[Sidenote: The accession of George III, 1760.]
On the 26th October George III was proclaimed king in the city in
the presence of the mayor and aldermen.[168] The usual addresses
were presented by the Courts of Aldermen and Common Council, special
reference being made by the latter body to the "bloody and expensive
war" in which the country was then engaged. They expressed a hope
that the new king would continue to carry on the war as prudently and
successfully as it had been carried on hitherto, until an end should
be put to it by a firm and honourable peace. The king in reply echoed
this wish of the citizens, and promised to look after their "liberties,
commerce and happiness."[169]
[Sidenote: The fall of Pitt, 1761.]
George had not long been seated on the throne before he began to
display unmistakable signs of a determination to follow the precepts
instilled into his young mind by his mother, the Princess of Wales,
and to "be a king" in fact as well as in name. The six months that
elapsed before Parliament was dissolved[170] were marked with no great
changes, although indications were not wanting of what was likely to
take place. With the dissolution (20 March, 1761), however, important
changes were made in the ministry, and it became clear that the king
was resolved to rule by ministers of his own choosing. Bute, the
particular friend and adviser of the Princess of Wales, was appointed
one of the secretaries of state. His admission into the ministry could
not mean otherwise than sooner or later the dismissal of Pitt, for
on the great question of the day--the war with France--they were in
direct antagonism; and so it turned out. Pitt would gladly have made
peace[171] had not the honour of the country demanded a declaration of
war with Spain as well as with France owing to a secret clause in the
Family Compact which had come to his knowledge. The ministry refused to
declare war, and in the following October Pitt and his brother-in-law,
Earl Temple, resigned. In consideration of his great services a peerage
in her own right was conferred on Pitt's wife, whilst a pension of
£3,000 a year, for three lives, was bestowed on himself.
[Sidenote: His letter to Alderman Beckford, 15 Oct., 1761.]
Pitt's resignation, and more especially his acceptance of a pension,
gave rise to so many slanderous rumours and brought upon him so much
obloquy that he found it necessary to write to his friend, alderman
Beckford, explaining the exact position of affairs:[172] "A difference
of opinion with regard to measures to be taken against Spain, of
the highest importance to the honour of the crown, and to the most
essential national interests, and this founded on what Spain had
already done, not on what that court may further intend to do, was
the cause of my resigning the seals. Lord Temple and I submitted in
writing, and signed by us, our most humble sentiments to his majesty;
which being over-ruled by the united opinion of all the rest of the
king's servants I resigned the seals on Monday, the 5th of the month
(October), in order not to remain responsible for measures which I was
no longer allowed to guide." In the same dignified strain he tells his
friend of the honours bestowed on him by his sovereign, the acceptance
of which had set malicious tongues wagging. "Most gracious marks of his
majesty's approbation of my services followed my resignation. They are
unmerited and unsolicited; and I shall ever be proud to have received
them from the best of sovereigns."
[Sidenote: The City's vote of thanks to Pitt, 22 Oct., 1761.]
The letter was written on the 15th October (1761), and a few days later
(22 Oct.) the Common Council passed a vote of thanks to Pitt by a large
majority--109 votes to 15--acknowledging his many great and eminent
services, and testifying the City's gratitude not only for having
roused "the ancient spirit" of the nation from the pusillanimous state
into which it had fallen, but also for his having greatly extended
the sphere of trade and commerce. In conclusion the Court expressed
its sorrow at "the national loss of so able, so faithful a minister
at this critical conjuncture."[173] Pitt was highly gratified at this
recognition of his services, and in his acknowledgment of the vote paid
the following tribute to the City's loyalty and zeal:--"It will ever
be remembered to the glory of the city of London that through the whole
course of this arduous war that great seat of commerce has generously
set the illustrious example of steady zeal for the dignity of the crown
and of unshaken firmness and magnanimity."[174] This was no mean praise
coming from such a man.
[Sidenote: The king and queen at the Guildhall, 9 Nov., 1761.]
On lord mayor's day the king (following the usual custom of the
sovereign attending the first lord mayor's banquet after his accession)
came into the city and was entertained at the Guildhall, together with
the queen. Pitt also was a guest. He and Temple drove down together in
a carriage and pair, and were received with even greater acclamation
than the king himself. The entertainment was given in the most costly
style, the tables being loaded with "all the delicacies which the
season could furnish or expense procure."[175] It was, however,
unfortunately marred by a violent display of party feeling. Whilst Pitt
was received everywhere with cheers and clapping of hands, his rival,
Bute, was hooted and pelted, and would, it was thought, have come off
still worse had he not taken the precaution of surrounding his carriage
with a strong body of "butchers and bruisers." Beckford was believed
to have been at the bottom of the mischief. It was by his directions
that the Guildhall was packed with Pitt's supporters, and he led the
_claque_ on the arrival of the ex-minister.[176]
Pitt, on the other hand, was blamed for lending himself to such
an ostentatious display, which could not appear otherwise than
disrespectful to the king. Indeed he afterwards owned that he had done
wrong.
[Sidenote: A statue of the king for the Exchange, and pictures of king
and queen for the Guildhall.]
Ten days later (18 Nov.) the Common Council resolved to erect a statue
of the king in the Royal Exchange, and to have pictures painted of the
king and queen for the Guildhall.[177] Their pictures, by Ramsay, now
adorn the walls of the Guildhall Art Gallery.
[Sidenote: Instructions to City members, 22 Oct., 1761.]
The events which immediately followed Pitt's resignation enhanced
his reputation for political foresight, and Bute, who became prime
minister, found himself compelled, as indeed Pitt had predicted, to
declare war against Spain (Jan., 1762). Until this was done the City
was determined to leave him no peace. The Common Council, as was its
wont, drew up instructions for the city members as to the policy they
were to pursue in the coming parliament.[178] They were in the first
place to use their best endeavours to obtain the repeal of a recent
Act for the relief of insolvent debtors, and in the next to keep a
sharp eye on "the distribution of the national treasure," but above
all they were to oppose any attempt made by government to give up
recently acquired possessions, more especially in North America, and
they were to vote any supplies that might be necessary for carrying on
the war with vigour. The "present happy extinction of parties," the
nation's zeal and affection for their "native king," and the increase
of commerce were proofs (the Council declared) of the ability of the
country to carry on the war. Finally the city members were to vote
such supplies as were necessary to place the king above the menaces of
foreign interference, whilst supporting such measures as would conduce
to a safe and honourable peace.[179]
[Sidenote: John Wilkes, M.P. for Aylesbury, 1761.]
The new ministry soon found themselves in direct opposition not only
to the city members but to one who was destined ere long to prove
a veritable thorn in their side. John Wilkes, a man of shamelessly
immoral character, but of undeniable talent, had for the second time
been returned for Aylesbury. His expensive debaucheries had reduced
him to the direst possible straits, and he had taken to a political
career as a possible means of getting himself out of his pecuniary
difficulties. He had at the outset declared himself a staunch supporter
of Pitt, and to Pitt he had more than once looked for some crumb of
patronage to alleviate his distress. As soon as Parliament met Wilkes
seized the opportunity of the debate on the address to pass some
censures on the king's speech, or rather the speech of the king's
minister, although he affected to be ignorant as to which minister
he ought to attribute it. He declared that although the country was
nominally at peace with Spain it was in reality in a state of war,
and that the nation was being kept in the dark by the ministers, who
refused all information. Beckford joined in the debate, urging the
right of the country to "demand peace, sword in hand," and offering to
second Wilkes in moving for the Spanish papers.[180]
[Sidenote: Declaration of war with Spain, Jan., 1762.]
In January (1762) war was declared, and all the papers relative to the
rupture with Spain were laid before Parliament. No sooner was this
done than Wilkes wrote a pamphlet entitled "Observations on the Papers
relative to the Rupture with Spain," in which he vindicated the policy
of Pitt and exposed the folly of the existing ministry in having let
slip the best opportunity that ever offered of crushing Spain beyond
recovery. This was his first political essay, and at once stamped
Wilkes as a political as well as literary writer of no mean order.[181]
[Sidenote: City address on capture of Martinico, etc., 6 April, 1762.]
The success of the war exceeded expectation. One expedition reduced
Cuba, another Manila, whilst Spanish commerce was swept from the sea.
The surrender of the island of St. Lucia and the capture of Martinico
drew forth a congratulatory address to the king from the City, and
once more the citizens were assured of his majesty's desire to promote
their commercial interests.[182] The credit of the war was due to Pitt
for having foreseen the struggle, and for the preparations he had made
accordingly.
[Sidenote: The Peace of Paris, 10 Feb., 1763.]
All this time the thoughts of Bute were fixedly directed towards peace,
and on the 10th February, 1763, the Peace of Paris was signed and an
end put to the Seven Years' War.[183] The peace was distasteful to
the City as well as to the nation at large. The Court of Aldermen, it
is true, congratulated the king on having "happily concluded a very
just and expensive war by a necessary and advantageous peace,"[184]
but the Common Council said nothing. When the peace came to be debated
in the House of Commons it met with strong opposition from Pitt, who
spoke against it for more than three hours, although he was at the
time so ill that he had to be carried down to the House. By practising
a wholesale system of bribery the government managed, nevertheless,
to obtain so large a majority that the Princess of Wales exclaimed in
great exultation "Now my son is really king."
[Sidenote: Resignation of Bute, 8 April, 1763.]
The triumph of the king and his favourite were destined to be
short-lived. An important feature of the budget for the year was a
proposal to impose a tax upon cider. The proposal at once met with the
most determined opposition, not only from the cider counties but also
from the city of London, where anything in the nature of excise was
looked upon with horror. The Common Council raised a strong protest
against any such extension of excise duties at a time when there was
every prospect of a continuation of peace.[185] The Bill eventually
passed, but the unpopularity of Bute increased to such an extent that
he got sick of office and retired (8 April).
[Sidenote: Wilkes and the _North Briton_.]
A few days later (23 April) Parliament was prorogued, the king in his
speech alluding to the late peace as alike honourable to the crown and
beneficial to the people.[186] This gave occasion to Wilkes to make a
violent attack in the next number of his paper, called, in allusion to
Bute, the _North Briton_. Fourty-four numbers had appeared at the time
of Bute's resignation, and although each number had contained matter
more or less libellous no notice had been taken of them. No. 45 was
destined to become famous, for although it was not a whit worse than
any of its predecessors its prosecution was immediately ordered by
Grenville, who had succeeded to the head of affairs. On the last day
of April Wilkes was arrested on a general warrant (_i.e._, a warrant
in which no individual is specified by name) and lodged in the Tower,
whilst his house was ransacked and papers seized. These harsh and
illegal proceedings excited popular feeling and raised Wilkes to the
rank of a political martyr. Crowds flocked daily to visit him in his
confinement, among them being the leaders of the opposition, Temple and
Grafton. Early in May his arrest was pronounced illegal by Pratt, Chief
Justice of the Common Pleas, and he was discharged.
[Sidenote: No. 45 of _North Briton_. burnt at Royal Exchange, 3 Dec.,
1763.]
As soon as Parliament met, which was not until November (1763), Wilkes
complained of the breach of privilege in the seizure of himself and
his papers. He got no sympathy, however, in that quarter, although he
shortly afterwards succeeded in obtaining damages to the extent of
£1,000 against the under-secretary of state in a court of law.[187]
So far from sympathising with Wilkes the House ordered No. 45 of the
_North Briton_ to be burnt by the common hangman at the Royal Exchange
as a false, scandalous, and malicious libel.[188] Saturday, the 3rd
December, was the day appointed for carrying out the order, but
when the sheriffs attended for the purpose and the executioner began
to perform his duty a riot ensued, the magistrates were mobbed, and
the paper rescued from the flames. The Lords thereupon summoned the
sheriffs to give an account of their conduct. One of the sheriffs,
Thomas Harley, a brother of the Earl of Oxford, being a member of the
House of Commons, the permission of that House had to be asked before
his attendance could be enforced. It was left to Harley to do as he
liked; he might attend the Lords "if he thought fit."[189] Harley did
think fit, and on the Tuesday following (6 Dec.) attended with his
brother sheriff and Osmond Cooke, the city marshal. Being called upon
to give an account of what had taken place the previous Saturday,
Harley informed the House to the following effect, viz.: that the
sheriffs had met at the Guildhall at half-past twelve o'clock, and
thence proceeded to Cornhill to carry out the order of Parliament; they
there met the city marshal, who expressed a fear that the order could
not be carried out without military assistance; that, nevertheless, he
was determined, in spite of all opposition, to carry out the order if
possible; that he tried to get to the place in his chariot, but could
not, and so went on foot; that on arrival at the place where the fuel
was prepared he found the wood so wet that it could not take fire, "but
he read the order, and gave the paper with his own hands into the hands
of the executioner, who held it on the lighted torch, which he held in
his hand, till it was burnt, and that he saw it burnt pursuant to the
order." On his return--he went on to say--the window of his carriage
was broken, and he had to take refuge in the Mansion House,[190]
where he found the mayor (William Bridgen, who had recently succeeded
Beckford) doing business as usual.
[Sidenote: The mayor's conduct condemned.]
That the mayor should have shown such sympathy with the mob as not to
lend assistance to the sheriffs in putting down the disturbance roused
the anger of the Duke of Bedford, who broke forth against Bridgen and
the City. "Such behaviour," he said, "in any smaller town would have
forfeited their franchises. The Common Council had long been setting
themselves up against the Parliament, and last year had taken on them
to advise the king to refuse his assent to a law that had passed
through both Houses. He hoped their lordships would resent this insult
and disrespect to their orders."[191]
[Sidenote: Votes of thanks to the sheriffs.]
Harley's statement having been corroborated by the evidence of other
witnesses the Lords were content to ignore the mayor's conduct rather
than enter upon a serious quarrel with the City, and both Houses
concurred in passing votes of thanks to the sheriffs.[192] It was
otherwise with the Common Council. They upheld the conduct of the mayor
and condemned that of the sheriffs; a motion to pass a vote of thanks
to the latter being lost by the casting vote of the mayor, who gave as
his reason for so doing that he looked upon the motion as prejudging
Wilkes's case.[193]
[Sidenote: Lord Sandwich and Wilkes's _Essay on Woman_.]
In the meantime Lord Sandwich, a former friend of Wilkes and his
associate in the debauchery carried on by the so-called monks of
Medmenham, had produced before the House of Lords a copy of an obscene
parody on Pope's _Essay on Man_, which Wilkes had written for the
delectation of his intimate friends, but never intended to publish.
With much difficulty, and not without some treachery, Sandwich had
managed to obtain a copy of this infamous production, and he was
now base enough to produce it in evidence against his recent boon
companion, and to demand his punishment. The House condemned the poem
as a blasphemous libel, but the treachery and hypocrisy displayed by
Sandwich, whose own vices were notorious, raised a storm of public
indignation, and when the _Beggar's Opera_ was shortly afterwards
being performed at Covent Garden, and Macheath exclaimed, in the
words put into his mouth by Gay, "_That Jemmy Twitcher should peach
me, I own surprises me_," the audience were quick to apply the words
to the treacherous earl, who was ever afterwards known as _Jemmy
Twitcher_.[194]
[Sidenote: Wilkes expelled the House, 19 Jan., 1764.]
In January of the next year (1764) Wilkes ought to have appeared
before the House of Commons to answer for his conduct in relation to
publishing No. 45 of the _North Briton_. He had, however, fled to
France after receiving a wound in a duel, and was unable to travel, so
at least the medical certificates which he forwarded to the Speaker
alleged, and so we feel bound to believe, although the House of
Commons evidently entertained some doubts as to the serious nature of
his wound. The matter was debated in his absence, and in the end a
resolution was passed expelling him the House (19 Jan.).[195]
[Sidenote: Sentence of outlawry on Wilkes, 1 Nov., 1764.]
A month later (21 Feb.) Wilkes was found guilty in the King's Bench of
being the author of the offensive _North Briton_ and of the _Essay on
Woman_, and as he failed to appear sentence of outlawry was pronounced
against him in the following November.[196] The same day that judgment
was pronounced in the King's Bench the Common Council passed a vote
of thanks to the city members for their endeavours to obtain a
Parliamentary declaration as to the illegality of general warrants,
whilst it voted Pratt the Freedom of the City, and invited him to
sit for his portrait. The chief justice acknowledged the compliment
paid him by the City--"the most respectable body in the kingdom
after the two Houses of Parliament"[197] as he termed it,--and his
portrait, painted by Sir Joshua Reynolds, and formerly bearing a Latin
inscription ascribed to Dr. Johnson, now hangs in the Guildhall Art
Gallery. The vote of thanks to the city members well nigh cost the City
dear; for when application was shortly afterwards made to Parliament
for pecuniary assistance to help the City to discharge the debt on
Blackfriars Bridge--a debt which had been augmented by the destruction
by fire of a temporary bridge that had been erected--a member rose and
abused the Common Council for its late behaviour, declaring that the
City was entitled to no favour.[198]
[Sidenote: Chatham and the East India Company, 1766.]
Having quarrelled in turn with Grenville and Rockingham, the king
found himself compelled in July, 1766, to resort again to the "Great
Commoner" whom he created Earl of Chatham and made Prime Minister with
the office of Lord Privy Seal. His acceptance of a peerage produced
a general burst of indignation. According to Horace Walpole--who
never misses an opportunity of girding at the City in return for its
treatment of his father--"the city and the mob" (convertible terms in
his estimation), were angry, because in his new position, Pitt would
have less opportunity of "doing jobs" for them than when he was in the
House of Commons.[199] But however this may be, the state of the Prime
Minister's health had before the end of the year rendered him incapable
of "doing jobs" for the City or anybody else, and he left the control
of affairs in the hands of the Duke of Grafton and Charles Townshend.
Before withdrawing, however, he intimated his intention to the House
of bringing in a bill for regulating the East India Company's affairs.
Strange to say, the City failed to grasp the full portent of such a
bill, or to see any danger to themselves in this meditated attack upon
the chartered rights of others. Later on, when Fox introduced his
East India Bill, the City was wider awake. The motion for carrying
out Chatham's plan was not only made by a city alderman, viz.,
Beckford,[200] but the Common Council offered (June, 1767) Townshend,
a supporter of the motion, the Freedom of the City, in recognition
of "his well-tempered zeal in support of the undoubted legislative
authority of the king and parliament of Great Britain over all parts
of his majesty's dominions."[201]
[Sidenote: Wilkes and the Duke of of Grafton.]
In November of this year (1766), Wilkes, who had slipt over to England
in the hope of obtaining the king's pardon, wrote a very submissive
letter to Grafton asking for his mediation. The minister coldly
referred him to Chatham, a proceeding which so galled Wilkes that he
hurried back to the continent for fear of being laid by the heels, and
a year later published what purported to be a second letter to the
Duke of Grafton expressing the greatest disappointment at his Grace's
answer, and inveighing in the strongest possible terms against Chatham
as being an apostate to the cause of liberty.[202]
[Sidenote: Wilkes elected M.P. for Middlesex, 1768.]
When the general election came on in March, 1768, Wilkes again appeared
on the scene, and had the boldness, notwithstanding his outlawry, to
offer himself a candidate for the City. Every day he appeared on the
hustings, and displayed great activity in canvassing for votes, but it
was of no avail.
Not in the least dismayed, this irrepressible demagogue rallied his
forces and declared himself a candidate for the county of Middlesex.
There he was more successful. The election was very riotous; the
streets and highways leading to Brentford were in the hands of the
mob, who would allow no one to pass without a blue cockade in his hat
inscribed with the name of Wilkes, and the number 45. "It was not
safe to pass through Piccadilly; and every family was forced to put
out lights; the windows of unilluminated houses were demolished. The
coach glasses of such as did not huzza for _Wilkes_ and _liberty_
were broken, and many chariots and coaches were spoiled by the mob
scratching them with the favourite 45." This was the description of
the scene by an eye-witness. In the city matters were no better. The
windows of the Mansion House were smashed, Harley, the mayor, being
known to be no favourite of Wilkes. The trained bands were called out,
but proved insufficient to cope with the multitude, but at length peace
was restored with the aid of a military force from the Tower.[203]
The result of the poll was that Sir William Beauchamp Porter, who had
represented the county for over 20 years was turned out, and Wilkes
elected in his place.
[Sidenote: Committed to the King's Bench, 27 April, 1768.]
Determined to take the bull by the horns Wilkes now voluntarily
surrendered himself to the King's Bench and demanded to have the former
judgments against him reversed on technical grounds. It was decided,
however, that nothing could be done in this direction until he was in
legal custody by process of outlawry. A writ of _capias utlegatum_
was accordingly taken out, but for some time the sheriffs' officers
hesitated to execute it, so popular had he become, and the mayor had
to discharge some of them for neglect of duty. At length he was taken
into custody and committed to the King's Bench prison (27 April).
When he left the Court the mob stopt his coach on Westminster Bridge,
took out the horses, and themselves drew him as far as Cornhill. They
insisted that he should not go to prison, but were at last, persuaded
to disperse, and Wilkes quietly made his way to the King's Bench Prison
and there surrendered himself.[204]
[Sidenote: The king's letter to Lord North, 25 April, 1768.]
Throughout the whole business the prosecution had shown a great want of
resolution and decision, everyone trying to throw the _onus_ upon the
shoulders of someone else. The same indecision manifested itself in the
Cabinet as to whether or not Wilkes should be allowed to take his seat.
It was otherwise with the king, however. He had fully made up his mind
that Wilkes ought to be expelled the House. Two days before Wilkes's
committal he wrote to Lord North: "I think it highly proper to apprise
you that the expulsion of Mr. Wilkes appears to be very essential, and
must be effected; and that I make no doubt, when you lay this affair
with your usual precision before the meeting of the gentlemen of the
House of Commons this evening, it will meet with the required unanimity
and vigour.... If there is any man capable of forgetting his criminal
writings I think his speech in the Court of King's Bench on Wednesday
last reason enough for to go as far as possible to expel him; for he
declared 'Number 45' a paper that the author ought to _glory in_, and
the blasphemous poem a mere _ludicrous production_."[205]
[Sidenote: Riots at the King's Bench Prison.]
So long as Wilkes remained in the King's Bench, the neighbourhood was
a constant scene of rioting, and on Tuesday, the 10th May, when the
new Parliament met, the mob threatened to release him by force and
carry him triumphantly to Westminster. His outlawry had been argued
by his friend Glynn on the previous Saturday, but Lord Mansfield had
postponed giving judgment until the next term, and Wilkes had thus been
prevented taking his seat. Hence the display of feeling on the part
of the mob, which at length became so violent that the Riot Act was
read, the military fired, and a young man was shot. This roused their
indignation the more, and there was more bloodshed; but at last peace
was restored.[206]
[Sidenote: The Lords pass a vote of thanks to the mayor, 12 May, 1768.]
The conduct of Harley--the aristocratic lord mayor--during the
disturbance was so much approved that a motion was made in the House of
Lords two days after Parliament had assembled to petition the king to
confer some mark of royal favour upon him, but the motion was lost. The
House, however, instructed the chancellor to convey to Harley a vote
of thanks on their behalf for his efforts to preserve the peace of the
city.[207]
[Sidenote: Sentence pronounced against Wilkes, 18 June, 1768.]
On the 8th June Wilkes again appeared in Westminster Hall, when he
succeeded in getting his outlawry reversed. Ten days later, however, he
was condemned to pay a fine of £500 and to suffer imprisonment for ten
months for having written the offensive number of the _North Briton_,
and to pay another fine of similar amount and to suffer a further term
of twelve months imprisonment for his _Essay on Woman_. As if this
were not punishment enough he was ordered to find security for his
good behaviour for seven years, himself being bound in £1,000 and two
sureties in £500 each. Still Wilkes had something to thank his judges
for. They had spared him the pillory.[208]
[Sidenote: Wilkes elected alderman, Jan., 1769.]
Notwithstanding his imprisonment Wilkes was as irrepressible as ever,
and he nearly succeeded in setting both Houses by the ears over the
hard usage he had received. His colleague in the representation of
Middlesex having died, he nominated his friend and counsel, Glynn, for
the vacant seat, and got him in. Early in the following year (1769) he
contrived to get himself returned alderman of the Ward of Farringdon
Without, the rival candidate being forced to retire from the poll
for fear of raising disturbances in the ward--"even the constables
in the city were almost to a man devoted to Wilkes."[209] The Court
of Aldermen, however, refused to admit him, and ordered another
election.[210] This time he was returned unopposed. Still the Court
hesitated to admit him until they had been furnished with copies of the
proceedings against him in the King's Bench, and at length resolved to
take the opinion of counsel upon the following questions, viz.: (1)
whether the election of Wilkes was a valid election; (2) whether he was
entitled by law to be admitted by the court by virtue or in pursuance
of that election.[211]
[Sidenote: Opinions of counsel.]
The case as settled by the Court of Aldermen and submitted to counsel
is set out _in extenso_ in the minutes of the court held on the 25th
April,[212] when the opinions of the several counsel were read. The
attorney and solicitor general as well as Yorke, Glynn, and Leigh gave
it as their opinion, that the judgments pronounced against Wilkes did
not render him by law incapable of being elected an alderman of the
city, and that he might be admitted into office, but they expressed
a doubt whether the Court of Aldermen could be forced to admit him.
On the other hand, the Recorder and the Common Sergeant as well as
Fletcher Norton (who gave a separate opinion) declared Wilkes's
election, in their opinion, to be invalid. Had it been valid, the
Recorder and Common Sergeant believed there was no other objection to
his being admitted except the impossibility of his attending the Court
of Aldermen for the purpose; but Norton was of opinion that the crimes
of which Wilkes had been convicted were a sufficient justification
for the court to refuse to admit him, over and above his incapacity
at the present time to attend to the duties of the office.[213] Under
the circumstances it was deemed best to keep the aldermanry open until
Wilkes regained his liberty.
[Sidenote: Wilkes again expelled the House, 3 Feb., 1769.]
In the meanwhile Wilkes had appealed to both Houses against the
sentence passed on him. He demanded to be heard at the Bar of the
House of Lords in defence of his writings, but this was denied him,
and the writs of error which he had brought were argued by his
counsel, Glynn and Davenport. This was on the 16th January (1769). On
the 27th, the day that he was returned unopposed as Alderman of the
ward of Farringdon Without, he was brought before the Commons, but
nothing urged either by himself or his counsel could move them in his
favour and on the 3rd February, they for the second time voted his
expulsion.[214]
[Sidenote: Elected the second time for Middlesex, 16 Feb., 1769.]
No sooner had the House passed this resolution than Wilkes announced
his intention of again standing for Middlesex, and on the 16th
February, he was again returned without any opposition. On this
occasion he was proposed by two members of parliament who were shortly
to become his brother aldermen, viz., Townshend and Sawbridge. Again
the House declared his election void, and himself to be incapable of
sitting in the existing parliament.[215]
[Sidenote: Returned the third time, 16 March. 1769.]
Not a whit abashed Wilkes again offered himself as a candidate, his
only opponent being Charles Dingley. Upon the day of the election
(16 March), Dingley, who had on a previous occasion come to blows
with Reynolds, Wilkes's election agent, and had come off second best,
received such rough handling that he was obliged to retire and leave
the field to Wilkes, who was returned unopposed. The election was for
the third time declared void, and a fresh writ issued.[216]
[Sidenote: Returned the fourth time, 12 April, 1769]
The struggle began to be very serious. Whilst loyal addresses poured in
from various parts of the country, the City held aloof, and the conduct
of Samuel Turner, the lord mayor, who was a zealous Wilkite received
a distinct mark of approval from the Common Council.[217] In the
meantime a number of rich and influential men--among whom were Horne
the vicar of Brentford, who loved to mix himself up in political and
municipal matters, Townshend, Sawbridge, Oliver and others--had formed
themselves into a society for the purpose of helping Wilkes to pay his
fines and other liabilities and of supporting him and his cause. The
society came to be known as the Supporters of the Bill of Rights.[218]
The freeholders of Middlesex met at Mile End, and unanimously resolved
in spite of all opposition to stand by the representative of their
choice; whilst a procession of merchants and tradesmen on their way to
St. James's with a loyal address was roughly treated by the mob and
broken up.[219] It required a man of some courage to oppose Wilkes
at the forthcoming election, and he was found in Colonel Luttrell,
an Irishman, whose father was a devoted adherent of Lord Bute. So
desperate, however, did Luttrell's case appear that his life was
specially insured for the occasion.[220] Two other candidates stood,
but the election really lay between Wilkes and Luttrell, the first
being nominated by Townshend, and the latter by Stephen Fox, Lord
Holland's son. The polling took place on the 12th April, when Wilkes
was for the fourth time returned by an overwhelming majority. A huge
crowd immediately made its way to the King's Bench Prison with colours
flying and bands playing, to congratulate him upon his success. When
the result of the election was reported to the House, they not only
rejected Wilkes, but declared Luttrell to be elected, and ordered the
return to be amended accordingly.[221]
[Sidenote: Remonstrance of the livery, 24 June, 1769.]
Such a proceeding on the part of parliament raised a grave
constitutional question, and caused great commotion in the city. If it
lay with parliament of its own mere motion, and without the authority
of an Act, to deprive electors of their right of choosing their own
representatives, the livery of London would suffer with the rest of the
kingdom. The matter was warmly taken up by _Junius_, who strenuously
condemned this usurpation by parliament.[222] The mayor was asked to
summon a Common Hall "for the purpose of taking the sense of the livery
of London on the measures proper to be pursued by them in the present
alarming situation of public affairs." Turner declined to act in the
matter on his own responsibility, and referred the petition to the
Common Council who told him not to accede to the request (5 May).[223]
Thus thrown on their own resources the livery resolved at their
ordinary meeting on the following Midsummer Day when Townshend and
Sawbridge were chosen sheriffs, to petition the king himself against
the arbitrary action of the government. A petition to this effect had
been drawn up by some of the livery previous to the meeting of the
Common Hall. It purported to come from "the lord mayor, commonalty
and livery of the city of London," but upon the lord mayor objecting
to this, the title was changed to "the humble petition of the livery
of the city of London in Common Hall assembled." The petitioners did
not mince words. The king's ministers were charged with peculation,
and with illegally issuing general warrants. They had violently seized
persons and papers, and after defeating and insulting the law on
various occasions, had wrested from the people, the last sacred right
they had left, viz., "the right of election, by the unprecedented
seating a candidate notoriously set up and chosen by themselves."
Deprived of all hope of parliamentary redress, the petitioners turned
to the king, reminding him that it was for the purpose of redress
alone, and for such occasions as the present, that so great and
extensive powers had been entrusted to the crown.[224]
[Sidenote: Lord Holland's letter to the mayor, 9 July, 1769.]
Among the ministers whom the livery charged with peculation was Lord
Holland, to whom they had made special reference (although not actually
mentioning his name) as "a public defaulter of unaccounted millions."
Stung to the quick at this imputation, Lord Holland wrote a letter to
the lord mayor (9 July), complaining of the aspersion and referring him
for the falsehood of the accusation to Beckford, whom he had satisfied
(he said) as to the injustice of it.[225] Turner contented himself
with a curt reply that he was not answerable for the contents of the
petition. There was no love lost between Lord Holland and the citizens.
According to the words put into his mouth by Gray, the poet, he would
gladly have seen it reduced by fire and sword:--
"Purg'd by the sword, and purified by fire,
Then had we seen proud London's hated walls:
Owls would have hooted in St. Peter's choir,
And foxes stunk and litter'd in St. Paul's."
[Sidenote: Beckford elected mayor for the second time, 10 Oct., 1769.]
The address had been ordered to be presented by the lord mayor, the
sheriffs, and three of the city's members, but months passed by and
no reply was vouchsafed. The livery got impatient. Their attack on
the ministry was strengthened by the re-appearance of Chatham,[226]
after a prolonged illness, whilst their own position received material
support by Beckford consenting for the second time to occupy the
mayoralty chair. "I cannot resist the importunate request of my
fellow citizens"--he wrote from his house in Soho Square, the 12th
October,[227]--"their desires have overcome resolutions that I once
thought were fixed and determined. The feeble efforts of a worn out
man to serve them can never answer their sanguine expectations. I will
do my best, and will sacrifice ease and retirement, the chief comfort
of old age, to their wishes. I _do_ accept the office of lord mayor.
I shall hope for the assistance of your Lordship and my brethren the
Court of Aldermen. The advantage and good effects of their advice were
experienced on many occasions in my late mayoralty." Their position
would have been still more strengthened, had similar petitions been
sent in from other parts of the country, but London's example was not
in this case followed.[228]
[Sidenote: Resolutions of the livery, 10 Oct., 1769.]
On the day that the result of the poll was declared (10 Oct.) in favour
of Beckford as mayor for the ensuing year the livery passed several
resolutions. The first was that the outgoing lord mayor (Turner) should
be asked if he had received any answer to the recent petition. Secondly
that he should be called upon to produce Lord Holland's letter. They
in the next place publicly named Lord Holland as the paymaster to
whom they had referred in their petition as "a public defaulter of
unaccounted millions," and insisted upon a parliamentary enquiry into
his accounts. Should he be found such a defaulter as they alleged, it
was the duty of the city's representatives in Parliament to move for
his impeachment. These resolutions they ordered to be placed on record,
as part of the proceedings in relation to the election of a mayor, and
a copy of them was to be sent to each of the city's members.[229]
[Sidenote: Another address of the livery, 6 March, 1770.]
Here matters were allowed to rest until the following March (1770),
when the livery sought the assistance of the Common Council to get
Beckford to summon a Common Hall for the purpose of taking further
measures to secure their rights and privileges.[230] Why they did
not make a direct application to the mayor himself, as was the usual
practice, is not clear. The Court, after some hesitation, acceded
to their request, and a Common Hall was summoned accordingly.
Another address, remonstrance and petition was thereupon drawn
up (6 March).[231] "A bolder declaration, both against king and
Parliament"--Walpole writes to his friend[232]--was never seen. The
majority of the Court of Aldermen would have formally disavowed it,
but Beckford, who presided, refused to allow a motion to that effect
to be moved until the City's Records had been searched with the view
of determining the several powers of the Courts of Aldermen and Common
Council, and of the livery in Common Hall assembled.[233] After
referring to their former petition remaining still unanswered, the
petitioners proceeded to inveigh against Parliament and the ministry
for having deprived the people of their just rights. The majority in
the House (they said) had "done a deed more ruinous in its consequences
than the levying of ship-money by Charles the First or the dispensing
power assumed by James the Second." They told the king to his face that
the House of Commons as then constituted did not only fail to represent
the people, but it was "corruptly subservient" to his own ministers,
and they called upon his majesty on that account to dissolve the
Parliament and dismiss those ministers who had advised him badly.
[Sidenote: The remonstrance approved by _Junius_.]
This language was bold, but it conveyed no more than the truth. Its
truthfulness, no less than its boldness, attracted _Junius_, who thus
wrote approvingly of the attitude taken up by London: "The city of
London hath given an example which, I doubt not, will be followed by
the whole kingdom. The noble spirit of the metropolis is the life-blood
of the state, collected at the heart; from that point it circulates,
with health and vigour, through every artery of the constitution....
The city of London have expressed their sentiments with freedom and
firmness; they have spoken truth boldly; and in whatever light their
remonstrance may be represented by courtiers, I defy the most subtle
lawyer in this country to point out a single instance in which they
have exceeded the truth. Even that assertion, which we are told is most
offensive to Parliament, in the theory of the English constitution is
strictly true. If any part of the representative body be not chosen by
the people that part vitiates the whole."[234] Adopting the words of
the remonstrance, he declared that the principle on which the Middlesex
election had been determined was more pernicious in its effects than
either the levying of ship-money by Charles I or the suspending power
claimed by his son.
[Sidenote: Condemned by Goldsmiths, Weavers and Grocers.]
On the other hand several of the livery companies themselves, viz.: the
Goldsmiths, the Weavers, and the Grocers, had declared the remonstrance
to be indecent and disrespectful, and forbade the members of their
respective liveries to attend any Common Hall in future (except
for purposes of election) without express leave of their Courts of
Assistants. The authority of the mayor and aldermen over the livery
companies was thus openly defied. On learning of these resolutions
Beckford summoned a Common Hall to meet on the 12th April to consider
what course to take, but his precept was ignored by the recalcitrant
companies. Such disobedience was hitherto unheard of, and the matter
was reported to the livery committee, appointed the 28th September,
1769.[235] This committee was afterwards united with a committee of the
Common Council, and after due consideration the question of the rights
of the livery was submitted to counsel.[236] The result will be seen in
the next chapter.
[Sidenote: The king hesitates to receive the address.]
Unlike the former address, this was invested with a corporate character
by being ordered to be presented by the lord mayor, the city members,
the Court of Aldermen, the sheriffs and the Common Council. In due
course the sheriffs attended (6 March), to learn when the king would
be pleased to receive the address. They were told they had come at
an improper time, and must deliver their message on a court day. By
treating them in this manner the king hoped to hear no more of the
matter; it was--he told Lord Weymouth--the most likely means of putting
an end to "this stuff." He desired, however, that the opinion of Lord
Mansfield should be taken as to whether the sheriffs could claim to
be received "as on occasions that they addressed the crown."[237]
On the following day the sheriffs again presented themselves. After
the levée was over they were admitted to the closet, but not before
some questions had been asked as to the nature of the address to
be presented. Sheriff Townshend having made his formal request the
king replied that as the case was "entirely new" he would take time
to consider it, and would send an answer by one of his principal
secretaries of state. The question to be decided was whether the
address ought to be treated as coming from the citizens of London in
their corporate capacity or as only proceeding from a comparatively
small body of them, viz., the livery. If the former, it would, in
accordance with custom, be received by the king on the throne; if the
latter, the king would receive it at a levée or in any other manner he
might think fit. In order, therefore, to discover the precise nature
of the address the king directed Lord Weymouth to make the necessary
enquiries. Lord Weymouth accordingly wrote (8 March) to the sheriffs
asking in what manner the address was authenticated and what was the
nature of the assembly by which it had been adopted as it appeared to
be "entirely new."[238] Instead of answering the letter the sheriffs
the next day (9 March) again put in an appearance at St. James's,
accompanied by the Remembrancer. Being asked whether they came "with
a fresh message or with a message?" they answered "with a message."
The secretaries of state then appeared, and Lord Weymouth asked the
sheriffs if they had received his letter, and whether they came in
consequence of it or on any fresh business? They replied that they had
received his letter and had come in consequence of it. The following
dialogue is recorded as having then taken place:--
_Lord Weymouth_: "Would it not be more proper to send an answer in
writing through me?"
_The Sheriffs_: "We act ministerially. As sheriffs of London we have a
right to an audience, and cannot communicate to any other person than
the king the subject of our message."
_Lord Weymouth_: "I do not dispute your right to an audience, but
would it not be better and more accurate to give your message to me in
writing?"
_The Sheriffs_: "We know the value and consequence of the citizen's
right to apply immediately to the king, and not to a third person,
and we do not mean that any of their rights and privileges should be
betrayed by our means."
[Sidenote: Sheriff Townshend's speech to the king, 9 March, 1770.]
At last the king consented to see them, and Sheriff Townshend then
addressed his majesty in the following terms:--
"When we had last the honour to appear before your majesty, your
majesty was graciously pleased to promise an answer by one of your
majesty's principal secretaries of state; but we had yesterday
questions proposed to us by Lord Weymouth. In answer to which we
beg leave humbly to inform your majesty that the application we
make to your majesty we make as sheriffs of the city of London by
the direction of the livery in Common Hall legally assembled. The
address, remonstrance and petition to be presented to your majesty, by
their chief magistrate, is the act of the citizens of London in their
greatest court, and is ordered by them to be properly authenticated as
their act."[239]
[Sidenote: The king consults Lord North.]
To this the king vouchsafed no further reply than that he would take
time to consider the matter. The next day (10 March) he wrote to
Lord North: "The more I reflect on the present remonstrance from the
livery the more I am desirous it should receive an answer, otherwise
this bone of contention will never end; I therefore am thoroughly of
opinion that, as the sheriffs (though falsely) have insinuated that
it is properly authenticated, that the least inconvenience will be
receiving them on the throne."[240] All that the minister could do
to help the king out of his difficulty was to instance cases where
only "a certain number" were allowed to attend, but the king was not
satisfied, and expressed himself as being still of opinion that under
the circumstances he had better receive the address on the throne.[241]
[Sidenote: The king's reply, 14 March, 1770.]
Accordingly it was decided to receive it in that manner on Wednesday,
the 14th.[242] Having listened with composure, distasteful as the
address was, the king read an answer in which, after declaring his
readiness ever to listen to the complaints of his subjects, he
expressed concern at finding that any of them had been so misled
as to offer an address at once disrespectful to himself, injurious
to Parliament and irreconcilable with the principles of the
constitution.[243]
[Sidenote: Parliament and the remonstrance, 15-19 March, 1770.]
The next day (15 March) the House of Commons resolved to pray the king
that he would be pleased to lay the remonstrance and his answer before
the House. The king at once gave his consent, but the ministry betrayed
the greatest timidity. "The fright at court continues"--wrote Calcraft
to Chatham (17 March)--"and they are not only puzzled, but undetermined
what to do with the remonstrance, now it is got to parliament. The only
resolution taken is to be most temperate and avoid either expulsion or
commitment seeing the lord mayor and sheriffs court it." Again "the
ministers dread a resolution of the Common Hall against the advisers of
the strong words in his majesty's answer."[244] After long debate the
House contented themselves (19 March) with passing a resolution to the
effect that the document was an "unwarrantable and dangerous petition"
as well as a gross abuse of the right of petitioning the king.[245]
[Sidenote: Entertainment at Mansion House, 22 March, 1770.]
In the meantime Beckford, who with the two sheriffs, Townshend and
Sawbridge, and with Alderman Trecothick avowed their share in the
remonstrance, had issued invitations to a banquet at the Mansion House
to "a very numerous though a select number of persons" of both houses
of parliament. He had previously taken the precaution of sounding
Lord Rockingham, and in doing so had used the good offices of his
friend Lord Chatham. The entertainment would afford a good opportunity
(thought the mayor), for obtaining some guarantee of the future policy
of the Opposition whenever they should come into power, and he and
Horne had devised a plan for getting the guests to sign a formal
document committing them definitely to certain reforms. Such a document
Horne afterwards declared himself to have actually drawn up "in terms
so cautious and precise as to leave no room for future quibble and
evasion."[246] This device becoming known, Chatham wrote to say that
in the opinion of himself, Lord Rockingham and Lord Temple, "no new
matters should be opened or agitated at or after the convivium"[247]
which was fixed for Thursday, the 22nd March,--the eve of the day on
which both Houses were to present an address to the king touching the
remonstrance. The entertainment was one of the most magnificent ever
given by a private individual. The members were escorted to the city by
the livery of London on horseback through the crowded streets. Those
who failed to illuminate their houses ran the risk of having their
windows broken.[248] Chatham was prevented from attending by an attack
of his old enemy the gout.[249] Magnificent as was the entertainment
from a social point of view, from a political it was money thrown away.
[Sidenote: Wilkes regains his liberty, 17 April, 1770.]
Wilkes's term of imprisonment was now fast drawing to a close. His
release was looked forward to by his friends with great joy, by his
enemies with no little fear and concern. In November last (1769),
his spirits and the spirits of his party had been raised by a jury
awarding him no less a sum than £4,000 by way of damages in his long
protracted action against Lord Halifax,[250] by whose orders his papers
had been seized. Nevertheless his second fine of £500 remained yet
unpaid.[251] On the 17th April (1770) Wilkes regained his liberty, and
in order to prevent disturbance slipped away into the country, to the
house of his friend Reynolds, for a few days. On his return he was
immediately sworn in as alderman of the ward of Farringdon Without (24
April).[252] At the outset of his new career Wilkes behaved with the
greatest propriety. "I don't know whether Wilkes is subdued by his
imprisonment"--wrote Walpole to his friend--"or waits for the rising of
parliament, to take the field; or whether his dignity of alderman has
dulled him into prudence and the love of feasting; but hitherto he has
done nothing but go to city-banquets and sermons, and sit at Guildhall
as a sober magistrate."[253]
[Sidenote: A remonstrance by Common Council, 14 May, 1770.]
On the 14th May, he was nominated a member of the committee appointed
by the Common Council to draw up another humble address, remonstrance
and petition to the king, "touching the violated right of election,
and the applications of the livery of London, and his majesty's answer
thereupon." An address was accordingly drawn up--"much less hot than
the former"--calling upon the king to dissolve parliament and dismiss
his ministers.[254] It was adopted by the Common Council by a large
majority (viz. 98 votes to 46). At first the king was disposed not to
receive it at all. "I suppose this is another remonstrance" he wrote to
North, after telling the sheriffs to call again "if so I think it ought
not to have any answer."[255] After seeing a draft of it, however, he
changed his mind. He acknowledged that it was less offensive than he
had been given to understand, but he thought "the whole performance"
required no more than "a short dry answer."[256]
[Sidenote: The king's reply, 23 May, 1770.]
In the ordinary course the presentation would have been made by the
Recorder on behalf of the citizens. Eyre, however, refused to attend on
this occasion,[257] so that the address may possibly have been read by
the lord mayor himself. The king's reply was even briefer than usual.
He would (he said) have been wanting to the public and to himself had
he not expressed dissatisfaction at the former address. He declared his
sentiments to be unchanged, and he declined to use his prerogative in a
manner which might be dangerous to the constitution of the kingdom.[258]
[Sidenote: Beckford's memorable speech.]
It was now that Beckford made that memorable speech with which his
name will ever be associated (although claimed by Horne Tooke as
his composition), and which was afterwards inscribed, by order of
the Common Council, upon the pediment of his statue erected in the
Guildhall.[259] Deeming the king's answer unsatisfactory the mayor, to
the surprise of all present, and contrary to all form and precedent,
again stept forward, and, addressing the king, besought his majesty to
allow him--the mayor of the king's loyal city of London--to express
on behalf of his fellow citizens their sorrow at having incurred his
majesty's displeasure. He assured the king that there were no subjects
"more faithful, more dutiful, or more affectionate" than the citizens,
and he denounced the man who should attempt to alienate the king's
affection from his subjects in general, and from the city of London
in particular, as an enemy to the king and constitution. Even Walpole
allowed that the speech was "wondrous loyal and respectful," if a
trifle disconcerting. The king was so much taken by surprise that he
hesitated whether to stay or withdraw. He decided on the former, and
remained until Beckford had finished, when he immediately got up and
retired without a word. Chatham was immensely pleased at the spirit
displayed by Beckford on this occasion, and wrote to tell him so:
"The _spirit of Old England_ spoke that never-to-be-forgotten day."
His letter concludes with the following enthusiastic passage: "Adieu,
then for the present (to call you by the most honourable of titles)
_true Lord Mayor of London_; that is, _first_ magistrate of the
_first_ city of the world! I mean to tell you only a plain truth when
I say your lordship's mayoralty will be revered till the constitution
is destroyed and forgotten."[260] Beckford, in his reply, justified
his conduct. "What I spoke in the king's presence was uttered in
the language of truth, and with that humility and submission which
become a subject speaking to his lawful king: at least I endeavoured
to behave properly and decently; but I am inclined to believe that I
was mistaken, for the language of the court is that my deportment was
impudent, insolent and unprecedented. God forgive them all!"[261]
[Sidenote: Vote of thanks to Beckford for his speech, 25 May.]
When the matter came to be reported to the Common Council (25 May) two
aldermen, viz., Rossiter and Harley, objected to Beckford having made
a speech to the king without instructions from the Common Council,
whilst Wilkes and the two sheriffs, Townshend and Sawbridge, upheld
his conduct. The Court then desired Beckford to state what he had said
to his majesty. Thereupon the speech was produced and read, and this
being done a formal vote of thanks was passed to the mayor for having
presented the remonstrance, and "for his vindicating at the foot of the
throne the loyalty and affection of the citizens of London."[262]
[Sidenote: Vote of thanks to Chatham, 14 May, 1770.]
The same motive which prompted Beckford's action in March last on the
occasion of his magnificent entertainment to the Opposition had in the
meanwhile incited the Common Council to a similar indiscretion. On the
14th May--the day that the last remonstrance was prepared--the Court
passed a vote of thanks to Chatham for the zeal he had shown in support
of the rights of election and petition, as well as for his "declaration
that his endeavours shall hereafter be used that Parliaments may be
restored to their original purity by shortening their duration and
introducing a more full and equal representation."[263] Here the
wish was distinctly father to the thought. Chatham had made no such
declaration. The vote was nothing more or less than an attempt to "fix"
Chatham to a definite policy of reform just as Beckford had previously
tried to fix Rockingham and his party. Chatham was not to be thus
caught, and in his acknowledgment of the vote he declared that as to
any assurance he was supposed to have given that he was in favour of
shorter Parliaments there had been some misapprehension. With all
deference to the sentiments of the City he felt bound to say that he
could not recommend triennial Parliaments as a remedy for venality
in elections. He would not, however, oppose any measure for their
introduction if the country showed itself unmistakably in favour of
them.[264]
[Sidenote: The last days of Beckford.]
On the 30th May, Beckford again appeared at court at the head of a
deputation from the city to present a formal address of congratulation
from the Common Council on the birth of another princess. The address
had been passed unanimously by the Council, although Wilkes declared it
was no time for such compliments. The deputation met with some little
opposition on its way to St. James's, the gates at Temple Bar being
suddenly closed by the mob before the whole of the civic party had
passed through, and they were not admitted into the presence chamber,
until the lord mayor had promised not to repeat his former offence of
making a speech.[265] The next day Beckford laid the first stone of
the new gaol of Newgate.[266] This was his last appearance in public.
He had recently caught a chill whilst at Fonthill, and this had been
aggravated by his hasty return to town in order to attend to his
mayoralty duties, and the excitement consequent thereto. For some years
past he had not enjoyed good health, and age began to tell upon him.
Even his first mayoralty in 1762-3, he entered upon with reluctance,
and the day before his election had gone so far as to petition the
Court of Aldermen to be discharged from his aldermanry on the score
of ill-health.[267] He was, as we have seen, still more reluctant to
undertake a second year of office, and only consented to do so after
pressing solicitation. On the 12th June, he was so ill from rheumatic
fever that he was unable to attend a Court of Aldermen, and on the 21st
he died.[268]
FOOTNOTES:
[168] Repertory 164, fos. 367-369.
[169] Repertory 164, fos. 370, 379; Journal 62, fos. 159, 162. This
address of the Common Council, as well as similar addresses from
1760 downwards, will be found in a volume printed by order of the
Corporation in 1865.
[170] Parliament was dissolved 20 March (1761), and a new Parliament
summoned for May. Of the old city members three out of the four were
again returned: but the place of Barnard, now getting advanced in
years, was taken by Thomas Harley, a brother of the Earl of Oxford.
[171] When, speaking on the address, Alderman Beckford proposed to push
the war with more vigour than formerly, Pitt is recorded as having
fired up and to have asked his friend what new piece of extravagance he
wished for?--Walpole, "Memoirs of the reign of George III," i, 24.
[172] Chatham Correspondence, ii, 158.
[173] Journal 62, fos. 298, 299.
[174] Journal 62, fo. 302.
[175] A schedule of the different "services" at the various tables and
particulars of the cost (£6,898 5_s._ 4_d._) of the entertainment are
entered on record.--Journal 62, fos. 337-340b.
[176] Walpole, "Memoirs of reign of George III," i. 89, 90; Walpole to
Mann.--Letters, iii, 459.
[177] Journal 62, fo. 303.
[178] _Id._, fos. 298b-299.
[179] Horace Walpole was indignant at the Common Council presuming
to speak on behalf of the City of London, and to "usurp the right of
making peace and war." At the same time he could not shut his eyes to
the fact that the City held the purse-strings, and that without its
assistance supplies would run short.--Walpole to Conway, 26 Oct., 1761.
The same to Horace Mann, 14 Nov.--Letters, iii, 457, 459.
[180] Walpole, Memoirs, i, 91-93.
[181] Almon, "Correspondence of Wilkes," i, 65, 66.
[182] Journal 62, fos. 330b, 334b.
[183] Repertory 167, fo. 184.
[184] Repertory 167, fos. 280, 286, 291.
[185] Journal 62, fos. 72-73b, 75-76, 87b-88b, 131-131b, 134-134b
[186] Journal House of Commons, xxix, 666.
[187] Walpole, Memoirs, i, 332.
[188] Journal House of Commons, xxix, 668, 685.
[189] Journal House of Commons, xxix, 690.
[190] Journal House of Lords, xxx, 437.
[191] Walpole, Memoirs, i, 331; see also Grenville Papers, ii, 235.
[192] Journal House of Lords, xxx, 438; Journal House of Commons, xxix,
698.
[193] Journal 63, fo. 146b; Grenville Papers, ii, 237.
[194] Walpole, Memoirs, i, 309-314.
[195] Journal House of Commons, xxix, 723.
[196] Walpole, Memoirs, i, 385, ii, 35.
[197] Journal 63, fos. 166-167, 171.
[198] Walpole, Memoirs, i, 391.
[199] Walpole to Mann, 1 Aug., 1766. Letters, v, 8. "The city of
London"--he writes elsewhere--"had intended to celebrate Mr. Pitt's
return to employment, and lamps for an illumination had been placed
round the Monument. But no sooner did they hear of his new dignity,
than the festival was counter-ordered." Memoirs, ii, 359.
[200] Walpole. Memoirs, ii, 394.
[201] Journal 64, fos. 142b, 204. Before the freedom could be
conferred, Townshend had died (4 Sept.).
[202] The letter is dated from Paris, 12 Dec., 1767. Almon's Life of
Wilkes, iii, 184.
[203] Walpole. Memoirs, iii, 186-188. Walpole to Mann, 31 March, 1768.
Letters, v, 91-93. The City offered a reward of £50 for the capture and
conviction of the ringleaders. Journal 64, fos. 247b, 248.
[204] Walpole to Mann, 23 April, 1768.--Letters, v, 98; Walpole,
Memoirs, iii, 199.
[205] The king to Lord North, 25 April, 1768.--"Correspondence of
George III with Lord North" (W. Bodham Donne), i, 2.
[206] Walpole to Mann, 6 June, 1768.--Letters, v, 101; Walpole,
Memoirs, iii, 204-206.
[207] Journal House of Lords, xxxii, 152.
[208] Walpole to Mann, 22 June, 1768.--Letters, v, 110; Walpole,
Memoirs, iii, 228, 229.
[209] Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 297.
[210] Repertory 173, fos. 91-94, 114, 115.
[211] Repertory 173, fos. 140-142, 153-155.
[212] Repertory 173, fos. 264-314.
[213] _Id._, fos. 315-318.
[214] Journal House of Commons, xxxii, 178. Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 292,
298, 313-319, 324-325, 327.
[215] Journal House of Commons, xxxii, 228, 229.
[216] Annual Register, xii, 80, 82
[217] Journal 64, fo. 341b. Several wards met and drew up instructions
to the Common Council not to allow of an address to the king, "as
calculated to countenance the unconstitutional measures of the present
administration, rather than to express duty and affection to the best
of kings."--Annual Register, xii, 88.
[218] Annual Register, xii, 75. Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 339.
[219] Annual Register, xii, 82, 84.
[220] Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 353.
[221] Journal House of Commons, xxxii, 386, 387.
[222] "The arbitrary appointment of Mr. Luttrell"--he wrote to the Duke
of Grafton (8 July)--"invades the foundation of the laws themselves, as
it manifestly transfers the right of legislation from those whom the
people have chosen to those whom they have rejected. With a succession
of such appointments, we may soon see a House of Commons collected in
the choice of which the other towns and counties of England will have
as little share as the devoted county of Middlesex."--Letters of Junius
(Woodfall), i, 509.
[223] Journal 64, fo. 344b.
[224] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 146b-147b. The petition is printed
in a small volume of "city petitions, addresses and remonstrances,"
(1778), preserved in the Guildhall Library.
[225] Beckford denied this--Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 380.
[226] "That the moment of his [Chatham's] appearance, _i.e._, so
immediately after the petition of the livery of London set on foot and
presented by his friend Alderman Beckford, has a hostile look, cannot
be doubted."--Walpole to Mann, 19 July, 1769. Letters, v, 177.
[227] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 148b.
[228] "London, for the first time in its life, has not dictated to
England. Essex and Hertfordshire have refused to petition; Wiltshire
and Worcester say they will petition, and Yorkshire probably
will."--Walpole to Mann, 19 July, 1769. Letters, v, 177.
[229] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 149.
[230] Journal 65, fos. 62b-63b.
[231] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 152-153.
[232] Walpole to Mann, 15 March, 1770.--Letters, v, 229.
[233] Repertory 174, fos. 155, 156.
[234] Junius to the printer of the _Public Advertiser_, 19 March,
1770.--Letters of Junius (Woodfall), ii, 115.
[235] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 154.
[236] Journal 65, fos. 118b, 125.
[237] The king to Lord Weymouth, 6 March, 1770.--Jesse, Memoirs of
George III, i, 490-491.
[238] Lord Weymouth to the sheriffs of London, 8 March, 1770.--Cal.
Home Office Papers (1770-1772), p. 20.
[239] Gentleman's Magazine, xl, 111-112.
[240] The editor of the correspondence between the king and Lord
North gives the date of this letter as the 20th March--a mistake,
probably, for the 10th--as the remonstrance was presented on the
14th.--Correspondence, i, 20.
[241] The King to Lord North, 11 March, 1770.--Correspondence, i, 17-18.
[242] Lord Weymouth to the sheriffs, 12 March, 1770.--Gentleman's
Magazine, xl, 112.
[243] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 153b.
[244] Chatham correspondence, iii, 429, 430.
[245] Journal House of Commons, xxxii, 810.
[246] Horne to Junius, 31 July, 1771. Letters of Junius, ii, 298, 299.
[247] Chatham to Beckford, 10 March, 1770.--Chatham correspondence,
iii, 431, note.
[248] Annual Register, xiii, 82, 83. Walpole to Mann, 23 March, 1770.
Letters, v, 232. Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 115.
[249] "A real or political fit of the gout."--Walpole.
[250] Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 395. Annual Register, xii, 150.
[251] Annual Register, xiii, 80.
[252] Repertory 174, fo. 184.
[253] Walpole to Mann, 6 May, 1770. Letters, v, 235.
[254] Journal 65, fos. 80-82. Walpole to Mann, 24 May, 1770, Letters,
v, 238. It is supposed that Chatham had a hand in drawing it up. It is
certain, at least, that he approved of it, and that he and Beckford
were intimate friends at the time.--Walpole, Memoirs of reign of George
III, iv, 153.
[255] The king to Lord North, 14 May, 1770.--Correspondence, i, 26.
[256] The same to the same, 19 May, 1770.--Correspondence, i, 27.
[257] An order was thereupon made that the services of Eyre as a
standing counsel for the city should in future be dispensed with.
Two years later his connection with the city was severed and his
conduct rewarded by his being created one of the barons of the
exchequer.--Journal 65, fos. 117b, 121; Repertory 176, fo. 458.
[258] Journal 65, fo. 83.
[259] Journal 65, fo. 92. Horne Tooke was accustomed to exclaim "that
he could not be deemed a vain man, as he had obtained statues for
others, but never for himself!"--Stephen, Memoirs of Horne Tooke, i,
151, 157.
[260] Chatham to the Lord Mayor, 25 May, 1770.--Chatham Correspondence,
iii, 462.
[261] Beckford to Chatham, 25 May, 1770.--Chatham Correspondence, iii,
463.
[262] Journal 65, fos. 83-84; Gentleman's Magazine, vol. xl. (where the
date of the Common Council is given as the 28 May).
[263] Journal 65, fo. 82b.
[264] Journal 65, fos. 82b, 94. A year later he held more decided views
as to the advantage of short Parliaments. Writing to Earl Temple on
the 17th April, 1771, he remarks: "Allow a speculator in a great chair
to add that a plan for more equal representation by additional knights
of the shire seems highly seasonable, and to shorten the duration of
Parliaments not less so. If your lordship should approve, could Lord
Lyttleton's caution be brought to take these ideas, we should take
possession of strong ground, let who will decline to follow us. One
line of men, I am assured, will zealously support, and a respectable
weight of law, _si quid novisti rectius istis candidus imperti_."
This extract was read at a Common Council held the 13th April, 1780,
and was ordered to be entered on the Journal of the Court.--Chatham
Correspondence, iv, 155, note.--Journal 68, fo. 52.
[265] Annual Register, xiii, 111.
[266] Annual Register, xiii, 112.
[267] Repertory 166, fo. 358.
[268] Repertory 174, fo. 276. Annual Register, xiii, 119.