[Sidenote: King George II proclaimed, 15 June, 1727.]
On the 15th June, 1727, the Court of Aldermen were informed by Sir John
Eyles, the lord mayor, that he had received an order of council dated
from Leicester House (the residence of the Prince of Wales) for his
lordship and the Court to attend at eleven o'clock the next morning at
Temple Bar for the purpose of proclaiming King George II. The Court
thereupon agreed to be present, and instructed the lord mayor to see
that they were allowed to follow in the procession immediately after
the lords of the council.[74] Proclamation having been duly made the
mayor and aldermen, accompanied by the Recorder, waited upon the king
with an address, and afterwards proceeded to pay their compliments to
the queen.[75] Another address had been drawn up by a joint committee
of aldermen and common councilmen on behalf of the Common Council.
But when it was submitted for approval the aldermen insisted upon
exercising their right of veto--recently confirmed by parliamentary
authority--and as they and the commons failed to agree on the several
clauses of the address it had to be abandoned altogether. The mayor
was asked to summon another court, "in pursuance to common usage and
ancient right," to consider another address, but after consultation
with the aldermen he declined to accede to the request.[76]
[Sidenote: The king's coronation, 11 Oct., 1727.]
The coronation did not take place until October. The ceremony was one
of far greater splendour than that of George I, such pageants being "as
pleasing to the son as they were irksome to the father."[77] The City
put in its customary claims, which were duly allowed. The manner in
which these claims were made, as set out in a report made to the Court
of Aldermen by the city Remembrancer, whose duty it was to make them,
was shortly this. Having first obtained the names of the masters of the
twelve superior companies, he put in two claims--written on parchment,
and stamped with a treble sixpenny stamp--for the usual services in
attendance upon the king and queen. The claims being allowed, he
obtained certificates to that effect, and on presenting them at the
lord great chamberlain's office he received warrants to the master of
the king's jewel office for two gold cups, each weighing 21 ozs. One
of these, the king's cup, he conveyed to the lord mayor; the other,
the queen's cup, he left until after the ceremony, "for note"--says
he--"they were not nor are they used to be carryed down to Westminster
Hall to be made use of on that solemnity." The coronation over, the
Remembrancer applied for and received from the Clerk of the Crown a
copy of the judgments on the several claims.[78]
[Sidenote: The lord mayor's banquet, 28 Oct., 1727.]
According to custom the king attended the first lord mayor's banquet
after his accession. He was accompanied by the queen, the royal family,
the great officers of state, and a large number of the nobility.[79]
The entertainment was signalised by what appears to have been a
barefaced attempt at extortion on the part of the king's own cup-bearer
who made a claim on the City for a silver cup (or its value) by way
of fee. The matter having been brought to the notice of the Court of
Aldermen, the Town Clerk was instructed to search the city's Records
for precedents, and upon his reporting that he had failed to find
one the claim was dismissed.[80] The new king, like his father,
ordered £1,000 to be paid to the sheriff for the relief of insolvent
debtors.[81]
[Sidenote: Portraits of king and queen.]
The day that the king was invited to the lord mayor's banquet the
Common Council resolved to set up his statue at the Royal Exchange.[82]
Eventually they commissioned Charles Jervas, an Irish painter and pupil
of Kneller, to paint portraits both of the king and queen for the
Guildhall. Jervas had been originally apprenticed to a frame maker, and
this may account for the anxiety he displayed to put the portraits into
better frames than was usual. To do this he asked for and obtained the
consent of the Court of Aldermen.[83] The pictures now hang in the
members' reading room at the Guildhall.[84]
[Sidenote: Walpole and the queen.]
For a short time after the king's accession it appeared as if Walpole's
ascendancy was to be suddenly cut short. The minister was fortunate,
however, in winning over the queen to his interests, and her influence,
combined with his own masterful tact, turned the scale in his favour,
and he was allowed to remain at the head of affairs. Before long
he succeeded in gaining the entire confidence of the king himself,
but during the lifetime of the queen it was chiefly to her that the
minister turned in times of difficulty. She was a woman of considerable
ability, and thoroughly appreciated Walpole, and together they were
able to avoid many political pitfalls and to persistently carry out
that policy of peace which characterised the whole of this reign.
[Sidenote: Dissenters and the Corporation and Test Acts, 1730.]
Thus it was that in 1730, when the government was placed in an
unpleasant dilemma over an attempt that was being made by Dissenters
throughout the country to obtain the repeal of the Corporation and
Test Acts Walpole took counsel with the queen, and these two laid a
plan with Hoadley, Bishop of Salisbury, for getting the Dissenters
to postpone bringing their petition before parliament. The plan as
we learn from Lord Hervey,[85] who had every means of making himself
acquainted with the inner workings of the Court of George II, was this.
Hoadley, in whom the Dissenters placed much confidence as an avowed
advocate of ecclesiastical as well as civil liberty, was to do all he
could to persuade them to postpone, at least for a short time, their
petition to parliament, whilst Walpole was to see that the committee of
London Dissenters, which was to be chosen to confer with government,
should comprise none but creatures of his own. The scheme succeeded
entirely. The Dissenters were hoodwinked. The packed committee went
through the form of an interview with the ministers, and in due course
reported to the general assembly of Dissenters that the time was
inopportune for petitioning parliament. The general body agreed, and
the ministry was thus saved.
[Sidenote: The City and Walpole's Excise Bill, 1733.]
Although it was chiefly as a financier that the great minister, under
whom England enjoyed an unexampled period of peace and prosperity,
excelled, it was a financial reform that nearly brought him to ruin
three years later. This was his famous Excise Bill. In a hasty desire
to curry favour with the landowners by reducing the Land Tax Walpole
proposed to establish a new system of levying duties on tobacco and
wine. The tax itself was not new, but only the manner of levying it.
Hitherto the duty on wine and tobacco had been payable on importation.
The new proposal was that these commodities should be allowed to lie
in bonded warehouses duty free until taken out for home consumption,
when their sale was to be restricted to shops licensed for the purpose.
In other words the customs' duties on these commodities were to be
changed into excise duties, a form of taxation especially hateful in
those days, as seeming to infringe the rights of the subject by giving
revenue officers the right of entering and searching houses at any hour
without further warrant. The City and the country were up in arms, and
the city members of parliament were instructed to oppose the Bill for
reasons set out in writing and delivered into their hands.[86]
Walpole delayed bringing in the Bill as long as he could in hopes that
the clamour against it--"epidemic madness," as Hervey called it--might
subside. Neither London nor the kingdom, however, would listen to
reason, and the universal cry was _No slavery--no excise--no wooden
shoes!_[87] When the Bill was at last introduced (14 March) it met
with violent opposition, and more particularly from two of the city
members, viz., Sir John Barnard and Micaiah Perry. During the debate
the doors of the House were besieged by such a noisy crowd that Walpole
in an unguarded moment characterised the mob as "sturdy beggars." This
at once brought Barnard to his feet, and although there was at first
a disposition not to hear him, as he had already spoken to the Bill,
the House was prevailed upon to give him a second hearing, owing to
his position as a representative of "the greatest and richest city in
Europe," and a city greatly interested in the issues of the debate.
Barnard thereupon took Walpole severely to task for the expression he
had let drop. "The honourable gentleman," said he, "talks of sturdy
beggars; I do not know what sort of people may be now at the door,
because I have not lately been out of the House, but I believe they
are the same sort of people that were there when I came last into the
House, and then I can assure you that I saw none but such as deserve
the name of sturdy beggars as little as the honourable gentleman
himself, or any gentleman whatever." Sturdy beggars or not (he declared
in conclusion) they could not legally be prevented from coming down to
the House. After some further debate Walpole gained the day, and on the
4th April the Bill was read a first time.[88]
Before the Bill came on for its second reading a copy of it had been
laid before the Common Council (9 April), and a petition had thereupon
been drawn up and presented to the House asking that the City might
be heard by counsel against the Bill.[89] After long debate the
prayer of the petition was refused, but only by a bare majority of
seventeen.[90] By this time the clamour had become so great, even the
army showing signs of disaffection, that Walpole, true to his principle
of expediency, the key-note of his policy, resolved to purchase
peace by concession. He postponed the further consideration of the
Bill (11 April) for a period of two months, and afterwards withdrew
it altogether. On leaving the House the day that the motion for
postponement was carried the minister was mobbed. The affair was little
more than an "accidental scuffle," but it was studiously represented
to parliament as "a deep-laid scheme for assassination." Resolutions
were passed condemning in strong terms all actors and abettors of the
outrage, and the city members were especially directed to carry copies
to the lord mayor for publication within his jurisdiction--the City
being considered as the real author of all the mischief.[91]
[Sidenote: Mayoralty of Sir William Billers, 1733-1734.]
The defeat of the Bill was received with extravagant joy, and in 1734
it was proposed to celebrate its anniversary in the city with bonfires.
For this purpose subscriptions were invited through the medium of the
press. The mayor, Sir William Billers, on learning this consulted
the Court of Aldermen as to what was best to be done under the
circumstances, and by their advice he issued his precept for a special
watch to be kept, and for the arrest of all persons attempting to make
bonfires or to create disorder.[92] Notwithstanding this precaution a
riot broke out, and Billers not only had his windows broken, on account
of his obnoxious precept, but was himself pelted with dirt and stones,
whilst patrolling the streets in company with the Swordbearer. Insult
was added to injury by the newspapers of the day holding him up as
having himself been the real cause of all the disorder. The Court of
Aldermen, on the other hand, accorded him a hearty vote of thanks for
the courage he had displayed.[93] On going out of office Billers again
became an object of attack, the mob pelting him with all kinds of filth
and endeavouring to smash his coach. The Court of Aldermen were so
indignant at this outrage that they offered a reward of £50 for every
offender brought to justice.[94]
[Sidenote: Royal marriages, 1734 and 1736]
In 1734 the princess royal was married to the Prince of Orange, and
two years later the Prince of Wales married the Princess Augusta
of Saxe-Gotha. On both occasions the City presented congratulatory
addresses.[95] Lord Hervey, the king's vice-chamberlain, was highly
indignant at the first address because of the reference it made to King
William III. But if the City sinned in this respect it sinned in good
company, for Oxford University and other corporate bodies made similar
allusions. "The city of London," wrote Hervey,[96] "the University of
Oxford, and several other disaffected towns and incorporated bodies
took the opportunity of the princess royal's marriage to say the most
impertinent things to the king, under the pretence of complimental
addresses, that ironical zeal and couched satire could put together.
The tenor of them all was to express their satisfaction in this match
from remembering how much this country was indebted to a prince who
bore the title of Orange, declaring their gratitude to his memory,
and intimating as plainly as they dared, how much they wished this
man might follow the example of his great ancestor, and one time or
other _depose his father-in-law_ in the same manner that King William
had deposed his." Happily the king took a more sensible view of the
address, and vouchsafed a gracious reply. So far from being offended
at the City's allusion to William of Orange he was pleased. "It is a
great pleasure to me," he said, "to see this great metropolis remember
with so much gratitude the deliverance of these kingdoms from popery
and slavery by my great predecessor King William."[97] Soon after the
marriage of the Prince of Wales he was presented with the Freedom of
the City in a gold box, having previously been admitted a member of the
Saddlers' Company.[98]
[Sidenote: Disputes between England and Spain in the West Indies.]
For nearly twenty years England had enjoyed uninterrupted peace at home
and abroad. The last action in which an English force had been engaged
had taken place in the summer of 1718, when Admiral Byng defeated a
Spanish fleet off Cape Passaro. Since then trade had been flourishing,
and the city merchant had been busily sending cargoes of English
merchandise across the sea to the West Indies, paying little regard to
the restrictions imposed on them by the provisions of the Treaty of
Utrecht.[99]
[Sidenote: Jenkin's ear, 1738.]
Spain on the other hand insisted upon the right of search, and their
coastguards had often seized English vessels suspected of smuggling,
and were sometimes reported as having brutally ill-used their
crews.[100] Matters were fast tending to an open rupture when the
episode of Jenkin's ear roused an intense desire for war both in the
city and the country generally. The story is well known. Jenkin was
master of a small trading vessel which seven years before had been
overhauled by a Spanish guarda-costa. Irritated at finding nothing
contraband on board the Spanish commander is said to have cut off
one of Jenkin's ears, bidding him carry it to the king. Jenkin took
advantage of the prevalent feeling against Spain to exhibit his ear
wrapt in cotton wool, and when asked as to his feelings at the time
of the outrage declared that he had commended his soul to God and his
cause to his country. This clap-trap story--it is shrewdly suspected
that Jenkin lost his ear in the pillory--had the desired effect.
Popular indignation was roused, and the nation clamoured for war.
[Sidenote: The City and the Spanish Convention, 1739.]
To all this Walpole turned a deaf ear, and instead of proclaiming war
opened negotiations for peace. A Convention with Spain was agreed to,
but as it left the question as to right of search still unsettled,
great opposition was displayed, both in and out of parliament, to
its ratification. The minister was in the greatest straits. His best
friend and supporter, the queen, had recently died, and the king,
freed from the peaceful influence of his wife, as well as the City,
were urging war. It was not often that the Londoners called for war,
they were too interested in commercial pursuits not to appreciate
to the full the blessings of peace. But on this occasion the City
felt bound to make a strong representation to parliament as to "the
fatal consequences of leaving the freedom of navigation any longer
in suspense and uncertainty." They had too much reason to fear (they
said) that if the right claimed by Spain of searching British ships at
sea were admitted in any degree "the trade of his majesty's subjects
to America will become so precarious as to depend in a great measure
upon the indulgence and justice of the Spaniards, of both which they
have given us for some years past such specimens as we humbly think
this nation can have no cause to be satisfied with."[101] The citizens
were probably right, although they were held up to much ridicule for
venturing to give advice upon affairs of state. During the debate on
the convention, lists of the members of the Common Council, with their
respective trades or companies, were scattered abroad, and to these
lists were appended texts from scripture to the effect that however
useful such men might be in a city "they shall not be sought for in
public council."[102]
[Sidenote: "Leonidas" Glover.]
One citizen in particular distinguished himself by advocating war in a
poem of greater length than merit. This was Richard Glover,[103] known
as "Leonidas" Glover (from another poem he wrote bearing that title),
author of "London, or the Progress of Commerce," in which he reminds
the citizens of their former prowess at Newbury, and asks--
"Shall we be now more timid, when behold,
The blackening storm now gathers round our heads
And England's angry genius sounds to arms?"
Besides being an "eminent Hamburgh merchant" and a writer of verse,
Glover took an active part in city elections, and was a strong
upholder of the rights of the livery. On Michaelmas-day, when Sir
George Champion, who sat for Aylesbury, was put in nomination for the
mayoralty and rejected chiefly, if not wholly, on account of his
having voted for the Convention,[104] Glover was asked to move a vote
of thanks to the city members, for having opposed the Convention. This
he did in a spirited speech, in which he referred to Champion's chance
of election to the mayoralty as being in all probability for ever lost,
a prediction which proved true.[105]
[Sidenote: War declared with Spain, 19 Oct., 1739.]
Although the Convention was carried, it became apparent that either
war must be declared or Walpole resign. The minister's love of power
overcame his convictions, and he allowed himself to be dragged into a
war which he felt at the time to be unjustifiable and foreboding of
evil. The declaration of war which was made in October was welcomed
with peals of bells from London churches. "They ring their bells now,"
said he, "before long they will be wringing their hands." When the
outgoing mayor received instructions from the Duke of Newcastle to
assist at the proclamation of war according to custom, he demurred on
the ground that the town clerk had been unable to find a precedent
for the Court of Aldermen attending a proclamation of war; but upon
the Duke referring him to what had taken place when war was declared
in 1718 against Spain, the objection was withdrawn. A question next
arose as to the place the civic authorities should occupy in the
procession, and the Remembrancer was instructed to make enquiries on
the point both at the secretary's office and the Heralds' College.
The information gathered by him proving unsatisfactory, the Court of
Aldermen took it upon themselves to decide that the civic party should
fall in immediately after Garter King-at-Arms. This order, however,
was not carried out, for the Horse Guards thrust themselves into the
procession in front of the municipal officers.[106]
[Sidenote: Capture of Porto Bello, Nov., 1739.]
At the outset of the war fortune favoured British arms, and in
November, Admiral Vernon succeeded in surprising and capturing the town
of Porto Bello, situate on the Isthmus of Darien (Panama). The City
was delighted and presented the king with the usual congratulatory
address.[107] Such a feat the citizens declared would not only serve to
show that the maritime power of the country, although allowed to lie
dormant so long, was still capable of vindicating the honour of the
crown, but also gave promise of future successes, and they assured the
king that he might depend upon them to contribute towards the support
of a war so necessary for the protection of their long injured trade.
[Sidenote: "Admiral Hosier's Ghost."]
As for Vernon, he became a popular idol with the citizens, who
continued to look upon his single success whilst they turned a blind
eye to his many subsequent failures. Not only was he presented with the
Freedom of the City in a gold box, but his birthday was for some years
kept with general rejoicing.[108] His capture of Porto Bello was made
the subject of a poem by Glover--his one readable ballad--under the
title of "Admiral Hosier's Ghost," in which Vernon's good fortune is
compared with the ill-luck which attended Hosier's expedition to the
West Indies in 1726, when, doomed to inaction by orders from home, that
gallant officer saw the greater part of his men swept off by disease,
and he himself died subsequently of a broken heart.[109]
[Sidenote: Heathcote discharged Mayor by Common Council, Oct., 1740.]
When Michaelmas-day again came round Glover was again to the fore. It
was customary for the livery to hold a preliminary meeting either at
the London Tavern or some company's hall before they met in Common
Hall. On this occasion the meeting was held in Vintners' Hall, and
Glover took the chair. The business of the day having been opened by
a speech from the chairman, in which he referred to the rejection of
Sir George Champion the previous year, and exhorted them to choose a
mayor for the year ensuing who would be agreeable to the majority of
the citizens, the livery proceeded to choose Sir Robert Godschall and
George Heathcote, although they were not the senior aldermen below
the chair.[110] There names were accordingly submitted to the full
body of the livery assembled in Common Hall on Michaelmas-day and were
accepted.[111] It now became the duty of the Court of Aldermen to
select one of these two to be mayor for the year ensuing. Godschall
was the senior, and Heathcote particularly desired not to be chosen
on the plea of ill-health, and because he had so recently served
sheriff. Nevertheless the choice of the aldermen was declared to be
for Heathcote, although he repeated his request not to serve. A
Common Council was thereupon summoned to consider the matter, and it
was eventually resolved that Heathcote should be discharged without
fine.[112]
[Sidenote: Humphrey Parsons re-elected Mayor, Oct., 1740.]
This necessitated the summoning another Common Hall, and another
accordingly met on the 14th October. A preliminary meeting of the
livery took place, as before, at Vintners' Hall, and again Glover was
in the chair. The action of the Court of Aldermen in thus passing
over Godschall merely because the livery had refused to nominate
Champion, was strongly condemned by the chairman, who no less strongly
eulogised the action of Heathcote for refusing to serve--a refusal
which emanated, according to the speaker, not from ill-health, but from
a determination not to fill the place of the rejected Godschall.[113]
When the election came on in Common Hall the livery returned Godschall
for the third time, and with him Humphrey Parsons who had served mayor
ten years before. Again Godschall was passed over by the Court of
Aldermen, and Parsons was called to the mayoralty chair for the second
time, although by the bare majority of one vote.[114]
The Common Council were desirous (22 Oct.) of passing a vote of thanks
to Parsons for again accepting a laborious and expensive office,
"_and thereby endeavouring in some measure to restore the peace and
tranquility of this city which has been greatly disturbed by a late
extraordinary and unusual proceeding_." A A long debate arose, some
of the aldermen present insisting upon their right of a negative voice
in the matter; and upon the question being put to them, the words in
_italics_ were vetoed by twelve aldermen to one.[115] Those aldermen
who had previously voted for Godschall and a large number of the Common
Council had already got up and left the Court.[116]
[Sidenote: A general election, 1741.]
In 1741 a general election took place. Parsons, who had sat in the
last two Parliaments with Sir John Barnard, had, in the meantime,
died during his mayoralty, and had been succeeded in the civic chair
by Daniel Lambert.[117] Barnard retained his seat, and with him were
returned the new mayor, and Aldermen Godschall and Heathcote. The
ministry still retained a majority in the House, but it was not always
to be depended upon.
[Sidenote: City petitions to parliament, Jan., 1742.]
Early in the following year two petitions were laid before Parliament
complaining of the manner in which the trade of the country was being
ruined owing to insufficiency of convoys. One petition--drafted by
Glover--was from merchants of the city, and was presented to Parliament
by Godschall,[118] who had at last succeeded in becoming mayor; and
the other was from the Common Council of the city, and was presented
by the sheriffs.[119] Both petitions were referred to a committee of
the whole House, with Godschall in the chair, and in due course the
House instructed the lord mayor and Sir John Barnard to prepare a Bill
for the better protecting and securing the trade and navigation of the
kingdom in time of war.[120]
[Sidenote: Death of Godschall, mayor, June, 1742.]
A Bill was accordingly prepared, which passed rapidly through the
Commons but was thrown out by the Lords.[121] This was almost the last
parliamentary business on which Godschall was engaged, for he died
during his mayoralty in the following June.
[Sidenote: Resignation of Walpole, 17 Feb., 1742.]
Whilst these petitions were under consideration the ministry suffered
a defeat over an election petition, and Walpole resigned (17 Feb.).
With the great "corrupter" removed the City hoped for great things.
The Common Council had, previously (10 Feb.) made a "representation"
to the city members urging them to promote a Place Bill and a Pension
Bill, as well as the repeal of the Septennial Act, and so secure the
constitution "against all future attempts either of open or secret
corruption or of any undue influence whatsoever."[122]
[Sidenote: The City and the new ministry.]
After some difficulty a new ministry was formed in which Carteret soon
became the leading man. The City continued to look for the execution of
the long-wished-for reforms, but looked in vain. It was the old story.
Men who when out of office breathed the spirit of patriotism and virtue
were anything but virtuous and patriotic in office. Again were the city
members urged by another "representation" to press forward certain
measures and not to vote supplies until the government showed some
signs of moving in the direction required.[123] The example of the
City was followed in other places, and copies of the "representation"
were freely circulated in all parts of the country. The newspapers of
the day, whilst lamenting the condition into which the country had
fallen through "the iniquitous administration of the late corrupter,"
expressed their confidence that the example set by London--"the source
and fountain head of all our wealth and trade"--would continue to have,
as it had already had, its proper influence both within and without
doors.[124]
[Sidenote: France and the Young Pretender, 1743.]
When Carteret came into power, Europe was distracted with the war of
the Austrian succession, and before long England was drawn into the
vortex. Whilst France embraced the cause of the Elector of Bavaria,
England supported Maria Theresa. In June, 1743, the French army was
defeated at Dettingen, when, for the last time, a king of England
appeared in the field of battle at the head of his men, and bore
himself right royally. Louis retaliated by promising assistance to
Charles Edward Stuart, known in history as the Young Pretender, who
meditated an invasion of England to claim the crown.
[Sidenote: War declared against France, 29 March, 1744.]
Information of the project having been communicated to Parliament (15
Feb., 1744), both Houses concurred in an address of loyalty to the
king, promising him their utmost support, and the next day the Common
Council voted a similar address.[125] The deputation which waited upon
his majesty with the City's address met with a gracious reception, and
the king conferred the honour of knighthood upon the mayor (Robert
Westley), the recorder (Simon Urling), two aldermen, (viz., Daniel
Lambert and Robert Willimot), and the two sheriffs, Robert Ladbroke and
William Calvert,[126] the latter of whom had succeeded to Godschall's
seat in Parliament as one of the members for the city. Before the end
of the month the lord mayor was informed by letter from the Privy
Council that extensive preparations were being made at Dunkirk, in
concert with disaffected persons in this country, for an invasion, and
it behoved his lordship to put into operation the Acts against papists
and non-jurors.[127] The aspect of affairs began to look black indeed.
"If they still attempt the invasion," wrote Walpole to his friend,
"it must be a bloody war."[128] The danger that seemed so imminent
passed away owing to a violent storm which destroyed the French
transports, and England was thus again saved from foreign invasion by
the difficulties of the channel passage.[129] Nevertheless on the 29th
March, war was declared against France.[130]
[Sidenote: The Pretender in Scotland, 1745.]
Though bitterly disappointed at the failure of this expedition the
prince did not lose courage, but resolved in the following year (1745)
to cross over to Scotland unsupported by France, and to trust to the
loyalty of his friends there. Landing in the western highlands with
a mere handful of followers he gradually drew to his side a small
force, and on the 19th August set up his standard in Glenfinnan. On
the 4th September the Duke of Newcastle (brother of Pelham, who had
recently succeeded Carteret in the premiership) informed the lord
mayor by letter of the Pretender having set up his standard and of his
then being on his way to Perth or Edinburgh. The king was assured, he
said, that the mayor would do his utmost to preserve the peace and the
security of the city.[131] Both the Common Council and the Court of
Aldermen presented addresses to the king in testimony of their loyalty
to the constitution of Church and State, and both bodies in return
received assurances of royal favour and promises of protection for
their trade and commerce.[132] The London merchant and trader had been
the greatest gainers by the Revolution and the policy of peace pursued
by Walpole. It would have been base ingratitude, if nothing else, had
the City acted otherwise at this important crisis. Dr. Gardiner points
out that it was much the same in Scotland, and that the traders there,
having profited by the Union, were to a man staunch Hanoverians.
[Sidenote: The Pretender's march to Derby.]
On the 17th September the prince entered Edinburgh and took up his
quarters at Holyrood House. A few days later he succeeded in defeating
an English force under Sir John Cope at Preston Pans, and thus
encouraged he prepared to cross the border and to appeal to England for
support. The news caused a run upon the Bank of England, and had it not
been for the praiseworthy promptitude of the leading London merchants
who met and passed a formal resolution pledging themselves to support
the credit of the bank's notes, its doors would probably have been
closed.[133]
[Sidenote: The Pretender enters Derby, 4 Dec., 1745.]
Again fortune favoured England. The prince delayed his march so long,
collecting money and organising his forces, that time was gained
for putting London into a state of defence. A camp was formed at
Finchley[134] to intercept the rebels, and subscription lists were
opened in London and the country for the soldiers who were to be
engaged in the coming winter campaign. The Common Council voted £1,000
to the fund,[135] but England as a whole was strangely apathetic.
Carteret, the late prime minister, who had, on the death of his mother
recently, become Viscount Carteret and Earl Granville, refused to
subscribe anything to the fund, and a similar indifference to the
country's danger was displayed by others of the aristocracy.[136] By
Wednesday, the 4th December, the Pretender had succeeded in evading the
English forces sent to oppose him under the command of Wade and the
Duke of Cumberland and had entered Derby, where he seized all the money
he could lay his hands on, including the subscriptions that had been
raised to oppose him.[137]
[Sidenote: "Black Friday," 6 Dec., 1745.]
The news of the rebels being within 150 miles of the capital reached
London on Friday, the 6th December--"Black Friday," as it came to be
called. The Duke of Newcastle immediately wrote off to the lord mayor
informing him of the fact of the Pretender's forces having already
reached Derby "in their way, as they give out, towards London." The
Duke of Cumberland, the letter went on to say, was making every effort
to intercept the rebels at Northampton, and part of his cavalry would
be there that night and the rest the next day, when the foot soldiers
were also expected. The mayor was desired to take immediate steps, in
the meantime, for the defence of the city, in case the duke failed to
place himself between the rebels and London. The letter having been
communicated to a special Court of Aldermen on Saturday it was resolved
to issue precepts for returns to be made by the following Monday of the
number of coach and saddle horses found in each ward. The trained bands
were to take up their quarters in the Royal Exchange, whilst a portion
of Bridewell Hospital was to serve as a guard-room for the night guard
appointed by the commissioners of lieutenancy. The two city marshals
were to be instructed to visit the night watches in the several wards
and to see that the constables did their duty.[138] All was excitement
and activity. The king prepared to go to the camp at Finchley to take
command of the guards. The weavers of London offered to supply him
with 1,000 men, whilst the lawyers formed themselves into a little
army under the command of Chief Justice Willes, and offered to serve
as a body-guard to the royal family during the king's absence.[139]
Another run was made upon the Bank of England, which again had to
resort to strategem (as in 1720) in order to avert bankruptcy. Instead
of refusing payment the Bank employed agents for the express purpose
of presenting notes which, in order to gain time, were cashed in
sixpences; "and as those who came first were entitled to priority the
agents went out at one door with the specie they had received and
brought it back by another, so that the _bonâ fide_ holders of notes
could never get near enough to present them."[140]
[Sidenote: The Pretender withdraws from Derby.]
Fortunately the crisis was soon over, the Pretender had scarcely
reached Derby before he reluctantly accepted the advice of his
commanders and ordered a retreat. Under the circumstances it was
perhaps the best thing to do. The English armies were gradually closing
in upon him, this country had shown no disposition to rise in his
favour, and the Duke of Cumberland was, as we have seen, hastening
towards Northampton to bar his passage to the capital.
[Sidenote: The Freedom of the City for Duke of Cumberland, 23 Jan.,
1746.]
The citizens were not slow to realise how much they owed to the duke
for their protection, and on the 23rd January (1746) the Common Council
resolved to present him with the Freedom of the City in a gold box,
both for his "magnanimous" behaviour against the rebels, as well as for
his vigilant care in protecting the city "in a late time of imminent
danger."[141]
[Sidenote: Victory of Culloden, 16 April, 1746.]
Some time elapsed before the duke was able to receive the freedom, for
as soon as he was aware that the rebels were in retreat, he hurried
off in pursuit. After defeating General Hawley at Falkirk (17 Jan.,
1746) the rebels retired towards Inverness, but in April they were
brought to bay by the duke at Culloden Moor and utterly defeated. The
duke was a man of violent passions, and his victory was marked with so
much wanton cruelty and bloodshed, that he acquired the name of the
Butcher. This name he never lost, and when it came to his taking up the
Freedom of the City, some one was bold enough to suggest the propriety
of his becoming a member of the Butchers' Company.[142]
[Sidenote: City address to the king, 3 May, 1746.]
Cruel as the duke's conduct had been, it had the effect of crushing
the rebellion. London and the kingdom could once more breathe freely,
and the citizens could follow their commercial pursuits without fear
of further abortive attempts being made to restore the crown to the
Stuarts. Instead of blaming the duke for his drastic measures, they
applauded him and formally thanked the king for giving him the command,
"Permit us, Sir"--they said, addressing his majesty--"to return our
most unfeigned thanks ... for the appointment of his royal highness
the duke to this important service, whose conduct and bravery (so
early conspicuous) have by the blessing of the Almighty produced this
our happy deliverance: a glory reserved for one of your illustrious
family, endowed with those princely qualities which render him amiable
to those under his command, and formidable to his enemies." They, at
the same time assured his majesty that it would be always their firm
resolution, no less than their indispensable duty "to oppose every
attempt of the common disturbers of the peace of Europe" against the
rights of his crown.[143]
[Sidenote: The general election, 1747.]
One effect of the rebellion was to strengthen the hands of the
government. The subscription lists that had been opened during the
crisis were the means of displaying to the world who were Jacobites
and who were not, and when the general election came on in the summer
of 1747 it went hard with those who entertained Jacobite proclivities.
Barnard and Culvert retained their seats for the city, but Slingsby
Bethell and Stephen Theodore Janssen were returned in place of Lambert
and Heathcote. "Both Westminster and Middlesex have elected court
candidates," wrote Walpole to his friend,[144] "and the city of London
is taking the same step, the first time of many years that the two
latter have been whig; but the non-subscribing at the time of the
rebellion, has been most successfully played off upon the Jacobites."
[Sidenote: Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, Oct., 1748.]
The rebellion had also a considerable effect upon the war on the
continent, for the Austrians, deprived of English succour, lost nearly
the whole of their possessions in the Netherlands to France. The
French, however, were unsuccessful in Italy, whilst at sea the English
navy attacked their colonial possessions, and captured the island of
Cape Breton. All parties being ready to come to terms, a peace was
at length concluded (Oct., 1748) at Aix-la-Chapelle on the general
principle of restitution of all conquests.[145]
[Sidenote: The Newcastle administration, 1754-1756.]
From the time when Henry Pelham succeeded Carteret (Nov., 1744)
as Prime Minister, the strife of parties was lulled by the simple
expedient of admitting into office any man capable of rendering himself
dangerous to the government. Pelham's administration thus became
distinguished as the Broad-bottomed Administration. Upon his death in
March, 1754, the era of tranquillity passed away. He was succeeded in
the Premiership by his brother the Duke of Newcastle. Already there was
danger of war with France, as well as opposition at home, but with the
assistance of Charles Fox, Newcastle contrived to get through the year.
Before another twelvemonth had elapsed, however, England was again
threatened with a French invasion.[146]
[Sidenote: The National Militia Bill, 1756.]
On the 11th November (1755) the lords of the council wrote to Slingsby
Bethell, who had just entered upon his mayoralty, instructing him to
call out the whole of the City's militia for immediate service. The
letter was laid before a special Court of Aldermen on Saturday, the
15th, when it was resolved to summon the Commissioners of Lieutenancy
to meet that afternoon, and a special court of Common Council for the
following Tuesday.[147] The Common Council having assembled on the day
named the Lord Mayor communicated to them the contents of the letter he
had received. A motion was thereupon made for applying to Parliament
for a more effectual National Militia Bill, but a debate arose, and
the matter was adjourned for further consideration. On the 25th the
debate was resumed, but upon being put to the vote the motion was lost.
Nevertheless, a Bill for better ordering the militia of the country was
introduced into Parliament the following spring and passed (10 May,
1756), but the City's militia was exempted from the Bill.[148]
[Sidenote: Importation of foreign mercenaries.]
Newcastle was not the man to conduct a great war. A fresh election
had taken place soon after his appointment as first lord of the
treasury, and the result had given the ministry a handsome majority.
Nevertheless, so helpless was he that he could devise no better plan
for saving the country from invasion than by importing Hessian and
Hanoverian mercenaries. Worse than this, his proposal was adopted,
although Pitt left a sick bed on purpose to go down to the House and
solemnly protest against such a course.[149]
[Sidenote: A tax on plate opposed by the City.]
A proposal, made by the chancellor of the exchequer, Sir George
Lyttelton, to impose a tax upon plate, for the purpose of raising
supplies, was reasonable enough, but it met with opposition not only
from Pitt but also from the City,[150] partly on account of the
existing inland duties being already sufficiently heavy and partly
because this particular tax would teach servants to become informers.
At the same time the citizens avowed themselves ready to hazard their
lives and their fortunes in support of the king and the Protestant
succession.[151]
[Sidenote: The loss of Minorca, 1756.]
The threatened invasion was only a trick played by the French king
to draw off attention from the real object of attack--the capture of
Minorca. Owing to dilatoriness on the part of the ministry Byng was
despatched too late to save the island. This loss excited the utmost
indignation. The cry was loud against the government, but louder still
against Byng, who was accused of rank cowardice, if not treachery.
Newcastle was content to make a scapegoat of the admiral, and ordered
him home under arrest to await trial. The feeling of disgust which
prevailed in the city at Byng having withdrawn to Gibraltar without
hazarding a brush with the enemy manifested itself by the display of
a placard at the Royal Exchange advertising _Three kingdoms to be
let_.[152] Whilst Byng awaited his trial, popular clamour, throughout
the country rose to such a pitch that at last war was declared (17
May, 1756). In August the citizens again assured the king of their
readiness to shed their last drop of blood and contribute all that
might be necessary for the defence of the kingdom and colonies, but
they none the less expressed an eager hope that Byng and those who were
responsible for losses in America should be brought to punishment.[153]
[Sidenote: A "representation" to city members, Oct., 1756.]
The recent failures and the general weakness and incapacity of
Newcastle irritated the country to such a degree that the ministry
became frightened, and in October (1756) Fox, who for the last
year had undertaken the duties of the leadership in the House of
Commons, resigned. At this juncture the Common Council again drew up
a "representation" for the guidance of the city's representatives in
parliament.[154] First and foremost they were to insist upon a strict
and impartial parliamentary enquiry into the causes of the recent
disasters at Minorca and in North America, which had rendered the
British name contemptible; and in the next place they were to seize
the earliest opportunity of urging the necessity of establishing a
constitutional militia and of ridding the country of those foreign
mercenaries, whose numbers had been constantly increasing, whose
support had become an intolerable expense, and who claimed to be above
the law of the land. They were to vote for no supplies until this were
done. They were further instructed to endeavour to limit the number of
placemen and pensioners, which of late had so remarkably increased; to
restore at a proper season triennial parliaments, as being the only
means of obtaining a free representative of the people; to keep an eye
on the proper application of public money; and finally to see that
the country did not become involved in continental affairs so as to
threaten its independence.
[Sidenote: Newcastle succeeded by Pitt, Nov., 1756.]
This representation was not without its effect. In November Newcastle
resigned, and Pitt, although nominally only secretary of state under
the Duke of Devonshire, became virtually prime minister. He had not
been many weeks in office before he gratified the City by sending
the Hanoverian and Hessian troops out of the country, as well as by
passing a Bill for re-organising the national militia.
[Sidenote: Execution of Admiral Byng, 14 March, 1757.]
Just as the year was drawing to a close Byng was brought to trial.
Owing to a comparatively recent change that had been made in the
articles of war the court found itself compelled to bring in a
verdict of guilty without any imputation on the personal courage
of the admiral.[155] The extent of his criminality was that he had
failed to do all that might have been done to save Minorca. Pitt, who
was no favourite with the king, was courageous enough to plead for
a royal pardon, but the king turned a deaf ear. The country deemed
itself betrayed, and called for a victim. The timorous Newcastle had
long promised a deputation of citizens that Byng should be speedily
brought to justice. "Oh! indeed he shall be tried immediately, he shall
be hanged directly."[156] The trial had taken place, and although
the court that tried him had shown an unmistakable desire to treat
him with leniency, the City began to show signs of impatience and
clamoured for his death. Papers bearing the words "Shoot Byng, or take
care of your king" are even said to have appeared posted up in the
Royal Exchange.[157] The citizens had their wish. The sentence was
carried out, and Byng was shot on the quarterdeck of the "Monarque" at
Portsmouth (14 March, 1757).
[Sidenote: Civic honours for Pitt and Legge, 24 May, 1757.]
Soon after this Pitt was dismissed. His dismissal was the signal for a
general ebullition in his favour. The Common Council presented both him
and Legge (who had served under him as chancellor of the exchequer)
with the Freedom of the City and gold boxes, in testimony of their
conduct during their "honourable tho' short administration." The City
declared its appreciation of the noble efforts of these ministers "to
stem the general torrent of corruption and revive by their example
the almost extinguished love of virtue and our country," their zeal
in promoting a full and impartial enquiry into the real causes of the
late disasters in America and the Mediterranean, and lastly their
efforts to support the glory and independence of Great Britain, the
true interests of the crown and the rights and liberties of the
subject.[158] The example thus set by the city of London was followed
by other corporations in such quick succession that for some weeks, as
Lady Hervey wittily remarked, "it rained gold boxes."
[Sidenote: Coalition of Pitt and Newcastle, June, 1757.]
The king tried to get Newcastle, with his subservient band of
supporters, to accept office again, but the duke could not make up
his mind whether to resume office or not, and for nearly three months
the country was without any ministry at all. At last a compromise was
arranged in June between Pitt and Newcastle,[159] whereby the former
undertook all affairs of state, leaving to Newcastle the business of
patronage, such as his soul loved. Pitt threw himself heartily into the
war, determined to raise the national spirit. His task, however, was a
difficult one, owing to the incompetency of those he found in command.
Thus, for instance, an attempt to take Rochefort failed through
dissension between Admiral Hawke and General Mordaunt. The Common
Council were on the point of considering the advisability of addressing
the king on the subject, when the mayor informed them that one of the
clerks of the Privy Council had waited on him at the Mansion House to
inform him that directions had already been given for an enquiry into
the cause of the recent miscarriage; and so the matter was allowed to
drop.[160]
[Sidenote: Subscriptions for bounties, 1759-1760.]
Thanks to Pitt's military reforms and to the confidence he inspired,
the remainder of the reign was marked by a series of successes
culminating in the conquest of Canada. In the summer of 1759 the French
again threatened an invasion, but it caused no alarm. A new spirit had
been breathed into the nation and animated both services. The City
resolved to open a subscription list at the Guildhall for encouraging
the enlistment of recruits, and to contribute £1,000 towards the fund.
By way of further encouragement the Freedom of the City was offered
gratuitously to every soldier who should produce to the chamberlain
a testimonial of his good behaviour during his term of service, and
who should wish to be admitted to the privilege of exercising a
trade within the city and liberties. A committee was appointed to
make the necessary arrangements for carrying out the enlistments,
and Pitt was desired to lay these resolutions before his majesty as
an humble testimony of the City's zeal and affection for king and
government.[161] The king commissioned Pitt to thank the City on his
behalf, and to express the satisfaction he felt at this signal proof
of the City's resolution to support the war.[162] The money raised
between August, 1759 and June 1760, amounted to a little over £7,000,
which was distributed in bounties to 1,235 men, enlisted for the term
of the war with France, at five guineas a head. The livery companies
subscribed to the fund: the Grocers' contributing 500 guineas, the
Goldsmiths' and the Fishmongers' respectively £500, the Clothworkers'
£300, and other companies lesser sums. The names of Pitt himself and of
Legge also appear as having each subscribed £100.[163]
[Sidenote: City address in conquest of Canada, 16 Oct., 1760.]
But of all the achievements abroad at this time none caused so much joy
as the capture of Quebec (Sept., 1759). The City once more embraced the
opportunity of presenting a congratulatory address to the king, at the
same time expressing deep regret at the loss of so gallant an officer
as Wolfe.[164] A year later it again offered its congratulations on
the complete conquest of Canada,[165] promising to assist in the
preservation of that valuable acquisition, and "to prosecute the
various and extensive services" of the just and necessary war. Pitt
was delighted with the address. "The address of the city of London,"
he wrote to Grenville, "will speak for itself, and I believe you will
think that it speaks loud enough to be heard at Paris.... How it was
heard at Kensington you need not be told, as the address is big with _a
million in every line_. Were it able to produce an advantageous peace
it would be most happy; next to that, such generous and warm assurances
of supporting the war cannot but give the highest satisfaction to
government."[166] Within ten days of listening to the address the king
died (25 Oct.).
[Sidenote: The City's admiration for Pitt.]
On the last day of the month the first stone was laid of Blackfriars
Bridge. The bridge was originally known as Pitt Bridge, and bore an
inscription in Latin and English testifying the City's affection
for the great statesman who had done so much to restore the ancient
reputation of the British empire,[167] whilst the approach to the
bridge was for some years known as Chatham Place.
FOOTNOTES:
[74] Repertory 131, fo. 285.
[75] _Id._, fos. 287, 289-291.
[76] Journal 57, fos. 154b-155b; Repertory 131, fos. 345-348. For the
next two years the Common Council became practically powerless, the
lord mayor for the time being summoning a court only when he thought
fit. In 1728 the council only met four times, viz., twice in February
and twice in May, after which no court was held until June, 1729. It
was then thought high time to re-enact the old Act of Common Council
_temp._ Richard II, when Brembre was mayor, compelling the mayor for
the time being to summon a Common Council once a quarter at least, and
a Bill for that purpose was brought in and passed.--_Id._, fos. 166b,
174b, 176, 177b, 182, 188b, 197b, 198, 201.
[77] Hervey, Memoirs, i, 88.
[78] Repertory 132, fos. 40-57.
[79] Journal 57, fo. 162. An account of the entertainment, its cost,
etc., is given by Maitland, i, 541-543.
[80] Repertory 132, fos. 10, 16.
[81] _Id._, fo. 9.
[82] Journal 57, fo. 162.
[83] Repertory 132, fo. 381.
[84] Another portrait of Queen Caroline, by the same artist, is
preserved in the National Portrait Gallery, having been transferred
thither from the British Museum in 1879.
[85] Memoirs, vol. i, c. vii.
[86] Journal 57, fos. 274-274b.
[87] Hervey, Memoirs, i, 176-179.
[88] Parl. Hist., viii, 1281-1307; Maitland, i, 558, 559.
[89] Journal 57, fos. 278b-280. On quitting office the lord mayor (John
Barber) received the special thanks of the Common Council for having
afforded them this opportunity of preserving the trade and liberty of
the citizens.--_Id._, fo. 298.
[90] Journal House of Commons, xxii, 108, 109, 112, 113.
[91] Hervey, Memoirs, i, 200-202.
[92] Repertory 138, fos. 243-246. See also the _Daily Courant_, cited
in the _Gentleman's Magazine_, iv, 208.
[93] Repertory 138, fo. 252.
[94] Repertory 139, fo. 2.
[95] Repertory 138, fo. 228; Journal 57, fos. 318-319; Repertory 140,
fo. 254; Journal 57, fos. 375-377.
[96] Memoirs, i, 317.
[97] Journal 57, fo. 319b; Repertory 138, fo. 237.
[98] Repertory 141, fos. 48, 60, 69, 75.
[99] By an article of this treaty England obtained the right of sending
yearly to Panama one ship of 600 tons, and no more, for the purpose
of trading with the Spanish colonists. This restriction was evaded by
putting a fresh cargo on board under cover of the night to take the
place of that which had been discharged the previous day.
[100] Hervey, Memoirs, ii, 484, 485.
[101] Journal 58, fo. 122; Journal House of Commons, xxiii, 248.
[102] Ecclesiasticus, c. xxxviii, v. 33.
[103] Horace Walpole, who always showed intense dislike to anyone
who had opposed his father, Sir Robert, describes Glover as "the
greatest coxcomb and the greatest oaf that ever met in blank verse or
prose."--Walpole to Mann, 3 March, 1742; Letters, i, 136.
[104] According to Maitland (i, 599) Champion was the senior alderman
below the chair. This was not the case. There were two senior to him,
but these, as well as Champion, were set aside by the livery, who
returned Sir John Salter and Sir Robert Godschall to the Court of
Aldermen. The Court selected the first named.--Common Hall Book, No. 7,
fo. 277.
[105] Maitland, i, 600.
[106] Repertory 143, fos. 469-472.
[107] Journal 58, fos. 167-168b.
[108] Walpole to Mann, 12 Nov., 1741.--Letters, i, 89.
[109] The poem is preserved among the Percy Reliques, ii, 397.
[110] Maitland, i, 608.
[111] Common Hall Book, No. 7, fo. 284b.
[112] Repertory 144, fos. 389, 400. Journal 58, fo. 182b.
[113] Maitland, i, 610.
[114] Common Hall Book, No. 7, fo. 285. Repertory 144, fo. 406.
[115] Journal 58, fos. 190-191.
[116] Maitland, i, 611.
[117] He had for some reason been sworn into office before Lord
Cornwallis, the Constable of the Tower, with the same ceremony as if
sworn before the Barons of the Exchequer; and it was expressly provided
that the city's rights and privileges were not to be prejudiced
thereby.--Repertory 145, fo. 151. Common Hall Book No. 7, fo. 288.
[118] Walpole to Mann, 22 Jan., 1742.--Letters, i, 117.
[119] Journal 58, fo. 222b.
[120] Journal House of Commons, xxiv, 49, 111.
[121] Journal House of Commons, xxiv, 231. Journal House of Lords,
xxvi, 138.
[122] Journal 58, fo. 225b. Maitland, i, 624.
[123] Journal 58, fos. 254-256. Maitland, i, 628.
[124] Extract from _Common Sense_ cited by Maitland (i, 630).
[125] Journal House of Commons, xxiv, 568. Journal 58, fo. 307b.
[126] Maitland, i, 633.
[127] Repertory 148, fo. 165.
[128] Walpole to Mann, 1 March.--Letters i, 292.
[129] The same to the same, 5 March.--_Id._ i, 294.
[130] Repertory 148, fo. 230.
[131] Journal 58, fo. 377b.
[132] Journal 58, fos. 378, 383; Repertory 149, fos. 398, 399.
[133] Francis, "History of Bank of England," i, 162.
[134] Hogarth's famous picture of the "March to Finchley" is preserved
in the Foundling Hospital.
[135] Journal 59, fo. 16b.
[136] "I had this morning a subscription book brought me for our
parish. Lord Granville had refused to subscribe. This is in the style
of his friend, Lord Bath, who has absented himself whenever any act of
authority was to be executed against the rebels."--Walpole to Mann, 22
Nov., 1745; Letters, i, 404-405.
[137] Walpole to Mann, 9 Dec., 1745; _Id._, i, 409.
[138] Repertory 150, fos. 40-47.
[139] Walpole to Mann, 9 Dec.; Letters, i, 410.
[140] Francis, "History of Bank of England," i, 161.
[141] Journal 59, fo. 15.
[142] Walpole to Mann, 1 Aug., 1746.--Letters, ii, 43. The Freedom of
the City was conferred on the 6 Aug. Journal 59, fo. 44.
[143] Journal 59, fo. 33.
[144] Walpole to Mann, 3 July, 1747. Letters, ii, 92.
[145] The peace was not proclaimed in the City until the 2 Feb., 1749.
Repertory 153, fo. 138.
[146] "I need not protest to you, I believe that I am serious, and that
an invasion before Christmas will certainly be attempted." Walpole to
Chute, 20 Oct., 1755. Letters, ii, 477.
[147] Repertory 160, fos. 3-5.
[148] Journal 61, fos. 23b-24, 25, 57; Journal House of Commons, xxvii,
523, 600. The City was in the habit of claiming that its militia should
be dealt with by a separate Bill to the rest of the kingdom.
[149] Walpole, "Memoirs of the last ten years of the reign of George
the Second," ii, 30, 31; Journal House of Commons, xxvii, 539.
[150] Journal 61, fos. 49b-52; Walpole, Memoirs, ii, 24-28.
[151] Journal 61, fo. 55b.
[152] Walpole, "Memoirs of George the Second," ii, 68.
[153] Journal 61, fos. 80b-81b.
[154] Journal 61, fos. 114-115b.
[155] Walpole, Memoirs, ii, 121-124.
[156] _Id._ ii, 70.
[157] Walpole to Mann, 3 March, 1757; Letters, iii, 64-66.
[158] Journal 61, fos. 156, 158-158b.
[159] Walpole, Memoirs, ii, 224; Walpole to Mann, 20 June, 1757;
Letters, iii, 83.
[160] Journal 61, fo. 186.
[161] Journal 62, fos. 32b-34.
[162] Journal 62, fo. 35.
[163] _Id._, fos. 113-116.
[164] Journal 62, fos. 37-38.
[165] _Id._, fos. 140, 158b.
[166] Pitt to Grenville, 18 Oct., 1760.--Grenville Correspondence, i,
355.
[167] Journal 62, fos. 161-161b. A lead plate, bearing the inscription
in English, is preserved in the Guildhall Museum.