(M896)
Soon after parliament resumed its sittings (7 Nov., 1693) the attention of
the Commons was drawn to a high-handed act done by the wealthy and
autocratic company known as the East India Company. For nearly a century
that body of merchants had enjoyed a monopoly of trade with the East
Indies and had frustrated all attempts of "interlopers" to share their
privileges. It had received its first charter at the hands of Queen
Elizabeth on the 31st December, 1600, but it was not until after the
Restoration, when its privileges were confirmed by another charter, that
it began to enter upon a career of such unexampled prosperity as to become
at once an object of envy and fear. The management of the company’s
affairs rested in the hands of a small number of proprietors, the leading
spirit for many years being Sir Josiah Child, one of the merchant princes
of the city. With him was associated, at least for a time, Thomas
Papillon, the zealous Whig. He had become a member of the company as early
as 1657, and for many years took an active part in its management. He was
one of the directors from 1663 to 1670; was re-appointed in 1675, but lost
his seat on the board the following year, as also did Child, through the
intervention of Charles the Second, who disliked their Whiggish
principles. After a short interval both of them recovered their positions,
and in 1680 and 1681 Papillon was deputy governor.(1774) When Child turned
courtier and threw over his old colleagues, Papillon and other Whig
shareholders sold their stock and severed their connection with the
company. Their places on the directorate were filled up by others who were
devoted to Child and his policy, and thenceforth Child became the autocrat
of the company. "The treasures of the company were absolutely at his
disposal.... A present of ten thousand guineas was graciously received
from him by Charles. Ten thousand more were accepted by James, who readily
consented to become a holder of stock.... Of what the dictator expended no
account was asked by his colleagues."(1775) His policy was so far
successful as to obtain a decision in favour of the company’s privileges
from Jeffreys and a renewal of its charter from James. Just at a time when
the prospects of the company looked brightest a sudden change of fortune
was occasioned by the Revolution and the subsequent accession of the Whigs
to power. The outcry raised by the general merchants of the city against
the company became louder than ever, not so much on account of the company
being in possession of a monopoly as because it was ruled by a single
individual, and his rule, while benefiting himself and his creatures, was
prejudicial to the public welfare. To this outcry Papillon, who had now
returned from exile, added his voice and thereby subjected himself to a
charge of inconsistency.
(M897)
There was but one remedy for the existing evil in the opinion of the
majority, and that was to form a new company from which Child should be
excluded. Without waiting for an Act of Parliament many traders in the
city formed themselves into an association which, although unrecognised by
law, acquired the designation of the New Company, and commenced to carry
on its business at the hall of the Skinners’ Company in Dowgate. For years
the city was kept in a ferment by the rivalry existing between the Old and
the New Company, between Leadenhall Street and Skinners’ Hall, the former
being supported by the Tories, the latter by the Whigs.
(M898)
The sanction and assistance of parliament was sought for by both
companies. The majority of the Commons were in favour of a compromise.
They would have retained the Old Company, but wished to remodel it and to
incorporate with it the members of the New Company. Such a proceeding,
however, Child would not listen to, and his obstinacy so provoked the
House that in February, 1692, it presented an address to the king praying
him to dissolve the Old Company and to grant a charter to a New Company on
such terms as to his majesty’s wisdom might seem fit. The king replied
that it was a matter of very great importance to the trade of the kingdom;
that he could not be expected to give an immediate answer, but he would
consider the matter and give an answer shortly.(1776) The company sought
to avert the impending danger by offering the king the sum of £200,000 by
way of loan for three years without any interest.(1777) A twelvemonth
later (Feb., 1693) the Commons again petitioned the king to dissolve the
Old Company upon three years’ warning;(1778) but in spite of these attacks
the company contrived to obtain a confirmation of its monopoly under the
Great Seal in the following October.(1779) This was only obtained by a
lavish distribution of money.
(M899)
In the meantime the management of the Old Company’s affairs had been
placed ostensibly in the hands of Sir Thomas Cook,(1780) an alderman of
London and member for Colchester, although there is reason for believing
that Child still continued to be the actual manager.
(M900)
Within a few days of the order of the Privy Council for sealing the
company’s charter, and before the king, whose return from the continent
was daily expected, could give it his sanction,(1781) the directors, in
the moment of victory, committed an act of incredible rashness which led
to serious consequences. A number of city merchants had recently chartered
a vessel named "Redbridge" and placed on board a valuable cargo. Her
papers showed her to be bound for a Spanish port, but suspicion pointed to
her being intended for a voyage to the East Indies in contravention of the
company’s charter. Acting on this surmise, the company procured an order
from the Privy Council to have the vessel stopt, and stopt she accordingly
was from the 21st October until the following 9th November, each day’s
delay in sailing inflicting heavy expense on the owners. Such high-handed
proceedings of the Company might create little excitement if carried out
on the high seas and at a distance from home, but in the port of London
they were not to be tolerated. The owners of the "Redbridge" laid their
grievance before the Commons (30 Dec.).(1782) They pointed out that the
conduct of the East India Company was "greatly prejudicial to all foreign
trade and navigation in general, and more particularly to the petitioners,
who by the present laws of the kingdom can have no reparation." They
prayed, therefore, that the like inconveniences might be prevented for the
future. Their petition was referred to a committee of the whole House,
together with other petitions against the company, as well as the
company’s charters. In due course the committee, with Papillon in the
chair, reported that the stopping of the "Redbridge" was "a grievance, a
discouragement to trade and contrary to the known laws of the
kingdom,"(1783) and further that, in the opinion of the Common Hall, "all
the subjects of England have equal right to trade to the East Indies
unless prohibited by Act of Parliament." This resolution was accepted by
the House without a division,(1784) and for some years at least there
nominally existed free trade with India.(1785)
(M901)
Between March, 1689, and February, 1691, little appears to have been done
towards solving the difficulty of the claims of the City orphans. Another
committee was appointed at the expiration of that time to consider the
matter, and in November, 1691, the committee reported to the Common
Council. They recommended that certain rents of the value of £8,000 per
annum should be set aside towards the payment of four per cent. per annum
for the immediate relief of the orphans, and that parliament should be
asked to authorise the raising of a sum of £24,000 to be vested in the
Corporation for the satisfaction of debts to existing orphans, and for
security of the money of orphans that should be paid into the Chamber in
future. The recommendation of the committee was accepted by the court (20
Nov.), and three days later a draft petition to parliament was read and
approved.(1786) The petition set forth that in the troublous times during
and after the reign of Charles I the City lost divers large sums of money,
and that by reason of this, as well as of the destruction of the greatest
part of their estate in the great fire and their losses consequent on the
illegal judgment on the _Quo Warranto_, their debts to the orphans had
amounted to a sum far larger than the City was able to pay without the
assistance of parliament. It proceeded to lay before the House the scheme
proposed by the committee, and prayed the House to assist the petitioners
to raise a sufficient sum for an annual payment to be made in lieu of the
said debts, or such other provision for the same as the House might think
fit. On the 27th November leave was granted to bring in a Bill, and on the
3rd December a Bill was brought in and read the first time, but nothing
further appears to have come of it.(1787) On the 6th August, 1692, a
committee was appointed to consider the question how best the City’s
revenues might be improved with the view to the easier discharge of
orphans’ claims. The committee showed itself very active, meeting at least
once and often twice a week. Nevertheless it was not until the 2nd
November it was in a position to make a report to the Common
Council.(1788) What was thought of the committee’s recommendations is not
recorded, but a few days later (11 Nov.) we find the court resolving to
present a petition to parliament in precisely the same terms as their
former petition.(1789)
(M902)
The matter was allowed to drag on until the 17th February of the next year
(1693), when a committee was appointed by the House to prepare and bring
in another Bill. A Bill was accordingly brought in on the 20th, read the
first time on the 21st, read the second time on the 22nd and committed.
Before the Bill passed through committee the City desired to be heard by
counsel against the Bill on the ground that it divested the City of all
its revenues, deprived it of much of its ancient and necessary
jurisdiction, and would not answer the ends proposed.(1790) In March
progress was reported, but before anything further could be done the House
was prorogued.(1791)
(M903)
When the House re-assembled in November (1693) the City again presented a
petition in terms similar to their former petitions. The petition having
been referred to a committee of the whole House that committee reported
(17 Feb., 1694) to the following effect,(1792) viz., that (1) a
rent-charge of £8,000 per annum should be set aside out of the City’s
revenues towards payment of interest due to orphans, (2) that the City
should be permitted to raise a sum not exceeding £2,000 per annum upon
personal estates in the city to satisfy the orphans’ debts, (3) that the
patentees of a new kind of glass light known as convex lights(1793) should
contribute an annual sum of £600, (4) that an additional duty of 4_d._ per
chaldron should be imposed upon coal entering the port of London and 6_d._
per chaldron on coals imported into the city for a term of fifty years
commencing from the determination of the duty already existing in respect
of re-building St. Paul’s, (5) that an additional duty of 4_s._ should be
laid on every tun of wine entering the port of London, (6) that the
improvements about to be made in the water supply of the city(1794) should
also contribute, and lastly (7) that every person bound apprentice in the
city should contribute 2_s._6_d._, and every person made free of the city
5_s._ towards the same object.
(M904)
A Bill(1795) was subsequently introduced embodying these resolutions, but
with an additional proviso that when the tax of 6_d._ per chaldron on
coals, to be imposed for a term of fifty years, should cease the City’s
lands should be charged with an annual sum of £6,000 over and above the
rent-charge of £8,000 previously mentioned. The Bill was read the first
and second time on the 22nd February, and the third time on the 12th
March. A few days later (21 March) it passed the Lords without amendment,
and on the 23rd received the royal assent.(1796)
(M905)
On the 6th March (1694) the lord keeper came to the Guildhall, accompanied
by the lords of the treasury, to ask the Common Council for a loan of
£200,000, upon security of the land tax, for naval and military purposes.
The court at once assented, and before the end of the month the whole
amount had been paid into the exchequer.(1797) The money was raised in the
usual way from the inhabitants of each ward and from the livery companies.
The Corporation itself was by no means well off, and encouragement was
given to anyone who could suggest a means whereby the City’s revenues
could be increased.(1798) Recourse was had, among other things, to
nominating for sheriff the least suitable men for the office, and such as
would prefer paying the fine to serving. In no other way can one
reasonably account for the fact that the fines for refusing to undertake
the office of sheriff amounted for this year (1694) to over £5,000.(1799)
(M906)
This loan was but as a drop in the ocean compared with the necessities of
the times. The estimates for the year 1694 were enormous. The army, which
was already the largest standing force that England had ever seen, was to
receive a large increase, whilst considerable sums of money were required
for payment of arrears, no less than for the future expenses, of the navy.
Notwithstanding the renewal of the land tax, the imposition of a poll-tax,
the revival of stamp duties, and the raising of a million of money by a
lottery loan, there yet remained a large deficit before the estimated
revenue of the year balanced the estimated expenditure. At this juncture
Charles Montague, poet, politician and _savant_, took up a scheme
propounded to government three years before by William Paterson, an
enterprising if not always successful Scotsman, but allowed to drop. This
scheme was none other than the formation of a national bank. The idea was
not altogether a new one. Before the close of the reign of Charles II
several plans of the kind had been suggested, some being in favour of
establishing such a bank under the immediate direction of the Crown,
whilst others were of opinion that its management should be entrusted to
the Corporation of the city. It was now proposed to raise the sum of
£1,200,000 for the use of the government by way of loan at eight per cent.
interest, the subscribers being incorporated by the name of the Governor
and Company of the Bank of England. The matter was introduced into
parliament for the first time on the 28th March, in the shape of a Bill
for granting their majesties certain tonnage duties on wine, ale and other
liquors.(1800) Although it was not easy to recognise in the terms of the
Bill the germ of "the greatest commercial institution that the world had
ever seen,"(1801) it met with considerable opposition in the House, and
still more outside. With their recent experience of the evils arising from
a rich and powerful body like the East India Company, men were cautious in
allowing a Corporation to be erected in their midst which, as many feared,
would absorb the wealth of the nation,(1802) and might render the Crown
independent of parliament and people. This last consideration was not
unimportant, and, in order to avert the possibility of such a danger, a
clause was inserted in the Bill forbidding under the severest penalties
the new Corporation advancing money to the Crown without the authority of
parliament.(1803) Subject to this and other conditions the Bill passed the
Commons, and on the 24th April was agreed to by the Lords.(1804)
At the head of the Commission, issued under the Great Seal for the
establishment of the new bank, stood the name of the lord mayor, Sir
William Ashurst; and out of the twenty-four original directors at least
four rose to be chief magistrate of the city, whilst others are known to
have taken an active part in the affairs of the municipality.(1805) In the
city the undertaking met with a success beyond all expectation. The very
first day (21 June) that the subscription lists were opened at Mercers’
Hall nearly £300,000 was received, and within a week that amount was
doubled. Sir John Houblon, who succeeded to the mayoralty the following
year, and became the first Governor of the Bank, subscribed £10,000, the
largest amount any one individual was allowed by the terms of the charter
to subscribe before the first day of July. The same amount was subscribed
by the lords of the treasury on behalf of the queen. By mid-day of the 2nd
July the whole of the money (£1,200,000) had been subscribed and the books
closed.(1806) The Great Seal was put to the bank charter, and business was
commenced in the hall of the Grocers’ Company.
Hitherto, as we have seen, the city of London had always acted (as indeed
it claimed to be) as the king’s Chamber, and the occupier of the throne of
England for the time being had never hesitated to draw upon this Chamber
whenever he was in need of money. The mode of procedure was nearly always
the same. The lords of the treasury would appear some morning before the
Common Council, and after a few words of explanation as to the necessities
of the time, would ask for a loan, offering in most cases (we are bound to
confess) undeniable security. Supposing that the Council agreed to raise
the required loan, which it nearly always did, the mayor for the time
being was usually instructed to issue his precept to the aldermen to
collect subscriptions within their several wards, whilst other precepts
were (in later times at least) sent to the master or wardens of the livery
companies to do the same among the members of their companies. There were
times, also, when the companies were called upon to subscribe in
proportion to their assessment for supplying the city with corn in times
of distress.(1807) Times were now changed. Instead of applying to the City
for an advance in case of need, the king thenceforth drew what he required
from the Bank of England. During the remainder of his reign William only
applied twice to the City for a loan: once, towards the close of 1696,
when he required money for the army and navy, and again in 1697, when it
was necessary to pay off his continental allies and lay up the navy after
the peace of Ryswick (10 Sept.).(1808) The City, in its corporate
capacity, was no longer to be the purse of the nation.
(M907)
In December of this year (1694)—soon after his return from an unsuccessful
campaign—William suffered an irreparable loss by the death of the queen.
The old adage touching an ill wind received a curious exemplification at
Queen Mary’s death, for although that event sent down the stock of the
Bank of England three per cent., it benefited the East India Company by
causing a rapid rise in the price of muslin, a commodity of which we are
told that company happened to possess a large quantity.(1809) The Court of
Aldermen put themselves into mourning,(1810) whilst the Common Council
voted an address of condolence to the king and ordered statues
("effigies") of both king and queen to be erected at the Royal
Exchange.(1811) The king followed the advice given to him by the city
fathers not to suffer too much "resentment" over his recent loss, and
diverted himself by practising shooting on horseback in Richmond Park
whilst his dead wife was still above ground.(1812)
(M908)
The funeral did not take place until the 6th March (1695). In anticipation
of that event the Court of Aldermen had some time since (18 Jan.)
appointed a committee to consider of the right and title of the lord
mayor, aldermen and sheriffs of the city to their mourning and their
places in the funeral procession, as also of the mourning due to the
several officers of the city. Four days later (22 Jan.) the committee
reported(1813) to the effect that they had found from the records of the
city that it had been the custom for the lord mayor, aldermen, recorder,
sheriffs and the principal and other officers of the city to have mourning
allowed them by the Crown at the public interments of kings and queens,
but as to the places and precedency of the lord mayor and aldermen on
those occasions the committee had only found one instance of a funeral
procession, and that was at the funeral of Henry VII, when it appeared
that the aldermen walked "next after the knights and before the great
chaplains of dignitys and the knights of the garter being noe lords." The
lord mayor (the report went on to say) was not named in the procession,
but at the mass and offering at the interment it appeared that the lord
mayor, with his mace in hand, offered next after the lord chamberlain, and
the aldermen who had been mayors offered next to the knights of the garter
and before the knights of the body, after whom came those aldermen who had
not been lord mayor.(1814) The committee concluded their report by
recommending that a deputation should wait upon the Privy Council and
assert the right of the Court of Aldermen to mourning. The representation
thereupon made had the desired effect and the usual mourning was allowed
by warrant (29 Jan.).(1815) The citizens marked their respect for the late
queen by shutting up their shops on the day of the funeral.(1816)
(M909)
The session of 1695 of William’s first parliament was signalised by the
discovery of a system of wholesale corruption. That every man had his
price was scarcely less true in William’s day than it was in the later age
of Sir Robert Walpole. The discovery of one delinquent guilty of receiving
money for services, real or supposed, quickly led to another, until
suspicion turned upon the City of London itself. A rumour rapidly gained
ground to the effect that the funds of the City as well as those of the
East India Company had been largely employed in winning the favour of men
in power, and the name of Sir John Trevor, the Speaker of the House of
Commons, was mentioned among others.
(M910)
On the 7th March the House appointed a committee to investigate the
matter, with power to send for persons and papers.(1817) On the 12th the
committee reported to the House that they had discovered an order of a
committee appointed by the Corporation for the purpose of seeing the
Orphans’ Bill through parliament, dated the 12th February, 1694,
authorising the payment of 1,000 guineas to the Speaker, Sir John Trevor,
as soon as the Bill should pass. This order, they said, was signed by
every member of the committee except Sir James Houblon and Mr. Deputy
Ayres, and was endorsed to the effect that the money had been delivered
and paid to the Hon. Sir John Trevor on the 22nd June, 1694, in the
presence of Sir Robert Clayton and Sir James Houblon, brother of Sir
John.(1818) When summoned to account for his having refused to sign the
order of the committee whilst allowing himself to witness the actual
payment of the money to the Speaker, Sir James excused himself by saying
that he had accompanied Sir Robert Clayton, at the latter’s request,
professedly for the purpose of thanking the Speaker for his pains about
the Orphans’ Bill; that this being done, the Chamberlain, who had gone
with them, pulled out a note or bill which he handed to the Speaker, but
as to the nature of the note or bill Houblon declared himself to have been
ignorant until subsequently informed by the Chamberlain. Other members of
the Corporation Committee also gave evidence as to the warrant for payment
of the money having been originally made out with a blank space left for
the name of the payee. The report further declared that sums of money had
been paid to Paul Godrell, clerk of the House of Commons, to the city
solicitor, the solicitor-general and the chairman of the Corporation
Committee in respect of the Orphans’ Bill, whilst the orphans themselves
had been prevailed upon to give security for the payment of five per cent.
on their whole property to certain other parties who professed to be able
to render valuable services in the event of the Bill being passed.(1819)
(M911)
By the time that the reading of the committee’s report to the House was
finished it was growing dusk, and candles were called for. A resolution
was then moved and put to the house by Trevor himself, that the Speaker,
by receiving a gratuity of 1,000 guineas from the city of London after
passing of the Orphans’ Bill, had been guilty of a high crime and
misdemeanour. The resolution was passed, and four days later (16 March)
Trevor was expelled the House.(1820)
(M912)
A month later (18 April) the House of Lords were busy investigating the
conduct of the Marquis of Normanby in accepting, and of the Corporation of
the City in granting, a lease of a certain plot of land lying behind
Clarendon House, part of the City’s estate known as Conduit Mead. It was
shown by oral and documentary evidence that a longer lease than usual had
recently been granted (Jan., 1695) to the marquis as "a gratification," he
being a person of distinction who had shown himself very friendly to the
interests of the City and likely to continue so.(1821) Negotiations for a
lease had been commenced so far back as January, 1694, "before the
Orphans’ Bill was on the anvill in the House of Commons."(1822) It was not
denied that the City entertained the hope that the marquis would use his
interest in expediting the passage of the Bill, and that this hope had
been realised. On the other hand it was shown that when the marquis learnt
that one of the conditions of the lease was that he should "covenant" to
procure an Act of Parliament for settling some doubts of title to the land
conveyed, he at once declared that such a thing was not in his power, but
lay with the king, the lords and the commons; nevertheless, he consented
to use his best endeavours in that direction. The marquis, it was said,
had also been indiscreet enough to divulge certain proceedings of the
House of Lords in the matter of the Convex Lights, and this formed the
subject of an investigation by the House at the same time as the granting
of this lease. After careful consideration the House entirely acquitted
his lordship of blame in both cases.(1823)
(M913)
In considering the City’s action in respect of the Orphans’ Bill we must
not forget to take into account the condition of the age. It was one in
which peculation and venality were predominant. Nearly every official who
was worth the buying could be bought, and the world thought none the worse
of him provided that these pecuniary transactions were kept decently
veiled. The "gifts and rewards" bestowed by the City with the object of
expediting the passage of the Orphans’ Bill were as nothing compared with
the vast sums which the East India Company was reported to have disbursed
in order to obtain the confirmation of its charter. It was the practice
when Sir Thomas Cook was in power for the directors of the company to sign
warrants for any sum that he might require without demanding particulars
from him. In seven years (1688-1694) more than £100,000 had been disposed
of for the company’s "special service," nearly £90,000 of which had been
disbursed whilst Cook was governor (1692-1693).(1824)
(M914)
A parliamentary committee endeavoured to obtain some account as to how
this large sum of money had been expended, but could learn nothing more
than that it had been spent on the "special service" of the company and
that a great part of it had been entrusted to Sir Basil Firebrace.(1825)
Firebrace denied this, but confessed to having received upwards of £16,000
for which he had accounted to the company. The committee’s report
proceeded to inform the House that the company had spent considerable sums
of money, under the guise of contracts, in buying up the interests of
"interlopers" and getting them to join the company. They had found Sir
Samuel Dashwood, Sir John Fleet, Sir Thomas Cook (all aldermen of the
city), Sir Joseph Herne and John Perry to have been cognisant of these
proceedings, but they being members of parliament the committee did not
think fit to send for or examine them.(1826) Acting upon the committee’s
report, the House called upon Sir Thomas Cook (26 March) to give an
account of the sum of £87,000 which he had received of the company’s
money, and upon his refusing committed him to the Tower.(1827) A Bill was
within a few days introduced into the House for compelling Cook to make
disclosure and rapidly passed (6 April).(1828) In the Upper House the Bill
met with the strongest denunciation by the Duke of Leeds (who saw in it
considerable danger to himself), as also by Cook himself, who was brought
from the Tower for the purpose of allowing him to plead against the
passing of such a Bill. At the Bar of the House the latter earnestly
implored the Peers not to pass the Bill in its present form. Let them pass
a Bill of Indemnity and he would tell them all. The Lords considered his
request reasonable, and after a conference with the Lower House it was
agreed that the Bill should take the form of an Indemnity Bill, and so it
was passed (19 April), a joint committee of both Houses being appointed to
examine Cook and others.(1829)
(M915)
His examination, which took place in the Exchequer Chamber on the 23rd
April, confirmed the committee’s previous suspicions.(1830) The sum of
£10,000 had been paid (he said) to Sir Basil Firebrace about November,
1693, when the charter of the East India Company had been confirmed, and
he had always been under the apprehension that Firebrace had pocketed the
money "to recompense his losses in the interloping trade." A further sum
of £30,000 had been paid to Firebrace on various contracts. There had been
a contract involving the payment of £60,000 on account of procuring a new
charter, and another of the value of £40,000 on account of getting the
charter sanctioned by an Act of Parliament, but as no Act was passed this
latter contract fell through. There was a further sum of £30,000 which had
been lost to the company on account of certain stock it had agreed to
purchase from Firebrace at the price of £150 per cent. at a time when the
company’s stock was standing at par. Firebrace had always refused to give
him any account as to how this money was disposed of, and had declared
that "if he were further pressed he would have no more to do in it." Such
was the sum and substance of Cook’s confession so far as it affected
Firebrace.
(M916)
The next day (24 April) Firebrace appeared before the committee. As to the
£10,000 he had received from Cook, that was (he said) a gratuity which had
been given to him before the granting of the charter. The other sum of
£30,000 was due on a contract "for favours and services done." He was
positive that both sums were intended "directly for himself and for the
use of no other person whatsoever"; that he paid nothing thereout towards
procuring either charter or Act, nor had promised to do so. He
acknowledged himself to have been very active in his endeavours to gain
over interlopers, and to improve the stock of the company, but when
pressed by the committee for particulars he asked to be excused giving an
immediate answer on the score of ill-health; he had not slept for two
nights and was much indisposed.(1831) On the 25th and following day he was
well enough to volunteer further evidence incriminating the Duke of Leeds.
He told the committee of an interview he (Firebrace) had had with Sir
Thomas Cook, when the latter expressed his apprehension lest the passing
the East India Company’s charter should be opposed by the lord president.
They had then agreed to endeavour to win his lordship’s favour by an offer
of 5,000 guineas. That sum had been actually left at the duke’s house, and
it was only returned on the morning the enquiry opened. After the payment
of the money both Cook and himself had enjoyed free access to the duke and
found him willing to give them his assistance.(1832)
(M917)
Among others who gave evidence was Child himself, who acknowledged that he
had suggested an offer of £50,000 to the king in order to induce his
majesty to waive his prerogative and allow the company to be settled by
Act of Parliament. William, however, was impervious to a bribe and
declined to meddle in the matter.
(M918)
The result of the enquiry was that the Duke of Leeds was ordered to be
impeached, whilst Firebrace and Cook were committed to the Tower.(1833)
They recovered their liberty in April, 1696, and in July, 1698, Firebrace
was created a baronet.(1834)
(M919)
In July, 1702, the rival companies were content to sink their differences,
and a union was effected.(1835) Shortly before this took place the Old
Company voted the sum of £12,000 as a free gift to Cook for his past
services.(1836) Firebrace, who had used his best endeavours to bring about
the union, brought an action against the Old Company for compensation for
his services, but consented to drop all proceedings on receiving stock in
the company to the amount of £10,000.(1837) In 1704 Cook was elected
mayor, but the state of his health not allowing him to serve, he was
discharged. He died in September, 1709.(1838)
(M920)
On Sunday the 12th May, 1695, William again set out for the continent, and
did not return until the 10th October. The great feature of the campaign
was the brilliant siege and recovery of the town of Namur, which had been
lost to the allied forces three years before. Baulked in a proposed design
against the king’s person by his unexpected departure, the Jacobites had
to content themselves with other measures. On the 10th June, the birthday
of the unfortunate Prince of Wales, a number of them met at a tavern in
Drury Lane. Excited by wine they sallied forth, with drums beating and
colours flying, and insisted on passers by drinking the prince’s health.
This roused the indignation of the neighbours, who sacked the tavern and
put the revellers to flight, one of the ringleaders being seized and
afterwards committed to Newgate.(1839) When, in the following August, the
whole of London was on the tiptoe of excitement, waiting for news of the
fall of Namur, the citizens were suddenly amazed at the sight of a
horseman in military uniform riding through the main streets and
announcing that William had been killed. That the wish was father to the
thought became sufficiently clear to the by-standers when they heard the
man declare with pistol in hand and sword drawn that he would kill anyone
who denied the truth of his statement. A serious disturbance was avoided
by his being incontinently dragged from his horse and carried before the
lord mayor, who committed him to prison.(1840)
(M921)
When the king returned in October, with the laurels of victory fresh on
his brow, he determined to seize the favourable opportunity for dissolving
parliament. The result of the elections for a new parliament—the first
triennial parliament under a recent Act—justified the course he had taken.
The citizens, who had been among the first to welcome him on his arrival
in London, and whose sheriffs—Edward Wills and Owen Buckingham—he had
recently knighted,(1841) instead of returning Tory members, as in the late
parliament, returned four Whigs, viz., three aldermen, Sir Robert Clayton,
Sir John Fleet and Sir William Ashurst, and one commoner, Thomas Papillon.
The election was strongly contested, a poll being demanded by three other
candidates, viz., Sir William Pritchard, Sir Thomas Vernon and Sir William
Russell, against the return of Clayton, Ashurst and Papillon. The result
of the poll, however, left matters undisturbed.(1842) The contest in
Westminster was more severe than in the city, but, like the latter, ended
in a victory for the Whigs. Cook, who was still a prisoner in the Tower,
again contested Colchester, but lost his seat.(1843) On the 22nd November
the Houses met.
(M922)
The king’s return was a signal for fresh action on the part of the
Jacobites. It was resolved to assassinate William on his return from
hunting in Richmond Park. The management of the conspiracy was entrusted
to Sir George Barclay, a Scotch refugee, who succeeded in getting together
a small band of men willing to take part in the desperate enterprise. The
plot was, however, discovered, and some of the leading conspirators
arrested. On the evening of Sunday the 23rd February (1696) the lord mayor
(Sir John Houblon) was summoned to the Privy Council and informed of the
narrow escape of the king. He was charged to look well to the safety of
the city. On Monday morning all the city trained bands were under arms,
and on Tuesday the Common Council voted a congratulatory address to the
king upon his escape.(1844)
(M923)
By that time parliament had been informed of what had taken place. The
Commons immediately suspended the Habeas Corpus Act and agreed to enter
into an association for the defence of their king and country. An
instrument was forthwith drawn up whereby each individual member of the
House pledged himself to uphold King William and William’s government
against James and his adherents, and in case his majesty should meet with
a violent death to unite with one another in inflicting condign vengeance
on his murderers, and in supporting the order of succession to the crown
as settled by the Bill of Rights. On Tuesday (25 Feb.) the House was
called over; the association engrossed on parchment lay on the table, and
every member present went up and signed, those who from sickness or other
cause were absent being ordered to sign the document on their first
appearance in the House, or publicly declare from their seat in the House
their refusal to do so.(1845) The next day the Common Council of the city
unanimously resolved to enter into the like association, the livery
companies of the city being afterwards called upon by the mayor to do the
same.(1846)
(M924)
For weeks and months strict search was made in the city for Papists and
suspect persons,(1847) and among them for Sir John Fenwick, for whose
arrest a proclamation was issued on the 22nd March.(1848) He was
eventually captured whilst making his way to the coast for the purpose of
escaping to France, and was committed to Newgate. When a motion was made
in November for proceeding against him by Bill of Attainder the sheriffs
of London surrendered their charge to the sergeant-at-arms of the House of
Commons. After his execution on Tower Hill in January of the following
year (1697) some officers of Sheriff Blewet, whose duty it had been to
keep watch over Fenwick by night and day whilst lying in Newgate, had to
apply to the Court of Aldermen before they could get the sheriff to pay
them the money (£9 10_s._) due to them for that service.(1849)
(M925)
The discovery of the assassination plot had the result of rendering
William’s seat on the throne more secure than ever, and won for him the
unqualified support of parliament. Early in February (1696) a Bill had
been brought in to exclude from the House every person who did not possess
a certain estate in land. The Bill met with much opposition in commercial
circles, and more especially in the city of London,(1850) and the king
being unwilling to estrange those merchants and traders who had so often
assisted him, exercised his prerogative and declined to give his assent to
the Bill. Thereupon some violent Tories moved that whoever advised the
king to take this course was an enemy to him and the nation; but the House
displayed its loyalty by rejecting the motion by an overwhelming majority
and ordering the division list to be published.(1851)
(M926)
The City was not behindhand in renewing its assurances of loyalty. The
liverymen of the several companies assembled in the Guildhall for the
election of a mayor on Michaelmas-day passed a resolution to stand by the
king with their lives and fortunes, and desired the city members of
parliament to see that a searching enquiry were made into the late
conspiracy as the best means of preserving the king’s person, establishing
the government, and reviving trade and credit.(1852)
(M927)
At the time when this resolution was passed the king was expected home
from the continent, whither he had gone in May last. During his absence
there had occurred a monetary crisis—the first since the establishment of
the Bank of England—which, after causing for several months a great amount
of distress, was destined to be succeeded by a long period of unbroken
prosperity. An Act had recently been passed for calling in all clipt money
and substituting milled money in its stead,(1853) and the crisis was
brought about by the old money being called in before the new money was
ready for issue. Saturday, the 2nd May, was practically the last day clipt
money was received by the exchequer. Three days later the stock of milled
money in the coffers of the Bank of England at Grocers’ Hall had run out,
and the governor of the Bank, Sir John Houblon, who happened at the time
to be also lord mayor, had to propitiate the numerous claimants for the
new money by offering them part payment in the old coin and the rest in
the new as soon as it was minted.(1854)
(M928)
Towards the end of July matters became worse. In spite of the
extraordinary activity displayed by the Mint authorities, at the Tower and
in divers parts of the country, the supply had not equalled the demand,
yet a large sum of money was now imperatively demanded for payment of the
army on the continent. The king himself had written to say that unless the
money was forthcoming his troops were ready to mutiny or desert. Nothing
less than a million would satisfy the requirements of the army in
Flanders, a like sum was wanted for the navy, whilst half that amount was
necessary for the army in England.(1855) How was this enormous sum to be
raised? It was thought that the City might vote something towards it, but
the Chamberlain declared that any proposal for a loan at that time would
with difficulty be carried into execution owing to the scarcity of
money.(1856) Some private individuals, however, managed to raise £200,000
for the king, whilst others, like Sir Josiah Child, Charles Duncombe and
Sir Joseph Herne, were prepared to stand security for £300,000 more, which
the Dutch were ready to advance. After long deliberation the Bank of
England agreed (15 Aug.) to advance another £200,000.(1857) These sums
sufficed for the more immediate wants of the king, and allowed time for
the issue of the new currency.
(M929)
The campaign of 1696 had been carried on in a very desultory way. All
parties were anxious for a peace. Towards the end of April, 1697, William
once more crossed over to Flanders,(1858) and the French king having for
the first time shown a disposition to come to terms, it was arranged that
a congress should meet near the Hague. The result of the congress was the
conclusion (10 Sept.) of the Peace of Ryswick, whereby Louis consented to
acknowledge William’s title to the throne. The news was received in the
city four days later with every demonstration of joy; the Tower guns were
discharged, flags hung out, bells set ringing and bonfires lighted.(1859)
(M930)
The Court of Aldermen resolved to give the king a more than ordinary
reception on his return. Search was made for precedents as to the manner
in which former kings had been received on their return from progresses or
from parts beyond the sea, and these precedents, from the time of Edward
IV down to that of King Charles II, were duly reported to the court by a
committee appointed to make the search.(1860) The committee was next
instructed to consider of suitable ways and methods for the reception of
his majesty if he should be pleased to pass through the city, and on this
also the committee reported with elaborate detail.(1861) These and other
preparations were all made under the apprehension that the king was about
to return immediately. Weeks went by and no king appeared. The Court of
Aldermen availed themselves of the delay to put the finishing touches to
the programme of welcome that was to be accorded him, and to commit into
custody any suspicious character they found.(1862) At length, after long
and impatient expectation, news came that the king had landed at Margate
on the 14th November.(1863) By the following night his majesty reached
Greenwich and rested in the handsome building which, at the desire of his
beloved queen, had been recently converted from a palace into a hospital
for disabled seamen.(1864)
(M931)
The lord mayor immediately issued his precept to the several livery
companies (they had received a previous warning to prepare for the
occasion on the 1st October)(1865) to be ready in their stands by eight
o’clock on the morning of Tuesday the 16th November, well apparelled and
with all the ornaments of their companies before them.(1866) That morning
witnessed one of the finest sights that had ever been seen in the city of
London, famous as it always had been for its pageantry. No expense had
been spared in providing new gowns for the magistrates and new banners for
the companies. The mayor, aldermen and sheriffs rode out "in their
formalities" as far as Southwark, where they met the king, and where the
usual ceremony took place of surrendering the civic sword into his
majesty’s hands, to be immediately returned to the lord mayor. This done,
the procession was formed, and the king was escorted with trumpets and
kettle-drums through the entire length of the city, the streets being
guarded by the six regiments of trained bands, and the houses rendered
bright with hangings of tapestry.(1867)
(M932)
On Wednesday the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, accompanied by the
recorder, waited upon his majesty and congratulated him on the peace and
on his safe return. The king in reply thanked them, and conferred the
honour of knighthood upon the sheriffs, Bartholomew Gracedieu and James
Collett.(1868)
(M933)
The rejoicings terminated with a thanksgiving service at St. Paul’s (2
Dec.), the work of Sir Christopher Wren being sufficiently advanced to
admit of divine service being held there. The mayor and aldermen attended
in state. The king did not attend lest his presence should draw off
congregations from other churches; but he attended service in his private
chapel at Whitehall. Not only in London but throughout the kingdom the day
was solemnly observed, whilst the night was given up to festivity and
fireworks.(1869)
(M934)
When, in 1698, the first triennial parliament had run its course and a new
election of members for the city took place all the old members retained
their seats except Sir Robert Clayton. His place was taken by Sir James
Houblon, a Tory. On this occasion the election for the city did not take
place until the returns of many constituencies in the country had been
made known. As a rule the returns of the metropolitan constituencies were
looked forward to as an augury of the political complexion of the coming
parliament. This parliament was not allowed to live its full time, but was
dissolved in December, 1700, a new parliament being summoned to meet in
the following February (1701).(1870) Sir Robert Clayton regained his seat,
and with him were returned Sir William Ashurst (who headed the poll),
Gilbert Heathcote and Sir William Withers.(1871) Upon Heathcote being
declared by parliament disqualified to sit owing to a technical breach of
trust his seat was taken by Sir John Fleet.(1872)
(M935) (M936)
After the death of James II at St. Germains (5 Sept., 1701) Louis broke
his vow (made at Ryswick) not to do anything to disturb or subvert the
government of England, and forthwith proclaimed the late king’s son to be
heir to his father’s throne. The whole English nation was stirred against
the French king for having dared to acknowledge as their sovereign the boy
who had been held to be supposititious and whose title to the crown had
been rejected by parliament. The citizens of London were among the first
to express their loyalty to William and their readiness to do their utmost
to preserve his person and government against all invasion. The king was
on the continent at the time, but an address to this effect, unanimously
agreed to by the Common Council (26 Sept.), was forwarded to him by the
lords justices, who held the reins of government during his absence, and
who in due course were instructed to inform the City of the great
satisfaction its address had afforded his majesty. The example thus set
was quickly followed by others, and similar addresses began to flow in
from all parts of the kingdom,(1873) whilst the City’s address was by the
king’s orders translated into foreign languages for transmission to the
several courts of Europe.(1874)
(M937)
A few hours before the City’s address reached the hands of the lords
justices the citizens had assembled (29 Sept.) in Common Hall to choose a
mayor for the ensuing year. Sir Charles Duncombe, who had amassed a large
fortune as a goldsmith and banker, and who, although returned by the
livery at the head of the poll the previous year, had been set aside by
the Court of Aldermen in his contest for the mayoralty probably on account
of his Tory principles,(1875) was again put up as a candidate, although in
point of seniority he was one of the youngest aldermen. This time he
failed to get a majority of votes at the Common Hall, but his popularity
was still sufficiently strong to return him second on the poll, and his
name was submitted in conjunction with that of William Gore to the Court
of Aldermen for them to select one. It was quite within their province to
select if they chose the second name submitted to them—they had frequently
done so before—but in the face of Louis’s recent act of insolence they
preferred to call to the mayoralty chair a man whose Tory principles were
not too pronounced rather than one who had accepted an alderman’s
commission from James II, and Sir William Gore was accordingly declared
elected.(1876)
(M938)
The parliament which assembled in February, 1701, enjoyed a still shorter
existence than its predecessor, for it was dissolved in the following
November. Another was summoned to meet in December.(1877) Great excitement
prevailed in the city over this election. The Whigs met at the Crown
Tavern behind the Exchange and agreed to put up three of the old members,
viz., Clayton, Ashurst and Heathcote, and to run a fresh candidate in the
person of Sir Thomas Abney. The Tory or "Church party" opposed these
candidates with four others, viz., Sir William Gore, the lord mayor, Sir
John Fleet, Sir Richard Levett and Sir Charles Duncombe, the recently
defeated candidate for the mayoralty. When it came to polling all four
Whigs were returned by an overwhelming majority.(1878) This was the last
parliament of William’s reign. On the 20th February (1702) he was thrown
from his horse whilst riding in Richmond Park and broke his collar-bone.
His health had previously shown signs of giving way. On the 8th March he
died.