[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.