[853] ordered to march: And severall of those companies
who went out from us for the service of Ireland, havinge it intimated
to them, and by divers carriages perceiveinge they were intended a
foundacõn for a new armie and a new warre, they so much abhorred the
thoughts of it as both the officers and souldiers of divers companies
are of late entirelie returned to us: likewise that noe meanes is lefte
unattempted to bringe in fforces from Ireland, France and Scotland
against the peace of this poore kingdome.

Wee (upon the whole matter) offer to yours, and all mens consideracõns,
whether with yors ours or the publique safetie we can remove further
backward, untill upon yor and our ioynt indeavors with the Parliament,
those things of imediate and pressinge necessitie be provided for,
which wee desired in our paper last given in to the Parliamts
Comissioners in order to the better proceedinge upon the heads of the
Representacõn and Charge, with more hopes of safetie, and of a timelie
and happie issue to our selves, and the kingdome (vizt.) That the
persons impeached by us may not continue in power and capacitie to
obstructe due proceedings against themselves; And for their owne escape
from justice to threaten ruine to the whole nation.

That all fforces latelie raised or listed in or aboute the cittie may
be forthwith discharged except the usuall nomber of trained bands and
auxiliaries and that all endeavors publiquely or privatlie to rayse
anie further forces may cease and be supprest.

And that the same measure maybe allowed to this armie in payinge them
upp to the same ffoote of accompte as is alreadie given to those who
have diserted the same.

And for the things exprest in our Representation though of weightie
importance yet because they will require time they shalbe noe occasion
to impead our remove, and in the meantime both by Proclamacõn from his
Excellencie and all other waves wee shall indeavor, that the accustomed
supplies to yor cittie may be freelie sent up.

To conclude, wee say from or hearts that as oure espetiall ends are
the glorie of God, and the good of this whole land, soe our indeavors
shalbe to prosecute the same without preiudice to the beinge or
welbeinge of Parliaments in generall, (the mayntenance whereof wee
value above our owne lives) or (as wee have formerlie said) of this
Parliament in particular, but altogeather in order to the good and
peace of this nation, and with a most tender regard to yor cittie to
which wee professe we shall by all actions make good all ingagements
tending to the securitie thereof in what way yorselves shall desire
consistinge with the good of the whole kingdome you makeinge good your
mutuall correspondencie with us not doeing anie thinge to our preiudice
in the prosecucõn of our iust desires, and endeavors.

  St. Albans June 21, 1647.

Wee heare (even now) since the writinge of this letter, that
(yesterday) divers of the Reformadoes came againe (in a threatninge
manner) to Westmr the house of Commons then sittinge to the greate
affrightment and terror of divers faithfull members then present, and
to discouragement of others from their attendance there, soe that we
cannot but perceive, that the freedome of this Parliament is noe better
then that those members who shall accordinge to their consciences
endeavor to prevent a second warre, and acte contrarie to their wayes,
who, (for their own preservacõn) intend it they must do it with the
hazard of their lives: which indeed is a thinge soe destructive to
Parliaments and freedome that we conceive our selves in dutie bound, to
endeavor to the utmost to procure redresse therein.

  June 22th 1647.


No. 70.

    Letter from the City to Fairfax in reply to recent letters and
        informing him that Commissioners had been despatched to remain
        with the army at head-quarters. Dated 25 June, 1647.

                         Journal 40, fo. 229b.

We the maior aldermen and commons in common councell assembled having
received yors to us of the 21th and 22th and yor excellencies to our
committee of the 23th instant wth a coppie of a Remonstrance directed
to the Parliamt, did send three of that nomber yesterday to acquaint
you wth our resolucons thereupon, since wch we have caused coppies of
those lettres to be presented to both Houses, desiring their direccõn
concerning the resideing of some of that committee continually wth you
in the head quarter, and that according to yor former requests the
Reformadoes and other officrs and souldiers raised for the service of
the Parliamt might be required forthwith to repaire into their severall
counties there to receive such satisfaccõn as is or shalbe appointed by
Parliament, and that if any souldiers be listed uppon the votes of the
committee of Lords and Commons, and committee of the militia that they
may be forthwth discharged whereupon severall votes were made, unto
which we desire to be referred.

We have also taken those lettres wth another received from those we
sent yesterday and copie of a lettre dated the 24th instant delivered
to the Commrs of Parliamt, and yors of the 25th instant into further
consideracõn thereby observing the constancie of yor expressions to
doe nothing in preiudice either of the Parliamt or the citie, and
of your purpose by proclamacõn and otherwise to indeavour that the
accustomed supplies of this citie may be freely sent upp. All which
we do with due thankfulnes acknowledge, And to performe a right
understanding with you we have appointed the said committee, or six of
them at the least continually to reside in yor Head quarter, and do
intend to make it our further request to the Parliamt that whoever have
or shall endeavour to raise any forces to ingage this kingdome in a new
warr, may be discovered and prevented therein, and that you may receive
satisfaccõn equall to those that have left the armie, soe soon as it
is possible for the Parliamt to performe the same, believing upon the
assurance you have given us that yor speciall ends are the glory of God
the good of this whole land, and the safety of Parliamt and citie. To
conclude the neare approach of yor armie to this citie causeth us once
more to desire you to take it into yor most serious consideracõn, for
albeit you do not come to offer any violence to us, yet wee have and
shall suffer very much in our trade and price of victualls by reason
thereof, wch we hope you wilbe so sencible of as to prevent it in the
future by removing further of, and by takeing such a course that we may
receive no further preiudice either in thone or thother, wch is our
earnest desires, and that in yor indeavors to save the kingdome from
ruine, you doe not overthrow the fundamentall constitucõn of Parliamt
wch is essentiall to the well being thereof.

  London 25 June 1647.


No. 71.

    Letter from Fairfax to the City notifying the removal of the army
        to Uxbridge. Dated Berkhamstead, 25 June, 1647.

                         Journal 40, fo. 230.

Wee have in all things dealt cleerly and plainely wth you, and hope wee
shall still continue to doe so. As soone as the worthy alderman and the
other two gents yor comrs came the last night to us, we acquainted
them wth our purpose to draw the head quarter to Uxbridg That soe we
might contract our quarters wch have hitherto lyen scattered. At which
place we hope to receive that wch wilbe satisfaccõn to the kingdome and
will remove obstruccõns out of the way of justice, wherein if right
were done, wee should let you and all the world see that we would
be soe farr from pressing neere yor citie of London, it should be
indifferent to us to march not only to the distance already prescribed,
but to any part of the kingdome we should be commanded to by the
Parliament. Wee have asked nothinge hitherto but right in the things
that are knowne, as if they were proved an hundred times before them
from whome wee have sought them, wch if graunted would not only be a
justice to the armie, but would lett the kingdome see the ffountayne
in a way to be cleered without wch nothing of force or power would be
a securitie to any man. We wish the name of priviledges may not be in
the ballance wth the safetie of a kingdome, and the reality of doing
justice, wch as we have said too often, we cannot expect whilest the
persons we had accused are the kingdomes and our judges. A little delay
will indanger the putting the kingdome into blood, notwithstanding what
hath bin said, if it be considered that in Wales (besides underhand
workings in yor citie) and other places men are raised and that in noe
small nombres. And are not those men in the Parliamt who have contynued
faithfull to the principles of common interest from the beginning of
the Parliamt to this very day still awed by the concourse of Reformadoe
officrs and others to their doores. Expence of time will be their
advantage only who intend to bring evill purposes to passe. We have
written this to you for yor satisfaccõn that soe nothinge may be done
without giving you a perfect account of our intencõns and ends. And
still to contynue our assurance to you, that should necessity bring
us neerer to the citty our former faith given you shall be observed
inviolably, there being nothing more (next the good of the kingdome) in
our thoughts and desires than the prosperitie of yor citty.

  Barkhamsteed June 25 1647.


No. 72.

    Letter from Fairfax to the City enclosing copy of proposals
        forwarded to Parliament from the army. Dated Reading, 8 July,
        1647.

                         Journal 40, fo. 234.

  My Lord and Gentlemen

To the end we may contynue a right understanding betweene you and us
all along in the manadgmt of this great busines, wth the Parliamt (the
happie proceeding whereof so much concernes the safety and peace of
this Kingdome.) We have given yor Commissionrs this day, the copie of
a paper wch we presented to the Commissioners of Parliamt residing wth
us. Wherein we take notice of the true reasons of the slowe progresse
in the Treaty, and declare where the stoppe remains. And to the end
that nothing be wanting in us wch might work towards the speedy
settlemt of the quiett of this Kingdome, wee have humbly offered what
we conceive will most effectually tend to remove those incombrances and
lettes, wch stand betwixt us, and this universall good to the Kingdome;
and till that be done, it cannot be expected that we should procure
the peace of this nation by a Treatie, but rather give occacõn and
opportunity thereby to others to ingage us in a second warr, wch must
necessarily hazard the ruine of this Kingdome, as also ascertayne the
destruccõn of Ireland, the relief whereof we should most effectually
apply unto, were the affaires of England, but once put into a hopefull
way. It is a sound and substantiall settlement of the whole we desire,
in a generall safe and well grounded peace, and the establishmt of such
lawes, as might duly and readily render to every man their iust rights
and liberties: And for obteyning of theis, not only our intencõns have
lead us, but we thinke that all the blood, treasure, and labour spent
in this warr was for the accomplishmt of theis very things, wch are
of that concernemt both to our selfs and posterity, that neither we
nor they cane live comfortably without them. And thereof we hope yor
selfes will have the same sence, and therefore improve your interest
for the obtayning of our iust desires in the proposalls now sent to
the Parliamt, wch being graunted, and we secured from the danger of a
warr, we shall proceed wth cheerfulness to the Treaty; and doubt not in
a short time to see a happy conclusion to the satifaccõn of all honest
mens expectacõns: And that in all our undertakeings we shalbe found men
of truith, fully and singly answering the things we have held forth to
the Kingdome in our severall declaracõns and papers, without bye or
base respects to any private ends or interests whatsoever.

  July 8th 1647 Readinge.


No. 73.

    Letter from the City to Fairfax, deprecating any attempt to
        intermeddle with the liberties or privileges of the City. Dated
        28 July, 1647.

                         Journal 40, fo. 242b.

Our Committee being all returned from the Army contrary to or
expectacõn we are yet well satisfied therewth, because, that it was
at your request. They have communicated unto us severall papers from
you dated on and betweene the 17th and 23th present, by one whereof,
being a lettre to this Court, we take notice of the sence the army hath
of a printed paper wch had come to their hands out of the Citie, and
have perused the same, but in regard the originall hath not bin yet
presented to this Court, it is not thought fitt to declare our sence
thereupon, but we esteeme it our duty to rest in that wch both Houses
of Parliamt have resolved, upon consideracõn of this paper, wch we
conceave also wilbe sufficient to stopp the further proceeding thereof.
But truly we cannot conceale from yor Excie that (forasmuch as we can
collect) this paper was occasioned from intelligence wch came from the
army, that there was some intencõn there, to move the Parliament for
the change of the Militia of this Citie, and we doubt not but you have
heard what great distemper the alteracõn wch the Parliamt made of our
Militia upon yor desire did lately produce in this Citie, wch being now
againe upon our humble peticõn put into the same hands it was, at the
tyme the mocõn came from you, we hope all things are well appeased and
setled. And we are confident it cannot be offensive unto the armie, if
we desire them not to intermeddle wth any the Liberties or Priviledges
of this Citie or interpose in the point of our Militia, but that wee
may enioy that trust quietly wch wee shall assure you we shall take
care shalbe managed to no other end but for the Parliamts and our owne
defence, and shall give no iust provocacõn to any person whatsoever.
We shall conclude wth this profession that we shall alwayes detest all
occasions of a new warr, and we are not conscious to ourselves, that
any thing that hath passed in this business can deserve the expressions
of yor lettre, as if it were probable to involve the whole Kingdome in
bloud, or that it must necessarily begin within our bowells or draw the
seat and misery of warr upon us and our Citie. For all other thinges we
referr you to our Committees.

  London 28 July 1647.


No. 74.

    Minutes of Common Council touching a recent disturbance of soldiers
        in the City; 11 April, 1648.

                         Journal 40, fo. 267.

Att this common Councell Mr. Aldran Fowkes and Mr. Aldran Gibbs (by
direccons of the comitte of the milicia for London) did make a large
relacõn of the greate tumult insurreccõn and mutinie which happened
in this Citty on the last Lords day and on Monday last by many evill
disposed persons wch first began on the Lords day in the afternoone
in the Countie of Middlesex. Where they seazed the colours of one of
the trayned bands of the said countie who were there imployed for the
suppressing of such persons as did prophane the Lords day And being
dispersed by some of the genãlls forces did gather togeather within
the citty of London and Libties thereof And in a riotous manner did
breake open divers houses and magazens of armes and amunicõn and
tooke away armes plate money and other things And did seaze vpon the
drums of the trayned bands of this Citty which were beating to raise
their companies and armed themselves and beate vp drums and putt
themselves in a warlike posture And seazed vpon the gates chaynes and
watches of the Citty and then marched to the Lord Maiors house and
there assaulted the Lord maior sheriffs comitte of the milicia of
London and other magestrates of the same And did shoote into the Lord
maiors house beat backe his guard killed one of them wounded divers
others and seazed and tooke away a peece of ordinance from thence with
which they did afterwards slay and wound divers persons and comitted
many other outrages All which matters being largely debated and many
particulars insisted vpon both for the discovery and punishment of
the said outrages and misdemeanours and alsoe for the preventing of
the Like for tyme to come It was at the last concluded and agreed by
this common Councell as followeth, ffirst this common Councell do
generally conceive that this Citty was in great danger by Reason of the
said outrages and misdemeanours And that if the same had not bine soe
tymely prevented and stayed the whole citty would have benn exposed
to the fury and rage of the said malefactors And this comon Councell
doth declare that the same misdemeanor and outrage was an horrid and
detestable Acte tending to the destruccõn of the Citty and that they do
disavow the same and with an vtter detestacõn doe declare their dislike
therof And this common Councell doe appoint the comitte of the milicia
of London to make the same knowne to the honãble houses of Parliament
And alsoe to make an humble request vnto them that an order may be
issued forth from them to the sevãll ministers of this citty and the
places adiacent that they may be directed to give publique thankes to
Almighty God the author of this greate and wonderfull delivãnce from
that eminent danger wherein this Citty and parts adiacent were involved
And further the said comittee was appointed by this court to apply
themselves to the honãble houses of Parliament for the obteyning of a
speciall Comission of Oyer and Terminer for the trying and punishing of
all the malefactors that had a hand in this detestable accõn according
to the knowne Lawes of this land And this court with thankfull harts
doe acknowledge the instruments (vnder God) by wch they obteyned this
delivãnce to be by the forces raised and continewed by the Parliament
vnder the command of his excellency the Lord Genãll Fairefax And to
manifest the same this common Councell doe alsoe order that the said
comitte of the millitia in the name of the Citty as a thing agreed
vpon by an vnamious Consent shall returne their harty thankes to his
excellency for his speedy and seasonable aide afforded the Citty in
this their greate straight and danger And this court with a genãll
consent doe well approve of the endeavours of the said comitte of the
milicia for London for the raising of the forces of the Citty And in
their procuring of the said Ayde and helpe from his excellency in
this extreamity and what els they have doun for the appeasing and
suppressing of the said tumults And this courte doe give thankes to
the said comitte of the millicia for their care and paines taken by
them taken vpon this sadd occasion And they doe appointe Mr. Adran
Fowkes to declare the same their thankes to such of the said comitte as
are not of this Court And this Court doth alsoe with all thankfulnes
acknowledge the paines and care of the right honãble the Lord Maior and
the right Worshiplull the Sheriffs of the Citty therin And this court
doe genãlly declare that it is the duty of every Citizen of this Citty
by himselfe & all that doe belong vnto him or is vnder his comand to
be ready vpon all occasions to be ayding and assisting vnto the Lord
Maior and the rest of the magistrates of this Citty for the suppressing
of all tumults and disorders within the same And the sevãll persons
now present att this comon councell by the holding vp of their hands
have promised that for the tyme to come they will vse their vtmost
endeavours and be ready vpon all occasions to doe the same.

Vpon the late sadd occasion which happened by reason of the tumult
and insurreccõn that was within this Citty and places adjacent this
courte entred into consideracõn of some meanes to be vsed and prepared
to prevent and suppres the Like for the future And to that purpose it
was propounded that the number of 100 horses might be in readinesse
within this Citty furnished with all things fitting for service to be
drawe forth vpon any occasion by the Comand of ... for the tyme being
for the suppressing of any tumult or other disorder as occasion should
require And after some debate had thervpon it was genãlly conceived
that the proposicõn was fitt to be entertained And to that purpose itt
was thought fitt and soe ordered by the courte that the Comitte of the
milicia for London shall consider how the said horses shalbe raised and
the charge therof And how they shalbe kepte maintained and disposed of
for the service of the Citty And of all other matters and circumstances
concerning the same And to report to the next common councell in
writing their opinions therin That soe this courte vpon their report
may doe thervpon what they they shall think fitt and may be best for
the good and saftie of this Citty.


No. 75.

    Letter from Fairfax to Skippon upon his re-appointment to the
        command of the City's forces. Dated Windsor, 10 May, 1648.

                         Journal 40, fo. 275.

I received yours and understand by severall gentlemen of the millitia
of London how much you are desired and importuned to accepte of the
comand of the forces in and aboute the cittie of London. I must
needs say I cannot but be sorrey to parte with one who hath upon all
occasions doun such good service for the Parliament and Kingdome. But
my private respects ought to give place unto the publique And since it
is so generally desired by the cittie and severall millitia, I cannot
but be glad they have made soe good a choice and hope it will tend to
the furtherance of union and good agreamt for the advantage of the
Parliament, Cittie and Kingdome. The consequences whereof I apprehend
to be such that I cannot but denie my selfe and frely leave you to
your selfe and doe disingage you from any tye to my selfe or the army
under my comand in case you accepte of the aforesaid comand in the
cittie Wishing you much hapiness in your undertakings I remayne &c.

  Windsor 10th May,
       1648.


No. 76.

    A narrative of the proceedings of the Court of Common Council
        held in Guildhall, London, the 13th of January, 1648-9,
        presented by order of the Court to the House of Commons.

                         Journal 40, fo. 314.

A common councell beinge lawfully summoned to meete at eight of the
clocke in the morneinge upon the day above written, Wee commoners
of the citty of London members of the said courte in obedience to
the said summons and for discharge of the trust reposed in us made
our appearance att the vsuall place of meetinge for the saide courte
about the time appointed. Aboute eleaven of the clocke the Lord Maior
accompanied onely with two of the Aldermen tooke the chayre Wee then
desireinge the lord mayor that the acts of the last courte might be
reade accordinge to the vsuall course of the saide courte and for the
further confirmacõn of the said acts could not obteyne the same (though
earnestly desired) for above an howres space after which some members
of the said courte (being parte of a committee formerly chosen by the
said courte) tendered a peticõn therevnto to bee reade, and considered
of which peticõn (beinge the same now presented to this honoble House)
was drawne vpp by them in referrence to an order of the said courte
and received the approbacõn of the major parte of the quorum of that
comittee and though itt was often and earnestly prest for a long time
by the major parte of the courte that it might be reade to receive
the sence of the courte, yett the Lord Maior wholly refused to suffer
the same or that the question should be putt whether it should be
reade yea or noe After the fruitelesse expence of many howres another
question beinge drawne vpp the major parte of the courte required
itt to be putt, to be putt [_sic_] to be decided according to the
right and custome of the courte and beinge denyed therein declared how
vnjust and of what a destructive nature to the beinge of the courte
such a denyall would bee yet notwithstandinge the Lord Maior with the
two Aldermen departed and lefte the courte sittinge to the greate
greife and generall dissatisfaccõn of the same Beinge thus deprived
of our ordinary assistance for our proceedings, wee did then require
and command the Common Serjeant and Towne Clarke officers of the said
courte to stay in the courte and putt the question both which they
contemptuously refused and lefte the courte sittinge likewise Wherevpon
in discharge of our trust and in our tender care of the common good of
Citty and Kingdome Wee did stay and remaine a courte wherein was thrice
reade debated and voted (_nemine contradicente_) the peticõn hereunto
annexed to be as this day presented to this honoble Howse.

Havinge given this honoble Howse this breife, but true, narrative of
parte of our sufferings for eight howres at least In the breadth (as
wee conceive) of our vndoubted rights & priviledges and conceiveinge
the like obstruccõns would render our meetings in councell altogether
fruitlesse for publiq benefitte and service for the future Wee are
forced to appeale vnto this honoble Howse for such consideracõns hereof
and direccons herein, as may make the commons of London in common
councell assembled vsefull to the ends for which they were chosen.


No. 77.

    Letter from the Council of State to the Mayor and Aldermen of the
        City for defacing statues of James I and Charles I. Dated
        Whitehall, 31 July, 1650.

                        Repertory 60, fo. 213.

  My Lord and Gentlemen.

In pursuance of an Order of Parliament wee desire you forthwith to give
order that ye two Statues that Stand at ye west end of Paules above
ye worke borne up by ye Columnes sett upp to represent King James and
the late King may forthwith bee throwne downe. Alsoe yt ye head of that
Statue at ye Exchainge sett there to represent ye late King be broaken
off, and ye Septer broaken out of his hand And this inscripcon put upp
by it _Exit Tyrannus Regum ultimus Anno Libertatis Angliæ restitutæ
primo Annoque Domini 1648 Januarij 30º_ And yow are alsoe to take care
that ye inscripcon under those Statues at Paules be cutt out of ye
stones and that this be doune before Saturday the tenth of August next
and yt ye Councell bee then certified of your proceedings therein.

                                     Signed in ye name and by order
                                     of ye Councell of State appointed
                                     by Authority of Parliament
                                        Jo: Bradshawe P'sidt.

  Whitehall
  31 July 1650.


No. 78.

    Another letter from the same ordering the entire removal of the
        statue of Charles I at the Royal Exchange. Dated Whitehall, 14
        Aug., 1650.

                         _Id._, fo. 220b.

  My Lord and Gentlemen

By a lre from ye Councell beareing Date ye 31th of July last order
was given for ye throwing downe of the two Statues at ye west end of
Paules & likewise for ye takeing of ye head & Septer out of ye hand of
yt wch stood at ye Exchainge in Lond wch according to ye desire of the
Councell Wee understand is put into Execucõn. Since which the Councell
haveing taken yt matter into further consideracõn they have thought fit
to order that that ye whole of what is remayneing of ye Statue of ye
late Kinge at ye Exchainge be taken downe and that ye Inscripcõn which
was ordered to be placed neere unto it be now written in ye place wher
ye said Statue did stand.

                                       Signed in ye name & by ordr of
                                       yr Councell of State appoynted
                                       by Authoritye of Parliamt
                                              Jo: Bradshawe
                                                   Prsidt.

  Whitehall 14th
  of August 1650.


No. 79.

    Letter from the Council of State to the City for removal of
        ordnance to the Tower. Dated Whitehall, 19 Nov., 1653.

                         Journal 41, fo. 90b.

The Councell of State have considered that there are severall great
guns belonging to the Citie of London which are now remayning at
Leadenhall, and severall other partes of the Cittie, and for the
better secureinge thereof have thought fitt that the Lt of the Tower
should draw them in thither on Tuesday next, wherein yor Lordship is
desired to give yor assistance, and to cause the same to be delivered
accordingly takeinge a receipt from the officers of the Ordnance by
an inventory indented conteyning the numbers and quallities. And the
Councell doth hereby declare, and give yor Lordship assurance that this
is not at all intended as a disrespect to the Citty, or in prejudice to
their interest in the said guns, but in order to their safeguard, and
to be returned back to the Citty when they shall have occasion for them
and desire them.

  Whitehall 19th November 1653.


No. 80.

    The City's humble Petition and Representation to the Lord Protector
        promising to stand by him against the enemies of the Nation; 16
        March, 1657-8.

                         _Id._, fo. 170b.

  Sheweth

That the peticoners are deepely sensible of the manie mercies & signall
providences that these three nations have received from Almightie God
in subduing his and their Enemyes in the times of our late warres, in
which it pleased our wise and Gratious God to vse your highnes as the
most speciall & eminent Instrument in his hand as chosen out and fitted
by him for those great & subsequent workes by which his name mightbe
Glorifyed, the three Nations & in speciall his owne people therein
protected and preserved from their enemies att home & abroad. And not
only soe, but the Continued goodnes of god hath followed vs in soe
much that after a sharpe & bloody warre seuãll yeares together, for
some yeares last past those cloudes have bine brooken, and the Sun of
peace hath shined vppon vs with a great measure of hope putt into our
harts of a happie lasting & well grounded forme of goverment, according
to the peticõn and advice of the late Parliamt consented to by your
highnes for which wee doe as in duty bound blesse the Lord and desire
a long and happie continuance of the same. But yet your peticoners
taking notice from your Hignes late gracious speech to them that the
old restles enemy is reviving his almost dead hopes of prevailing to
execute his wrath and malice against god your highnes & the good &
peacefull people of the three Nations, partly from the discontents of a
Brain sicke party at home and especially from the aides of the popish
inveterate enemy abroad and have laid designes to themselves hopefull,
by insurreccons from within and invasions from without vs to raise newe
troubles & kindle the flames of warre againe amongst vs, by which to
change our Government & therein ruine the three Nations. The premisses
considered the peticoners do professe vnto all both frinds and Enemyes.
That we shall vppon our antient principales of love & fidelitie to God
your Highnes & the good people in the three nations with all readines
oppose this enemy to the vtmost with our lives & fortunes.

    And therefore we doe most humbly pray that your highnes will
    please with all cheerefulnes as supreme Maiestrate to God & in the
    Goverment of these three Nations for preservacõn of religion the
    lawes libties peace & safety thereof. And as your peticoners doe
    blesse God for you soe they shall (as in duty bound) faithfully
    and constantly in their seuãll places not only yeild obedience to
    you therein but bee Enemyes to yours & the Nations Enemyes, and
    freinds to yours & the Nations friends.

                           And ever pray &c.


No. 81.

    Letter from Sir John Langham to the Court of Aldermen, declining
        to resume the Aldermanry from which he had been deposed by
        Parliament, on the score of ill-health. Dated Crosby House, 18
        Sept., 1660.

                          Remembrancia ix, 8.

  My Lord & Gentlemen,

By a copy of a vote of Common Councill held ye 4th of September
present (wch was left at my house) I find my selfe declared to bee
an Aldran of London, & invited to ye execucõn of that place. The
knowledge of my vnfitness for yt imploymt by reason of my great age
of 77 yeares, & those infirmities yt accompany it, did soon put me
upon ye resolucõn of getting my discharge from it. But ye death of my
eldest sonn's wife & child, did overwhelme me as well as him wth that
greife, wch permitted not my goeing abroad untill the last Thursday,
when I hoped to have found at Guildhall a full court of Aldren. But
those expectacõns failing me, I forbore ye declaring my Intencõns &
desires then. And being this day upon my retreat into the Country
for the necessary refreshmt of my selfe & sonn I thought it my duty
to acquaint yor Lordp: & this Court wth my Condicon & most earnest
Request. I have now beene laid aside about 12 yeares; The Rump Parliamt
haveing first imprisoned me in ye Tower (ye 24th of 7ber 1647), cheifly
(as was conceived) to prevent my being chosen Lord Mayor the Michãs
following, where I remain'd vntill the 6th of the next June, when I
was enlarged wth out so much as Peticõning. But afterwards to satisfye
ye Ambicõn of some that had a mind to bee in our seats, Sr John Gayre,
Aldran Adams, my selfe & Bror Bunce, by a resolve of that Remain of a
House of Commons that presumed to sitt as a Parliamt, were disenabled
& discharged from being Aldren, & others chosen in our steds.
Notwthstanding wch displeasure of those who usurped the Government &
my being out of their sight, in ye Country, ye Citty retained those
kind remembrances of me & my sufferings as to choose me 2ce one of
their Burgesses, in those Convencõns, wch wee called then Parliamts wch
as they are argumts that I enjoyed their favour, so they are Reasons
that I take not ill wt this Court, or ye Common Councill complyed in
agt my Right, out of a feare of those who had made themselves Masters
of the Three Kingdomes as well as this Citty: And that sense of my
duty wch made me accept of serving this Citty (where God hath blest
me) when called to it, & continue in that service whilst permitted,
would now alsoe command my returne to the executing of my place, as an
Aldran, upon that Invitacõn I have recd, did not my finding and dayly
discovering my disabilityes perswade me that you in Justice ought not
to require, what I out of Conscience ought not to accept, ffor, both
my age hath a legall excuse from the troubles of Magistracy, & yor
affaires need that presentness of parts, wch a life so much worne out
as mine is, cannot afford. I doubt not but I might have obteyned my
discharge elswhere, but because yor Lordp & this Court, are those to
whome ye membrs of it especially are to betake themselves I thought it
unbecoming me so farr to despair of yor Justice & ffavour, as to look
for it in any other place. Wherefore, I make it my importunate request
to your Lordp & this Honble Court, that I may be discharged, for ever,
from being an Aldran, & part of that tyme that yet remaines of my
life shall be spent in prayrs for the happiness & flourishing of this
Renowned Citty And when I shall have yor dismission into yt privacy,
wherein I may vndisturbedly prepare for the other & better world I am
hasting into, I shall not cease to be a fervent Lover of that place,
wherein I have received so manyfold mercyes from ye Divine goodness,
nor to bee my Lord and Gentlemen, yor affeccõnate ffreind and humble
servant.

  Crosby House the 18th Septembr 1660.


No. 82.

    Letter from the Earl of Manchester to the Court of Aldermen,
        desiring that the Butchers of the City might continue to
        supply offal to the King's "Game of Beares" as formerly. Dated
        Whitehall, 29 Sept., 1664.

                        _Original Letter._

  My very good Lord and the rest of
  my very good ffreinds the Court
  of Aldermen.

Being informed by the Master of his Maties Game of Beares and Bulls
and of others that very well remember that the Company of Butchers
did formerly cause all their Offall in Eastcheape and Newgate Markett
to bee conveyed by the Beadle of their Company vnto two Barrow Houses
conveniently placed on the Riverside to receave the same for the
provision and feeding of his Maties Game of Beares And that that
Custome hath beene interrupted in the late Troubles when the Beares
were killed. And that his Maties Game being now againe by the order
of the King and Councill removed to the usuall place on the Bank side
at the very great charges of the Master of the Game I shall therefore
earnestly recommend it to your LoPP and the rest of my very good
freiends the Court of Aldermen and desire you to give such order to the
Master and Wardens of the Company of Butchers that their offall may
bee duely conveyed to the aforesaid houses as formerly it was for the
feeding of his Maties said Game which the under officers at present are
forced to provide by extraordinary and very chargeable meanes soe not
doubting of your Care herein I rest

                                             Your humble Servant

                                                   (Signed) Manchester.

  Court at Whitehall
    Septemb: 1664
    Michaelmas day


No. 83.

    The City's address to King Charles II congratulating him upon his
        escape after the Rye House Plot; 2 July, 1683.

                         Journal 50, fo. 83b.

                 To the Kings most Excellent Matie

The humble Addresse of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Commons of the City
of London in Common Councell assembled Sheweth.

That wee your most Loyall and dutifull subjects haveing with
astonishment received ye discovery of a most traterous and horrid
Conspiracy of diverse ill affected and desperate persons to compasse
ye death and destruccõn of your Royall person and of your Dearest
Brother James Duke of Yorke, and that to effect ye same theis have
held Severall Treasonable Consultacõns to Levy men and to make an
Insurreccõn and made great provision of Armes; A designe notoriously
tending to ye present destruccõn not only of your best Subjects but
of ye Sacred Person of your Maty ye best of Princes and to involve
this and ye future Generacõn in Confusion blood and misery carryd
on notwthstanding their Specious pretences by knowne dissenting
Conventicles and Atheistical persons.

And haveing in ye first place Offered up our Solemn thanks to Almighty
God for his Watchfull Providence in bringing to Light this impious and
Execrable Machination.

We doe in ye next place humbly offer to your Matie ye deepe resentments
of our Loyall hearts concerning ye same and begg your Matie to rest
fully assured that as no interest in this world is valuable to us in
comparison of your Matyes service and safety so wee are determined
readily to Expose our lives and fortunes in defence of your Matyes
person your heires and successors and your government establisht
in Church and State and particularly for discovering Defeating and
destroying all such Conspiracys assotiations and attempts whatsoever.

All which Resolutions are accompanyd wth our daily and fervent prayres
that your Maty may Vanquish and overcome all your enimyes and that the
yeares of your happy reigne over us may be many and prosperous.


No. 84.

    Letter from the Duke of Newcastle to the Lord Mayor informing him
        of the Pretender having set up his Standard in Scotland. Dated
        Whitehall, 4 Sept., 1745.

                         Journal 58, fo. 377.

His Majesty having received an Account, That the Eldest Son of the
Pretender after having been some time in Scotland, has traiterously
assembled a considerable Number of Persons in Arms, who have Set up a
Standard in the Name of the Pretender, resisted and attacked some of
His Majesty's Forces, and are now Advancing towards Perth or Edenburgh;
And there being the greatest Reason to Apprehend, That these Attempts
have been Encouraged, and may be supported by Foreign Powers; The
King has commanded Me to Acquaint Your Lordship therewith, And His
Majesty being fully persuaded of the Abhorrence and Detestation that
must be raised in the Minds of all his faithful Subjects, at this
Audacious Attempt, to Subvert Our most excellent Constitution both in
Church and State under which Alone the Liberties and Properties of
these Protestant Kingdoms can be preserved, And being Particularly
convinced of the Zeal and Loyalty of his good City of London His
Majesty Orders Me to assure You, That he has the firmest Confidence,
that Your Lordship, pursuant to the great Trust reposed in you, will
in Conjunction with the other Magistrates of his said good City, exert
your Authority with the utmost Care and Vigilance on this important
Occasion, for the Preservation of the Publick Peace; The Security of
the City of London; and the Disappointment as far as depends upon You,
of these wicked and Traiterous Designs. I am &c. Whitehall, September
4th 1745.


No. 85.

    Letter from the Duke of Newcastle to the Lord Mayor informing him
        of the Pretender having entered Derby, and desiring him to put
        the City into a posture of defence. Dated Whitehall, 6 Dec.,
        1745.

                        Repertory 150, fo. 40.

I am commanded by the King to Acquaint Your Lordship; That His Majesty
has, this day, received certain Advice, that the Rebels, with the
Pretender's Son, Arrived, on Wednesday last, at Derby, in their way,
as they give out towards London; That His Royal Highness the Duke of
Cumberland upon this New motion of the Rebels towards Derbyshire, had
made the necessary Disposition for getting before them, with the utmost
Expedition; And had determin'd for that purpose, to March, the direct
way for London. Part of the Cavalry of His Royal Highness's Army will
be this Night at Northampton, and the Remainder to Morrow, And the
Foot will Encamp to Morrow also near Northampton so that His Royal
Highness did not Doubt, but he should be able to reach Northampton so
as to be between the Rebels and London; But in order that the Peace and
Security of the City of London, may be provided for, in all Events,
His Majesty has commanded me to recommend it to Your Lordship, That
imediate Directions may be given for augmenting the Guard of the City,
in such manner as shall be thought proper; And that a sufficient Number
of the Train'd Bands may be constantly out in the day time, as well as
at Night, to preserve the peace of the City. Your Lordship will also
be pleas'd to take Care, that Orders may be given to the Commanding
Officers of the Parties employ'd in that Service, to be very vigilant
in preventing, or suppressing any Disorders, or Tumults; And to Seize
any Persons that may be assembled together in a riotous manner: And
also that a Guard may be constantly posted in the Squares and open
Places of the City; And that there may be daily Meetings of the
Magistrates appointed in proper places to See, that these Services are
perform'd.

Your Lordship will likewise be pleas'd to Cause an Exact Account to be
taken of all Horses (as well Coach and Saddle Horses) in the several
Stables within the City; where Horses are kept for hire; and transmit
an Account of the same, to be laid before His Majesty.

The King thinking, that it may be of great Service, that proper Signals
should be made, in case of any Commotion or Alarm, and also that Alarm
Posts should be appointed, within the City, and Suburbs; His Majesty
has commanded, that the same should be forthwith done, And that Your
Lordship should have imediate Notice of it.

His Majesty has also given directions to the Master General of the
Ordnance, to appoint forthwith proper Persons, to Inspect the several
Entrances into the City, and to Consider, in what manner, in case of an
Emergency the same may be obstructed.

I am to desire your Lordp would be pleased to transmit to me, to be
laid before the King an Account of the Number of Men, that are at
present, appointed for the several Guards to the City, and of the
Places, at which they are posted; As also of what Number of Men you
would propose to add, for that Service, And in what parts of this City,
they may most usefully be posted.

His Majesty having been inform'd, that a considerable number of his
good Subjects, Inhabitants of the City, out of Zeal for His Majesty's
Service, and for the preservation of Our Excellent Constitution, are
desirous of appearing in Arms, on the present occasion; His Majesty
has ordered me to recommend it to your Lordp to give all possible
Encouragement to such laudable designs, And if Your Lordp will transmit
to me the Names of any Persons that shall be willing to Engage in the
manner above-mentioned, I will imediately procure a proper authority
from His Majty for that purpose.

The Zeal, which your Lop & the City of London have shew'd for the
Defence of His Majtys Person and Government, and the Abhorrence and
Detestation You have express'd, for the present unnatural Rebellion,
give His Majesty the strongest Assurance, that you will Exert your
utmost Endeavours in Opposition to the bold and dangerous Attempts, now
making by the Pretender and his Adherents; which threaten the Peace and
Tranquility of this great and flourishing City.

                               I am &c.

  Whitehall Decmr 6{th} 1745.


No. 86.

    Proceedings relative to the expunging of the recognizance entered
        into by William Witham, Messenger of the House of Commons--as
        narrated by James Morgan, Clerk to the Lord Mayor, to the
        Committee appointed to assist in defending Crosby, Wilkes and
        Oliver; 22 March, 1771.

                            Committee Book.

Mr. James Morgan Clerk to the Lord Mayor acquainted the Committee that
he was served on Wednesday Morning last the twentieth instant with an
order of the House of Commons dated the nineteenth March 1771 to attend
that House with the Minutes taken before the Lord Mayor relative to the
Messenger of the House of Commons giving security for his appearance
at the next General Quarter Session of the Peace for the City of
London to answer such Indictments as may be preferred against him for
the supposed assault and Imprisonment of J. Miller. In consequence of
this Order he attended the House of Commons on Wednesday the twentieth
instant with the book from between two and three o'clock in the
Afternoon--that he was called in between two and three o'clock the next
Morning and was asked by the Speaker who he was--he said he was Clerk
to the Lord Mayor of London.--The Speaker ask'd for the Minutes that
were taken, then he produced the book at the Bar. The Speaker sent for
the book to him and ordered that part relating to Miller to be read. He
was likewise ordered up to the Table and the Minutes were read. That a
Motion was then made that those Minutes should be expunged which was
carried in the Affirmative. That he was ask'd by a Member whether Mr
Aldn Wilkes and Mr Aldn Oliver were there. He answered they were. He
was then ordered to the Bar and was served with an Order of the House
of Commons as follows--Ordered that Mr James Morgan Clerk to the Lord
Mayor of London do expunge from the Minute Book kept by him at the
Mansion House the entry relative to William Whitham a Messenger of this
House giving security for his appearance at the next General Quarter
Sessions of the Peace for the City of London. That he answered he had
no Indemnity for so doing. The Speaker said he was ordered so to do.
He then did expunge that Minute accordingly. He was then ordered to
withdraw.

This Committee doth desire the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor to
call a Court of Common Council for Tuesday next and lay the whole
transaction of the above affair before the said Court, when Mr Morgan
is to attend with the Minute Book.


No. 87.

    Letter from Charles Fox, Chairman of the Westminster Committee, to
        the Town Clerk of London suggesting a general meeting of the
        Committees of Association. Dated St. James's Street, 20 Feb.,
        1780.

             Minutes of City Committee of Correspondence.

  Sir,

The Westminster Committee observing that the London Committee are
instructed "to meet such Members of the Committees of the several
petitioning Counties, Cities and Boroughs as are now in London, or
who may be deputed for the purpose of presenting, or supporting their
Petitions, and who may think it necessary to confer, on the means of
promoting the common object of the said Petition" have directed me to
acquaint you that it is their opinion, that nothing is so desireable in
the present Stage of the business as a general meeting of the several
Committees by their Agents or Deputies. From the correspondence they
have had with the other Committees they have reason to think this
opinion is pretty general; and therefore if the London Committee should
concur in that opinion they would wish to know in what manner the
London Committee think such a measure may be best effected.

It has been suggested that the London, Middlesex and Westminster
Committees, might meet by their Deputies and that a joint invitation
from them to the other Committees would come with more propriety and
weight than such a proposal from any single Committee: But altho'
this mode has been thought of, any other that is equally adapted to
bring about the measure proposed, will be equally acceptable to the
Westminster Committee.

  I have the honor to be &c.
  St. James's Street
      February 21st 1780.


No. 88.

    Letter of thanks from Edmund Burke to the same for the City's
        approval of his Bill for Economical Reform. Dated St. James's
        Square, 6 March 1780.

                             _Ibid._

  Sir,

I receive with great satisfaction and very humble acknowledgement, the
honour which the Committee of the Common Council of London have been
pleased to confer on me, by their Resolution of the 3d Inst., which
you have been so obliging as to transmit to me. Their approbation of
the plan which I submitted to Parliament;--the effects which they
expect from its being carried into execution,--these secure to me the
co-operation and support of the greatest Corporation in the World, thro
their very respectable Committee. Be so good, Sir, as to assure that
Committee, that I shall be unwearied in my endeavours, to carry into
execution the measures which they have approved, and which, under such
a sanction, I am entitled to consider as leading to the attainment of
some part of the desires, which they, in common with multitudes of our
fellow subjects have lately express'd. I say some part, because I am
sensible that much more is wanting; and I protest to the Committee,
with great sincerity, that I shall be, as active, as industrious, and
as zealous in supporting the constitutional and salutary measures,
already proposed, and such as may be hereafter proposed, by other
Gentlemen, as I have been in endeavouring to give effect to my own
humble, but, certainly, well intended conceptions. The people alone can
procure the final attainment of the just and temperate requests which
they have made. Their interference as constitutional always, as it
was now necessary, has already produced a visible effect. A continued
watchfulness, on their part, will beget an active attention in the
Representative body, to the Interests of their constituents. Let us
continue true to ourselves, and we shall not find many that will dare
to be false to us. Let each, in his station of public trust, give the
best Counsel his capacity suggests, and let our whole collective and
united efforts be applyd to execute whatever is wisely plann'd, be the
Proposer who he may. Let us do this and the People cannot remain long
unsatisfy'd in their just and reasonable desires. I have the honour to
be &c.

  Charles Street,
    St. James's Square,
      6th March, 1780.


No. 89.

    Letter from Charles Fox to the Town Clerk of London forwarding copy
        of proceedings of the Westminster Committee of Association, and
        giving particulars of the proceedings of the House of Commons
        upon Dunning's motion. Dated St. James's Street, 13 April, 1780.

                             _Ibid._

  Sir,

I have the honour of transmitting to you a copy of the proceedings
in Westminster Hall on the 6th inst. in which you will observe that
the form of Association adopted by the City of Westminster, is nearly
similar to that of the County of York.

There never was a time when Union was more necessary than the present,
as the only hopes of those who wish to defeat the wishes of the
people, are confessedly founded upon supposed disagreements among the
true friends of their country.

I should long ago have transmitted to your Committee, lists of the
Members who have voted in the late important questions, but have been
unable to procure any on which I could depend. That which was printed
in the Newspapers, was to my knowledge very incorrect.

I cannot close my letter without informing you that the three following
Resolutions were agreed to by the House of Commons on the 6th instant.

"That it is necessary to declare, that the Influence of the Crown has
increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished."

"That it is competent to this House, to examine into and correct Abuses
in the Expenditure of the Civil List Revenues, as well as in every
other branch of the Public Revenue, whenever it shall appear expedient
to the Wisdom of this House so to do."

"That it is the Duty of this House, to provide, as far as may be an
immediate and effectual redress of the Abuses complained of in the
Petitions, presented to this House from the different Counties, Cities
and Towns of this Kingdom."

  The number who voted for them were  233
  Against them                        215

so that in one of the fullest houses that we have ever known a complete
approbation has been given to the sentiments of the Petitions, with a
promise to attend to their Prayers. How that promise will be performed,
it is our duty to watch; If we persevere in our exertions, I think
there is little or no doubt of obtaining our objects, but if we are
lulled into Security by Success, it is but too probable that the
Representatives of the People may relapse into their former inattention
to their constituents.

                               I am &c.

  St. James's Street,
  April 10th 1780.

FOOTNOTES:

[841] The passage here placed in parenthesis was, we learn from a
marginal note, for divers causes omitted from the original letter.

[842] He was esquire to the mayor (_Armiger Maioris_). After he had
served the City faithfully for 20 years, and become incapable of
further work, he was, in February, 1420, allowed an annuity of 40
shillings and his clothing or livery of the City in the same manner as
the sergeants of the Chamber.--Letter Book I, fo. 238b.

[843] Creil (Oise).

[844] Verneuil.

[845] Meun on the Loire.

[846] The Orleans or Armagnac party (so-called from the Duc d'Armagnac,
Constable of France) the deadly enemy of the Dukes of Burgundy.

[847] Samer au bois, near Boulogne.

[848] Cockets or seals delivered to merchants in token of their
merchandise having passed the Custom-house.

[849] Sir William Neville, Lord Falconbridge & Earl of Kent.

[850] He had been killed at Barnet.

[851] Margaret, daughter of Henry VII, married to James IV of Scotland.

[852] Printed in Rushworth's Collections.

[853] Derby House, Cannon Row, Westminster, erected in 1598 by William,
Earl of Derby. It was surrendered to Parliament _temp._ Charles I, and
was used for Parliamentary Committee meetings and other state purposes.



APPENDIX B.

KNIGHTS AND BURGESSES OF THE CITY OF LONDON.


The list of members representing the City of London in Parliament from
1284 down to the present day, here given, has been compiled mainly
from the Blue Books of Parliamentary returns (printed in 1878 and
1879), but with large additions gathered from the City's own Records.
It may fairly claim to be a more perfect list of City members than has
hitherto been published.

The number of representatives of the City in Parliament has varied from
time to time. In a treatise known as _Modus tenendi Parliamentum_,
ascribed to the early part of the xivth century, the number of members
for London, York and other Cities is given as two, the same as the
number of Barons of the Cinq Ports and knights of shires.[854] The more
usual number as gathered from the City's Archives was either two or
four, although there have been occasions (as in the Parliament of 1284
and more especially during the Commonwealth) when it amounted to six
and (as in Barebone's Parliament) even to seven. Frequently it happened
that when the writ prescribed the election of two members, four or
more were elected, although not more than two or, perhaps, three, were
to attend.[855] It is in 1346 that we meet for the first time with a
writ commanding the election of four members. In the following year
a writ was issued for the election of the old number (two), but this
was apparently a mistake, for another writ was soon afterwards issued
stating that the number should be four. The City, however, displayed
great apathy in the matter--the attendance in Parliament interfered
no doubt with the commercial pursuits of the members--and, although
four were elected, it was distinctly provided that any three or even
two might attend.[856] On the other hand, when the City was called
upon to elect two members for the Parliament of 1348, it returned
four.[857] From 1351 to 1354 the writs prescribed only two members,
and the City returned only two, but from 1355 down to the passing of
the Redistribution of Seats Act in 1885[858]--that is to say, for a
period of more than 500 years--the City of London has, if we except the
Parliament of 1371, never been represented in the council of the nation
by less than four members.

So long as the City was represented by two members, both were usually
aldermen.[859] When four were returned, two were, as a rule, aldermen,
and two commoners. The Recorder, who in earliest times was also an
alderman of the City, was frequently returned with another alderman,
and continued to be so returned long after he had ceased to be elected
from the body of aldermen. Indeed, for two centuries--viz., from 1454
to 1654--the Recorder for the time being seldom failed to be elected
one of the City's members; but from the time of the Restoration no
Recorder has sat for the City, nor has the ancient custom of the City
to be represented by an equal number of aldermen and commoners been
followed. Prior to the Restoration the custom was so strictly observed
that when a member who was a commoner happened to be elected alderman,
he resigned his seat in Parliament in order that another commoner might
be elected.[860]

The parliamentary elections were originally carried out by the mayor
and aldermen and a deputation specially summoned from each ward, but
the choice of members practically lay with the mayor and aldermen. In
course of time the commoners came to be elected by the Common Council,
but the aldermen still kept a hold on the elections by nominating
certain individuals of whom the citizens were to make their choice.[861]

In 1523 we find an election taking place at the [court of] Husting[862]
in the Great Hall. One alderman and the Recorder were nominated by
the Court of Aldermen and their nomination was subsequently confirmed
by the Common Council in the Guildhall; whilst two commoners were
nominated by the commonalty attending at the Husting. But even the
latter nominations appear to have been in this instance confirmed by
the Common Council.[863] Six years later (viz., in 1529) the election
proceedings are recorded somewhat differently. The election took place
as before at the [court of] Husting in the Great Hall, the aldermen
were nominated by the mayor and aldermen in the Inner Chamber of the
Guildhall [_i.e._, in the Court of Aldermen] and were afterwards
ratified and confirmed by a large gathering of the commonalty (_immensa
communitas_) in the Great Hall, but the commoners were elected by
the commonalty without any subsequent ratification by the Common
Council.[864]

At what date the Livery--as distinct from the citizens at large--began
to usurp the functions of the commonalty and claim the exclusive right
of electing City members, is not clear; but that they did so monopolise
the Parliamentary franchise long before it was restricted to them
by the Election Act of 1725, there is ample evidence,[865] and they
continued to enjoy this monopoly until the passing of the Reform Act of
1832.

The City members enjoyed, as we have seen,[866] certain allowances by
way of "duties," "fees" or "wages," for their attendance in Parliament,
besides gowns, robes or liveries for themselves and their servants, and
a reasonable sum of money for expenses. According to Coke (4 Inst., p.
46) the fee or wage paid "time out of mind" to a knight of the shire
was four shillings a day, whilst that to a citizen or burgess was half
that sum;[867] and these same fees the City Chamberlain paid in 1584
to the alderman and the Recorder representing the City in Parliament,
presumably, in their capacity as knights of the shire (the City of
London itself constituting a county), and to the two commoners, sitting
as burgesses, respectively.[868] In 1628 a question was raised in the
House as to whether the aldermen representing the City in Parliment
ranked as knights, but no decision appears to have been arrived at.[869]

When the City members attended Parliament, they went as befitted the
representatives of the capital of the kingdom. Alderman and commoner
alike wore scarlet gowns richly trimmed with fur, for which they
received allowances, according to their dignity, of cloth and money.
An alderman was allowed ten yards of cloth for his gown, a commoner
five. Again, an alderman who had served as mayor received an allowance
of 100 shillings for fur; an alderman who had not passed the chair was
entitled to no more than 5 marks, whilst commoners received only half
that sum.

One "livery" a session was the usual allowance, provided that there
was not more than one session within the year; but when, as in 1532,
Parliament continued to sit for a number of years, an allowance in cash
was made to the members in lieu of another livery for themselves and
their servants. This cash payment amounted to £6 13_s._ 4_d._[870]

In addition to wages and allowances already mentioned, the City members
were allowed a certain amount of travelling (and other) expenses.
From the ancient treatise already referred to we gather that in this
respect (if in no other) they were customarily placed on an equality
with the knights of shires.[871] When Parliament sat at Westminster,
these travelling expenses amounted to little more than a shilling
a day--the sum allowed them for boat-hire;[872] when, on the other
hand, Parliament sat in some remote town, as it frequently did, they
were greater. Thus in 1296, when Parliament was to meet at Bury St.
Edmunds, the citizens voted their representatives 20 shillings a day
for travelling expenses.[873] The two aldermen who represented the City
in the Parliament held at York in 1298 were each allowed 100 shillings
and no more.[874] On the other hand when nearly a century later (1388),
Parliament sat at Cambridge, the City members were not only allowed
their travelling expenses, but the cost of their board and lodging, and
even their washing bills were discharged by the Corporation, the whole
amounting to upwards of £100, a large sum in those days.[875]

In the middle of the 15th century, viz., in Thomas Chalton's mayoralty
(1449-1450), the Common Council resolved that thenceforth the
allowance for expenses should not exceed 40 shillings a day, but ten
years later, when Parliament was to meet at Coventry, it showed a more
liberal spirit and undertook to repay any further disbursements that
the members might make for the honour and benefit of the City.[876] It
did the same in 1464, when Parliament was to have sat at York.[877]

How long the City continued to make payments and allowances to its
members is not clear. No doubt, as wealth increased and a seat in
the House was looked upon less as a burden, men were found ready to
undertake the duties on their own responsibility and without any
extraneous assistance, and the custom of payment of members by the City
became gradually obsolete. Take, for instance, the case of two of the
City's representatives in the Parliament of 1661. Whilst, on the one
hand, we find the Court of Aldermen authorising the Chamberlain to pay
to John Jones, a burgess, a daily allowance of four shillings--a sum
usually allowed knights of the shire--and this amount is recorded in
the City's Chamber Accounts as having been duly paid;[878] on the other
hand, we find alderman Sir John Frederick (elected member for the City
_loco_ alderman Fowke deceased) returning the fees and allowances paid
to him by the Chamberlain "for his full allowance for diett and boate
hire ... and for his Robes alsoe."[879]

Lastly, it is to be noted that on the occasion of the opening of a new
Parliament, the members for the City claim, and generally exercise, the
privilege of sitting on the Treasury or Privy Councillor's bench; but
on what grounds such privilege is claimed and allowed is not clear.[880]


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT FOR THE CITY OF LONDON,

1284--1895.

  1284.[881]
    Henry le Waleys.
    Gregory de Rokesle.
    Philip Cissor.
    Ralf Crepyn.
    Joce le Acatour.
    John de Gisors.

  1296.[882]
    Stephen Eswy.
    William de Hereford.

  1298.
    Walter de Fynchyngfeld.
    Adam de Foleham.

  1300.[883] (March)
    Geoffrey de Norton.
    William de Betoyne.
    John le Bancker.
    William de Red.
    [the first two returned.]

  1305.
    William de Combemartin.
    Walter de Fynchyngfeld.

  1307.
    William de Combemartin.
    Henry de Durham.

  1309.
    Henry de Durham.
    William Servat.

  1312.[884]
    Nicholas de Farndon.
    John de Wengrave.
    Robert de Kelseye.
    John de Sellyng _or_ David de Cotesbrok.

  1312.[885]
    Nicholas de Farndon.
    John de Wengrave.
    Robert de Kelseye.

  1313.
    Nicholas de Farndon.
    William de Leyre.
    William Servat.
    Stephen de Abyndone.

  1314.[886]
    John de Gisors.
    William de Leyre.
    Robert de Kelseye.
    Richer de Refham.
    [or two of them.]

  1315.
    William de Leyre.
    Henry de Durham.

  1316.[887]
    William de Combemartin.
    John de Burford.
    Ralph de Walcote.
    William de Flete.
    Simon de Abyndon.

  1318.
    John de Cherleton.
    William de Flete.
    Roger le Palmere.

  1319.[888]
    Hugh de Waltham.
    William de Flete.
    William de Hacford.
    Michael Mynot.
    John Waldeshef.
    [or three of them.]

  1320.
    Nicholas de Farndon.
    Anketin de Gisors.
    Henry Monquoi.
    Roger Hosebonde.

  1321.[889]
    Nicholas de Farndon.
    Hamo Godchep.
    John Sterre.
    Thomas Prentiz.
    [three or two of them.]

  1322. (May)
    Robert de Swalclyve.
    Reginald de Conduit.
    William de Hacford.
    Gregory de Norton.
    [three or two of them.]

  1322. (Nov.)
    Walter Crepyn.
    Thomas de Chetyngdon.

  1324.
    Anketin de Gisors.
    Henry de Seccheford.

  1325.
    Anketin de Gisors.
    Henry de Seccheford.

  1327. (Jan.)
    Anketin de Gisors.
    Henry de Seccheford.
    Reginald de Conduit.
    Thomas de Leyre.
    Edmund Cosyn.
    John Steere [Sterre?].
    [two to attend.]

  1327. (Sept.)
    Benedict de Fulsham.
    Robert de Kelseye.

  1328. (Feb.)
    Richard de Betoyne.
    Robert de Kelseye.
    John de Grantham.
    John Priour, jun.

  1328. (April)
    Richard de Betoyne.
    Robert de Kelseye.

  1328. (Oct.)
    Stephen de Abyndone.
    Robert de Kelseye.

  1330. (Mar.)
    Stephen de Abyndone.
    John de Caustone.

  1330. (Nov.)
    John de Grantham.
    Reginald de Conduit.
    Stephen de Abyndone.
    [or two of them.]

  1332. (Mar.)
    Anketin de Gisors.
    John de Caustone.
    John Priour, jun.
    Thomas de Chetyngdon.
    [three or two of them.]

  1332. (Sept.)
    Reginald de Conduit.
    John de Caustone.
    Anketin de Gisors.
    Thomas de Chetyngdon.
    [three or two of them.]

  1332.[890] (Dec.)
    Richard de la Pole.
    Thomas de Chetyngdon.
    Henry Monquoi.
    [or two of them.]

  1334.
    Reginald de Conduit.
    John de Caustone.
    Roger de Depham.

  1335.
    Richard de Rothingge.
    Richard le Lacer.
    Roger de Forsham.
    [or two of them.]

  1336.[891] (Mar.)
    Henry de Seccheford.
    Thomas de Chetyngdon.

  1336. (Sept.)
    John de Caustone.
    Richard de Hakenaye.

  1337. (Jan.)
    Reginald de Conduit.
    John de Caustone.

  1337. (Sept.)
    Reginald de Conduit.
    Benedict de Fulsham.

  1338. (Feb.)
    John de Grantham.
    Andrew Aubrey.
    Ralph de Upton.
    Richard de Rothingge.

  1338. (July)
    Ralph de Upton.
    Bartholomew Deumars.

  1339. (Jan.)
    Simon Fraunceys.
    John de Northalle.

  1339. (Oct.)
    Simon (Fraunceys).
    John (de Nort) halle.

  1340.[892] (Jan.)
    William de Brikelesworth.
    John de Mockyng.
    Adam Lucas.

  1340. (Mar.)
    William de Brikelesworth.
    Richard de Rothingge.
    Richard de Berkyngge.
    [or two of them.]

  1341.
    Simon Fraunceys.
    William de Brikelesworth.

  1344.
    John de Northalle.
    John Lovekyn.

  1346.
    Geoffrey de Wychyngham.
    Thomas Leggy.
    John Lovekyn.
    Thomas de Waldene.
    [four, three or two of them.]

  1348. (Jan.)
    John Lovekyn.
    Richard de Berkyngge.
    William de Iford.
    Richard de Wycombe.
    [three or two of them.]

  1348. (Mar.)
    John Lovekyn.
    Richard de Berkyngge.
    William de Iford.
    Richard de Wycombe.
    [three or two of them.]

  1351.
    Thomas Leggy.
    William de Iford.

  1352.[893] (Jan.)
    Simon Fraunceys.
    Simon de Bedyngton.

  1352.[894] (Aug.)
    Adam Fraunceys.
    John Lytle.

  1353.
    Thomas Leggy.
    Thomas Dolsely.

  1354.[895]
    John de Stodeye.
    Thomas Dolsely.

  1355.[896]
    Adam Fraunceys.
    John de Stodeye.
    Simon de Bedyngton.
    Adam de Acres.

  1357.[897]
    Adam Fraunceys.
    John de Stodeye.
    Simon de Bedyngton.
    William de Essex.

  1358.
    Thomas Dolsely.
    William de Welde.
    William de Essex.
    Richard Toky.

  1360.
    Bartholomew Frestlyng.
    Stephen Cavendyssh.
    Walter de Berneye.
    Richard Toky.

  1361.
    Adam Fraunceys.
    John Pecche.
    Simon de Benyngton.
    John Pyel.

  1362.[898] (Oct.)
    Adam de Bury.
    John Lytle.
    John Hiltoft.
    John Tornegold.

  1363.[899]
    William Holbech.
    John de St. Alban.
    Simon de Benyngton.
    John Tornegold.

  1365. (Jan.)
    Adam Fraunceys.
    John Lovekyn.
    Simon de Benyngton.
    Richard de Preston.

  1365.[900] (May)
    Adam Fraunceys.
    John Wroth.
    Simon de Benyngton.
    John de Worstede.

  1368.
    John Wroth.
    Bartholomew Frestlyng.
    John Aubrey.
    John Organ.

  1369. (June)
    John Pecche.
    John Tornegold.
    Nicholas de Exton.
    John Hadele.

  1369.[901]
    Adam Fraunceys.
    John Stodeye.
    John Aubrey.
    John Philipot.

  1370.[902]
    John Pecche.
    William Walworth.
    Fulk Horewode.
    John Fyfhide.

  1370.[903]
    John Tornegold.
    Bartholomew Frestlyng.
    John Philipot.
    William Essex.

  1371.
    Bartholomew Frestlyng.
    John Philipot.

  1372.
    John Wroth.
    John Pecche.
    William Venour.
    William Kelshull.

  1373.
    Adam Stable.
    John Warde.
    John Birlyngham.
    Adam Carlile.

  1376.[904]
    John Pyel.
    William Walworth.
    William Essex.
    Adam Carlile.

  1377. (Jan.)
    John Hadle.
    John Organ.
    William Tonge.
    William Venour.

  1377. (Oct.)
    Adam Carlile.
    Walter Sibill.
    William Walworth.
    John Philipot.

  1378.
    John Hadle.
    Geoffrey Neuton.
    John de Northampton.
    William Venour.

  1379.[905]
    Adam Carlile.
    Walter Sibill.
    John Hadle.
    William More.

  1380.[906] (Jan.)
    John Philipot.
    Robert Launde.
    John Boseham.
    Thomas Cornwaleys.

  1380.[907] (Nov.)
    John Organ.
    John Rote.
    Thomas Welford.
    William Tonge.

  1381.
    Sir John Philipot.
    John Hadle.

    William Baret.
    Hugh Fastolf.

  1382. (Oct.)
    John More.
    Thomas Carleton.
    William Essex.
    Richard Norbury.

  1383. (Feb.)
    Sir Nicholas Brembre.
    John More.
    Richard Norbury.
    William Essex.

  1383. (Oct.)
    William Walworth.
    Sir John Philipot.
    William Baret.
    Henry Vanner.

  1384. (Apr.)
    John Hadle.
    John Organ.
    John Rote.
    Henry Herbury.

  1384. (Nov.)
    John Hadle.
    John Organ.
    Thomas Rolf.
    Henry Herbury.

  1385.
    John Hadle.
    Nicholas Exton.
    Henry Herbury.
    William Ancroft.

  1386.
    John Hadle.
    John Organ.
    Adam Carlile.
    Thomas Girdelere.

  1388. (Feb.)
    William More.
    John Shadworth.
    William Baret.
    John Walcote.

  1388. (Sept.)
    Adam Bamme.
    Henry Vanner.
    William Tonge.
    John Clenhand.

  1390. (Jan.)
    William More.
    John Shadworth.
    Adam Carlile.
    William Brampton.

  1390.[908] (Nov.)
    John Hadle.
    John Loveye.
    Thomas Newenton.
    John Botesham.

  1391.
    William Shiringham.
    William Brampton.
    William Staundon.
    John Walcote.

  1394.[909]
    William Staundon.
    John Fresh.
    Thomas Exton.
    John Wade.

  1395.
    Adam Carlile.
    Drew Barantyn.
    Geoffrey Walderne.
    William Askham.

  1397. (Jan.)
    William Staundon.
    William Brampton.
    William Hyde.
    Hugh Short.

  1397. (Sept.)
    Andrew Neuport.
    Drew Barantyne.
    Robert Asshecombe.
    William Chychely.

  1399. (Oct.)
    John Shadworth.
    William Brampton.
    Richard Merlawe.
    William Sonnyngwell.

  1402.[910] (Sept.)
    John Hadle.
    William Parker.
    John Prophete.
    William Norton.

  1403.[911]
    William Staundon.
    Drew Barantyn.
    William Marcheford.
    John Prophete.

  1406.
    William Staundon.
    Nicholas Wotton.
    John Sudbury.
    Hugh Ryebrede.

  1407.
    William Askham.
    William Crowemer.
    William Marcheford.
    John Bryan.

  1410.[912] (Jan.)
    Drew Barantyn.
    Henry Halton.
    John Reynewell.
    Walter Gawtron.

  1410.[913] (Nov.)
    Richard Merlawe.
    Thomas Fauconer.
    John Sutton.
    John Michell.

  1413.[914] (Feb.)
    Drew Barantyn.
    William Askham.
    William Marcheford.
    Walter Gawtron.

  1413. (May)
    Drew Barantyn.
    William Askham.
    William Marcheford.
    Walter Gawtron.

  1414.[915] (Jan.)
    Richard Merlawe.
    Robert Chichele.
    William Burton.
    Alan Everard.

  1414. (Nov.)
    William Waldern.
    Nicholas Wotton.
    William Olyver.
    John Gedney.

  1415.
    Robert Chichele.
    William Waldern.
    John Reynewell.
    William Michell.

  1416.[916] (Mar.)
    Richard Merlawe.
    Thomas Fauconer.
    William Weston.
    Nicholas Jamys [James]

  1416.[917] (Oct.)
    Richard Whitington.
    Thomas Knolles.
    John Perneys.
    Robert Whityngham.

  1417.
    William Crowemer.
    William Sevenoke.
    John Welles.
    John Boteler, jun.

  1419.
    Nicholas Wotton.
    Henry Barton.
    Richard Meryvale.
    Simon Sewale.

  1420.
    Thomas Fauconer.
    John Michell.
    Salamon Oxneye.
    John Hi[g]ham.

  1421. (May)
    William Waldern.
    William Crowemer.
    William Burton.
    Richard Gosselyn.

  1421. (Dec.)
    Thomas Fauconer.
    Nicholas Wotton.
    John Whateley.
    John Brokley.

  1422.
    Thomas Fauconer.
    John Michell.
    Henry Frowyk.
    Thomas Mayneld.

  1423.[918]
    Thomas Fauconer.
    John Welles.
    Henry Frowyk.
    Thomas Boteler.

  1425.
    Nicholas Wotton.
    John Welles.
    "Eborardus" Flete.
    Thomas Bernewell.

  1426.
    John Michell.
    John Welles.
    "Eborardus" Flete.
    John Higham.

  1427.
    John Michell.
    John Welles.
    William Melreth.
    Walter Gawtron.

  1429.
    Nicholas Wotton.
    Nicholas James.
    William Melreth.
    Walter Gawtron.

  1431.
    William Estfeld.
    Nicholas James.
    John Higham.
    John Abbot.

  1432.
    John Gedney.
    William Melreth.
    John Levyng.
    Philip Malpas.

  1433.
    John Reynewell.
    John Welles.
    John Hatherle.
    Thomas Catteworth.

  1435.
    John Michell.
    Robert Large.
    John Bederenden.
    Stephen Forster.

  1437.
    Henry Frowyk.
    Thomas Catteworth.
    John Carpenter, jun.
    Nicholas Yeo.

  1442.
    Sir William Estfeld.
    John Bowys.
    Philip Malpas.
    William Cottesbroke.

  1447.
    Henry Frowyk.
    William Combys.
    Hugh Wyche.
    William Marowe.

  1449. (Feb.)
    Thomas Catteworth.
    John Norman.
    Geoffrey Boleyn.
    Thomas Billyng.

  1449. (Nov.)
    Stephen Broun.
    John Norman.
    John Nedham.
    John Har[e]we.

  1450.
    Henry Frowyk.
    William Marowe.
    John Harewe.
    Richard Lee.

  1453.
    Stephen Broun.
    William Cantelowe.
    John....
    ... ...

  1455.
    Geoffrey Feldyng.
    William Cantelowe.
    John Harewe.
    John Yonge.

  1463.[919]
    William Marowe.
    Thomas Urswyk, Recorder.
    Thomas Wynselowe.
    John Bromer.

  1467.
    Sir Ralph Josselyn.
    Thomas Urswyk.
    John Warde.
    John Crosseby.

  1469.[920]
    Ralph Verney.
    George Irlond.
    Stephen Fabyan.
    Thomas Stoughton.

  1472.
    Sir Ralph Verney.
    George Irlond.
    John Brampton.
    Stephen Fabyan.

  1478.
    Sir William Hampton.
    Richard Gardyner.
    William Bracebrigge.
    John Warde.

  1483.[921]
    Sir William Heriot.
    Robert Tate.
    John Marchall.
    William Bracebrigge.

  1485.[922]
    John Warde, Mayor.
    Thomas Fitz-William, Recorder.
    John Pekeryng.
    William Spark.

  1487.[923]
    Sir Henry Colet, Mayor.
    Thomas Fitz-William, Recorder.
    Hugh Pemberton.
    John Pekeryng.
    William White _loco_ Thomas Fitz-William.[924]

  1491.[925]
    Robert Tate.
    William Capel.
    Nicholas Alwyn.
    Thomas Bullesdon.

  1497.[926]
    [Richard] Chawry.
    Sir Robert Sheffeld, Recorder.
    ...
    ...

  1504.[927]
    Sir John Shaa.
    Sir Robert Sheffeld, Recorder.
    Thomas Cremour.
    John Paynter.
    Sir John Tate[928] _loco_ Sir John Shaa deceased.

  1510.[929]
    John Tate.
    John Chaloner, Recorder.
    James Yarford.
    John Brugys.
    Thomas More _loco_ James Yarford, elected alderman.

  1512.[930]
    Sir William Capel.
    Richard Broke, Recorder.
    William Calley.
    John Kyme.

  1515.[931]
    Sir William Capel.
    Richard Broke, Recorder.
    William Calley.
    John Kyme.

  1523.[932]
    George Monoux.
    William Shelley, Recorder.
    John Hewster.
    William Roche.

  1529.[933]
    Sir Thomas Seymer.
    John Baker, Recorder.
    John Petyte.
    Paul Wythypol.

  1542.
    Sir William Roche.
    Sir Roger Cholmeley, Recorder.
    John Sturgeon.
    Nicholas Wylford.

  1545.
    Sir William Roche.
    Sir Roger Cholmeley, Recorder.
    John Sturgeon.
    Paul Wythypol.
    Sir William Forman _loco_ William Roche.[934]
    Sir Richard Gresham[935] _loco_ Sir William Forman.
    Robert Broke, Recorder.[936]

  1547.
    Sir Martin Bowes,.
    Robert Broke, Recorder.
    Thomas Curteis.
    Thomas Bacon.

  1553.
    Sir Martin Bowes.
    Robert Broke, Recorder.
    John Marsh.
    John Blundell.

  1553.[937] (Sept.)
    Sir Rowland Hill.
    Robert Broke, Recorder.
    John Marsh.
    John Blundell.

  1553.[938] (Oct.)
    Sir Rowland Hill.
    Robert Broke, Recorder.
    John Marsh.
    John Blundell.

  1554.
    Sir Martin Bowes.
    Robert Broke, Recorder.
    John Marsh.
    John Blundell.

  1554. (Nov.)
    Sir Martin Bowes.
    Ralph Cholmeley, Recorder.
    Richard Grafton.
    Richard Burnell.

  1555.
    Sir Martin Bowes.
    Ralph Cholmeley, Recorder.
    Philip Bold.
    Nicholas Choyne
    [Chune].

  1558.
    William Garrard.
    Ralph Cholmeley, Recorder.
    John Marsh.
    Richard Grafton.

  1559.[939]
    Sir Martin Bowes.
    Ralph Cholmeley, Recorder.
    John Marsh.
    Richard Hills.[940]

  1563.
    Sir William Chester.
    Ralph Cholmeley, Recorder.
    Laurence Withers.
    John Marsh.

  1571.[941]
    Sir John White.
    Thomas Wilbraham, Recorder.
    John Marsh.
    Thomas Norton.

  1572.
    Sir Roland Heywood.
    William Fletewood, Recorder.
    John Marsh.[942]
    Thomas Norton.

  1584.[943]
    Sir Nicholas Woodrooff.
    William Fletewood, Recorder.
    Walter Fisshe.
    Thomas Aldersey.
    Henry Billingsley,[944] _loco_ Walter Fisshe, decd.

  1586.
    Sir Edward Osborne.
    William Fletewood, Recorder.
    Thomas Aldersey.
    Robert Saltinstall.

  1589.
    Sir George Barnes.
    William Fletewood, Recorder.
    Thomas Aldersey.
    Andrew Palmer.

  1593.
    Sir John Harte.
    Edward Drewe, Recorder.
    Andrew Palmer.
    George Sotherton.

  1597.
    Sir John Harte.
    John Croke, Recorder.
    George Sotherton.
    Thomas Fettiplace.

  1601.
    Sir Stephen Soame.
    John Croke, Recorder.
    Thomas Fettiplace.
    John Pynder.

  1604.[945]
    Sir Henry Billingsley.
    Sir Henry Montague, Recorder.
    Nicholas Fuller.
    Richard Gore.
    Sir Thomas Lowe, _loco_ Sir Henry Billingsley.[946]

  1614.
    Sir Thomas Lowe.
    Sir Henry Montague Recorder.
    Nicholas Fuller.
    Robert Middleton.

  1621.
    Sir Thomas Lowe.
    Robert Heath, Recorder.
    Robert Bateman.
    William Towerson.

  1624.
    Sir Thomas Middleton.
    Sir Heneage Finch, Recorder.
    Robert Bateman.
    Martin Bond.

  1625.
    Sir Thomas Middleton.
    Sir Heneage Finch, Recorder.
    Robert Bateman.
    Martin Bond.

  1626.
    Sir Thomas Middleton.
    Sir Heneage Finch, Recorder.
    Sir Maurice Abbott.
    Robert Bateman.

  1628.
    Thomas Moulson.
    Christopher Clitherowe.
    Henry Waller.
    James Bunce.

  1640. (April)
    Thomas Soame.
    Isaac Pennington.
    Matthew Cradock.
    Samuel Vassall.

  1640. (Nov.)
    Thomas Soame.
    Isaac Pennington.
    Matthew Cradock.
    Samuel Vassall.
    John Venn, _loco_ Matthew Cradock.[947]


CROMWELLIAN PARLIAMENTS.[948]

  1653.
    Robert Tichborne.
    John Ireton.
    Samuel Moyer.
    John Langley.
    John Stone.
    Henry Barton.
    Praise-God Barebone.

  1654.
    Thomas Foot.
    William Steele, Recorder.
    Thomas Adams.
    John Langham.
    Samuel Avery.
    Andrew Ricaut or Riccard.

  1656.
    Thomas Foot.
    Sir Christopher Pack.
    Thomas Adams.
    Richard Brown.

    Theophilus Biddulph.
    John Jones.

  1659.
    William Thomson.
    Theophilus Biddulph.
    John Jones.
    Richard Brown.

         *       *       *       *       *

  1660.
    Sir John Robinson.[949]

  1661.
    John Fowke.
    Sir William Thompson.
    William Love.
    John Jones.
    Sir John Frederick, _loco_ John Fowke.[950]

  1679. (Mar.)
    Sir Robert Clayton.
    Sir Thomas Player.
    William Love.
    Thomas Pilkington.

  1679. (Oct.)
    Sir Robert Clayton.
    Sir Thomas Player.
    William Love.
    Thomas Pilkington.

  1681.
    Sir Robert Clayton.
    Thomas Pilkington.
    Sir Thomas Player.
    William Love.

  1685.
    Sir John Moore.
    Sir William Pritchard.
    Sir Samuel Dashwood.
    Sir Peter Rich.

  1689.
    Sir Patience Ward.
    Sir Robert Clayton.
    William Love.
    Thomas Pilkington.
    Sir William Ashurst, _loco_ William Love, deceased.

  1690.
    Sir William Pritchard.
    Sir Samuel Dashwood.
    Sir William Turner.
    Sir Thomas Vernon.
    Sir John Fleet, Mayor, _loco_ Sir William Turner.[951]

  1695.
    Sir Robert Clayton.
    Sir John Fleet.
    Sir William Ashurst.
    Thomas Papillon.

  1698.
    Sir John Fleet.
    Sir William Ashurst.
    Sir James Houblon.[952]
    Thomas Papillon.

  1701. (Feb.)
    Sir Robert Clayton.
    Sir William Ashurst.
    Sir William Withers.
    Gilbert Heathcote.
    Sir John Fleet, _loco_ Gilbert Heathcote, disqualified.

  1701. (Dec.)
    Sir Robert Clayton.
    Sir William Ashurst.
    Sir Thomas Abney.
    Gilbert Heathcote.

  1702.
    Sir William Pritchard.
    Sir John Fleet.
    Sir Francis Child.
    Gilbert Heathcote.

  1705.
    Sir Robert Clayton.
    Sir William Ashurst.
    Sir Gilbert Heathcote.
    Samuel Shepheard.
    Sir William Withers, Mayor,[953] _loco_ Sir Robert Clayton.[954]

  1708.
    Sir William Withers, Mayor.
    Sir William Ashurst.
    Sir Gilbert Heathcote.
    John Ward.

  1710.
    Sir William Withers.
    Sir Richard Hoare.
    Sir George Newland.
    John Cass.

  1713.
    Sir William Withers.
    Sir Richard Hoare.
    Sir John Cass.
    Sir George Newland.[955]

  1715.
    Sir John Ward.
    Sir Thomas Scawen.
    Robert Heysham.
    Peter Godfrey.

  1722.
    Francis Child.
    Richard Lockwood.
    Peter Godfrey.
    John Barnard.
    Sir Richard Hopkins, _loco_ Peter Godfrey, deceased.

  1727.
    Sir John Eyles.
    Humphrey Parsons.
    John Barnard.
    Micaiah Perry.

  1734.
    Humphrey Parsons.
    Sir John Barnard.
    Micajah Perry.
    Robert Willimot.

  1741.
    Daniel Lambert, Mayor.
    Sir John Barnard.
    Sir Robert Godschall.
    George Heathcote.
    William Calvert, _loco_ Sir Robert Godschall.[956]

  1747.
    Sir John Barnard.
    Sir William Calvert.

  1747.
    Slingsby Bethell.
    Stephen Theo. Janssen.

  1754.
    Sir John Barnard.
    Sir Robert Ladbroke.
    Slingsby Bethell.
    William Beckford.
    Sir Richard Glyn, Mayor, _loco_ Slingsby Bethell.[957]

  1761.
    Sir Robert Ladbroke.
    Sir Richard Glyn.
    William Beckford.
    Thomas Harley.

  1768.
    Thomas Harley, Mayor.
    Sir Robert Ladbroke.
    William Beckford.
    Barlow Trecothick.
    Richard Oliver, _loco_ William Beckford.[958]
    Frederick Bull,[959] _loco_ Sir Robert Ladbroke.[960]

  1774.
    John Sawbridge.
    Richard Oliver.
    Frederick Bull.
    George Hayley.

  1780.
    George Hayley.
    John Kirkman.
    Frederick Bull.
    Nathaniel Newnham.
    John Sawbridge, _loco_ John Kirkman.[961]
    Sir Watkin Lewes, _loco_ George Hayley.[962]
    Brook Watson, _loco_ Frederick Bull.[963]

  1784.
    Brook Watson.
    Sir Watkin Lewes.
    Nathaniel Newnham.
    John Sawbridge.

  1790.
    William Curtis.
    Brook Watson.
    Sir Watkin Lewes.
    John Sawbridge.
    John William Anderson, _vice_ Brook Watson.[964]
    William Lushington, _vice_ John Sawbridge.[965]

  1796.
    _First Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
        Ireland [1801]._

  1801.
    William Lushington.

    William Curtis, Mayor.
    Harvey Christian Combe.
    John William Anderson.

  1802.
    Harvey Christian Combe.
    Charles Price.
    William Curtis.
    Sir John William Anderson.

  1806.
    Harvey Christian Combe.
    James Shaw, Mayor.
    Sir Charles Price.
    Sir William Curtis.

  1807.
    Sir Charles Price.
    Sir William Curtis.
    James Shaw.
    Harvey Christian Combe.

  1812.
    Harvey Christian Combe.
    Sir William Curtis.
    Sir James Shaw.
    John Atkins.
    Matthew Wood, Mayor, _loco_ Harvey Christian Combe.[966]

  1818.
    Matthew Wood.
    Thomas Wilson.
    Robert Waithman.
    John Thomas Thorp.

  1820.
    Matthew Wood.
    Thomas Wilson.
    Sir William Curtis.
    George Bridges, Mayor.

  1826.
    William Thomson.
    Robert Waithman.
    William Ward.
    Matthew Wood.

  1830.
    William Thompson.
    Robert Waithman.
    William Ward.
    Matthew Wood.

  1831.
    Robert Waithman.
    William Thompson.
    Matthew Wood.
    William Venables.

  1833.
    George Grote.
    Matthew Wood.
    Robert Waithman.
    Sir John Key.
    George Lyall, _loco_ Robert Waithman.[967]
    William Crawford, _loco_ Sir John Key.[968]

  1835.
    Matthew Wood.
    James Pattison.
    William Crawford.
    George Grote.

  1837.
    Matthew Wood.
    William Crawford.
    James Pattison.
    George Grote.

  1841.
    John Masterman.
    Sir Matthew Wood.
    George Lyall.
    Lord John Russell.
    James Pattison, _loco_ Sir Matthew Wood.[969]

  1847.
    Lord John Russell.
    James Pattison.
    Baron Lionel N. de Rothschild.
    John Masterman.
    Sir James Duke, Mayor, _loco_ James Pattison, deceased.

  1852.
    John Masterman.
    Lord John Russell.
    Sir James Duke.
    Baron Lionel N. de Rothschild.

  1857.
    Sir James Duke.
    Baron Lionel N. de Rothschild.
    Lord John Russell.
    Robert Wigram Crawford.

  1859.
    Lord John Russell.
    Baron Lionel N. de Rothschild.
    Sir James Duke.
    Robert Wigram Crawford.
    Western Wood, _loco_ Lord John Russell.[970]
    George Joachim Goschen, _loco_ Western Wood.[971]

  1865.
    George Joachim Goschen.
    Robert Wigram Crawford.
    William Lawrence.
    Baron Lionel N. de Rothschild.

  1868.
    George Joachim Goschen.
    Robert Wigram Crawford.
    William Lawrence.
    Charles Bell.
    Baron Lionel N. de Rothschild, _loco_ Charles Bell, deceased.

  1874.
    William James Richmond Cotton.
    Philip Twells.
    John Gellibrand Hubbard.
    George Joachim Goschen.

  1880.
    William J.R. Cotton.
    Robert Nicholas Fowler.
    Rt. Hon. John G. Hubbard.
    William Lawrence.

  1885.
    Sir Robert N. Fowler.
    Rt. Hon. J.G. Hubbard.

  1886.
    Sir Robert N. Fowler.

  1886.
    Rt. Hon. J.G. Hubbard.
    Thomas Charles Baring,[972] _loco_ Hubbard, raised to the peerage.
    Henry Hucks Gibbs,[973] _loco_ Baring, decd.
    Sir Reginald Hanson,[974] _loco_ Fowler, decd.

  1892.
    Sir Reginald Hanson.
    Alban G.H. Gibbs.

FOOTNOTES:

[854] _Modus tenendi Parliamentum_ (ed. T. Duffus Hardy), p. 10.

[855] Letter Book E, fos. 20, 22, 88b, 89.

[856] Letter Book F, fo. 145b.

[857] _Id._, fo. 150.

[858] Stat. 48 & 49 Vict., c. 23, which prescribed that after the end
of the Parliament then existing the City should return two members and
no more.

[859] An exception appears to have been made in 1352, when a commoner
was returned with an alderman.--Letter Book F, fo. 215.

[860] Two instances of the kind are recorded, one in 1509 and another
in 1534.--See Repertory 2, fo. 77. Letter Book M, fo. 166b. Repertory
9, fo. 79b. On the other hand, there are cases recorded where members
of Parliament for constituencies other than the City, having been
elected aldermen of the City, have claimed exemption from service owing
to their privilege as members.--Repertory 60, fos. 199b, 211b, 245b.
Repertory 95, fo. 81.

[861] Repertory 2, fos. 75b, 77, 125b. Letter Book M, fos. 166b, 186.

[862] Hence the name "Hustings" as applied to Parliamentary elections
at the present day.

[863] Repertory 6, fo. 20b. Letter Book N, fo. 222.

[864] Letter Book O, fo. 157.

[865] As early as 1539 we find the citizens "in their grand livery"
summoned for a Parliamentary election (Repertory 10, fo. 85b); usually
it was the "commons" who were summoned.

[866] Vol. i, pp. 273, 274.

[867] Coke's statement is not strictly accurate. Before 1327 knights
of the shire were in the habit of receiving sums varying from 1_s._
to 6_s._ 8_d._ a day. From the year 1327 their allowance was 4_s._ a
day exclusive of travelling expenses, and this sum appears to have
been paid as long as members received payment for attendance in
Parliament.--See Preface to _Modus tenendi Parliamentum_, p. viii and
Notes to the same, pp. xxvii, xxviii.

[868] Chamber Accounts (Town Clerk's Office), Vol. II, fos. 21b, 22.
The same fees had been authorised by the Court of Aldermen three years
before.--Repertory 20, fo. 183. After the Restoration, when more than
two aldermen were frequently returned, the junior members (whether
aldermen or commoners) received the burgess fee of two shillings a day,
as witness the case of Sir John Robinson--the only City member sitting
in the first Parliament after the Restoration whose name has come down
to us.--See Chamber Accounts, Vol. 1/11, fo. 145. The expense was
defrayed, in early days, by the exaction of one penny in the pound from
every individual who had been assessed for the last fifteenth.--Letter
Book E, fos. 20, 22.

[869] Journal House of Commons, i, 894.

[870] Repertory 8, fo. 210b. Repertory 20, fo. 183.

[871] "Solebant cives esse pares et equales cum militibus comitatuum in
expensis veniendo morando et redeundo."--_Modus tenendi Parliamentum_,
p. 13.

[872] Repertory 20, fo. 183. Chamber Accounts, Vol. II, fos. 21b, 22.

[873] Letter Book C, fo. 22b. See Frontispiece. The writ and
proceedings thereon are printed from the City's Records in Palgrave's
Parl. Writs, Vol. 1, p. 49.

[874] Letter Book B, fo. 93b. (xxxviiib.)

[875] Letter Book H, fo. 245. (See "Memorials," pp. 511, 512).

[876] Journal 6, fo. 166b.

[877] Journal 7, fo. 52.

[878] Repertory 69, fo. 319b. Chamber Accounts, Vol. 1/11, fo. 224.
Vol. 1/17, fo. 52b.

[879] Chamber Accounts, Vol. 1/12, fos. 51, 65.

[880] Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, (8th ed.) p. 212.

[881] Chron. Edward I and II (Rolls Series No, 76). Introd. p. xxxiii.

[882] Letter Book C, fo. 22b.

[883] _Id._ fo. 41b.

[884] Letter Book D, fo. 149b.

[885] _Id._, fo. 151.

[886] Letter Book E, fos. 20, 22. It appears that at this election
three aldermen were nominated for the mayor and aldermen to elect two,
and four commoners were nominated for the mayor and aldermen to elect
two.

[887] Letter Book E, fo. 46b. Elected to attend a Parliament at Lincoln
in Jan. 1316, for the special purpose of considering the establishment
of a Staple near Calais.

[888] Letter Book E, fo. 89. The writ was endorsed with two names only,
viz., William de Leyre and William de Flete. _Id._, fo. 88b.

[889] _Id._, fo. 123b.

[890] Letter Book E, fo. 236. The Blue Book omits Richard de la Pole.

[891] _Id._, fo. 245b. The Blue Book gives in addition the name of John
Priour, and adds "or two of them."

[892] Letter Book F, fo. 29b.

[893] Letter Book F, fo. 207.

[894] _Id._, fo. 215. Summoned to attend a Council.

[895] Letter Book G, fo. 18.

[896] _Id._, fo. 39.

[897] _Id._, fo. 58.

[898] _Id._, fo. 101. In the Parliamentary Blue Book, Bartholomew
Frestlyng appears in place of Adam de Bury.

[899] _Id._, fo. 112b.

[900] _Id._, fo. 175.

[901] Letter Book G., fo. 238b. Summoned to attend a Council.

[902] _Id._, fo. 240. A Council.

[903] _Id._, fo. 262b.

[904] Letter Book H, fo. 28.

[905] _Id._, fo. 105b.

[906] _Id._, fo. 117.

[907] _Id._, fo. 125.

[908] _Id._, fo. 253. On fo. 255 William More is given in place of John
Loveye.

[909] _Id._, fo. 288b.

[910] Letter Book I, fo. 18b.

[911] Letter Book I, fo. 35b.

[912] _Id._, fo. 88b.

[913] _Id._, fo. 105b.

[914] _Id._, fo. 119.

[915] _Id._, fo. 130.

[916] _Id._, fo. 160b.

[917] _Id._, fo. 172b.

[918] Letter Book K, fo. 8.

[919] Letter Book L, fo. 11b. Journal 7, fo. 21, 23b.

[920] Journal 7, fo. 199.

[921] Journal 9, fo. 24.

[922] _Id._, fo. 91b.

[923] Journal 9, fo. 157b.

[924] Elected member for Lincolnshire.

[925] Journal 9, fo. 279.

[926] Repertory 1, fo. 10. Elected by the Aldermen. The names of those
elected by the Commonalty have not come down to us.

[927] Journal 10, fo. 301.

[928] Elected 29 Dec, 1503.--Repertory 1, fo. 150.

[929] Letter Book M, fos. 164b, 166b.

[930] Journal 11, fo. 147b, Repertory 2, fo. 125b.

[931] Letter Book M, fo. 231b, Journal 11, fo. 204b.

[932] Letter Book N, fo. 222.

[933] In Jan., 1534, the Court of Aldermen voted the usual
allowances to the Recorder, Mr. Wythypol and Mr. Bowyer, the
City members.--Repertory 9, fo. 41b. In October of the same year
Robert Pakyngton was elected in place of William Bowyer chosen
an Alderman.--(Blue Book, Appendix p. xxix), and in December
Sir Thomas Seymer asked leave to resign his seat on account of
ill-health.--Repertory 9, fo. 141b.

[934] Roche had been committed to prison.

[935] Elected 10 Nov., Forman being unable to attend through
illness.--Repertory 11, fo. 244 (221).

[936] Elected 17 Nov., _loco_ Cholmeley, appointed King's
Sergeant--Wriothesley, p. 162.

[937] Letter Book R, fo. 259b.

[938] _Id._, fo. 270b.

[939] Journal 17, fo. 161.

[940] Hyde in the Parliamentary Return.

[941] Journal 19, fo. 356b.

[942] A Writ was issued (28 Sept., 1579), for the election of a member
_loco_ John Marsh, deceased.--Journal 20, part 2, fo. 516b.

[943] Journal 21, fos. 388b, 390.

[944] Date of Return, 29 Sept., 1585.--Letter Book, &c., fo. 60b.

[945] Journal 26, fo. 171; Letter Book BB, fo. 226b.

[946] _Ob._, 22, Nov. 1606.

[947] _Ob._, 27 May, 1641.

[948] Taken from Browne Willis's "Notitia Parliamentaria."

[949] The only member for the City sitting in this Parliament yet
discovered. The sum of £37 4_s._ is recorded as being paid to him for
his attendance as a "burgess" for the City.--Chamber Accounts, 1/11,
fo. 145.

[950] _Ob._, 22 April, 1662.

[951] _Ob._, 9 Feb., 1693.--Luttrell, Diary, iii, 32.

[952] _Ob._, Oct., 1700.--Luttrell, Diary, iv, 701.

[953] Elected 22 Nov., 1707.--Luttrell, vi, 237.

[954] _Ob._, 16 July, 1707.

[955] _Ob._, March, 1714.

[956] _Ob._, 26 June, 1742.--Gentleman's Magazine, vol. 12, p. 831.

[957] _Ob._, 1 Nov., 1758.--Gentleman's Magazine, vol. 28, p. 556.

[958] _Ob._, 21 June, 1770.

[959] Elected 5 Dec., 1773.--Walpole's Journal, i, 275.

[960] _Ob._, 31 Oct., 1773.--Gentleman's Magazine, vol. 43, p. 581.

[961] _Ob. circ._, Sept., 1780.

[962] _Ob._, 30 Aug., 1781.--Gentleman's Magazine, Vol. 51, p. 443.

[963] _Ob._, 10 Jan., 1784.--Gentleman's Magazine, Vol. 54, pt. i, p.
73.

[964] Accepted the Stewardship of the Manor of East Hendred, co. Berks.
Appointed Commissary General of Forces in March, 1793.--Journal 73, fo.
273b.

[965] _Ob._, 20 Feb., 1795.--Gentleman's Magazine, Vol. 65, pt. i, p.
175.

[966] Accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.

[967] _Ob._, 6 Feb., 1833.--Gentleman's Magazine, Vol. 103, pt. i, p.
179.

[968] Accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.

[969] _Ob._, 25 Sept., 1843.--Gentleman's Magazine, Vol. 20, N.S., p.
541.

[970] Accepted the Stewardship of the Manor of Northstead, co. York.

[971] _Ob._, 17 May, 1863.--Gentleman's Magazine, Vol. 59, N.S., p. 810.

[972] Elected 27 July, 1887.

[973] Elected 18 April, 1891.

[974] Elected 3 June, 1891.



INDEX.


  Abbey of Graces, or New Abbey, suppressed, i, 398.

  Abercromby, Sir Ralph, captures the Dutch Fleet, iii, 239;
    his death, 248.

  "Abhorrers," party name of, ii, 460.

  Abingdon, occupied by Essex, ii, 205.

  Abney, Thomas, sheriff, knighted, ii, 574;
    M.P. for the City, 609;
    unsuccessfully contests the City, 613.

  Abyndone, Stephen de, M.P. for the City, i, 178.

  Acatour, Joce le, M.P. for the City, i, 118.

  Acre, the seige of, raised by Sir Sidney Smith, iii, 238.

  Acton, Sir William, elected mayor and discharged by Parliament, ii, 130;
    imprisoned in Crosby House, 173.

  Adams, Thomas, his conduct as mayor approved, ii, 235;
    sent to the Tower, 266;
    impeached, 273;
    deprived of his aldermanry, 308;
    restored, 383.

  Addington, succeeds the younger Pitt, iii, 248;
    proposes a renewal of the income tax, 252;
    resigns and is succeeded by Pitt, 254;
    proposed vote of thanks of Common Council to, 255-256;
    joins Pitt's ministry and is created Viscount Sidmouth, 259;
    withdraws from the ministry, 260.

  "Addled" Parliament, the, ii, 61.

  Adrian, John, elected mayor, i, 104.

  Agincourt, battle of, i, 259.

  Aislabie, Chancellor of the Exchequer, convicted of bribery, iii, 21;
    expelled from Parliament, 22.

  Aix la Chapelle, treaty of, iii, 56.

  Aldermen, assessed as barons, i, 217;
    elected for life, 243;
    created justices by James I, ii, 58;
    removal of several, 308;
    restored, 383;
    several removed and others appointed by Charles II, 396;
    appointed by James II, 504;
    to be in future nominated by the court of, 519;
    fined for non-attendance at swearing-in of lord mayor, 573;
    disputed elections of, 640-645; iii, 146-149.

  ---- Court of, first mention of, i, 72;
    its claim to veto proceedings of Common Council, ii, 304-305,
      448-451, 454;
    matters of difference with the Common Council, 334, 448, 556;
    standing counsel appointed for, 454;
    reformed by James II, 519, 520;
    thanks the king for Declaration of Indulgence, 520;
    Jeffreys attends, with restitution of City's liberties, 530;
    charged with obstructing the City's business, 643;
    its claim to veto proceeding of Common Council confirmed by
      statute, iii, 27, 29;
    resolution of, in favour of short parliaments, 135.

  Alexandria, battle of, iii, 248.

  Aleyne, Thomas, elected mayor, ii, 356;
    knighted by Charles II, 380;
    the citizens take the oath of allegiance at the house of, 381.

  Alfred the Great, "restores" London, i, 12.

  Aliens, taxation of, i, 280, 319.

    Allen, Francis, M.P., reports to the House proceedings of the
      Common Council, ii, 229;
    elected alderman, 230.

  ---- Sir John, mayor, particulars of, i, 394n.

  ---- Sir William, mayor, i, 517.

  Alphage, Archbishop of Canterbury, murder of, i, 18;
    interred in St. Paul's, 19;
    removed to Canterbury, _id._

  Althorp, Lord, the freedom of the City conferred on, iii, 339, 344.

  Alva, Duke of, seizes English merchants in Antwerp, i, 508;
    his envoy in the City, 511.

  Amadas, Robert, goldsmith, discharged alderman, i, 371.

  Amcotes, Sir Henry, mayor, i, 431.

  America, commencement of war with, iii, 142;
    war opposed by Chatham and the City, 149;
    the Massachusetts Bill, 150;
    New York appeals to London, 154;
    City address to the king for cessation of hostilities with, 157;
    the king's reply, 158;
    motion to send a reply to the appeal from New York negatived, _id._;
    Philadelphia appeals to the City, _id._;
    address of livery to electors against war with, 158-160;
    declaration of independence of, 166;
    subscriptions in aid of war with, refused in the City, 167;
    alliance with France, 168;
    the independence of, recognised, 202-203.

    Amherst, Lord, adjutant-general, his order for the military to fire
      without waiting for directions from civil magistrate, iii, 184;
    objections raised by the City, 187, 188.

  Amicable Loan, the, i, 374-376.

  Amiens, the "Mise" of, i, 95;
    peace of, iii, 249.

  Andrews, Thomas, mayor, placed on commission for trial of Charles
      the First, ii, 301;
    Commonwealth proclaimed by, 311;
    proposal to confer knighthood on, 312.

  Anne, Queen of Richard II, her assistance invoked by citizens for a
      her death, 243, 244.

  ---- Queen of Richard III, coronation of, i, 323.

  ---- Queen, accession of, ii, 610;
    City addresses to, 610, 616, 623, 626, 629, 630, 635, 647, 649;
    her picture at the Guildhall and her statue at the Royal Exchange, 611;
    coronation of, _id._;
    her Tory proclivities, 612;
    attends the lord mayor's banquet, 613;
    at St. Paul's, 614, 616, 621, 624, 647;
    attends the trial of Dr. Sacheverell, 634;
    dismisses the Whigs, 636;
    her indisposition, 648;
    her death, 650.

  ---- Boleyn, her marriage with Henry VIII, i, 388;
    the City's welcome to, 388, 389;
    her coronation, 389;
    her execution, 395.

  ---- of Brittany, assisted by Henry VII against the king of France,
      i, 329, 330.

  ---- of Cleves, her passage through the City, i, 397.

  Ansgar, sheriff of Middlesex, i, 32.

  Antoninus Pius, his itinerary, i, 5.

  Antwerp, decline of, i, 505;
    English merchants seized in, 508;
    fall of, 530, 531.

  Archers, Archery, the effectiveness of the long-bow, i, 190, 192, 197;
    archery practised in Finsbury Fields, 190;
    archers furnished by the City against France, 190, 204;
    the City's gates to be guarded by, 220;
    a detachment sent by the City to put down the Pilgrimage of Grace, 304;
    mounted archers for defence of Calais, 480.

  Armada, the, preparations in the City to meet, i, 534;
    ships set forth by the City, 536n.;
    sighted off the Lizard, 537;
    the fate of, 537-541.

  Argyle, Earl of, defeats the Earl of Mar at Sheriffmuir, iii, 8.

  Armagnac, Count of, constable of France, i, 262.

  Arms, assize of, i, 120.

  Army, the, a tax imposed by Parliament for maintenance of, ii, 176;
    objection to tax, 181;
    petition for reforms in, 199;
    rendezvous at Aylesbury, 200, 201;
    establishment of a standing, 208;
    the New Model, 214;
    City petition for disbandment of, 239, 240, 242;
    its relation to Independents and Presbyterians, 222, 240;
    correspondence between the City and, 243, 245, 247, 248, 249, 251,
      the Declaration of, 246;
    City Commissioners appointed to remain with, 248;
    moves to Uxbridge, 249;
    new Commissioners sent to, 257;
    another Declaration of, 258;
    the City surrenders to, 259;
    enters London, 260;
    demands money from the City, 263;
    further correspondence with the City, 268, 269;
    ill-feeling between the City and, 275;
    another Declaration of, 293;
    returns to London, 294;
    pay demanded for, 296, 297;
    a mutiny in, 310;
    free quarters to be found in the City unless money be found for,
      314, 315;
    the City consents to furnish a contingent of cavalry, 332;
    Parliamentary vote for disbandment of, 456;
    encamped at Hounslow, 518;
    disaffection in the camp, 528;
    Pitt's army of reserve, iii, 252;
    his Additional Force Bill, 257.

  Army Plot, the, ii, 139.

  Arthur, son of Henry VII, marries Catherine of Aragon, i, 335, 336.

  Arundel, Edmund, Earl of, i, 158.

  ---- Henry, Earl of, i, 456.

  ---- Richard, Earl of, i, 234, 235;
    arrested, 244.

  ---- Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, his opposition to the
      Lollards, i, 255.

  ---- Sir Thomas, i, 411.

  Ascue, or Ascough, Anne, trial and execution of, i, 415.

  Ashurst, Sir William, stands for the City, ii, 553;
    elected sheriff, 565;
    elected mayor, 573;
    his unpopularity, _id._;
    at the head of the commission for the Bank of England, 585;
    M.P. for the City, 598, 607, 609, 622n., 629;
    unsuccessfully contests the City, 613.

  Assandun, victory of the Danes at, i, 24.

  Association, the, the City called upon to raise troops for
      protection of, ii, 220;
    in defence of William the Third, 600.

  Aswy or Eswy, Stephen, taken prisoner, i, 122;
    M.P. for the City, 126.

  Athelstan, his Mansion House in the City, i, 16;
    his encouragement of commerce, _id._

  Atkin or Atkins, Thomas, M.P., committed to prison, ii, 123;
    released, 125;
    placed on commission for trial of the king, 301;
    proposal to confer knighthood on, 312;
    desired by City to make communication to Parliament, 369.

  Atkins, John, M.P. for the City, loses his seat, iii, 309.

  Atte Bowe, Alice, condemned to be burnt alive, i, 119.

  Atterbury, Francis, Bishop of Rochester, arrested for complicity in
      Jacobite plot, iii, 25.

  Audley, James, Lord, defeated at Blore Heath, i, 296.

  ---- John, Lord, i, 380.

  ---- Sir Thomas, the building and site of the priory of Holy
      Trinity bestowed on, i, 387;
    his death, 408.

  Austin Friars, i, 399, 400.

  Austrian Succession, war of the, iii, 49, 56.

  Aylesbury, rendezvous of Parliamentary forces at, ii, 200, 201.

  Aylmer, John, Bishop of London, advocates the appointment of
      special preachers in the City, i, 526, 527, 528n.

  ---- Lawrence, mayor, imprisoned, i, 338.

  Aylyff, Sir John, barber-surgeon, first alderman of Bridge Ward
      Without (1550), i, 443;
    particulars of, 443n.

  Ayres, Deputy, ii, 590.


  Babington, Anthony, his conspiracy against Elizabeth, i, 532.

  Backwell, Edward, alderman, assists the City with money, ii, 439;
   reduced to bankruptcy, owing to closing of the Exchequer, 445.

  Bacon, Sir Nicholas, i, 510.

  Badlesmere, Sir Bartholomew de, executed at Canterbury, i, 151.

  ---- Lady, insults the queen, i, 151.

  Bagnall, Sir Samuel, i, 559.

  Bailey, Sir William, mayor, i, 376.

  Baker, John, recorder, M.P. for the City, i, 381.

  Baldock, Chancellor, his house sacked, i, 158.

  Baliol, Edward, surrenders the crown of Scotland to Edward III, i, 197.

  Bamme, Adam, goldsmith, a candidate for the mayoralty, i, 239;
    mayor, 240;
    dies during his mayoralty, 244.

  Bankes, Sir Henry, stands for mayoralty, iii, 127, 132.

  Bank of England, the, foundation of, ii, 584-586;
    a run on, 603;
    makes an advance to William III, _id._;
    refuses to render assistance during South Sea troubles, iii, 19;
    "Black Friday" at, 52, 53;
    threatened by Gordon rioters, 184;
    negotiations for removal of the military guard of, 216-219;
    suspension of cash payments, 231;
    a regiment of volunteers formed by employés of, 252.

  Bannockburn, defeat of Scots at, i, 141.

  Barclay Conspiracy, the, ii, 599.

  Bardi, the, their banking house sacked, i, 158.

  "Barebone's" or the "little" parliament, ii, 346.

  Barentyn, Drew, first alderman of Farringdon Within, i, 243;
   mayor, takes horse to meet the Duke of Lancaster, 245.

  Barnard, Sir John, M.P. for the City, opposes passing of Election
      Act (II Geo., i. c. 18), iii, 28;
    opposes Walpole's Excise Bill, 36;
    re-elected M.P. for the City, 47;
    again elected, 56.

  Barnes, Sir George, mayor, signs "counterfeit will" of Edward VI, i, 453.

  Barnet, battle of, i, 314.

  Barons, the, revolt of, i, 59;
    meeting of, at St. Paul's, 63, 72;
    at Bury St. Edmunds, 73;
    elect Robert Fitz-Walter as their leader, 74;
    admitted into London, 77;
    war between John and, 78;
    invite Louis the Dauphin over, 79;
    supported by London, 89;
    reject the Mise of Amiens, 95;
    in league with the citizens of London, _id._;
    refuse to go abroad with Edward I, 127;
    insist upon a confirmation of their charters, 128;
    elect ordainers, 133;
    admitted into the City, 136;
    the City's gates barred against, 138;
    Edward II comes to terms with, 141;
    in the City, 167.

  Barrington, Lord, burnt in effigy on Tower Hill, iii, 118.

  Barton, Elizabeth, executed, i, 390.

  ---- Henry, mayor, appointed commissioner for victualling the navy,
      i, 261.

  Basing-House, siege of, ii, 196.

  Basset, Philip, appointed chief justiciar, i, 91.

  ---- Robert, alderman, his gallant resistance to the Kentish
      rebels, i, 316.

  Bateman, Sir Anthony, mayor, the French Ambassador insulted at the
        banquet of, ii, 404.

  ---- Sir James, subscribes to loan to Prince Eugene, ii, 624.

  ---- Robert, ii, 25.

  Batencurt, Luke de, sheriff, goes to Paris to confer with King
      Edward I, i, 116.

  Bathurst, Lord, President of the Council, the City's correspondence
      with, touching the right of the citizens to arm themselves, iii,
      187-190.

  Baxter, Richard, trial of, ii, 510;
    his opposition to James II, 521.

  Baylis, Robert, his contest with Richard Brocas for aldermanry of
      Bread Street Ward, iii, 15-16.

  Baynard's Castle. Robert Fitz-Walter, owner of, i, 74.

  Beachcroft, Sir Robert, mayor, ii, 642.

  Beam, the Great, reconveyed by Henry VIII to the City, i, 387, 388.

  Beam, the Small, granted to Jacobina la Lumbard, i, 124;
    granted to a friend of Hugh le Despenser, 133, 141.

  Beaufort, Edmund. _See_ Somerset.

  ---- Henry, Bishop of Winchester, quarrels with Gloucester, i, 270;
    goes to France, 271, 273, 277;
    created a cardinal, 271;
    his goods seized, 277.

  Becket, Gilbert, Portreeve of London, i, 55;
    his tomb in St. Paul's Churchyard, 57.

  ---- Thomas, his birth, i, 55;
    made chancellor and archbishop, 56;
    his memory long cherished by the citizens, _id._;
    St. Thomas de Acon and S. Thomas's Hospital dedicated to, 57;
    his image over the gate of Mercers' Chapel, 125;
    windows relative to, altered at the Reformation, 425.

  Beckford, William, alderman, Pitt's letter to, iii, 67;
    causes Bute to be insulted at the Guildhall, 69;
    supports Wilkes in Parliament, 71, 72;
    supports Chatham's East India Bill, 79;
    re-elected mayor, 90;
    his magnificent entertainment, 98;
    his failure to "fix" Rockingham, 99;
    his famous speech, 102;
    the City's thanks to, 103;
    his last days, 105.

  Bedford, Edward, Earl of, arrested for treason, i, 562.

  ---- John, Duke of, question of his precedence at the Guildhall, i,
      257, 258;
    presides over parliament, 263;
    rivalry with the Duke of Gloucester, 268;
    appointed Protector during minority of Henry VII, 269;
    goes to France, 271;
    returns to defend himself before parliament, 278;
    sets an example of economy, _id._;
    death of, 279.

  Bekering, Thomas, engaged in the Trumpington Conspiracy, i, 248.

  Belknap, Robert, refuses the City's claims at coronation of Richard
      the Second, i, 213.

  Benevolence, a, opposed by the City, i, 411.

  Benfleet, South co., Essex, Danish fortification at, i, 13.

  Benn, Antony, recorder, ii, 67;
    knighted, 72.

  Berkeley, Lord Thomas, i, 380.

  Berlin Decree, the, iii, 267.

  Berry, Captain, the freedom of the City voted to, iii, 237.

  Berwick, captured by Bruce, i, 141;
    recovered by Edward III, 197.

  Bethell, Slingsby, sheriff, ii, 472, 473, 475;
    fined for creating a disturbance in Common Hall, 493;
    returns to England, 548.

  ---- Slingsby, elected M.P. for the City, iii, 56.

  Bethlehem Hospital, conveyed to the City, i, 451.

  Betoyne, Richard de, connives at Mortimer's escape from the Tower, i,
      154;
    elected mayor, 159;
    appointed warden of the Tower, _id._;
    accompanies City members to Parliament at Lincoln, 162;
    M.P. for the City, 163, 174;
    mayor of the Staple, disagrees with his colleagues at York, 174-176;
    his conduct approved, 177.

  Bide, John, alderman and sheriff, ii, 269.

  Bigod, Hugh, justiciar of the City, i, 89, 90.

  ---- Roger, his altercation with the king, i, 127.

  Billers, Sir William, mayor, his unpopularity, iii, 38.

  Billingsgate, the City's right to tolls at, i, 308.

  Billingsley, Sir Henry, the daughter of Sir John Spencer committed to
      the charge of, i, 553;
    elected M.P. for the City, ii, 8.

  Bill of Rights, ii, 553.

  Bill of Rights Society, iii, 124.

  Birch, Samuel, his inscription on statue of George III, iii, 281;
    his proposed visit to Paris to present swords of honour to Blucher
      and others after Waterloo, 290.

  Bishops, the seven, sent to the Tower, ii, 526;
    trial and acquittal of, 527.

  Black Death. _See_ Plague.

  Black Friars, Parliament meet in house of the, i, 133, 370;
    the legatine court at the house of the, 379, 380;
    their house suppressed, 398.

  Blackfriars Bridge, formerly known as "Pitt Bridge," iii, 65.

  "Black Friday," iii, 52.

  Blackwell, William, town clerk, i, 473.

  Blake, admiral, his victory over the Dutch, ii, 344.

  Blenheim, battle of, ii, 616.

  Blois, Henry de, Bishop of Winchester, acts as intermediary between
      Stephen and the Empress Matilda, i, 47;
    his speech before the Synod at Winchester, 48.

  Blore Heath, defeat of Lord Audley by the Earl of Salisbury at, i,
      295, 296.

  Blound, John le, mayor, knighted, i, 130.

  Bludworth, Sir Thomas, nominated alderman by Charles II, ii, 396;
    his conduct at the Fire of London, 415, 418;
    elected sheriff, 470.

  Boleyn, Thomas. _See_ Rochford.

  Bolingbroke, Henry St. John, afterwards Viscount, forms a Tory
      Ministry, ii, 638;
    takes refuge in France to avoid impeachment, iii, 5;
    assists the Pretender, 6.

  Bolton, Peter, iii, 13.

  ---- Sir William, elected mayor, ii, 425;
    Courts of Aldermen held at his house, 429;
    proposal to appoint him surveyor-general for the rebuilding of the
      city, 432;
    convicted of embezzlement, 432n.

  Bond, Sir George, mayor, summons the citizens to church at the
      approach of the Armada, i, 538.

  ---- Martin, his monument, in St. Helen's, Bishopsgate, i, 545.

  ---- William, alderman, owner of Crosby House, i, 512.

  Bonner, Edmund, Bishop of London, deprived of his see, i, 438, 439;
    his sentence confirmed, 440;
    his bishopric conferred on Ridley, _id._;
    re-instated, 458.

  "Book of Sports," the, burnt in Cheapside, ii, 187.

  Boroughbridge, battle of, i, 152.

  Bosworth, battle of, i, 326.

  Boulogne, captured by Henry VIII, i, 409-411;
    threatened by the French king, 414;
    surrendered by Warwick, 445;
    threatened by Spain, 556.

  Bourne, Doctor, his sermon at Paul's Cross, i, 458.

  Bowes, Sir Martin, mayor, improves the City's water supply, i, 416;
    member of Hospital Committee, 417;
    accompanies remains of Henry VIII to Windsor, 419.

  Box, Henry, grocer, his school at Witney, co. Oxon, i, 353.

  ---- Ralph, a candidate for the shrievalty, ii, 473, 480;
    elected, 483;
    discharged, 486;
    knighted, 548.

  Boy-Bishop, the, ceremony in connection with, discontinued in the
      City, i, 421.

  Bradley, Matthew, ii, 138.

  Bradshaw, John, heads the commission for trial of Charles the First,
      ii, 301;
    his letter to the City, touching its Irish estates, ii, 326.

  Breda, the Declaration of, ii, 377;
    treaty of, 437.

  Brembre, Nicholas, carries a letter from the City to the king, i, 206;
    appointed mayor by the king, 211;
    promulgates charter forbidding foreigners to traffic by retail, 214;
    opposes the Duke of Lancaster, 215;
    arraigned and fined, 216;
    subscribes to fund for winning back the nobility to the City, _id._;
    knighted, 220;
    re-elected mayor, 224, 227, 228;
    confers with the king, 231;
  his complicity in the king's attempt upon the life of the Duke of
      Gloucester, 233;
    charged with treason, 234;
    his flight and capture, 235;
    his trial, 236;
    executed, 237.

  Brentford, co. Middlesex, Charles I in possession of, ii, 175;
    withdraws from, 176;
    John Horne (Tooke), vicar of, iii, 87.

  Bretigny, peace of, i, 199.

  Breton, John le, warden of the City, i, 122, 128;
    assists in furnishing ships, 126.

  Brice, Hugh, mayor, coronation cup of Richard III, in custody of, i, 323;
    re-elected mayor, 327.

  Bridewell, Parliament sits at, i, 381;
    converted into a workhouse, 451.

  Bridge House Estate, the, return of rental of, i, 252.

  Bridge Ward Without. _See_ Southwark.

  Bridgen, Edward, iii, 13.

  ---- William, mayor, fails to assist the sheriffs in burning No. 45
      of the _North Briton_, iii, 76;
    Wilkes proposes to use him as a stalking-horse, 126.

  Broad, John, goldsmith, ii, 32.

  Broad-bottomed administration, the, iii, 57.

  Brocas, Richard, his contest with Robert Baylis for aldermanry of
      Bread Street Ward, iii, 15-16.

  Broke, captain of the "Shannon," presented with the freedom of the
      City, iii, 287.

  Bromfield, Sir Edward, ii, 125.

  Brooke, Sir Basil, his plot for winning the City for the king, ii, 197.

  Broom, coroner, arrests the mayor, ii, 501;
    is suspended, 502;
    re-instated, 549.

  Brougham, his motion for Parliamentary reform, iii, 329.

  Brown, John, elected alderman and discharged, i, 379.

  Browne, Major-General Sir Richard, ii, 206, 207, 216;
    arrested, 295;
    deprived of his aldermanry, 319;
    restored, 383;
    elected mayor, 384;
    appointed major-general of the City's forces, 385.

  Bruce, Robert, captures Berwick, i, 141.

  Bruges, recovery of, by the English army, ii, 629.

  Brugge, Sir John, mayor, i, 367.

  Bryan, William, engaged in the Trumpington Conspiracy, i, 248.

  Buckingham, Edward, Duke of, his manor of The Rose in the parish of
      St. Laurence Pountney, the late site of Merchant Taylors' School, i,
      366;
    his trial at the Guildhall and execution, 366-367.

  ---- George, Duke of, his unpopularity in the City, ii, 100, 105;
    his expedition to Rhé, 103;
    assassination of, 108.

  ---- Henry, Duke of, his harangue at the Guildhall in favour of
      Gloucester, i, 321;
    rebellion and execution of, 324.

  ---- Owen, sheriff, knighted, ii, 598;
    as mayor, entertains the Duke of Marlborough, 617;
    late alderman of Bishopsgate Ward, 644.

  ---- _See_ Gloucester, Thomas, Duke of.

  Bucklersbury, a mass-house in, sacked ii, 533.

  Bull, Frederick, alderman, elected sheriff, iii, 121;
    elected mayor and M.P. for the City, 141;
    seconds motion that Lord Gordon's petition do lie on the table of
      the House, 179;
    charged by Wilkes with having connived at Gordon riots, 190;
    again returned M.P. for the City, 192;
    his letter to the livery, 193.

  Bulmer, his waterworks at Broken Wharf, ii, 19.

  Bunce, James, alderman, committed to the Tower, ii, 266;
    impeached, 273;
    deprived of his aldermanry, 308;
    restored, 383.

  Bunyan, John, his opposition to James II, ii, 521.

  Burdett, Sir Francis, committed to the Tower, iii, 276;
    his committal followed by riots, 277;
    vote of thanks of the livery to, _id._

  Burgh, Hubert de, defeats French fleet off Dover, i, 81;
    causes Fitz-Athulf to be hanged, 82;
    in disgrace, 84.

  Burgundy, Charles, Duke of, marries Margaret, sister of Edward IV, i.
      309.

  ---- John, Duke of, murder of, i, 265.

  ---- Philip, Duke of, comes to terms with Henry V, i, 265;
    lays siege to Calais, 279, 280;
    commerce of London hindered by, 289.

  Burke, Edmund, thanked by the livery for policy towards American
      colonies, iii, 152;
    writes the inscription for Chatham's monument in the Guildhall, 171;
    his Economical Reform Bill, 175, 176.

  Burnell, Anne, i, 552.

  Burnet, Bishop, his opinion on the parliamentary elections of 1710,
      ii, 637, 638.

  Burrard, Sir Harry, iii, 269.

  Burton, Henry, enters London with Prynne, ii, 134.

  Bury, Adam de, alderman, deposed, i, 205.

  Bute, Marquis of, appointed Secretary of State, iii, 67;
    insulted at Lord Mayor's banquet, 69;
    forced to declare war against Spain, 70, 72;
    resigns, 73.

  "Bye" or "Surprise" Plot, the, ii, 7.

  Byng, Admiral, his victory off Cape Passaro, iii, 40;
    outcry against, for loss of Minorca, 59, 60;
    tried and shot, 61.

  Byron, Sir John, holds the Tower for Charles I, ii, 162.


  Cade, Jack, rebellion of, i, 282-285.

  Cadiz, capture of, i, 555;
    expedition to, ii, 94.

  Caen, capture of, by Edward III, i, 191;
    by Henry V, 262;
    the citizens to send provisions to, free of duty, 263.

  Cæsar, Sir Julius, Chancellor of Exchequer, ii, 22.

  Calais, taken by King Edward III, i, 193;
    abortive attempt by the French to re-capture, 195;
    besieged by the Duke of Burgundy, 279;
    appeals to London for assistance, _id._;
    City forces sent to raise siege of, 280;
    the Duke of Gloucester appointed captain of, _id._;
    the Duke of Somerset captain of, 287;
    the City again called upon to assist, 289;
    the loss of, 480;
    falls into the hands of Spain, 556.

  Caleys, John of, enlists volunteers in the City, for France, i, 412.

  Calthorp, Sir Martin, his charity to disbanded soldiers, i, 547.

  Calvert, William, sheriff, knighted, iii, 50;
    M.P. for the City, _id._;
    re-elected, 56.

  Campden, Edward, Viscount, attends the Common Council, ii, 128.

  Campeggio, Cardinal, his reception in the City, i, 362-364;
    presides over Legatine Court at the Blackfriars, in the matter of
      the divorce of Catherine of Aragon, 380.

  Campion, the Jesuit, arrives in England, i, 525;
    execution of, 528.

  Candler, Richard, his insurance business, i, 500.

  Canning, the City's satisfaction at his accepting office, iii, 326.

  Cantelowe, William, alderman, committed to prison, for complicity in
      an attack upon the Lombards, i, 292;
   particulars of, 292n.

  Canterbury, Archbishop of, question of his precedency at the
      Guildhall, i, 257, 258.
    _See also_ Alphage;
    Arundel; Chichele;
    Cranmer;
    Sudbury.

  Cape Breton, capture of, iii, 56.

  Capel, Sir William, alderman, fined, i, 338;
    M.P. for the City, 345n.

  Cardmaker, _alias_ Taylor, John, burnt, i, 474.

  Cardonel, Philip de, his scheme for raising money, ii, 447.

  Caroline, Queen, wife of George IV, City addresses to, iii, 316, 317;
    her trial, 317;
    holds Court at Brandenburgh House, 318;
    presents her portrait to the City, 319;
    attends service at St. Paul's, _id._;
    her death, 321;
    disgraceful scene at her funeral, 322.

  Carpenter, John, town clerk, founder of the City of London School, i,
      349, 350;
    picture of the Dance of Death in cloister of Pardon churchyard,
      painted at his expense, 427.

  ---- Dr. John, master of St. Antony's School, i, 349.

  Carter, Robert, i, 385.

  Carteret, George, afterwards Viscount Carteret and Earl Granville,
      iii, 48, 49;
    his want of patriotism, 52.

  Casimir, Count, entertained by Sir Thomas Gresham, i, 520;
    the City's gift to, 521.

  Cass, John, M.P. for the City, ii, 638.

  Castro, Bartholomew de, builds the refectory of the Grey Friars, i, 402.

  Caswall, Sir George, expelled from Parliament and committed to the
      Tower, iii, 20, 21.

  Cater, William, ii, 71.

  Catesby, Robert, plans the Gunpowder Plot, ii, 13.

  Catherine of Aragon, preparations for her reception in the City, i, 335;
    her marriage with Prince Arthur, 336;
    her marriage with Henry viii, 344;
    City gift to, at coronation, _id._;
    rejoicings at the news of her pregnancy, 354;
    proceedings at the Blackfriars relative to her divorce, 379, 380.

  Catherine, of Braganza, City gift to, ii, 399.

  ---- Parr, queen of Henry viii, appointed regent, i, 409.

  Catholic emancipation, at one time opposed, afterwards favoured by
      the City, iii, 326.

  Caustone, John de, M.P. for the City, i, 178.

  Cecil, Sir Robert, his house at Theobalds, ii, 2.

  ---- Sir William, Lord Burghley, i, 511, 514.

  Chalgrove Field, battle of, ii, 188.

  Chamberlain, Sir Leonard, appointed lieutenant of the Tower, i, 435.

  Chambers, Richard, alderman, disputes the king's right to levy ship
      money, ii, 115;
    deprived of his aldermanry for not attending proclamation of
      Commonwealth, 311, 312.

  Champion, Sir George, M.P., for Aylesbury, rejected for mayoralty for
      having upheld the Spanish Convention, iii, 42, 43, 45.

  Chantrey, Sir Francis, his statue of George the third in the Council
      Chamber, iii, 281.

  Chantries, suppression of, i, 414, 424.

  Chapman, Sir John, appointed mayor by James II, ii, 530;
    re-elected by the citizens, 533;
    seized with apoplexy whilst trying Jeffreys, 537;
    death of 546.

  Charles, Prince, afterwards King Charles I, joy of the citizens at
      his return from Spain without the Infanta, ii, 84;
    his marriage with Henrietta Maria, 86, 93;
    his claim to tonnage and poundage, 108;
    goes to Scotland, 111;
    demands ship money, _id._;
    his charter to the City, 118;
    City gift to, on return from Scotland, 121;
    attempts to force a loan from the City, 122;
    again goes to Scotland, 142;
    entertained in the City, 147;
    promises to restore the City's Irish Estate, 149;
    attempts to arrest the Five Members, 155;
    City's petition to, 158;
    his reply, 160;
    leaves London, 161;
    City's deputation to, at Oxford, 178-180;
    the Common Hall rejects his terms, 180;
    Parliamentary terms rejected by, 183;
    issues a commission of array to Gardiner, 187;
    besieges Gloucester, 193;
    retires to Oxford, 196;
    leaves Oxford, 206; re-enters Oxford, 212;
    betakes himself to Newark after defeat at Rowton Heath, 222;
    proposes to come to Westminster, 225;
    offers to compromise the religious question, 226;
    communicates with the City, 234;
    the City's reply, 235, 237;
    removed from Holmby House by Cornet Joyce, 242;
    his answer to propositions for peace, 257;
    negotiations for a personal treaty with, 282-285;
    Levellers' petition against negotiating with, 291;
    trial and execution of, 301;
    his statue removed from Royal Exchange, 330.

  Charles Prince, afterwards King Charles II, birth of, ii, 109;
    letter and declaration of, sent to the City, 289;
    further correspondence with the City, 340, 377;
    issues the declaration of Breda, 377;
    the City's answer, 378;
    City gift to, 379;
    the City sends commissioners to, _id._;
    proclaimed king, 380;
    enters London, _id._;
    Richmond Park restored to, 381;
    the citizens take the oath of allegiance, _id._;
    entertained by the City, 384;
    coronation of, 389-391;
    letter from, _re_ election of Common Council, 398;
    his charter to the City, 403;
    his reception on return from a progress, 404;
    his efforts to suppress the Fire, 416;
    declares war with the Dutch, 445;
    his illness, 459;
    prohibits "tumultuous petitions," 460;
    livery petition to, _id._;
    City petitions and addresses to, 461, 463, 465, 475, 498;
    reluctantly accepts an invitation to dinner on lord mayor's day, 474;
    issues writ of _Quo Warranto_ against the City, 476;
    tries to obtain a royalist Common Council, 494;
    death of, 505.

  Charles V of Spain, elected Emperor, i, 364;
    his visit to the City, 364, 365;
    enters into a league against France, 373.

  Charles, Prince of Castile, married by proxy to Mary, daughter of
      King Henry VII, i, 339.

  Charles Edward Stuart, Prince (the young Pretender), prepares to
      invade England, iii, 49;
    failure of expedition, 50;
    lands in Scotland, _id._;
    his march to Derby, 51, 52;
    withdraws from Derby, 54;
    defeated at Culloden, 55.

  Charleton, John de, opposes Betoyne at York, i, 175-177.

  Charlotte, Queen, wife of George III, her picture at the Guildhall,
      iii, 70.

  ---- Princess, daughter of George IV, her portrait presented to the
      City by Queen Caroline, iii, 319.

  Charter-house, the, suppressed, i, 390-393.

  Chastillon, Cardinal, entertained by Gresham, i, 504.

  Chatham Place, iii, 65.

  Chauncy, Maurice, his account of the proceedings against the
      Charter-house, i, 390-392.

  Cheapside, Queen Eleanor's cross in, i, 125;
    "Post of Reformation" set up in, 473;
    destruction of cross in, ii, 187.

  Cheriton, Waller's victory at, ii, 199.

  "Chesapeake" the, defeated by the "Shannon," iii, 286, 287.

  Cheshire, Royalist rising in, ii, 354.

  Chester, siege of, ii, 224.

  ---- Ranulph, Earl of, i, 84.

  Chetwyn, Philip, objects to Skippon being placed in command of City
      forces, ii, 276;
    charges Alderman Gibbs with lying, 292;
    committed to Warwick Castle, 319.

  Cheyne, William, recorder, i, 230.

  Chichele, Henry, Archbishop of Canterbury, i, 256.

  ---- Robert, mayor, ordered to make valuation of property in the
      City, i, 251;
    return of his own rental, 252.

  Chichester, Sir Arthur, ii, 33.

  Chigwell, Hamo de, elected mayor, i, 149, 150;
    deposed, 153;
    appointed tax collector, 162;
    re-elected mayor, 165;
    abused by a brother alderman, _id._;
    trial of, at Guildhall, 169.

  Child, Francis, alderman, knighted, ii, 552;
    elected sheriff, 555;
    M.P. for the City, 613;
    opposes passing of Election Act (II Geo. i, c. 18), iii, 28.

  ---- Sir Josiah, a director of the East India Company, ii, 575, 576;
    examined on the company's expenditure, 596;
    his security for a loan to the king, 603.

  Chimney Tax. _See_ Hearth Tax.

  Chinon, death of Henry II, at, i, 61.

  Chiverton, Richard, mayor, knighted by Cromwell, ii, 352.

  Christchurch, Newgate, soldiers quartered in, during Gordon riots,
      iii, 192.

  Christ's Hospital, founded by the City, i, 450.

  Cintra, Convention of, the City's indignation at the, iii, 269;
    enquiry demanded, 272-274.

  Cissor, Philip, or the tailor, M.P. for the City, i, 118.

  Clarence, George, Duke of, intrigues with Warwick, i, 310.

  ---- Thomas, Duke of, informs the citizens of the king's success
      abroad, i, 262.

  Clarendon, Henry, Earl of, recalled from Ireland, ii, 516.

  Clark, Edward, alderman, knighted, ii, 552;
    elected sheriff, 555.

  ---- Sir George, sent to Charles I at Oxford, ii, 180.

  Clarke, Sir Samuel, candidate for aldermanry of Langbourn Ward, ii, 642.

  ---- William, concerned in the Bye Plot, ii, 7.

  Clayton, Sir Robert, alderman, M.P. for the City, ii, 458, 464, 538,
      598, 607, 609, 622n.;
    mayor, 460;
    attends presentation of address to Charles II, 475;
    declines aldermanry at the restoration of City's charter, 531;
    unsuccessfully contests the City, 553, 606, 613;
    witnesses presentation of a bribe to the Speaker, 590;
    M.P. for Bletchingly, 613;
    his death, 622n.

  Clements, Jaques, assassinates the French king, i, 548.

  Clerkenwell Prison, inmates of, set free by Gordon rioters, iii, 183.

  Cleve, Goscelin de, i, 195.

  Cleveland, Thomas Wentworth, Earl of, brought prisoner to London, ii,
      342.

  Cleydon, John, executed for Lollardry, i, 256.

  Clifford, Thomas, Lord, recommends Charles II to close the Exchequer,
      ii, 444.

  Clinton, Edward, Lord, i, 491.

  Closterman, his picture of Queen Anne, ii, 611.

  Clothworkers of London, Dutch envoys to Elizabeth entertained by, i, 530;
    committee for fitting out ships against the Armada sit at the Hall
      of, 536;
    James I, a member of company of, ii, 12;
    the company's subscription to bounties for soldiers, iii, 64.

  Clough, Richard, Gresham's agent in Antwerp, i, 496, 511.

  Cnut, elected king by the Danish fleet, i, 20;
    takes refuge in Denmark, 21;
    returns, 22;
    attacks London, 23;
    his victory at Assandun, 24;
    agrees with Edmund for a division of the kingdom, _id._;
    elected king of all England, 25.

  Coal, an import laid on, for assisting to rebuild the City after the
      Great Fire, ii, 430-434;
    abolition of coal and wine dues, iii, 349, 350.

  Cobham, Edward, Lord, marches to London with Richard, Duke of
      Gloucester, i, 287.

  ---- Eleanor, i, 271;
    tried as a witch, 281.

  Cobold, Thomas, engaged in the Trumpington Conspiracy, i, 248.

  Cockaine, Sir William, alderman, ii, 26, 68;
    governor of the Irish Society, 38, 42;
    entertains King James, 69.

  Coleman, Edward, executed, ii, 458.

  Colet, Henry, alderman, i, 348.

  ---- John, Dean of St. Paul's, i, 348;
    founder of St. Paul's, school, 350-352.

  College, Stephen, the "Protestant joiner," trial of, ii, 467, 468.

  Collett, James, sheriff, knighted, ii, 606.

  Collier, Richard, mercer, his school at Horsham, i, 353.

  Combe, Harvey, his conduct during bread riots, iii, 241-245.

  Committee of Both Kingdoms, formation of, ii, 199;
    draws up proposals for peace, 201;
    re-appointed, 203, 204.

  Committee of Correspondence, formed by the City, iii, 175, 178;
    dissolved, 193;
    a committee formed by the livery, 196;
    the use of the Guildhall allowed the committee, _id._

  Committee of Grievances, report of, 541-543.

  Committee of Safety at the Guildhall, ii, 244.

  Committees of Association, formation of, iii, 175, 176;
    Lord Shelburne and the Wiltshire Committee, 177;
    the City accepts form of Association, 178;
    the use of the Guildhall refused to, 193.

  Common Council, elected by the guilds, i, 206;
    the old system reverted to, 207;
    held in the Church of St. Stephen, Walbrook, 312;
    a loan extorted from, ii, 129;
    supports Pym, 152;
    Charles I demands the Five Members from, 157;
    petition for peace laid before, 177;
    sends a deputation to the king, 178;
    makes proposals for reduction of Newcastle, 189;
    parliament entertained by, 198, 234;
    their objection to present petitions to parliament unless drawn up
      by themselves, 217;
    petition to parliament by, _id._;
    the Covenant taken by members of, 226;
    Scottish commissioners attend, 228;
    Fairfax invited to dinner by, 261;
    a personal treaty with Charles demanded by, 282;
    a purge administered to, 297;
    disorderly proceedings in, 298, 299;
    the claim of the Court of Aldermen to veto proceedings of, 304,
      448-451;
    proceedings of, regulated by Act of Parliament, 304;
    a further purge administered to, 306, 307;
    more matters of difference with the Court of Aldermen, 334,
      556-558, 643-645;
    dissolved by the Rump, 366;
    restored, 371;
    Charles II tampers with, 494;
    ceases to sit, 509, 519;
    resumes its sittings after restoration of City Charter, 532;
    opposes Election Bill (II Geo. i, c. 18), iii, 28;
    New York appeals to, 154;
    motion to send a reply to the appeal from New York negatived in, _id._;
    Philadelphia appeals to, _id._

  Common Hall, votes £100,000 for Parliament, ii, 167;
    rejects terms offered by Charles I, 180;
    an Act touching elections in, 329, 330;
    petitions Charles II for parliament to be allowed to sit, 460;
    elections in, 469;
    presents an address to Charles II, 475;
    resolution of, to stand by King William, 601;
    remonstrance on Luttrell being declared M.P. for Middlesex, iii,
      88, 89;
    resolutions reflecting on Lord Holland, 91;
    another remonstrance, 91-93;
    remonstrance objected to by certain livery companies, 93;
    the king hesitates to receive it as being "entirely new," 94-96;
    the king's reply, 97;
    the remonstrance condemned by Parliament, 98;
    another remonstrance (1771), calling upon the king to dissolve
      Parliament, 119;
    the livery not allowed to attend in a body, 120;
    another remonstrance (1773), in favour of short parliaments, 135;
    the king's reply, 137;
    opinion of Glynn, Recorder, as to rights of livery in Common Hall, 138;
    Plumbe's case determining jurisdiction of Court of Aldermen over
      livery, 138-139;
    counsels' opinion as to power of the livery in, 139-140;
    another remonstrance (1775), against policy towards America, 150-152;
    thanks of the livery to Chatham and Burke, 152;
    the king's reply to remonstrance, _id._;
    the king refuses to receive future addresses of the livery, on the
      throne, 153;
    resolution of the livery thereon, 155;
    vote of thanks to Lord Effingham for refusing to take part in the
      American war, _id._;
    a new remonstrance to the king against war with America, 156;
    remonstrance not presented, the king refusing to receive it on the
      throne, _id._;
    address of the livery to electors, against the war, 158-160;
    another remonstrance to be received on throne, 193-194;
    not presented, 195;
    a Committee of Correspondence formed by the livery, 196;
    the livery petition Parliament for a peace with France, 226;
    urges the king to dismiss his ministers, 232-233;
    address of the livery touching the Convention of Cintra, not
      received, 273-274;
    a vote of thanks to Sir Francis Burdett, 277;
    strong petition for Parliamentary reform, 278;
    petition dismissed, 280;
    another petition allowed to lie on the table, 281;
    address of livery to Prince Regent, not presented, 283-285;
    another address to the same for reformation of abuses, not
      presented, 296;
    judicial decision that the livery have no right to introduce
    matters for consideration in, other than those for which they are
      assembled, 311;
    address to William IV, not presented, 328-329;
    address to the king, praying him to create a sufficient number of
      peers to enable the Reform Bill to be passed, 341;
    the rights of the livery reserved in Reform Bill, 343-344.

  Commonwealth, the, establishment of, ii, 303, 311.

  Commune, a, granted to the Citizens of London i, 64.

  Companies, Livery, contribute to a gift of £500 to the king, 201;
    stand by Henry VI, against the Duke of York, 303;
    the Corporation deprived of the control of, 337;
    called upon by Wolsey to surrender their plate towards a loan, 368,
      369;
    precept to, for contingent to oppose Pilgrimage of Grace, 394;
    subscribe to loans to Queen Mary, 467, 482;
    loan of £100,000 to Parliament by, ii, 167;
    £50,000 raised by, 193;
    arbitrary treatment of, by the king, 505;
    refuse to obey mayor's precept, 616.
    _See also_ Ulster Plantation, Virginia Plantation, &c.

  Compton, Bishop of London, signs invitation to the Prince of Orange,
      ii, 529.

  ---- William, Lord, marries "Rich" Spencer's daughter, i, 553, 554.

  Concealed lands, commission to search for, i, 531;
    Statute (21, Jas. I, c. 2,) relative to, ii, 87.

  Conduit, Reginald de, leader of city forces against Scotland, i, 180.

  "Confirmatio Cartarum" the, i, 128.

  Conyers, Gerard, elected alderman, ii, 640, 641.

  Cook, Sir Thomas, alderman, governor of the East India Company, ii, 578;
    charged with mis-using the Company's money, 593-595;
    sent to the Tower, 594, 596;
    elected mayor and discharged, 597;
    contests Colchester, 599.

  Cooke, Osmond, City marshal, iii, 75.

  Cooke or Coke, Sir Thomas, alderman, committed to prison, i, 310;
    seeks restoration of his lands, seized by Lord Rivers, 312, 313.

  Cope, Sir John, defeated by the Young Pretender at Preston Pans, iii, 51.

  Copenhagen, battle of, iii, 249.

  Copland, Rev. Patrick, his sermon at Bow Church, ii, 55.

  Copley, Anthony, plots against James I., ii, 7.

  ---- John, his picture commemorating the relief of Gibraltar, iii, 202.

  Cordell, Sir John, alderman, imprisoned in Crosby House, ii, 173.

  Cordwainers of London, Wardmote held at Hall of, iii, 15.

  Cornewall, Sir George, M.P. for co. Hereford, iii, 198.

  Cornhill, Gervase de, sheriff of London, i, 45.

  ---- Henry de, sides with Longchamp, i, 62;
    joins the Barons, 77.

  Cornish, Henry, Alderman, sheriff, ii, 464, 472, 473, 475;
    assaulted by the military at Guildhall, 489;
    a candidate for the mayoralty, 490;
    fined for creating a disturbance in the Common Hall, 493;
    trial and execution of, 512-514;
    his attainder reversed, 548.

  Corn Law, introduction of the first, iii, 294-295.

  Cornwall, Edmund, Earl of, regent during the absence of King Edward
      the First, i, 123.

  Cornwallis, Lord, surrenders at Yorktown, iii, 193.

  Coronations, City's claim to service at, i, 69, 213, 275, 307, 323,
      389, 421, 485, ii, 389, 508, 540, 611;
    Coronation Cup of Richard III presented to the Commonalty, i, 323, 324;
    report of remembrancer as to manner of making City's claim at, iii, 32.

  Coronation Stone, removed by Edward I, from Scone to Westminster
      Abbey, i, 126;
    proposal to reconvey to Scone, 163.

  Corporation Act, the, passed, ii, 394;
    bill for repealing, 463;
    the mayor instructed to see its provisions enforced at coming
      election of Common Council, 494;
    Act for quieting corporations guilty of having neglected provisions
      of, iii, 11-12;
    attempt to obtain repeal of, 34, 35;
    repeal of, 326-327.

  Corporations, taken in hand by James II, ii, 508, 509, 518, 519;
    bill for restoring, 552.

  Cottington, Lord, attends the Common Council, ii, 126.

  Cotun, John de, alderman, his abuse of Chigwell, i, 165.

  Council of State, the, formation of, ii, 303.

  Courtenay, William, Bishop of London, insulted by John of Gaunt, i, 209.

  Covenant, the, taken by the Common Council, ii, 226.

  Coventry, Sir William, ii, 409.

  Cradock, Matthew, M.P. for the City, his speech in the house against
      Strafford, ii, 132;
    advocates the restoration of the City's Irish estate, 133.

  Craggs, Secretary of State, expresses regret at insult offered to
      alderman Ward, iii, 16;
    convicted of receiving bribes from directors of South Sea Company, 21;
    his death, _id._

  Cranmer, Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, conducts service at St.
      Paul's, i, 431;
    letter from the Lords of the Council to, 435;
    sent to the Tower, 458;
    trial of, at Guildhall, 460;
    burnt at Oxford, 474.

  Crayford, Britons defeated at, i, 7.

  Creçy, battle of, i, 192.

  Crepyn, Ralph, M.P. for the City, i, 118;
    his affair with Laurence Duket, 119.

  Croke, or Crooke, John, recorder, chosen Speaker, i, 564.

  Crombwelle, John de, Constable of the Tower, removed from office, i, 147.

  Crome, Dr. Edward, rector of St. Mary, Aldermary, recantation of, at
      Paul's Cross, i, 415.

  Cromwell, Oliver, re-appointed to command in the army after the
      Self-denying Ordinance, ii, 215;
    made Lieutenant-General, 318;
    opposed the army's approach to London, 252;
    goes to Wales, 277;
    success of, at Preston, 290;
    desires a loan of the Common Council, 310;
    City gift to, 313;
    success of, in Ireland, 326;
    welcomed on his return, 327;
    his victory at Dunbar, 328;
    his letter to the City, 331;
    his victory at Worcester, 341;
    returns to London, 342;
    summons a parliament, 346;
    nominated Protector, and entertained by the City, 347;
    declines the title of king, 349;
    nominates a House of Lords, 350;
    his death, 352.

  ---- Richard, proclaimed Protector, ii, 353.

  ---- Thomas, i, 381;
    his attitude toward the City, 386;
    appointed Vicar-General, 392;
    supervises the suppression of the monasteries, 397;
    institutes parish registers, 403;
    letters to, from Sir Richard Gresham, touching the erection of a
      Burse, 494.

  Crosby, Brass, elected mayor, iii, 106;
    carries up an address to the king, 107;
    upholds the freedom of the Press, _id._;
    orders the discharge of Miller, accepting his recognisance to
      prosecute the messenger of the House of Commons, 108, 109;
    defends his conduct before the House, 109-112, 115;
    committed to the Tower, 116;
    regains his liberty, 119;
    again stands for the mayoralty, 127;
    gift of plate to, 128.

  Crosby House, the palace of Richard III, i, 320;
    the agent of the Duke of Alva lodged in, 512;
    delinquents committed to custody in, ii, 173.

  Cross, Sir Robert, i, 562.

  Crossed or Crutched Friars, the Corporation of London regarded as
      their "second founders," i, 401.

  Crowmere, William, mayor, appointed commissioner to enquire into
      cases of treason, &c., in the City, i, 269.

  Culloden Moor, victory of the Duke of Cumberland at, iii, 55.

  Cullum, Thomas, sheriff, committed to the Tower, ii, 266.

  Cumberland, George, Earl of, i, 560.

  ---- William, Duke of, endeavours to intercept the young Pretender,
      iii, 52, 53;
    presented with the freedom of the City, 54, 55.

  Currency, the, debased, i, 445.

  Curtis, Sir William, alderman, engaged in suppressing bread riots,
      iii, 242;
    loses his seat for the City, 309;
    inveighs against the Common Council before Parliament, 323;
    his speech voted an unfounded calumny, 324.

  Customs of the City, charter of Edward III, granting right to vary,
      i, 188.

  Cut, Richard, put in the pillory for circulating evil rumours, i, 466.


  Dalrymple, Sir Hugh, iii, 269.

  Dalton, James, his speech in Common Council upon discovery of the
      Babington Conspiracy, i, 532.

  Dalyngrigge, Sir Edward, warden of the city, i, 242.

  Damer, Hon. Mrs., executes a bust of Nelson for the City, iii, 237;
    her offer to execute a monument in honour of Nelson, declined, 262.

  Danby, Thomas, Earl of, impeached, ii, 458;
    signs invitation to Prince of Orange, 529.
    _See also_ Leeds, Duke of.

  Danegelt, first payment of, i, 17;
    revival of, 27;
    the City exempt from, 41;
    revived under a new name, 69.

  Danelagh, the, i, 11.

  Danes, the, in London, i, 11;
    expelled, 11, 12;
    attack of, repelled by the citizens, 13;
    their re-appearance (896), _id._;
    their return (_temp._ Ethelred II), 16;
    massacre of, 17;
    defeated at London Bridge, 20;
    victory of, at Assandun, 24.

  Dangerfield, cruel punishment of, ii, 510.

  Daniel, Peter, Sheriff, ii, 509.

  Darc, Jeanne, the maid of Orleans, i, 272.

  Dartmouth, Lord, receives the seals, ii, 637;
    a City deputation to, 645, 646.

  Dashwood, Francis, elected mayor, ii, 613;
    knighted, 614.

  ---- Sir Samuel, M.P. for the City, ii, 509, 554;
    elected mayor, 613.

  D'Assoleville, Monsieur, agent of the Duke of Alva, lodged at Crosby
      House, i, 511, 512.

  Daubeny, Lady, her part in Waller's plot, ii, 188.

  Dauntsey, William, mercer, his school at West Lavington, i, 353.

  Deane, Admiral, killed in an engagement with the Dutch, ii, 345.

  Declaration of the Army, ii, 246, 248.

  Declaration of Indulgence, the, ii, 518;
    thanks to the king for, 520, 525;
    a second, published, 525;
    appointed to be read in churches, 526.

  Declaration of Rights, the, ii, 539.

  De donis, statute, i, 119.

  De Grasse, Admiral, defeated by Rodney in the West Indies, iii, 199-200.

  Dekker, Thomas, ii, 59.

  Delinquents, imprisoned in Crosby House, ii, 173;
    City petition for payment of debts out of estates of, 208.

  Delmé, Peter, elected alderman, ii, 642, 643.

  Demesne, towns held in, i, 2-4.

  Denmark, visit of king and queen of, i, 371;
    the king welcomed by the City, ii, 17.

  ---- George, Prince of, entertained at Guildhall, ii, 551;
    death of, 629.

  Derby, the young Pretender enters, and seizes money that had been
      subscribed to oppose him, iii, 52.

  Derby, _alias_ Wright, John, bowyer, convicted of perjury, i, 343.

  Derick, Antony, goldsmith, i, 507.

  De Ruyter, Admiral, defeated off Portland, ii, 344.

  Desmond, Earl of, rebellion of, i, 523.

  Despensers, the, father and son, i, 92, 133, 141, 148, 150, 153, 154.

  Devonshire, Thomas, Duke of, marches to London with Richard, Duke of
      York, i, 287.

  Digges, Alice, i, 552.

  Dixie, Sir Wolstan, skinner, his school at Market Bosworth, i, 353;
    appointed with Sir Thomas Pullison to prevent the price of
      provisions in the City being enhanced, 541.

  Dobbs, Sir Richard, his zeal in foundation of Christ's Hospital, i, 450;
    particulars of, 450n.;
    signs "counterfeit will" of Edward VI, 453.

  Dodd, Ralph, his picture of the entry of George IV into the City on
      his way to St. Paul's, iii, 216n.

  Dodmer, Ralph, his mayoralty banquet, i, 380.

  Dohna, Baron, sent by the elector Palatine to raise money in the
      City, ii, 74, 75, 84.

  Dolben, Sir William, recorder, his opinion on the question of the
      aldermanic veto, ii, 455.

  Donne, Dr., ii, 95.

  "Doomsday" Book, i, 37.

  Dorset, Thomas Grey, Marquis of, i, 380.

  Dover, treaty of, ii, 443.

  Drake, Sir Francis, his raiding expedition to Spain, i, 534;
    pursues the Armada, 541;
    again sets sail for Spain, 546.

  Drapers of London, contribute to a gift of £500 to the king, i, 201;
    subscribe towards furnishing soldiers for war with France, 347;
    Knights of the Bath entertained by, ii, 69;
    conference at their Hall between Monk and the aldermen, 369.

  Du Bois, John, proceedings relative to his election as sheriff, ii,
      480-487.

  Duckett, Lionel, mercer, sounds Gresham as to his intentions
      respecting the erection of a City Burse, i, 496.

  Dudley, Edmund, his extortionate conduct in the City, i, 337, 338;
    executed, 343.

  ---- Lord Guildford, i, 453;
    executed, 465.

  ---- Sir John, i, 412.

  Duket, Laurence, murder of, i, 119.

  Dunbar, thanksgiving in the City for victory at, ii, 328.

  Duncan, Admiral, defeats the Dutch fleet off Camperdown, iii, 233-234;
    a sword of honour voted to, 234.

  Duncombe, Charles, goldsmith, ii, 603;
    a candidate for the mayoralty, 608;
    particulars of, 608n.;
    seeks to represent the City in Parliament, 609;
    elected mayor, 630.

  Dundas, Henry, secretary, afterwards Lord Melville, urges the Lord
      Mayor to form military associations in the City, iii, 236;
    charged with peculation, but acquitted, 260.

  Dunkirk, sold to the French, ii, 403.

  Dunkley, Robert, ii, 640.

  Dunning, his motion for economical reform, iii, 176.

  Durham, Borough of, surrenders its charter to the bishop, i, 4.

  Dyos, "Mr." the Bishop of London's chaplain, his sermon at Paul's
      Cross, i, 527.


  East India Company, to lend its ordnance for defence of the City, ii,
      186;
    the rise of, 575-578;
    parliamentary examination of its accounts, 593;
    the old and the new companies united, 597;
    Fox's East India Bill, iii, 204-206;
    Pitt's East India Bill, 208.

  Ebrale, Thomas, killed by the military in Burdett riots, iii, 277.

  Economical Reform, the City urgent for, iii, 175;
    Committees of Association formed in favour of, _id._;
    Dunning's motion, 176.

  Edgar, King, his law, i, 10.

  Edgar the Atheling, his claim to the throne supported by London, i, 31.

  Edge-hill, battle of, ii, 174.

  Edmonds, Simon, elected mayor and refuses to serve, ii, 336.

  Edmund Ironside, chosen king in London, i, 23;
    divides the kingdom with Cnut, 24;
    his death, _id._

  Edward the Confessor, chosen king in London, i, 27;
    his death, 29.

  Edward, Prince, afterwards King Edward I, supports the Barons, i, 90;
    seizes treasure in the Temple, 94;
    committed to Dover Castle, 96;
    escapes, 98;
    crowned in London, 111;
    negotiates with the Countess of Flanders, 115-117;
    goes to Gascony, 123;
    his domestic troubles, 124;
    death of the Queen, 125;
    seizes treasure in monasteries, _id._;
    his altercation with Roger Bigod, 127;
    sets sail for Flanders, 128;
    his victory at Falkirk, 129;
    receives a gift of £2,000 from the City, 130;
    his death, 131.

  Edward II, his accession, i, 132;
    his foreign favourites, 132-133;
    marches against the Scots, 134;
    the City sends him 1,000 marks, _id._;
    the birth of a prince, 138;
    takes the City into his own hands, 146;
    issues "a charter of service," 151;
    the City lost to, 155, 156;
    his death, 159.

  Edward III, his birth, i, 138;
    the conduits run with wine in his honour, 139;
    his accession, 160;
    his charters to the City, 160, 180, 188, 196, 208;
    charges the citizens with having assisted in the revolt of
      Lancaster, 166;
    visits London, 167;
    sends copy of Lancaster's charges to be read at Guildhall, _id._;
    his marriage, 171;
    pays homage to the King of France, 178;
    goes to France, 182, 185;
    his unexpected return, 187;
    makes a truce with France, 189;
    renews the war, 190;
    sets sail for France, 191;
    his success in Normandy, 191-192;
    returns, 193;
    again goes to France, 199;
    his death, 211.

  Edward, Earl of March, afterwards Edward IV, enters the City with
      Richard, Duke of York, i, 290;
    attainted, 296; marches to London, 298, 299;
    admitted into the City, 305;
    his claim to the crown acknowledged by the citizens, 306;
    proclaimed king, _id._; accession of, 307;
    his charters to the City, 307-308; his marriage, 309;
    takes flight, 311;
    returns and is admitted into the City, 313;
    recovers the throne, 314;
    prepares to invade France, 317;
    grants a general pardon to the City, 318;
    entertains the citizens with a day's hunting, _id._;
    his death, 319.

  Edward V, birth of, i, 317;
    preparations for his coronation, 319; welcomed by the City, 320;
    lodged in the Tower, _id._; deposed, 322.

  Edward VI, birth of, i, 396;
    his accession and coronation, 418, 420-421;
    conducted by the citizens to Westminster, 431;
    removed by Somerset to Windsor, 435;
    dines with Sheriff York, 439;
    his charter to the City re Southwark, 442;
    incorporates the four City hospitals, 452;
    his death, 453;
    his will disposing of the crown, _id._

  Edwards, Sir James, ordered to attend every evening at Whitehall
      during last illness of Charles II, ii, 505.

  Edwin, Sir Humphrey, sheriff, ii, 530.

  Effingham, Earl of, refuses to serve in the army against the American
      colonies, iii, 155;
    his conduct compared with that of Lord George Sackville, 161.

  Eleanor, Queen, wife of Henry III, insult offered to, i, 94;
    presented with the custody of London Bridge, 101;
    her death, 125.

  Eldred, John, ii, 71.

  Eleven Members, the, the army's charge against, ii, 246;
    withdrawal of, 250;
    six members escape to the Continent, 262.

  Elizabeth of York, married to Henry VII, i, 328;
    her coronation, 329;
    account of the manner of receiving her corpse, 336.

  Elizabeth, Queen, birth of, i, 389;
    declared illegitimate, 396;
    re-instated in right of succession, 420;
    accession of, 484;
    coronation of, 485;
    her policy of moderation, 486;
    closes English ports to Flemish vessels, 492;
    opens the Royal Exchange, 499;
    refused a loan by the Merchant Adventurers, 506;
    seizes Spanish vessels, 508, 509;
    excommunicated, 516;
    her shifting policy towards Spain and France, 518;
    Dutch envoys to, 530;
    Babington's plot to murder, 532;
    visits the camp at Tilbury, 545;
    assists Henry IV of France, 548;
    her death, 566.

  ---- Princess, daughter of James I, married to the Elector Palatine,
      ii, 59.

  Elliot, General, afterwards Lord Heathfield, his gallant defence of
      Gibraltar, iii, 201.

  Elsing, William, mercer, founder of Elsing Spital, i, 386.

  Eltham, Sir John de, i, 170.

  Empson, Richard, his extortionate conduct in the city, i, 337, 338;
    executed, 343.

  Engagement, the, taken by Lilburne with reservation, ii, 319.
    _See also_ Treasonable Engagement.

  Ermin Street, i, 5.

  Essex, Robert Devereux, 2nd earl of, City present to, i, 548, 549;
    capture of Cadiz, 556;
    attempts to raise an insurrection in the City, 561-563.

  ---- Robert, 3rd Earl of, ii, 154, 91, 200, 202;
    takes command of parliamentary army, 172;
    applies to the City for a loan, _id._;
    takes Reading, 188;
    his jealousy of Waller, 191;
    relieves Gloucester, 194;
    withdraws to Reading, 196;
    leaves Reading, _id._;
    surrenders to the royalists, 210;
    resigns, 215.

  Essex, Earl of. _See_ Mandeville, Geoffrey de.

  Estfeld, William, mayor, performs customary service at the coronation
      of Henry VI, i, 275.

  Etaples or Estaples, treaty of, i, 330.

  Ethelred, alderman, made governor of London, i, 12-13.

  Ethelred the "Unready," his weak government, i, 16, 17;
    institutes the payment of Danegelt, 17;
    betakes himself to Normandy, 19;
    returns to London, 20;
    expels Cnut, 21;
    his death, 22;
    his laws for regulating foreign trade, _id._

  Eton, Hugh, punished for making a disturbance in church, i, 422.

  Eugene, Prince, obtains a loan from the citizens, ii, 624;
    visits London, 645.

  Everard, John, gives information of proposed attack on the City, ii, 275;
    City's petition to parliament thereon, 276.

  Evesham, battle of, i, 98.

  Evil May-day, i, 355-357.

  Ewen, John, mercer, his benefaction to the Grey Friars, i, 402.

  Exchequer, the, closed by Charles the Second, ii, 444.

  ---- Court of, removed to York, i, 162.

  Exclusion Bill, the, before the Commons, ii, 458;
    passed by the Commons, rejected by the Lords, 462.

  Exton, Nicholas, deprived of his aldermanry, i, 223;
    elected mayor, 228, 229;
    continued in office, 232;
    stands aloof from the king's attempt on the life of the Duke of
      Gloucester, 233;
    an attempt to get him removed from mayoralty, 239.

  Eyles, Sir John, mayor, ii, 530;
    summoned to attend proclamation of George II as king, iii, 31.

  Eyre, James, recorder, refuses to attend presentation of address to
      the king, iii, 101.


  Fabyan, Alderman, his chronicle, i, 313;
    placed in command of the city's gates, 332.

  Fairfax, Sir Thomas, ii, 214, 216, 219;
    Parliamentary army under, defeated in the north, 189;
    Leicester surrenders to, 220;
    defeats Hopton, 233;
    correspondence between the City and, 243, 245, 247, 248, 249, 251,
      255, 264, 265, 269;
    the City surrenders to, 259;
    entertained by the City, 261;
    appointed constable of the City, 262;
    endeavours to force a loan from the City, 264, 265, 268, 275;
    threatens to quarter troops on the City, 267;
    puts down rising in Kent, 280, 281;
    success of, at Colchester, 290;
    informs the City of his intention to enter London, 293;
    demands money from the City, 293, 296, 301;
    enters London, 294;
    seizes the treasury at Weaver's Hall, 295, 296;
    again entertained by the City, 312;
    gift of plate to, 313;
    superseded by Cromwell, 328.

  Falaise, John de, announces birth of Edward the Third, i, 138.

  Falconbridge, Thomas. _See_ Fauconberg.

  Falkirk, battle of, i, 129;
    General Hawley defeated at, iii, 55.

  Falkland, secretary, ii, 179.

  Farndon, Nicholas de, deposed from the mayoralty by the king, i, 146;
    placed in the mayoralty chair by the king _loco_ Chigwell, 153.

  Farringdon ward, divided, i, 243.

  Farringdon, co. Hants, fortifications at, captured by King Stephen,
      i, 53.

  Fauconberg, Thomas, rising in Kent under, i, 314;
    his letter to the City and answer, 314, 315;
    attempts to force London Bridge, 315, 316;
    beheaded, 316.

  Fawkes, Guy, _alias_ "John Johnson" joins Gunpowder Plot, ii, 13.

  Felton, John, i, 516.

  Fenton, John, Lieutenant-Colonel, ii, 339.

  Fenwick, Sir John, bill of attainder against, ii, 600.

  Ferdinand II, Emperor, loses the crown of Bohemia, ii, 74.

  Ferrar, Nicolas, skinner, his bequest to the college in Virginia, ii, 48.

  Fielding, Sir John, his house attacked by Gordon rioters, iii, 183.

  Fifth-monarchy men, outbreak in the City of, ii, 386-388, 396.

  Finch, Sir Heneage, recorder, chosen Speaker, ii, 97, 132.

  ---- Sir John, ii, 108.

  Finchley, the camp at, iii, 52, 53.

  Finsbury, Manor of, the City's lease of, i, 493.

  Firebrace, Sir Basil, charged with mis-using the money of the East
      India Company and committed to the Tower, ii, 593, 595-596;
    receives his liberty, 597;
    created a baronet, _id._

  Fire of London, the, ii, 414-425.
    _See also_ London.

  Fisher, John, Bishop of Rochester, committed to the Tower for denying
      the king's supremacy, i, 392;
    beheaded, 393.

  ---- Captain John, ii, 121.

  Fishmongers of London contribute to a gift of £500 to the king, i, 201;
    attempt to break up the monopoly of free fishmongers, 222, 224;
    subscribe towards furnishing soldiers for war with France, 347;
    subscribe to bounties for soldiers, iii, 64.

  Fitz-Athulf or Olaf, Constantine, hanged for treachery, i, 82.

  Fitz-Eylwin, Henry, first mayor of London, i, 66.

  Fitz-James, Richard, Bishop of London, dies of the plague, i, 366.

  Fitz-Otes, Hugh, Constable of the Tower, appointed warden of the
      City, i, 101, 103.

  Fitz-Reiner, Richard, sides with John, i, 62.

  Fitz-Thedmar, Arnald, compiler of _Liber de Antiquis_, i, 67;
    opposed to the Barons, _id._;
    deprived of his aldermanry, 90;
    opposed to popular policy of Fitz-Thomas in relation to City
      guilds, 93, 94;
    his prejudice against Walter Hervy, 107.

  Fitz-Thomas, Thomas, mayor, organization of guilds under, i, 93;
    refused admittance to the mayoralty, 95;
    swears fealty to the king, 97;
    accused of meditating a wholesale massacre of citizens, 99;
    summoned to Windsor, 100;
    his fate, 101, 103;
    results of his policy, 110.

  Fitz-Walter, Robert, Baron of Dunmow, elected leader of the Barons,
      i, 74;
    his duties as Castellain of London, 75;
    his feud with king John, 76, 77;
    fails to raise the siege of Rochester, 78;
    taken prisoner at Lincoln, 80;
    his death, 81.

  Fitz-William, Thomas, recorder, his speech at the Guildhall in favour
      of Richard, Duke of Gloucester, i, 322.

  ---- William, made sheriff by Henry VII, i, 338.

  Flanders, interruption of trade with, i, 113;
    Flemings expelled from England, 115;
    peace concluded with, 116;
    increase of trade with, 171;
    Flemish weavers invited to settle in England, 178;
    English ports closed to Flemish merchants by Elizabeth, 492;
    Flemish merchants seized in London, 510;
    forces under the Earl of Leicester sent to, 531.

  Flanders, Countess of, seizes English merchandise, i, 112;
    negotiates for peace, 115, 117.

  Fleet, Sir John, M.P. for the City, ii, 554, 598, 607, 613;
    mayor, 570;
    unsuccessfully contests the City, 609;
    his death, 642.

  Fleet Prison, the, fired by Gordon rioters, iii, 184.

  Fleetwood, Charles, Lieut.-Gen., confers with the City, ii, 357, 359;
    promises a free parliament, 360.

  Fletcher, Dr., remembrancer, sent as special messenger to James I, ii, 2.

  Flete, William de, i, 134.

  Flower, Charles, sheriff, iii, 242.

  Fogwell Pond, Smithfield, water supply taken from, ii, 20.

  Folkmote, i, 13.

  Foote, Sir Thomas, alderman, ii, 236;
    elected mayor, 316.

  Forced Loan, the, ii, 100, 102.

  Foreigners or strangers, in the country, i, 84;
    in the City, 475-476, 504, 532; iii, 297-299.

  Fowke or Foulke, John, alderman, ii, 197, 218;
    placed on commission for trial of Charles the First, 301;
    charges brought against when mayor, 337;
    sent Commissioner to meet Monk, 365;
    reports to Court of Aldermen Monk's intention of leaving the City, 370;
    M.P. for the City, 392.

  Fowlke, Christopher, sent to Guildford with food for the City's
      soldiers, i, 414.

  Fox, Charles, joins the Newcastle Ministry, iii, 57;
    leader of the House of Commons, 60;
    assaulted by a mob, 115;
    appointed Secretary of State under Rockingham, 197;
    Secretary of State under the Duke of Portland, 204;
    his East India Bill, _id._;
    joins the ministry of "all the talents," 265;
    his death, 266.

  Fox, Stephen, supports Luttrell's candidature for Middlesex, iii, 87.

  France, war with, _temp._ Edward III, i, 180, 190, 195, 197, 199,
      201, 204;
    the crown of, claimed by Henry V, 257;
    war with, _temp._ Henry V, 257, 258, 262;
    a truce with _temp._ Henry VI, 281;
    French descent on south coast, 293;
    war with, _temp._ Henry VIII, 345, 347;
    league against, 373;
    the king of, taken at Pavia, 374;
    peace concluded with, 377;
    renewal of the war with, 408, 409;
    peace with, proclaimed, 415;
    Mary declares war against, 477;
    the king of, defeated at St. Quentin, 479;
    recovery of Calais by, 480;
    Elizabeth's war with, 489;
    peace with, signed, 492;
    assassination of king of, 548;
    Charles I at war with, ii, 102;
    a cry for war against (1678), 455;
    William III at war with, 559, 568;
    peace made at Ryswick with, 603;
    war conducted by Marlborough against, 614, 616, 621, 629, 630;
    peace with, 647;
    declaration of war with (1744), iii, 49;
    alliance with America, 168;
    convention with, 212;
    outbreak of revolution, 220;
    war declared with, 221;
    negotiations for peace, 227;
    the French army encamped at Boulogne, 259.

  Franklin, Benjamin, Ambassador for the United States at Versailles,
      iii, 168.

  Fraunceys, Adam, mayor, i, 197;
    contributes to a loan to the king, 202.

  ---- John, first alderman of Farringdon without, i, 243.

  Fray, John, commissioner to enquire into cases of treason, &c. in the
      city, i, 269.

  Frederick, Prince of Wales, his marriage, iii, 39;
    presented with the Freedom of the City in the Saddlers' Company, 40.

  ---- Elector Palatine, marries Elizabeth, daughter of James I, ii, 59;
    the City's present to, 60;
    elected King of Bohemia, 74;
    the City of London renders assistance to, 75, 77, 89;
    driven out of Bohemia, 77;
    a Londoner punished for insulting, 83.

  Frederick, Sir John, mayor, ii, 397.

  Freeman, Ralph, ii, 72.

  Free Trade Bill, ii, 10.

  Frestlyng, Bartholomew, M.P. for the City, i, 202.

  "Frith-gild" of the City, i, 14-16.

  Frobisher, Sir Martin, pursues the Armada, i, 541;
    monument to, in St. Giles's, Cripplegate, 544.

  Frowyk, Henry, mayor, i, 279.

  Fryer, Sir John, mayor, iii, 16, 17.

  Fuller, Nicholas, M.P. for the City, ii, 8.

  Fulsham, Benedict de, M.P. for the City, i, 162;
    his contest for the mayoralty, 165.

  Furnese, Sir Henry, subscribes to loan to Prince Eugene, ii, 624.


  Galeys, Henry le. _See_ Waleys.

  Gardiner, Stephen, bishop of Winchester, liberated from the Tower by
      Queen Mary, i, 457;
    made chancellor, 458;
    severely reprimands the lord mayor, 466.

  ---- Sir Thomas, recorder, endeavours to obtain a City loan for
      Charles the First, ii, 124;
    his impeachment, 124, 169;
    the king wishes to make him Speaker, 132;
    welcomes the king to the City, 148;
    is knighted, 149;
    a commission of array addressed to, 188.

  Garnet, Henry, trial of, at Guildhall, ii, 15.

  Garrard, Sir John, withdraws from the Militia Committee, ii, 171.

  ---- Sir Samuel, mayor, favours Dr. Sacheverell, ii, 632;
    evades burning his sermon, 635.

  Garraway, William, i, 553.

  Garrett, Sir George, sheriff, entertains Charles I, ii, 157;
    sent to the King at Oxford, 180.

  Garway, or Garraway, Henry, mayor, ii, 122;
    speech of, at Common Hall, 181.

  Gate, Sir John, the king's bailiff in Southwark, i, 442.

  Gaunt, Elizabeth, burnt for being implicated in Rye House Plot, ii, 515.

  Gaveston, Piers de, asks a favour of the City for his friend, i, 133;
    banished, _id._;
    favoured by Edward II, 136;
    beheaded, 137.

  Gayer or Gayre, Sir John, imprisoned by Charles I, ii, 123;
    released, 125;
    withdraws from the Militia Committee, 171;
    committed to the Tower, 266;
    impeached, 273;
    the "Lion Sermon" instituted by, 274;
    deprived of his aldermanry, 308.

  Geffrey, Thomas, barber, i, 284.

  George I, accession of, iii, 1;
    welcomed by the City, 2;
    attends lord mayor's banquet, 3;
    his picture and statue, 9;
    goes to Hanover, 10;
    his quarrel with the Prince of Wales, _id._;
    his death, 30.

  George, Prince of Wales, afterwards King George II, his quarrel with
      his father, iii, 10;
    his accession, 31;
    his coronation, 32;
    attends lord mayor's banquet, 33;
    impudent demand of his cup-bearer, _id._;
    his portrait by Jervas, _id._

  George III, accession of, iii, 66;
    his statue at the Royal Exchange and his picture at the Guildhall, 70;
    his anxiety that Wilkes should be expelled the House, 82;
    indignant at the conduct of Crosby and Oliver, 109;
    his anxiety lest Wilkes should be elected mayor, 132;
    his letter to Lord North touching Lord Gordon, 183;
    his illness, and measures taken for a regency, 213;
    City address on his recovery, 214;
    thanksgiving service at St. Paul's for recovery of, 215;
    assault on, 226;
    celebration of his Jubilee, 271;
    becomes insane, 281;
    his statue in the Council Chamber, _id._

  George, Prince, afterwards King George IV, forwards to the City
      £1,000 for the poor, during his father's illness, iii, 214;
    appointed Regent, 282;
    declines the Freedom of the City, _id._;
    refuses to receive addresses from the livery seated on the throne,
      283-285, 296-297;
    entertained at the Guildhall after the Peace of Paris, 288;
    an outrage committed against, 306;
    his accession, 314;
    his coronation, 315.

  Gerard, or Garrard, William, sheriff, attends proclamation of Lady
      Jane Grey as Queen, i, 454.

  Gerrard, John, implicated in Gunpowder Plot, ii, 15.

  ---- Sir Thomas, i, 560.

  Ghent, recovery of, ii, 629.

  Gianibelli, Frederico, erects waterworks at Tyburn, ii, 19.

  Gibbon, Edward, grandfather of the historian, his estate
      sequestrated, iii, 22.

  Gibbs, Alderman, ii, 224, 292.

  Gibraltar, relief of, by Lord Howe, iii, 201;
    Copley's picture of siege of, 202.

  Gilbert, Sir Humphrey, i, 544.

  ---- Sir John, i, 562.

  Gill, William, mayor, receives George the Fourth on his visit to St.
      Paul's after illness, iii, 215.

  Ginkell, General, afterwards Earl of Athlone, ii, 563.

  Gisors, Anketin de, i, 146.

  ---- John de, M.P. for the City, i, 118;
    desired by Edward II to hold the City, 136;
    taken into custody, 146;
    affords an asylum to Mortimer, 154;
    appointed Warden of the Tower jointly with Betoyne, 159.

  Gloucester, siege of, ii, 193-195;
    letter from, touching the removal of Colonel Massey, 216, 217.

  ---- Gilbert, Earl of, defeats Montfort at Evesham, i, 98;
    takes possession of the City, 102;
    comes to terms with Henry III, 103.

  ---- Henry, Duke of, City gift to, at Restoration, ii, 379.

  ---- Humphrey, Duke of, question of his precedence at the Guildhall,
      i, 257, 258;
    vicegerent in England, 268;
    his position settled by Parliament, 269;
    quarrels with Beaufort, 270, 271, 277;
    loses the favour of the citizens, 271;
    appointed Captain of Calais, 280.

  ---- Robert, Earl of, exchanged prisoner for King Stephen, i, 52.

  ---- Thomas, Duke of, his house attacked, whilst Earl of Buckingham,
      i, 216;
    his persecution of Brembre, _id._;
    plot of Richard II, against, 232, 233;
    charges five of the king's counsellors with treason, 233, 234;
    arrested, 244.

  Glover, Richard _alias_ "Leonidas," opposes the Spanish Convention,
      iii, 42;
    his poem "Admiral Hosier's Ghost," 44, 45;
    presides over Committee of Livery, 45, 46;
    drafts petition to Parliament touching insufficiency of convoys, 47.

  Glyn, John, recorder, ii, 200, 260, 291;
    one of the Eleven Members, 246;
    expelled the House and committed to the Tower, 263;
    forced resignation of, 315;
    member of Cromwell's House of Peers, 350;
    accident to, 391.

  Glynn, John, recorder, moves that Wilkes be heard at the Bar of the
      House of Commons, iii, 137;
    his _dictum_ as to the rights of the Livery in Common Hall, 138, 140;
    returned M.P. for Middlesex, 144.

  Godchep, Hamo, i, 153.

  Godfrey, Sir Edmondesbury, supposed murder of, ii, 457.

  ---- Peter, elected M.P. for the City, iii, 4.

  ---- Thomas, opens the City's gates to Cade, i, 284.

  Godolphin, Lord, dismissed from office, ii, 637.

  Godrell, Paul, ii, 591.

  Godsalve, John, the City's right of measuring cloth conferred on, i, 406.

  Godschall, Sir Robert, a candidate for the mayoralty, iii, 45, 46;
    elected M.P. for the City, 47;
    mayor, _id._;
    chairman of Parliamentary Committee to consider insufficiency of
      convoys, 47, 48.

  Godwine, Earl, i, 26, 28.

  Gold, Henry, rector of St. Mary, Aldermary, executed at Tyburn, i, 390.

  ---- Thomas, nominated for the mayoralty, ii, 476, 490.

  Goldsmiths of London, their quarrel with the Weavers, i, 154;
    return of rental of, 252;
    their pageant at coronation of Henry VIII, 345;
    subscribe towards furnishing soldiers for war with France, 347;
    ordered to resume their old quarters in Goldsmith's Row, ii, 110;
    the Duke of Marlborough entertained by, 617, 618;
    mayoralty of Sir Owen Buckingham kept in Hall, 617;
    subscribe to bounties for soldiers, iii, 64;
    disapprove of remonstrance drawn up in Common Hall, 93.

  Gondomar, Spanish ambassador, insulted in London, ii, 79.

  Goodman, John, reprieve of, ii, 136.

  Gordon, Lord George, presents petition to Parliament in favour of
      repeal of Savile's Act, iii, 179;
    riots in the City instigated by, 180-184;
    committed to the Tower, 185;
    offers himself as candidate for the City, 192.

  Gore, Richard, merchant tailor, M.P. for the City, ii, 8.

  ---- Sir William, knighted, ii, 571;
    elected mayor, 608;
    stands for the City, 609.

  Goring, George, Lord (Earl of Norwich), threatens Plymouth, ii, 221;
    takes the lead in the Kentish rebellion, 282.

  Gracedieu, Bartholomew, sheriff, knighted, ii, 606.

  Grafton, Duke of, his relations with Wilkes, 74, 80.

  ---- Richard, printer, i, 485.

  Grantham, John de, elected Mayor, i, 165;
    M.P. for the City, 174.

  Greenland House, siege of, ii, 205.

  Greenway, Oswald, implicated in Gunpowder Plot, ii, 15.

  Greenwich Park, muster of citizens in, i, 529.

  Gregory, William, alderman, his chronicle, i, 287.

  "Grenecobbe," Henry, i, 220.

  Grenville, Sir John, carries a letter from Charles II to the City,
      ii, 377;
    City gift to, 379.

  ---- William, W., Secretary of State, his correspondence with the
      lord mayor touching removal of the Bank of England guard, iii,
      218-219.

  ---- Lord, joins with Fox informing the ministry of "all the
      talents," iii, 265;
    the fall of his ministry, 266-267.

  Gresham, Sir John, mercer, his school at Holt, co. Norf., i, 353;
    witnesses removal of Duke of Somerset to the Tower, 438;
    signs counterfeit will of Edward the Sixth, 453.

  Gresham, Sir John, of Titsey, i, 511.

  ---- Sir Richard, mayor, his letter to Henry VIII, _re_ Royal
      Hospitals, i, 404;
    particulars of, 404 n.;
    proposes to erect a Burse, 494.

  ---- Sir Thomas, erects the Royal Exchange, i, 495-499;
    particulars of, 495n.;
    founder of Gresham College, 502;
    entertains Cardinal Chastillon, 504;
    suggests minting Spanish treasure, 512;
    entertains Count Casimir, 520;
    his death, 521.

  ---- College founded, i, 502.

  ---- House, municipal offices removed to, after the fire, ii, 421.

  Grey, Sir Charles, the freedom of the City voted to, iii, 223.

  ---- Earl, succeeds the Duke of Wellington as prime minister, iii, 332;
    the freedon of the City voted to, 339, 344;
    resigns, 340;
    recalled, 342;
    succeeds in passing the first Reform Bill, 343.

  ---- Henry, Lord, repels invasion of Ireland, i, 523.

  ---- Lord, of Wark, fined for disturbance at the Guildhall, ii, 493.

  ---- Lady Jane, appointed successor by Edward VI, i, 453;
    proclaimed queen, 454;
    trial of, at Guildhall, 460;
    executed, 465.

  ---- William de, attorney-general, burnt in effigy on Tower Hill,
      iii, 118.

  Grey Friars, of London, their house suppressed, i, 398;
    benefactions to, 402;
    their house vested in the City, 417;
    removal of altars and tombs from church of, 428;
    their buildings converted into Christ's Hospital, 450, 451.

  Grocers of London, subscribe towards furnishing soldiers for war with
      France, i, 347;
    nominate weighers of the Great Beam, 387;
    tumult at the Hall of, ii, 178;
    parliament entertained at the Hall of, 234, 356;
    Fairfax invited to dinner by, 261;
    the Commons and Council of State at the Hall of, 312;
    the Lord Protector entertained by, 347;
    Monk entertained at the Hall of, 372;
    a conventicle held by Sir John Shorter, mayor, at the Hall of, 525;
    lord mayor's banquet held at the Hall of, 533, 574;
    the Bank of England commences business in the Hall of, 586;
    subscribe to bounties for soldiers, iii, 64;
    disapprove of remonstrance drawn up in Common Hall, 93;
    the freedom of their company conferred on Pitt, 207;
    their offer to send a quantity of porter to the troops in Flanders,
      222-223;
    the Military Association in Hall of, 224.

  Guildhall, the, first mention of, i, 14-15;
    trial of Hamo de Chigwell at, 169;
    implements of war stored at, 184;
    trial of Anne Ascue at, 415;
    trials of Lady Jane Grey and Cranmer at, 460-461;
    trial of Nicholas Throckmorton at, 467, 468;
    trial of John Felton at, 516;
    the rebuilding of, after the Fire, ii, 429, 434;
    the Lords meet at, after James II's flight, 535;
    standards taken at Ramillies hung up in, 623;
    threatened by Gordon rioters, iii, 184.

  Guildhall Library, books borrowed from, by Somerset, and never
      returned, i, 438.

  Guilds, early organisation of, i, 93, 94;
    Hervy's regulations of, 107;
    their rising importance, 110;
    reorganisation _temp._ Edward III, 200;
    elections by, 206.
    _See also_ Companies.

  Gunpowder Plot, ii, 13-16.

  Gurney, Richard, mayor, ii, 145, 146;
    knighted, 149;
    impeached, 168;
    refuses to give up the City's _insignia_, 169.


  Habeas Corpus Act, passed, ii, 459;
    suspended, 599, 627;
    suspended for a whole year, iii, 25;
    again suspended, 307.

  Hadley, John, appointed joint-treasurer of subsidy, i, 251.

  Hainault, Jacqueline of, wife of the Duke of Gloucester, i, 270;
    her ill-treatment, 272.

  Halifax, Lord, burnt in effigy on Tower Hill, iii, 118.

  Hallifax, Thomas, stands for the mayoralty, iii, 127, 132, 133;
    refuses to back press warrants, 166.

  Hamersley, Hugh, haberdasher, ii, 32.

  Hampden, John, resists the levying of ship money, ii, 118;
    one of the Five Members, 155;
    killed at Chalgrove Field, 189.

  Hanse Merchants, supply wheat to the City, i, 346.

  Hardy, John, alderman, i, 379.

  Harfleur, captured by Henry V, i, 258, 259.

  Harley, Robert. _See_ Oxford, Earl of.

  ---- Thomas, sheriff, superintends the burning of No. 45 of the
      _North Briton_ at the Royal Exchange, iii, 75;
    receives the thanks of both houses of parliament, 76, 83;
    burnt in effigy on Tower Hill, 118;
    his windows broken, 144;
    defends himself in parliament, 197-198.

  Harold, elected king, i, 29;
    his death, 30.

  Harper, Sir William, merchant Taylor, his school at Bedford, i, 353.

  Harrison, major-general, ii, 328.

  ---- Rev. Joseph, arrested for inciting to riot, iii, 309.

  Hart, John, sheriff, his contest for the aldermanry of Bridge Ward,
      iii, 146-149.

  Haslerigg, Sir Arthur, one of the Five Members, ii, 155;
    the City confers with, 360, 363.

  Hastings, battle of, i, 30.

  Haunsard, William, furnishes a ship to the king for war with France,
      i, 182;
    his gallantry in the battle of Sluys, 186.

  Havre, or Newhaven, occupied and lost by Elizabeth, i, 489, 490, 491.

  Hawkesbury, Lord, informs the lord mayor of preliminaries of peace
      with France having been signed, iii, 249.

  Hawkins, Sir John, reports engagement with the Armada, i, 537, 538, 541;
    his monument in the church of St. Dunstan East, 544.

  ---- Katherine, wife of Sir John, i, 544.

  Hawley, General, defeated at Falkirk, iii, 55.

  Hayley, George, alderman, brother-in-law of Wilkes, elected M.P. for
      the City, iii, 145;
    elected sheriff, 155;
    again returned M.P. for the City, 192;
    his death, _id._

  Hearth or Chimney Tax, the, imposition of, ii, 399;
    abolished, 544-545.

  Heath, Sir Robert, attorney-general, exhibits an information against
      the City, touching its Irish Estate;, ii, 143.

  Heathcote, George, elected mayor against his will, iii, 45;
    discharged, 46;
    elected M.P. for the City, 47;
    loses his seat, 56.

  ---- Sir Gilbert, elected M.P. for the City, but disqualified, ii, 607;
    re-elected, 609, 612, 622, 629;
    elected alderman, 612;
    knighted, 614;
    subscribes to loan to Prince Eugene, 624;
    urges the removal of Marlborough to Holland, 636;
    governor of the Bank of England, 637;
    his conduct at the election of an alderman, 640.

  Hende, John, mayor, summoned to attend the king at Nottingham, i, 241;
    dismissed from the mayoralty and committed to Windsor Castle, _id._

  Henrietta Maria, wife of Charles I. negotiations for her marriage,
      ii, 86;
    her arrival in London, 93.

  Henry I, elected king at Winchester, i, 39;
    election confirmed by the City, 40;
    his charter to the City, _id._

  Henry of Anjou, afterwards Henry II, his arrival in England, i, 54;
    welcomed in London, _id._;
    his accession, 56;
    charter of, to the City, 58;
    his son Henry crowned, 59;
    his domestic troubles, 59, 61;
    his death, 61.

  Henry II, of France, death of, i, 488.

  Henry III, takes the City into his own hands, 85, 99;
    extorts money from his subjects, 87;
    his coronation, 88;
    takes leave of the City, 88, 90;
    returns from abroad, 90;
    makes peace with the barons, 92, 97;
    lodged a prisoner in the Bishop of London's palace, 96;
    his charter to the City, 103;
    his death, 105.

  Henry of Lancaster, afterwards King Henry IV;, return from exile, i,
      244, 245;
    met by the citizens of London, 245;
    proclaimed king, 246;
    his debts, 270.

  Henry IV of France, assisted by Elizabeth, i, 548.

  Henry V, claims the crown of France, i, 257;
    goes to France, 258;
    discovery of a conspiracy against, _id._;
    captures Harfleur, 259;
    welcomed by the citizens on his return, 260;
    prepares for another expedition to France, _id._;
    letters from, to the City, 261, 262, 264, 265;
    conquers Normandy, 263;
    coronation of his queen, 266;
    his death and funeral, 266, 267.

  Henry VI, coronation of, i, 274;
    goes to France, 275;
    crowned at Paris, _id._;
    his return and reception by the City, 275-277;
    his charter to the City, 281;
    his marriage, _id._;
    his illness, 288;
    kept in custody at Bishop of London's palace after the battle of
      St. Albans, 291;
    loses the City's favour, 296;
    deputation from the City to, at Northampton, 298;
    brought prisoner to London, 302;
    regains his freedom after second battle at St. Albans, 304;
    restored, 312;
    removed from the Tower to the Bishop of London's palace by Warwick,
      _id._;
    his death in the Tower, 316.

  Henry of Richmond, afterwards King Henry VII, prepares to invade
      England, i, 324, 325;
    defeats Richard III at Bosworth, 326;
    welcomed by the City, _id._;
    his coronation, 327;
    his marriage, 328;
    his visit to London, 329;
    assists Anne of Brittany against the French king, _id._;
    decease of Edmund his infant son, 335;
    enters into alliance with the king of the Romans, 336;
    his charter to the Merchant Taylors, 337;
    his charter to the City, _id._;
    his proposed alliance with Margaret, sister of Archduke Philip,
      338, 339;
    his death and funeral, 340, 341;
    his chapel in Westminster Abbey, 340;
    his _obit_ kept by the City, 342.

  Henry VIII, visits the City as a boy, i, 334;
    the City's present to, at coronation, 344;
    at St. Paul's, 362;
    enters into a league against France, 373;
    his marriage with Anne Boleyn, 388;
    marries Jane Seymour, 395;
    the City, in difficulty with, 406;
    goes to France leaving Catherine Parr, regent, 409;
    returns, 411;
    his death, 417.

  Henry, Prince, son of James I, becomes a Merchant Taylor, ii, 12.

  Herbert, Sir John, secretary of state, ii, 22.

  Hereford, Henry, Duke of. _See_ Henry of Lancaster, afterwards King
      Henry IV.

  ---- Humphrey, Earl of, insurrection of, i, 147;
    seeks an interview with the City, 149.

  ---- Sir William de, member for the City, i, 126.

  Heretics, Statute for burning, i, 249;
    re-enacted, 471.

  Herne, Sir Joseph, security for a loan to William III, ii, 603.

  Hertford, Francis, Earl of, lord chamberlain, his letter to Wilkes
      touching the king's refusal to receive in future addresses of the
      livery on the throne, iii, 153;
    Wilkes's reply, 154;
    his letter to the lord mayor touching presentation of livery
      address, 195.

  Hervey, Lord, his account of trick played by Walpole on the
      Dissenters, iii, 34, 35;
    objects to City's address to George II, on occasion of marriage of
      the Princess Royal to the Prince of Orange, 39.

  ---- Sebastian, mayor, ii, 55, 72;
    opposes matrimonial alliance between his daughter and Christopher
      Villiers, 73.

  Hervy, Walter, disputed election of, as mayor, i, 104-105;
    grants charters to the craft guilds, 107;
    quarrels with Gregory de Rokesley, 108;
    arrested, _id._;
    charges against, 109;
    discharged from aldermanry, 110.

  Heton, George, chamberlain, dismissed, i, 519.

  Hewling, Benjamin, condemned to death at Bloody Assizes, ii, 521.

  Hewling, William, ii, 521.

  Hewlyn, William, mayor, i, 295.

  Hewson, John, a member of Cromwell's House of Lords, ii, 350;
    quells a riot in the City, 358.

  Hewster, John, M.P. for the City, i, 370.

  Heysham, Robert, elected M.P. for the City, iii, 4.

  Hill, Sir Rowland, mercer, his school at Drayton, co. Salop, i, 353;
    committed to the Tower for obstructing the Sergeant-at-Mace, 406, 407;
    particulars of, 406n.;
    enters on his Mayoralty, 427.

  Hille, Sir Thomas, mayor, dies of the plague, i, 327.

  Hillsborough, Lord, Secretary of State, urges the mayor to guard the
      City during Gordon riots, iii, 181.

  Hoadley, Benjamin, Bishop of Salisbury, persuades the dissenters to
      postpone attempt to repeal Corporation and Test Acts, iii, 34, 35.

  Hoare, Richard, knighted, ii, 614;
    M.P. for the City, 638;
    late alderman of Bread Street Ward, iii, 15.

  Hockenhall, George, refuses to serve sheriff, ii, 472.

  Hockenhull or Hocknell, Thomas, ensign in the guards, reprimanded for
      allowing his soldiers to insult an alderman, iii, 16, 17.

  Holiday, Leonard, alderman, the Duke of Bedford committed to the
      custody of, i, 562.

  Holland, the Dutch fleet defeated off Portland, ii, 344;
    war declared with (1665), 406;
    the victory of the Duke of York over Opdam, 409;
    naval engagement with the Dutch off the North Foreland, 414;
    the Dutch fleet in the Medway, 435;
    retires, 436;
    war declared with (1672), 445;
    the peace of Nimeguen, 456.

  Holland, Henry, Earl of, his speech at the Guildhall, ii, 175;
    threatens a royalist rising in the City, 225.

  ---- Henry, lord, charged with peculation, iii, 89, 91;
    his hatred for the City, 90.

  Holles, Denzel, one of the Five Members, ii, 155;
    attends the Common Hall, 200.

  Holy Trinity, Aldgate, Priory of, confiscated by Henry VIII, i, 386;
    bestowed upon Sir Thomas Audley, 387.

  Hone, William, bookseller, his trial, iii, 307-308.

  Hooke, Robert, his scheme for rebuilding the City, ii, 427;
    appointed surveyor, 428, 431.

  Hooper, John, informs against Bonner, i, 439;
    made Bishop of Gloucester, 441;
    burnt, 474.

  Hopkins, Benjamin, elected City Chamberlain, iii, 163;
    his decease, 164.

  Hopton, Ralph, defeats Parliamentary forces under Waller, ii, 189;
    surrenders to Fairfax, 233.

  Horn, Andrew, counsel for the City at the Iter of 1321, i, 143, 147;
    chamberlain, 159, 161.

  ---- John, goes to Paris to confer with Edward I, i, 116.

  Horne, John, Vicar of Brentford, iii, 87;
    claims to have written Beckford's famous speech, 102;
    his letter to Wilkes on being elected sheriff, 124.

  ---- Robert, alderman, committed to Newgate by rebels under Cade, i, 285.

  Houblon, Sir James, knighted, ii, 571;
    accused of bribery, 590;
    M.P. for the City, 606.

  ---- Sir John, sheriff, ii, 548;
    knighted, 552;
    first governor of the Bank of England, 586, 602;
    attends the Privy council on the Barclay conspiracy, 599;
    candidate for aldermanry of Broad Street Ward, 640.

  Houghton, John, prior of Charter-house, proceedings against, i, 390-392.

  Howard, Admiral Lord, commands the fleet against the Armada, i, 537,
      539, 541;
    captures Cadiz, 556.

  Howe, Lord, threatens to leave the navy, iii, 173;
    his victory over the French, 223;
    the freedom of the City voted to _id._

  ---- John, his opposition to James II, ii, 521.

  Huberthorne or Hoberthorne, Henry, mayor, assists in proclaiming
      Edward VI king, i, 418;
    particulars of, 418n.;
    knighted, 420.

  "Humble Representation of the Dissatisfaction of the Army," ii, 248.

  Humphreys, Sir William, mayor, puts a stop to the spread of seditious
      literature, iii, 3.

  Hundred Court, i, 13.

  Hunt, Henry, known as "Orator Hunt," arrested for inciting to riot,
      iii, 309, 310;
    creates a disturbance in Common Hall, 311.

  Hunter, William, burnt, i, 474.

  Huntingdon, William, Earl of, i, 192.

  Husting Court, i, 13.

  Hutchinson, General, the freedom of the City voted to, iii, 248.


  Income tax, introduced by Pitt, iii, 228, 238;
    renewal of, 252, 292-293.

  Indemnity bill, the, opposed by the City, iii, 308.

  Ingram, Sir Arthur, ii, 63.

  Insurance against fire, City's scheme for, ii, 425.

  Ipswich, Cardinal Wolsey's college at, i, 382.

  Ireland, the Desmond rising in, i, 523;
    Tyrone's insurrection in, 559;
    Mountjoy's conquest of, 563;
    rebellion of 1641 in, ii, 146;
    proposed confiscation of Irish rebels' estates, 163;
    royalist successes in, 309;
    Ormond defeated before Dublin, 314;
    subdued by Cromwell, 326;
    Cromwell, welcomed on his return from, 327;
    letters of sympathy from, after the Fire, 420, 421;
    Tyrconnel appointed lord deputy of, 516;
    siege of Londonderry, 549-550;
    battle of the Boyne, 559.

  ---- Duke of, charged with treason, i, 234.

  Irish estate, the City's, ii, 28-45;
    commissioners sent to view the plantation, 32;
    their report, 35;
    the City consents to undertake plantation of Ulster, 37;
    the Irish Society formed, 37, 41;
    the City forced to surrender a portion of, 38;
    allotment among the companies, 39, 43;
    more commissioners sent to Ireland, 42;
    the right of the companies to sell, 44;
    declared forfeited by Court of Star Chamber, 115;
    judgment reversed, 143;
    the King promises to restore, 149;
    letter from the council of state touching, 326;
    the companies petition Charles II relative to, 386.

  ---- Society, formation of, ii, 37;
    incorporated, 41.

  Ireton, Henry, ii, 252, 352.

  ---- John, knighted by Cromwell, ii, 352;
    nominated by parliament to be re-elected mayor, 354.

  Isabel, wife of Edward II, sets out for France, i, 154;
    her return, 155;
    confirms the City's rights, 158;
    becomes unpopular, 163;
    retires into privacy, 170.

  Isleworth, manor of, devastated by the mob, i, 96.


  Jakes, Robert, shearman, convicted of perjury, i, 343.

  James I, his threat to remove Court and Parliament from London, i, 1;
    accession of, ii, 1;
    enters London, 3, 5;
    plots against, 6, 13;
    refuses to surrender rights of purveyance, &c., 9;
    at Merchant Taylors' Hall, 12, 61;
    rumour of the assassination of, 16;
    his financial difficulties, 56-59;
    the City declines a loan to, 63;
    entertained by Alderman Cockaine, 69;
    the City's reception of, on return from Scotland, 72;
    death of the queen, _id._;
    state visit of, to St. Paul's, 76;
    his death, 91.

  James, Duke of York, afterwards James II, christening of, ii, 111;
    the City's gift to, at the Restoration, 379;
    his victory over the Dutch, 409;
    his efforts to suppress the Fire, 416;
    vote of thanks to, 431;
    his action against Sheriff Pilkington, 478, 492;
    his picture at Guildhall mutilated, 479;
    accession of, 506;
    collects the Customs without leave of Parliament, 507;
    coronation of, 508;
    favours the Catholics, 516;
    issues a Declaration of Indulgence, 518;
    the Aldermen present an address to, 520;
    issues a second Declaration of Indulgence, 525;
    birth of prince James, 528;
    informs the lord mayor of the approach of William, 529;
    restores the City's charter, 530;
    sets out to meet the Prince of Orange, 533;
    attempted flight of, 535;
    goes to France, 537;
    lands in Ireland, 549;
    death of, 607.

  James Edward, Prince (the old Pretender), birth of, ii, 528;
    his legitimacy questioned, 532;
    acknowledged king by Louis, 607;
    threatened invasion in favour of, 626;
    the Tories favour, 648;
    a reward offered for arrest of, 649;
    precautions taken against, iii, 3;
    prepares to invade England, 6;
    failure of conspiracy, 8;
    threatens another invasion, 24.

  Jane Seymour, her marriage with Henry VIII, i, 395;
    preparations for her coronation, 396;
    her death, 397.

  Janssen, Stephen Theodore, sometime City chamberlain, iii, 20;
    elected M.P. for the City, 56;
    resigns chamberlainship, 163.

  ---- Sir Theodore, director of South Sea Company, expelled from
      Parliament, iii, 20.

  Jarman, or Jermyn, Edward, appointed surveyor for the rebuilding of
      the City, ii, 428, 431.

  Jeffreys, George, suspended from office of common sergeant, ii, 451;
    his suspension referred to the king, 452;
    restored, 453;
    forced to resign the recordership, 461;
    made chief justice, 502;
    holds the "Bloody Assize," 512;
    president of Ecclesiastical Commission Court, 516;
    appears before Court of Aldermen, 519;
    carries the City's charter back, 530;
    taken in disguise, 537.

  ---- Sir Jeffrey, excused from being mayor, ii, 632.

  Jenkin's ear, iii, 40, 41.

  Jenner, Sir Thomas, appointed recorder by Charles II, ii, 504.

  Jenyns, Stephen, merchant taylor, his school at Wolverhampton, i, 353.

  Jervas, Charles, his portraits of George II and Queen Caroline, iii, 33.

  Jervis, Sir John, admiral, the freedom of the City voted to, iii, 223;
    his victory over the French off Cape St. Vincent, 232;
    a sword of honour voted to, _id._

  Jessel, Sir George, his opinion touching the City's right and title
      to Irish estate, ii, 45.

  Jews, Henry III extorts money from, i, 87;
    expulsion of, 123;
    enfranchisement of, iii, 346-347.

  Joanna, daughter of Edward II, called "Joanna of the Tower," birth
      of, i, 148.

  John, Prince, afterwards king, rebels against his father, i, 61;
    opposes Longchamp, 62;
    admitted into the City, 63;
    grants the citizens their "Commune," _id._;
    his accession, 72;
    resigns the crown and receives it as the Pope's feudatory, 73;
    meets the Barons in London, 74;
    signs Magna Carta, 77;
    open war between him and the Barons, 78;
    his death, 79.

  Johnson, Robert, sheriff, removed by Henry VII, i, 338.

  ---- Dr. Samuel, his inscription on portrait of Chief Justice Pratt,
      iii, 78;
    his pamphlet "Taxation no Tyranny," 151n.;
    his opinion of Wilkes, 152n., 164-165.

  Jolles, Sir John, mayor, ii, 66.

  Jones, John, captain, M.P. for the City, ii, 392.

  ---- John Gale, committed to Newgate for publishing an attack on
      Parliament, iii, 276.

  ---- Sir William, attorney-general, his opinion taken on the question
      of the aldermanic veto, ii, 454.

  Josselyn, Ralph, mayor, created Knight of the Bath, i, 307.

  Joyce, Cornet, carries off Charles I, ii, 242.

  Joyner, William, mayor, builds the Grey Friars Chapel, i, 402.

  "Jubilee," book called, burnt by order of Exton, mayor, i, 229.

  Judd, Sir Andrew, skinner, his school at Tonbridge, i, 353;
    undertakes to forward provisions to the army, 414;
    summoned as mayor to attend the Lords of the Council, 445;
    signs "counterfeit will" of Edward VI, 453.

  Junius, approves of remonstrance of the Livery, iii, 93;
    upholds the conduct of Crosby and Oliver, 115;
    offers to support Wilkes, 125;
    strenuously supports Sawbridge's candidature for the mayoralty, _id._;
    expresses his opinion of Lord Mayor Nash, 130.

  Justiciar, the citizens permitted to elect their own, i, 43.


  Keith, Lord, admiral, the freedom of the City voted to, iii, 248.

  Kelseye, Robert de, M.P. for the City, i, 162, 163, 174.

  Kendale, Sir Robert de, king's commissioner, the City taken into the
      hands of, i, 146.

  Kendricke, John, consents to accept the mayoralty notwithstanding
      diminished allowances, ii, 333.

  Kennet, Brackley, mayor, his conduct during the Gordon Riots, iii,
      180-184;
    summoned to attend Lords of Council, 186.

  Kensington, Colonel, refuses to accept colours presented by the City,
      iii, 256.

  Kent, revolt under Wat Tyler, i, 218-221;
    under Cade, 282;
    under Fauconberg, 314-316;
    royalist rising in, ii, 280, 282.

  ---- Edmund, Earl of, charged with treason and executed, i, 170.

  Keppel, Admiral, court martial of, iii, 172;
    entertained at the London Tavern, 173;
    the freedom of the City voted to, _id._

  Ket, Robert, his rebellion, i, 432;
    taken and hanged at Norwich Castle, 433.

  ---- William, executed at Wymondham, i, 433.

  Key, Sir John, Mayor, his letter to the Duke of Wellington, iii, 330;
    re-elected mayor, 338, 339n.;
    vote of thanks to, 339.

  Kiffin, William, appointed alderman by James II, ii, 521;
    reluctantly accepts office, 522;
    discharged, 523;
    subscribes (unwittingly) to an entertainment given to the Papal
      Nuncio, 524.

  Kimbolton, Lord, impeachment of, ii, 155.

  King's Bench, court of, removed to York, i, 162.

  King's Bench prison, fired by Gordon rioters, iii, 184.

  Kirkman, John, a candidate for the Shrievalty, iii, 138;
    elected M.P. for the City, 192;
    his death, _id._

  Kitson, Sir Thomas, sheriff, i, 391.

  Kneseworth, Thomas, late mayor, committed to prison, i, 338.

  Knighthood, proclamation enforcing, i, 240.

  Knolles, Thomas, appointed joint treasurer of subsidy, i, 251;
    ordered to make valuation of property in the City, _id._

  Knyvett, Thomas, refuses to pay tax for maintenance of Parliamentary
      army, ii, 181.


  Ladbroke, Robert, Sheriff, M.P. for the City, knighted, iii, 50;
    his death, 141.

  Lagos Bay, disaster in, ii, 571.

  La Hogue, battle of, ii, 569.

  Lamb, Dr., assassination of, ii, 105.

  Lambert, Daniel, elected mayor, iii, 47;
    M.P. for the City, _id._;
    knighted, 50;
    loses his seat for the City, 56.

  ---- Col. John, ejects the Rump, ii, 356;
    marches northward to intercept Monk, 364.

  Lambeth, treaty of, i, 81.

  Lambyn, Edmund, i, 153.

  Lancaster, Henry, Earl of, revolt of, i, 163, 164;
    the citizens charged by Edward III with having assisted, 166;
    his charges against the king read at the Guildhall, 167;
    his fall, 168;
    fined, 170.

  Lancaster, John, Duke of, his quarrel with the citizens, i, 208-211;
    reconciled, 212;
    Philipot leads the opposition against, 215.

  ---- Thomas, Earl of, his house in Holborn, i, 149;
    taken prisoner at Boroughbridge and executed at Pomfret, 152;
    a tablet erected in St. Paul's by, 153;
    Queen Isabel proclaims herself avenger of, 155.

  Landen, battle of, ii, 571.

  Langham, Sir James, committed to the Tower, ii, 266;
    impeached, 273;
    deprived of his aldermanry, 308;
    restored and excused serving, 383, 384.

  Langton, Stephen, Archbishop of Canterbury, produces before barons
      assembled at St. Paul's, a copy of Charter of Liberties granted by
      Henry I, i, 72.

  ---- Walter, Bishop of Chester, i, 129, 137.

  Latimer, Hugh, Bishop of Worcester, sent to the Tower, i, 458;
    burnt at Oxford, 474.

  Latymer, William, Parson of St. Laurence Pountney, informs against
      Bonner, i, 438.

  Laud, Archbishop, attack made on his palace at Lambeth, ii, 124;
    impeached, 135.

  Lauderdale, Lord, attends the Common Council, ii, 229;
    brought prisoner to London, 342.

  Launde, Robert, knighted, i, 220.

  Lawrence, Joseph, candidate for aldermanry, ii, 644.

  Laxton, William, grocer, his school at Oundle, i, 353;
    knighted, 412;
    accompanies remains of Henry VIII to Windsor, 419.

  Leathersellers of London, a portion of the suppressed Priory of St.
      Helen's, Bishopsgate, converted into a hall for the Company of, i,
      401.

  Ledes, co. Kent, castle of, captured by Edward II, i, 151.

  Lee, Sir Richard, i, 478.

  ---- Robert, mayor, first signatory to proclamation of James I, ii, 1.

  ---- Rowland, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, i, 391.

  ---- William, elected Sheriff, iii, 138.

  Leeds, Thomas, Earl of Danby, afterwards Duke of, impeached, ii, 458;
    signs the invitation to the Prince of Orange, 529;
    bribed by East India Company, 594, 596;
    ordered to be again impeached, 596.

  Legge, William, the Freedom of the City voted to, iii, 61-62;
    subscribes to bounties for soldiers, 64.

  Leiburn, Sir Roger de, advises the City's submission to Henry III, i,
      100.

  Leicester, surrenders to Fairfax, ii, 220.

  ---- Robert, Earl of, sent to Flanders, i, 531;
    his opinion of London soldiers, 535.

  Leigh, Sir Thomas, mayor, particulars of, i, 484n.

  Leighton, Sir William, iii, 242.

  Leman, Sir John, ii, 67, 71.

  Le Mans, birth place of Henry II, i, 61.

  Lenthall, William, appointed Speaker of the House of Commons, ii, 132;
    writes to the City for a loan, 135, 136;
    his bold speech to the king, 156;
    attends Court of Aldermen, 363.

  Lepanto, battle of, 517.

  Lethieullier, Christopher, elected sheriff, ii, 548;
    knighted, 552.

  Leventhorp, John, executor of King Henry IV, i, 270.

  Levett, Sir Richard, elected sheriff, ii, 565;
    knighted, 567;
    stands for the City, 609.

  Lewen, William, alderman, candidate for aldermanry of Broad Street
      Ward, ii, 640.

  Lewes, battle of, i, 96;
    the "Mise" of, _id._

  Leyre, William de, the captive Wallace lodged in the house of, i, 130.

  Lieutenancy, Court of, commission granted to the City, ii, 67;
    address to Charles II, thanking him for dissolving parliament, 466;
    a new commission appointed by Queen Anne, 612;
    dispute with the Lord Mayor as to the control of the City's
      militia, iii, 235.

  Lilburne, John, incites the army to mutiny, ii, 310;
    his trial at the Guildhall, 316-318;
    elected common councilman, 319;
    takes the Engagement with reservations, _id._;
    election declared void by Parliament, _id._

  Lille, capture of, ii, 629.

  Lilly, William, the Grammarian, master of Colet's School, i, 365.

  Lincoln, John, executed for riot on Evil May Day, i, 357.

  Littleton, Stephen, takes part in the Gunpowder Plot, ii, 14.

  Livery of London, the. _See_ Common Hall.

  Livery Cloth, presented to the mayor, etc., on the decease of Henry
      VIII, i, 418;
    the City's claim to, allowed at Queen Mary's funeral, 483.

  Loans, to Louis the Dauphin, i, 82;
    to Edward II, 140;
    to Edward III, 185, 189, 192, 198, 201;
    to Richard II, 214, 217, 225;
    to Henry IV, 250, 251;
    to Henry V, 258, 261;
    to Edward IV, 308, 310, 318, 319;
    to Richard, Earl of Warwick, 310, 312;
    to Richard III, 325, 326;
    to Henry VII, 328, 329, 330;
    to Henry VIII, 367, 369, 373;
    to Mary, 467, 477, 482;
    to Elizabeth, 519, 546, 549, 560;
    to James I, ii, 13, 57, 63, 69, 70;
    to Hugh Middleton, 25;
    to the Elector Palatine, 75, 77, 83;
    to Charles I, 92, 97, 104, 105, 119;
    the "forced loan," 100;
    Charles attempts to extort another loan from the City, 122;
    more applications for, 126, 127, 128;
    to Parliament, 135, 136, 138, 146, 162, 167, 172, 177, 182, 205,
      214, 241, 263, 264, 290, 292, 310, 372;
    for payment of the Scottish army, 140, 219, 238;
    a loan for the siege of Chester, 224;
    to Cromwell, 314;
    to the Council of State, 373;
    to the Convention Parliament, 378;
    to Charles II, 385, 388-389, 399, 403, 406, 414, 436, 455, 456;
    to the Prince of Orange, 538;
    to William and Mary, 560, 563, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571;
    the last of the City loans, 587.

  Locke, Sir William, i, 438.

  Lockwood, Richard, M.P. for the City, opposes passing of Election Act
      (II Geo., i, c. 18), iii, 28.

  Lollards, the, proceedings against, i, 221, 248-250, 253-257.

  Lombards, the, a rising in the City against, i, 292.

  London, Bishops of. _See_ Aylmer; Bonner; Courtenay; Fitz-James;
      Maurice; Mellitus; Ridley; Tunstal.

  ---- Bridge, its erection during Roman occupation, i, 5;
    the Danes defeated at, 20, 21;
    repaired under William Rufus, 39;
    custody of, presented to Queen Eleanor, 101;
    attacked by Fauconberg, 315, 316;
    a false drawbridge ordered to be made in case of need in time of
      difficulty, 431.

  London, City of, its geographical position, i, 1;
    the "emporium" of the world, 2;
    not in demesne, _id._;
    its commercial greatness during the Roman occupation, 4;
    Roman relics in, 6;
    the metropolis of the East Saxons, 8, 9;
    its increasing importance under Egbert, 9-10;
    the same weights and measures used in, as at Winchester, 10;
    the head-quarters of the Danes, 11;
    "restored" by Alfred the Great, 12;
    Ethelred, alderman of, 13;
    government of, similar to that of a shire, _id._;
    gallant repulse of Danes by citizens, _id._;
    the "frith-gild," 14-16;
    first mention of a Guildhall, 15;
    the mint in, 16;
    attacked by Sweyn, 17, 19;
    submits to Sweyn, 19;
    takes part in election of Edmund Ironside, king, 23;
    attacked by Cnut, 23;
    the "lithsmen" of, 25, 26;
    the capital of the kingdom, 27;
    gemóts held in, _id._;
    declares for Earl Godwine, 28;
    favours Edgar the Atheling, 31;
    arrival of William the Conqueror in, i, 31;
    negotiates with, 32;
    submission of, 33;
    William's charter to, 34;
    the portreeve of, 35, 64;
    lost charter granting the shrievalty of, 36, 37n.;
    not included in "Doomsday," 37;
    right to elect its own Justiciar, 43;
    its election of Stephen, 45;
    sends representatives to the Synod at Winchester, 48-50;
    the Empress Matilda in, 50, 51;
    Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex, sheriff of, 53;
    holds the balance between Stephen and the Empress, _id._;
    arrival of Henry of Anjou in, 54;
    destroyed by fire (1136), 55;
    charter of Henry II to, 58;
    disturbances in, 59, 60;
    Longchamp and the citizens of, 62;
    grant of a "Commune" to, 63;
    charters of Richard I to, 68, 71;
    the Barons admitted into, 77;
    charter of John granting annual election of mayor of, _id._;
    its rights preserved by _Magna Carta_, _id._;
    placed under an interdict, 78;
    arrival of Louis the Dauphin in, 79;
    invested by the Earl Marshal, 81;
    lends money to Louis, 82;
    protest of, against Papal claims, 85;
    taken into Henry III's hands, 85, 99, 111;
    persecution of Jews in, 87;
    Henry III, master of, 91;
    mediates between the king and barons, 92;
    the queen insulted by inhabitants of, 94;
    the mayor and chief citizens summoned to Windsor, 100;
    the Earl of Gloucester gains possession of, 102;
    charter of Henry III to, 103;
    arrival of Edward I in, 111;
    sends a deputation to confer with the king at Paris, 112, 116;
    taken into the king's hands, 122, 146;
    furnishes Edward I with ships and men, 125;
    its mayoralty restored, 128, 148;
    riots in, 135;
    the Barons admitted into, 136;
    the gates of, barred against the Barons, 138;
    the king's right to talliage, resisted, 139, 140;
    confirmation of ordinances of, by Edward II, 142;
    proceedings at the Iter at the Tower (1321), 143-148;
    taken into the king's hands, 146;
    assists Edward II in expedition against the castle of Ledes, co.
      Kent, 151;
    charter of exemption from foreign service to citizens of, _id._;
    lost to Edward II, 155, 156;
    freedom of, conferred on Stratford, Bishop of Winchester, 158;
    Queen Isabel and the mayoralty of, _id._;
    charters of Edward III to, 160, 180, 188, 196, 208;
    citizens of, urged to join the Earl of Lancaster in revolt, 164;
    charged by Edward III with having assisted Lancaster, 166;
    the mayor and citizens summoned to attend the king at Woodstock, 178;
    ships furnished by citizens of, 182, 183;
    charter of Edward III, granting privilege of using gold mace, 196;
    grievances of, laid before the king, 198;
    return made of number of parishes in, 203;
    an ecclesiastical centre, _id._;
    opposed to John of Gaunt, 209-211;
    reconciled, 212;
    charters of Richard II to, 214, 224;
    foreigners forbidden to traffic in, by retail, 214;
    reforms in, under Northampton, 221-223;
    Richard II applies to, for assistance against Parliament, 233;
    the mayor and aldermen summoned to Windsor, 234;
    the Lords appellant admitted into, 235;
    absolved by the Archbishop of oath of allegiance, _id._;
    refuses a loan to Richard II, 241;
    the mayor and sheriffs committed to prison, _id._;
    fined, 242;
    the citizens go to meet Henry of Lancaster, 245;
    rental of the City's lands, 252;
    the citizens invited to send provisions to Caen free of Custom,
      262, 263;
    sends provisions to Harfleur for the English army, 263, 264;
    the king's thanks for the same, 264, 265;
    famine in, 272;
    allowances to City Members of Parliament, 273, 274;
    parliamentary relief for poor of, 278;
    Calais appeals to, 279;
    forces sent for relief of Calais, 279, 280;
    charter of Henry VI to, 281;
    entrance to, denied to the Duke of York, 287;
    affected neutrality of, 288, 290, 291;
    again called upon to assist in defending Calais, 289;
    the Duke of York takes up his quarters in, 290;
    a rising against Lombards in, 292;
    letter from Henry VI to the Mayor for safeguarding of, 293;
    thanks of Henry VI for offer of ships by, _id._;
    commissions of array issued to mayor and sheriffs, 297;
    sends deputation to Henry VI, at Northampton, 298;
    opposes the entrance of the Yorkists, 299;
    deputation sent to meet the Yorkist Lords, 299, 300;
    shows signs of wavering, 301, 302;
    forsaken by Henry VI, 305;
    charters of Edward IV to, 307, 308;
    the Tower in the hands of municipal authorities, 312;
    the custody of the Tower removed from, _id._;
    Edward IV re-enters, 313;
    letter of Fauconberg to and reply, 314, 315;
    grant of a general pardon to, 318;
    Edward entertains the citizens with a day's hunting, _id._;
    Edward V welcomed by, 319, 320;
    the Duke of Buckingham's harangue at Guildhall in of Gloucester, 321;
    deputation to Gloucester offering him the crown, 322;
    gift to Richard III and his queen at coronation by, 323;
    bold speech of Londoners to Richard III, 325;
    reception of Henry VII by, 326, 329;
    precautions taken against Perkin Warbeck, 332;
    visit of Henry VIII to as a boy, 334;
    rejoicings in, on formation of league between Henry VII and the
      king of the Romans, 336;
    charter of Henry VII to, 337;
    gift to Henry VIII at coronation, 344;
    famine in, 346;
    foundation of City of London school, 349, 350;
    charges brought by Wolsey against, 354;
    Wolsey's advice to, touching payment of subsidy, 355;
    riots in, on Evil May Day, 355-357;
    obtains the king's pardon, 358;
    reception of Cardinal Campeggio in, 362-364;
    solemn procession in, on report of Scottish invasion, 372;
    rejoicings in, on news of defeat of the French, 374;
    the citizens and the Amicable Loan, 375-376;
    French ambassadors lodged in Bishop of London's palace in St.
      Paul's Churchyard, 377;
    deputation sent to Henry VIII, at Greenwich, touching Wythypol's
      discharge from aldermanry, 377-379;
    famine in (1529), 379;
    suppression of monasteries in, 386, 390-393, 397-401;
    the citizens show dissatisfaction at the king's marriage with Anne
      Boleyn, 388;
    sends a detachment to put down Pilgrimage of Grace, 394;
    increase of poor in, on suppression of Religious Houses, 404;
    offers to purchase the dissolved houses for relief of poor, 405;
    Edward VI welcomed to, 420, 421;
    the Reformation in, 421-430;
    redemption of charges for superstitious uses by, 424, 425;
    Edward VI passes through, 431;
    letter to, from Lords of the Council with charges against Protector
      Somerset, 433, 434;
    letter from Somerset to mayor of, 434;
    joins the Lords against Somerset, 435;
    the Lords explain their conduct to, 436;
    raises forces against Somerset, _id._;
    charter of Edward VI to, granting rights in Southwark, 442;
    indignation in, on Warwick's arbitrary conduct, 446;
    Queen Mary proclaimed in, 454, 455;
    Queen Mary welcomed by, 456;
    put into a state of defence against Wyatt, 462;
    Philip and Mary welcomed by, 469-471;
    renewed opposition to foreigners in, 475, 476;
    accession of Elizabeth welcomed by, 484;
    havoc worked by reformers in, 487;
    protestant refugees in, 504;
    renders assistance to the Prince of Orange, 505;
    Flemish merchants seized in, 510;
    measures taken for safeguarding of, during Northumberland
      Conspiracy, 515, 516;
    proceedings against Jesuits in, 524, 525;
    special preachers in, 526;
    foreigners in, 532;
    threatened famine in, 533;
    preparations in, to meet the Armada, 535;
    disbanded soldiers in, after defeat of Armada, 547;
    search in, for Spanish emissaries, 549, 550;
    refuses further supplies of ships, 557-559;
    threatened by another Armada, 560;
    the mayor of, the first signatory of document proclaiming James I
      king, ii, 1;
    James enters Tower of, 3;
    his passage through the City, 5;
    free trade opposed by citizens of, 10-12;
    water supply of 18-28;
    the Ulster Plantation, 28-45;
    the Virginia Company, 46-54;
    account of insult offered to the Spanish ambassador in, 79-82;
    joy of citizens at the return of Prince Charles from Spain, 84;
    plague of 1625 in, 95;
    called upon to supply ships for defence of the Thames, _id._;
    ships supplied by, 98, 101;
    sickness and famine in, 109;
    ship money levied in, 111, 117, 125;
    loss of its Irish estate, 115;
    charter of Charles I to, 118;
    unpopularity of Strafford in, 132;
    refuses to advance money until execution of Strafford, 138;
    the "Protestation" accepted by, 139;
    day of thanksgiving in, 142;
    opposition to the bishops, 147, 150;
    Charles entertained in, 147;
    petition of, for removal of bishops, 151;
    Charles at the Guildhall, demands the five members, 156;
    petition to the king thereon, 158;
    a panic in, 159;
    Charles's reply to late petition, 160;
    supplies the army with arms, 170;
    defensive operations in, 170, 171;
    petitions for peace, 177;
    deputation to the king, 178;
    the king's terms rejected by, 180;
    weekly assessment in, 182, 184;
    propositions for peace, 183;
    scheme for fortification of, _id._;
    Puritanism in, 187;
    scarcity of coal in, 189;
    the Tower committed to the custody of mayor and sheriffs, 191;
    sends relief to Gloucester, _id._;
    "weekly meal" for payment of army, 199, 200;
    suspects banished from, 202;
    invited by Parliament to frame proposals for peace, _id._;
    thanked by Parliament, 204;
    difficulty in getting in arrears of monthly assessment and weekly
      meal account, 205;
    proposals submitted to Parliament, 209, 210;
    its trade ruined, 213;
    letter from the mayor of Gloucester to, 216;
    Plymouth appeals to, 220;
    royalist prisoners in, 221;
    Presbyterianism in, 223, 227, 232;
    letter from the Scottish Parliament to the Mayor of, 228;
    claims to govern the militia of the suburbs, 230-232;
    letter of Charles I to, 234;
    remonstrance by, presented to both Houses, 234-235;
    a counter remonstrance, 235;
    reply to King's letter, 235-237;
    petitions both Houses to redress grievances, 239;
    correspondence with the army, 243, 245, 247, 248, 249, 251, 252,
      255, 264, 265, 269;
    sends commissioners to head-quarters, 248;
    beset by reformadoes, 250;
    petitions of apprentices to Parliament, 251;
    preparations for defence of, 254, 256;
    more commissioners to the army, _id._;
    surrenders to Fairfax, 259;
    army enters, 260;
    at the mercy of the army, 262;
    more demands for money, 263-266;
    the mayor and others committed, 266;
    threat to quarter troops on, 267;
    petitions parliament for removal of the army to a greater distance,
      269;
    petitions for release of aldermen, 270;
    Puritanism in the City, 271;
    its attitude towards the army, 275, 277;
    entrusted with the protection of Parliament, 277, 279;
    petitions for control of militia, 278;
    again petitions for release of aldermen, 280;
    aldermen released, 282;
    letter from Prince of Wales to, 289;
    urges parliament to come to an understanding with the army, 292;
    loan by, to assist negotiations with the king, _id._;
    negotiations opposed by London "Levellers," 291;
    Fairfax announces his intention to enter, 293;
    demands money from, 293, 296, 301;
    the army enters, 294;
    the Commonwealth proclaimed in, 311;
    Richmond Park presented to, 313;
    threatened with free quarters for the army unless money be found, 314;
    economical measures taken by, 321;
    money raised for relief of the poor of, 322-324;
    removal of Royal emblems in, 330;
    assessed at one fifteenth of the whole kingdom, 331;
    another letter from Prince of Wales to, 340;
    Scottish prisoners brought to, after battle of Worcester, 341;
    reception of Cromwell in, 342;
    subscriptions for relief of wounded soldiers in, 344;
    precautions against a royalist rising in, 350-352;
    letter from Monk to the Common Council, 357;
    negotiations for the safety of, 357, 359, 360;
    rising of apprentices in favour of a free Parliament, 358;
    royalist hopes centered in, 361;
    reply sent to Monk, 363;
    desires a full Parliament, 364;
    another letter from Monk, 364-365;
    deputation to meet Monk, 365;
    Monk enters, 366;
    confers with Court of Aldermen, 367, 368, 369;
    royal arms again set up in, 374;
    the City's declaration and vindication, 374-377;
    letter from Charles II to, 377;
    answer thereto, 378;
    commissioners sent to the king, 379;
    Charles II proclaimed in, 380;
    the king enters, _id._;
    takes oath of allegiance, 381;
    rising of Fifth-monarchy men in, 386-388, 396;
    parliamentary election (1661), 392-393;
    desires confirmation of its charter, 394-396;
    reception of Russian ambassador in, 401-403;
    charter of Charles II to, 403;
    the French ambassador insulted at Lord Mayor's banquet, 404-406;
    the Great Plague, 409-414;
    estimate of population of, 413 n.;
    the Great Fire, 414-418;
    assistance sent from York and Ireland to, 420;
    the streets to be cleared, 423;
    the rebuilding of, 427-435;
    a special court of judicature created for settling disputes after
      the fire, 428;
    report on state of the Chamber of 438-439;
    Cardonel's proposals for raising money, 447;
    the Prince of Orange in, 443;
    effect of closing the Exchequer upon, 445;
    heavy assessment in, 446;
    petitions Parliament for pecuniary relief, 447;
    petitions and addresses to Charles II for summoning a Parliament,
      460, 461, 463, 465, 475;
    elections (1681) in, 463;
    proceedings against, under writ of _Quo Warranto_, 476, 477, 478,
      494-500;
    debate on question of City's surrender, 503;
    judgment entered, 503-504;
    bishop of, suspended, 516;
    agitation against Popery in, 516-517;
    dissenters supreme in, 525;
    rejoicings in, at birth of Prince James Edward, 528-529;
    the City charter restored, 530;
    the mayor and others attend Privy Council, 532;
    attacks on Catholics in, 533, 534;
    James sends for the mayor and aldermen on hearing of landing of
      Prince of Orange, 533;
    the Lords attend at Guildhall to draw up declaration in favour of
      William, 535;
    invited by Prince of Orange to send representatives to assembly, 537;
    reversal of judgment on _Quo Warranto_, 541, 543, 554-555;
    report of City Committee of Grievances, 541-543;
    William and Mary at the Lord Mayor's banquet, 551;
    elections (1690) in, 553;
    disputed municipal elections in, 556-558;
    assistance of, invoked against France, 559-561;
    William again at the Lord Mayor's banquet, 570;
    excitement in, on disaster in Lagos Bay, 572;
    address to the Queen, 573;
    address to William on death of Queen, 587;
    corrupt practices in, 589-596;
    Jacobite tumults in, 597, 598;
    elections (1695) in, 598;
    address on discovery of Assassination Plot, 599;
    Association in defence of the King, 600;
    opposes Election Bill, 601;
    resolution to defend the King, 601;
    rejoicings in, for the peace of Ryswick, 603;
    King's reception on return from Flanders, 604-606;
    address to William on death of James II, 607;
    addresses to Queen Anne, 610, 616, 623, 626, 629, 630, 635, 649;
    visits of the Queen to, 613, 614, 616, 621, 624;
    the Duke of Marlborough in, 617, 623;
    financial difficulties of, 618-621;
    standards taken at Ramillies presented to, 623;
    soldiers supplied to Anne, 624;
    search for Papists in, 627;
    elections (1708 and 1710) in, 628, 637;
    Act for building new churches, 639;
    election disputes in, 640;
    Prince Eugene in, 645;
    records to be searched for customary procedure in communications
      with the Crown, 646;
    address to Queen Anne on peace of Utrecht, 647;
    loyal addresses to George I, touching Jacobite Conspiracy, iii, 6, 8;
    the City reprimanded by Parliament for defraying law costs in
      disputed elections out of the Chamber, 13-15;
    the action of Parliament towards South Sea Company approved by, 22;
    the Election Act, (11 Geo. i, c, 18) regulating elections in, 26-29;
    the freedom conferred on Frederick, Prince of Wales, 40;
    loyal addresses to George II, 49, 51, 54, 55;
    the freedom conferred on the Duke of Cumberland, 54, 55;
    opposes a proposed tax on plate, 58;
    urges the execution of Admiral Byng, 59, 60, 61;
    the freedom conferred on Pitt and Legge, 61, 62;
    offers bounties for soldiers, 63;
    addresses to the king on Capture of Quebec and conquest of Canada, 64;
    address on surrender of St. Lucia and capture of Martinico, 72;
    the freedom voted to Charles Townshend, 79;
    another remonstrance, 100, 101;
    the King's reply, 101;
    Beckford's famous speech, 102;
    address to King deprecating hostilities with America, 157;
    the King's reply, 158;
    the freedom voted to Dr. Richard Price, 165;
    another address deprecating war with America, _id._;
    subscriptions in aid of war with America refused by, 167;
    advocates conciliatory measures, 168;
    freedom voted to Admiral Keppel, 173;
    vote of thanks to Whig lords for supporting economical reform, 175;
    letter to Lord Shelburne touching Wiltshire Committee of
      Association, 176, 177;
    Lord Shelburne's reply, 177;
    accepts form of Association, 178;
    advocates repeal of Savile's Act, 179, 184;
    the Gordon riots in, 180-184;
    address to the king after Gorden riots, 191;
    claim for damages after riots, _id._;
    address to the king on Rodney's victory in the West Indies, 200;
    proposal to present the king with a man-of-war in place of the
      Royal George by, 201;
    opposes Fox's East India Bill, 204-206;
    upholds the exercise of the king's prerogative, 205;
    opposes Shop Tax and obtains its repeal, 209-212;
    the city's rights saved in convention with France, 212;
    its efforts to abolish the slave trade, 212-213, 288-290;
    the Prince of Wales's gift of £1,000 to poor of, 214;
    sends clothing, etc. to troops in Flanders, 222;
    the freedom voted to Howe, Jervis and Sir George Grey, 223-224;
    riots in, 224;
    great scarcity in, 225;
    subscribes £100,000 to Loyalty Loan, 231;
    the freedom voted to Nelson and a sword to Jervis, 232;
    swords of honour voted to Duncan and Sir Richard Onslow, 234;
    the freeedom voted to Captain Berry, 237;
    a sword of honour voted to Nelson, _id._;
    the same to Sir Sydney Smith, 239;
    bread riots in, 241-245;
    address to the king for meeting of Parliament to consider the high
      price of provisions, 247;
    Pitt's proposal to fortify, against Napoleon, 251;
    claims a separate Bill in matters military, 257;
    address to the king on the dismissal of Lord Melville, 260;
    the same on the formation of the ministry of "all the talents," 265;
    the freedom voted to Sir John Stuart for victory of Maida, 266;
    address on fall of the Grenville Ministry, 267;
    address of thanks to the king for assisting Spain against Napoleon,
      268;
    its indignation at the Convention of Cintra, 269;
    the freedom voted to Colonel Wardle, 270;
    demands enquiry in