[Sidenote: Barlow Trecothick mayor, June-Sept., 1770.]
Upon Beckford's decease Trecothick was elected mayor for the remainder
of the year. It was no easy matter for the successor of one of
the wealthiest and most hospitable of mayors to avoid invidious
comparison, and at the close of his short term of office Trecothick
was satirised by Wilkes for not maintaining the City's reputation for
hospitality.[269] Trecothick was also out of favour with Wilkes for
having officially backed press warrants, the legality of which was
much disputed at the time. The mayor, however, justified his conduct
in this respect to the livery when they met at Michaelmas, and his
speech was very favourably received.[270] Wilkes on the other hand was
so strenuously opposed to press warrants that he went so far as to
release a man who had been pressed for the navy, although he had been
taken by virtue of a warrant from the Lords of the Admiralty, backed by
Trecothick.[271]
[Sidenote: Brass Crosby elected mayor, 29 Sept., 1770.]
When Michaelmas arrived, the livery refused to re-elect Trecothick--as
indeed Wilkes had foretold. Bankes was again passed over, and Brass
Crosby chosen mayor for the ensuing year. In character he was scarcely
less spirited and patriotic than Beckford, and he was made to suffer
in consequence. Very early in his mayoralty (21 Nov.) it fell to his
lot to carry up another address and remonstrance to the king for the
dissolution of parliament, and to listen to a curt refusal.[272]
[Sidenote: Opinion touching press warrants.]
In consequence of Wilkes's opposition to pressing for the king's
service, a system then constantly practised owing to the necessities of
the time, the new mayor, one of his most steady adherents, consulted
Lord Chatham on the legality of press warrants. Chatham advised him
to take the opinion of counsel on the matter, and this he accordingly
did, with the result that whilst he was advised that press warrants,
however objectionable, were legal, the lord mayor could not legally
be compelled to sign them. At the same time counsel left it to
the mayor's consideration "whether for the peace of the city, and
preservation of the subject, he would not conform to the practice of
most of his predecessors on such occasions." This decision being deemed
unsatisfactory, the City preferred to bestow premiums on voluntary
recruits, and the same course was taken by other towns.[273]
[Sidenote: The freedom of reporting parliamentary debates, 1771.]
It is, however, for the conspicuous part he took in the struggle
for the liberty of the press that Brass Crosby is best remembered.
Great jealousy had always existed in parliament as to reports of
debates held there, and the Commons had comparatively of recent date
(28 Feb., 1729) passed a resolution to the effect that it was an
indignity, and a breach of privilege, for anyone "to give in written or
printed newspapers" any account of the proceedings of the house.[274]
Notwithstanding this resolution, reports of debates continued to appear
in the public press, but always with an affectation of secrecy.
[Sidenote: The arrest of Wheble and Miller, 15 March, 1771.]
A scheme was now set on foot by Wilkes for embroiling the House of
Commons with the City. At his instigation certain printers in the city
commenced to publish the debates without any attempt at disguise,
printing the name of each speaker in full. Such a proceeding had always
been deemed a distinct breach of privilege. Some members of the House
speedily took offence, and the printers were ordered to attend. As
they refused to obey the summons, they were ordered into custody. This
was precisely what Wilkes had aimed at. On the 15th March, a printer
named John Wheble was apprehended by virtue of a proclamation, and was
carried before Wilkes, the sitting alderman, who immediately discharged
him, after binding him over to prosecute the man who had taken him,
for illegal arrest. The same evening a messenger of the House of
Commons attempted to arrest Miller, the printer of the _Evening Post_,
under warrant of the Speaker; but the messenger himself was taken
into custody on a charge of assaulting a freeman of the city, and
carried before the lord mayor and aldermen Wilkes and Oliver. These
magistrates declared the warrant to be illegal, not having been backed
by a magistrate of the city, and released Miller. They at the same time
bound over the messenger of the House of Commons to appear to answer a
charge of assaulting a citizen of London.[275]
[Sidenote: The king's letter to Lord North, 17 March, 1771.]
The king was furious at the authority of parliament being thus openly
defied by the civic magistrates, and wrote to Lord North (17 March) to
say that unless Crosby and Oliver were not committed forthwith to the
Tower by the House of Commons its authority would be annihilated;--"You
know very well I was averse to meddling with the printers, but
now there is no retracting, the honour of the Commons must be
supported."[276]
[Sidenote: His recognizance expunged by order of the House, 20 March,
1771.]
The House was no less indignant at being flouted by the City, than
the king, and not only called upon Crosby and Oliver, who were
members,[277] to answer for their conduct from their places, but sent
for the clerk of the Justice Room at the Mansion House and ordered him
in their presence to expunge the entry of the recognizance by which
their messenger had been bound over to appear at the next Quarter
Sessions to answer for his assault on Miller.[278]
[Sidenote: Crosby and Oliver before the House, 19 March, 1771.]
In the meantime Crosby, who was suffering from a severe attack of gout,
had attended in his place (19 March). Early in the morning handbills
were distributed in the city informing the inhabitants that it was
the intention of the mayor to attend Parliament that afternoon--"even
though he should be obliged to be carried in a litter"--to uphold
their rights and privileges, and calling upon them to escort him home
on his return from Westminster. Here is a description of what took
place taken from a contemporary newspaper;[279] "At two o'clock in the
afternoon the right hon. the lord mayor set out from the Mansion House
in a coach to attend the House of Commons, in pursuance of a summons,
to answer for his conduct on Friday last. His lordship appeared very
feeble and infirm, but in good spirits. Mr. Alderman Oliver and his
lordship's chaplain, Mr. Evans, were in the same coach. A prodigious
crowd of the better sort were at the Mansion House and in the streets
near it, who testified their approbation by repeated huzzas, which were
continued quite from the Mansion House to the House of Commons. On his
arrival there one universal shout was heard for near three minutes; and
the people during the whole passage to the House called out to the lord
mayor as the _people's friend, the guardian of the city's rights and
the nation's liberties_." Walpole minimises the display, and tells his
friend that although thousands of handbills were dispersed to invite
the mob to escort the mayor, not a hundred attended.[280] Having taken
his seat in the House Crosby justified his conduct by the oath that
he had taken on entering upon his mayoralty to preserve the liberties
of the citizens, and desired to be heard by counsel.[281] Before his
examination had proceeded far he was taken so seriously ill that he had
to ask leave to go home. This was accorded, and "about five o'clock
his lordship returned home, attended by a great number of people; and
the populace took the horses out of the carriage at St. Paul's, and
drew the coach to the Mansion House." The enquiry stood adjourned until
Friday (22 March). In the meantime, leave having been given to him to
appear by counsel, albeit with certain reservations, a committee was
appointed to employ such counsel on his behalf as they should think
fit, with power to draw on the Chamber to the extent of £500.[282]
When Friday came the Speaker informed the House that he had received a
letter from the lord mayor to the effect that he (Crosby) was so ill
that he could not leave home, but that he would attend in his place
as soon as his health permitted. Another adjournment was therefore
made until the following Monday (25 March), and Oliver's defence was
appointed for the same day.[283]
[Sidenote: Crosby and Oliver again before the House, 25 March, 1771.]
By Monday the lord mayor had sufficiently recovered to attend the
House. At two o'clock in the afternoon he again set out in his
coach accompanied, as before, by Oliver. Crowds again escorted them
to Westminster, and the approaches to the House were so densely
thronged that the Speaker gave orders to have them cleared. Even
Walpole acknowledges this.[284] After the orders of the day for their
attendance had been read Crosby explained how it was that no counsel
appeared on his behalf. In the first place the restrictions that the
House had placed upon the appearance of counsel--viz., that they should
only be heard upon such points as did not controvert the privileges
of the House--was such as to prevent counsel speaking on many points
material to his defence; and secondly the counsel whom he could depend
upon, and whom he wished to employ, were on circuit. He therefore made
his own defence. It was now ten o'clock at night, and the exertion he
had undergone had rendered him so weak that he again had to ask leave
to withdraw, promising to abide by the judgment of the House. On his
return to the city he met with another ovation, his coach being drawn
by the people all the way to the Mansion House.[285]
[Sidenote: Crosby adjudged guilty of breach of privilege.]
After Crosby's withdrawal the debate was continued. It was moved that
the lord mayor's discharging of Miller out of custody, and his having
held the messenger of the House to bail, was a breach of privilege.
To this was moved the previous question, but after long debate it
was rejected and the original motion passed, order being given for
the lord mayor to attend on the following Wednesday, if his health
permitted.[286]
[Sidenote: Oliver committed to the Tower, 25 March, 1771.]
Notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, the House called upon Oliver.
The alderman, however, did not detain them long. He declined to call
witnesses or to say anything in his defence, beyond asserting that he
had acted according to his duty, oath, and conscience. Again there was
a long debate lasting until three o'clock in the morning, when the
House resolved to send him to the Tower. The division was a small one,
many members having already gone home in disgust. Oliver was allowed
to go to his house in Fenchurch Street for a few hours before being
removed to the Tower by the sergeant-at-arms.[287]
[Sidenote: Speech of Alderman Townshend.]
During the debate, Alderman Townshend appeared in the House looking
very pale, having risen from a sickbed--"his hair lank, and his
face swathed with linen, having had his jaw laid open for an
inflammation"--and after commenting severely upon the arbitrary action
of the House in erasing a record entered in the lord mayor's book,
proceeded to twit the government with its obsequiousness to female
caprice and boldly declared their arbitrary measures to be due to
the baneful influence of the Princess Dowager of Wales.[288] Such a
declaration was not only in bad taste, but contrary to Parliamentary
usage. Nevertheless it was placidly listened to and only received a
tardy and weak denial from Lord North--a sign that the House felt the
insecurity of its position.
[Sidenote: "A table" to be provided for Oliver at City's expense, 26
March, 1771.]
On Tuesday (26 March) a Common Council sat, summoned by Trecothick,
who had been appointed (12 March), to act as _locum tenens_ of the
lord mayor during his "absence or illness." After transacting several
matters of business, the court resolved unanimously "that during the
confinement of Mr. Alderman Oliver in the Tower of London a table be
provided for him at the expense of this city, under the direction and
management of the committee appointed at the last court to assist the
lord mayor and the Aldermen Wilkes and Oliver in their defence on the
charge brought against them by the House of Commons."[289]
[Sidenote: Chatham's opinion on Oliver's committal.]
The committal of Oliver was only one of a series of blunders of
which Parliament had been guilty since the arrest of the printers.
The position of affairs was clearly defined in letters written by
Chatham at the time. "The state of the business seems to me clearly
this: the discharge of Miller, taken under the Speaker's warrant, I
think contrary to the established jurisdiction of the House, with
regard to printers of their proceedings and debates; but I hold also
as fully, that in a conflict of jurisdiction, the lord mayor and city
magistrates, acting under an oath of office and their charter, cannot
be proceeded against criminally by the House, without the highest
injustice and oppression." Again:--"the House becomes flagrantly unjust
and tyrannical, the moment it proceeds criminally against magistrates
standing for a jurisdiction they are bound to maintain, in a conflict
of respectable rights." He goes on to say that "nothing appears to me
more distinct, than declaring their right to jurisdiction, with regard
to printers of their proceedings and debates, and punishing their
member, and in him his constituents, for what he has done in discharge
of his oath and conscience as a magistrate."[290]
[Sidenote: The opinion of _Junius_.]
This view was also strenuously supported by _Junius_,[291] who was
emphatic that "as magistrates," Crosby and Oliver "had nothing to
regard but the obligation of their oaths, and the execution of the
laws. If they were convinced that the Speaker's warrant was not a legal
authority to the messenger, it necessarily followed that, when he was
charged upon oath with a breach of the peace, they _must_ hold him to
bail. They had no option."
[Sidenote: Crosby again attends the House, 27 March, 1771.]
On Wednesday (27 March), Crosby again attended in his place, as
directed, to hear the decision of the House in his case. He was
accompanied as before by an "amazing number of people" anxious to
learn the issue; "guards, both horse and foot, were ordered to be
in readiness, in case any tumult should arise. The city was all in
motion; and by its acclamations testified its satisfaction with his
conduct." Although he arrived at the House early in the afternoon,
it was past eight o'clock in evening before the House was ready to
take his business into consideration. Meanwhile the approaches to
the House were in the hands of the mob who threatened many of the
members with violence. Lord North, in particular, was made the object
of a violent attack. His coach was demolished and he himself narrowly
escaped being killed. Others, and among them Charles Fox, who had made
himself especially obnoxious to the citizens by speaking of Oliver
as an "assassin of the constitution," were also insulted, but not so
outrageously.[292] The justices confessed to the House their inability
to read the Riot Act, and declared that the constables were powerless.
The sheriffs of London--William Baker and Richard Martin--being
members of the House,[293] were thereupon desired to go themselves and
endeavour to disperse the crowd,[294] and at their intervention peace
was at length restored.
[Sidenote: Is committed to the Tower.]
The House being now prepared to proceed with the chief business of the
day, a motion was made for committing the lord mayor to the custody of
the sergeant-at-arms, instead of sending him to the gloomier quarters
of the Tower, on account of his ill-health. Crosby, however, at once
desired that no such favour might be shown him; he was quite prepared,
he said, to join his honourable friend in the Tower. An amendment was
accordingly moved that he should be committed to the Tower, and this
was carried by 202 votes to 39.[295] It was now past midnight. Crosby
returned to the Mansion House for a short rest, and at four o'clock in
the morning sent for a hackney coach and drove to the Tower.
[Sidenote: Letter of Alderman Oliver from the Tower, 29 March, 1771.]
A few hours later the Common Council resolved to furnish him with
a "table" at the City's expense, as they had previously done for
Oliver. Both prisoners acknowledged with gratitude the favour thus
shown to them by their fellow citizens, and both promised solemnly
to continue their efforts to maintain the rights and privileges of
the City, but the lord mayor declined the offer to furnish his table
during his incarceration, as he did not wish to put the City to any
additional expense on his account.[296] Oliver's letter contained
some very caustic remarks upon the attitude of the government towards
the City. "The last ten years have afforded the city of London, in
particular, every instance of neglect, unkindness, insult and injury;
their petitions have been rejected, slighted, ridiculed; their property
unjustly conveyed to others; their charters violated;[297] their laws
contemned; their magistrates imprisoned. The power that consumes us
has the plainest and most odious marks of despotism, abject abroad
and insolent at home. Whether our rights will in the end be peaceably
re-established or whether this violence will be pursued is more than
I can certainly declare, but this I will venture to say for myself
that they must either change their laws or the magistrates, for my
adherence to my duty shall be invariably the same, regardless of
consequences."[298]
[Sidenote: Supporters of the government beheaded in effigy, April,
1771.]
The temper of the populace at witnessing "the new and extraordinary
spectacle of the lord mayor of the city of London and one of its
principal magistrates being committed prisoners to the Tower," vented
itself in a very characteristic manner. On the 1st April a great mob
proceeded to Tower Hill following a hearse and two carts, in which were
figures representing the princess dowager, Lord Bute, the Speaker, and
both the Foxes. The figures were beheaded by a chimney sweeper, after
mock prayers, and then burnt. A like ceremony took place a few days
later with figures of Lord Halifax, Lord Barrington, Alderman Harley,
Colonel Luttrell, nicknamed "the usurper," Lord Sandwich, otherwise
known as "Jemmy Twitcher," Colonel Onslow, who had been made so furious
because a newspaper had called him "Cocking George," and De Grey, the
attorney-general. Their supposed dying speeches were, to the intense
amusement of the multitude, hawked about the streets.[299]
[Sidenote: The contest won.]
Wilkes, who had been no less an offender (if offence there was) in
holding the Speaker's warrant to be illegal, got off scot free. Three
times was he summoned to the bar of the House to answer for his
conduct, and three times he refused to obey unless the House would
acknowledge him as member for Middlesex. Ministers preferred to leave
him unmolested, resorting even to a subterfuge in order to allow him
to escape. It is true that, like Lord Shaftesbury in the reign of
Charles II, he had removed for safety from his house in Westminster
to lodgings in the city, but few can doubt his readiness, if need be,
to share the fate of his brother aldermen in so good a cause. In the
words of _Junius_, he was already a "wounded soldier" in the cause of
liberty, and could point to "real prosecutions, real penalties, real
imprisonment,"[300] and he deserves at least a part of the reward of
the victory thus gained for the freedom of the press.
[Sidenote: Crosby and Oliver regain their liberty, 8 May, 1771.]
More than one attempt was made by the committee appointed for the
defence of Crosby and Oliver to obtain their release on writs of Habeas
Corpus, but in vain. They remained therefore in confinement, receiving
a constant succession of friends and supporters, including Edmund
Burke and the Dukes of Manchester and Portland, until set free by the
prorogation of Parliament on the 8th May. The Common Council had, in
anticipation of that event, resolved (3 May) to go in procession in
their gowns, accompanied by the city officers to escort them from
the Tower to the Mansion House.[301] As Crosby and Oliver emerged
from the Tower gate they were welcomed with a salute of twenty-one
guns by the Artillery Company, and carried, amid universal shouts of
joy, to the Mansion House, from the balcony of which they bowed their
acknowledgments. In the evening the city was illuminated.
[Sidenote: Another address and remonstrance of the livery, 24 June,
1771.]
Even after their release the Common Council remained dissatisfied,
and determined to take counsel's opinion as to the possibility of
testing the legality of the action of Parliament. Counsel having given
an adverse opinion it was resolved to let the matter rest until the
meeting of the livery on Midsummer-day.[302] As soon as the livery
were informed how matters stood they drew up another address and
remonstrance calling upon the king to dissolve Parliament. This time
it was their intention to attend the presentation of the address in a
body, clad in their livery gowns.[303] The king, however, objected to
receiving so large a number, and the lord mayor was informed that only
the number "allowed by law" would be permitted to attend.[304] The
livery had to give way, and the address was presented in the manner
prescribed by the king. The answer they got was short and sharp; the
king contenting himself with expressing his concern that a part of his
subjects should have been so misled and deluded as to renew a request
with which he had repeatedly declared that he could not comply.[305]
[Sidenote: Election of Wilkes and Bull, sheriffs, 3 July, 1771.]
The more important business transacted at this Common Hall was the
election of sheriffs for the ensuing year. Wilkes had declared his
intention of standing, and had asked Oliver--at that time a prisoner
in the Tower--if he intended doing the same, regardless of the claims
of senior aldermen. Oliver hesitated as to the course he should
pursue, but finally wrote to Wilkes (11 April, 1771) expressing a
determination not to serve with him, inasmuch as their political aims
were not identical. Wilkes little relished this rebuff, and took
exception to the propriety of Oliver's reply; as for himself, he said,
"I am ready to serve the office of sheriff with you, sir, or any other
gentleman given me by the livery as a colleague, should they think
proper to elect me."[306] The election was watched with great interest
by the king, who was afraid that Wilkes might succeed in getting
elected, although supported only by "a small, though desperate," part
of the livery, and he wrote to Lord North expressing a hope that no
effort might be wanting to secure the election of Plumbe and Kirkman,
the two senior aldermen who had not served.[307] He was doomed to
disappointment. The livery declared for Wilkes and Frederick Bull, a
creature of Wilkes, and a poll was demanded. This lasted several days,
and on the 3rd July the result showed a large majority in their favour,
and they were declared duly elected. Oliver came out at the bottom of
the poll.[308]
The activity of court interference in this election was revealed by an
unhappy _contretemps_. A letter which "Jack" Robinson, Lord North's
secretary, had sent to Benjamin Smith, a partner of Alderman Nash, an
"opulent grocer" of Cannon Street, urging him to "push the poll" with
as many friends as possible, was carried by mistake to another Smith,
of Budge Row, a Wilkite, who immediately published it with an affidavit
as to its authenticity. The result was, as might be expected, the
greater discomfiture of the ministerial candidates.[309]
Walpole was no less struck with the irrepressibility of Wilkes's
character than annoyed at his being elected to an office which would
bring him into close contact with the king;--"Wilkes is another Phoenix
revived from his own ashes. He was sunk--it was over with him; but the
ministers too precipitately hurrying to bury him alive, blew up the
embers, and he is again as formidable as ever; and what will seem worse
he must go into the very closet whenever the city sends him there with
a message.... Wilkes in prison is chosen member of Parliament and then
alderman of London. His colleagues betray him, desert him, expose him,
and he becomes sheriff of London."[310] Walpole's fears as to Wilkes's
personal demeanour in office were groundless. As an alderman of the
city he might have made himself sufficiently obnoxious at court had he
so pleased, but he knew himself to be no _persona grata_ to the king,
and on that account was careful to keep out of his sight. That he knew
how to behave on occasion is shown by his conduct during his mayoralty,
when he surprised everybody, the king included, by his agreeable manner.
[Sidenote: Wilkes and the shrievalty.]
Although determined to act with propriety in his personal
relationships, Wilkes was no less determined to make himself as
obnoxious to the king and his ministers as he well could in his
official capacity as sheriff. "I will skirmish with the great almost
every day in some way or other," he wrote to _Junius_. Again, with
reference to the House of Lords, he informs his friend that "the
sheriff means the attack."[311] A few days previous to his entering
upon his duties he and his colleague, Bull, made a bid for popularity
by a spirited act. The presence of the military at executions had been
resented the previous year, and now in a short letter addressed to
the livery they announced their determination to follow the example
set by their predecessors in office and not to allow soldiers to
attend: "We are determined to follow so meritorious an example, and as
that melancholy part of our office will commence in a very few days
we take this opportunity of declaring that as the constitution has
entrusted us with the whole power of the county, we will not, during
our sheriffalty, suffer any part of the army to interfere or even to
attend, as on many former occasions, on the pretence of aiding or
assisting the civil magistrate.... The magistrate, with the assistance
of those in his jurisdiction, is by experience known to be strong
enough to enforce all legal commands, without the aid of a standing
army." _Junius_ thought this letter "very proper and well drawn."[312]
Another proceeding on the part of Wilkes failed however to meet with
like approval. The 25th October being the anniversary of the king's
accession, there was to be a thanksgiving service at St. Paul's
which the sheriffs in the ordinary course of their duties would be
expected to attend. Wilkes took it into his head that he would prefer
not to go "in a ginger-bread chariot to yawn through a dull sermon."
He accordingly prepared a letter to the lord mayor, asking that he
might be allowed to sit at Old Bailey instead of taking part in what
he called a "vain parade" on the anniversary of the accession of a
prince, whose government was so unpopular. Before sending this missive
he submitted it to _Junius_.[313] The latter thought it "more spirited
than judicious," and suggested that it was impolitic, to say the
least, for "a grave sheriff" to mark his entrance into office with a
direct outrage to the king, for outrage it was. He advises his friend
to "consider the matter coolly," but in case Wilkes persisted, he sent
him a more temperate form of letter.[314] The advice thus given was
followed, and Wilkes abandoned his intention.
[Sidenote: Letter of _Junius_ to Wilkes, 21 Aug., 1771.]
Wilkes had thus advanced another step in civic life, in spite of an
unfortunate habit he had of quarrelling with his best friends. He had
disgusted, or had himself thrown over, Horne, Sawbridge, Townshend
and Oliver, all of whom were members with him of the society known as
the Supporters of the Bill of Rights, and all had contributed towards
relieving him of his pecuniary difficulties. Townshend and Horne had
recently joined forces "to wrest the city out of Wilkes's hands," and
Horne had done his best in a quiet way to prevent Wilkes being returned
as sheriff, although he denied taking any part in the election.[315]
He even ridiculed the idea in a letter to Wilkes (10 July), commencing
"Give you joy, Sir,[316] the parson of Brentford is at length defeated.
He no longer rules with an absolute sway over the city of London."[317]
Wilkes was now to receive support from a quarter least expected.
Hitherto, the redoubtable _Junius_ had treated Wilkes with little
more than contempt.[318] He was now to become one of his warmest
supporters. It was not that _Junius_ entertained any great respect
for Wilkes; it was enough that Wilkes was opposed to the ministry,
and that he promised to be "a thorn in the king's side."[319] On the
21st August, about noon, Wilkes received a mysterious letter,[320] the
writer of which proved to be _Junius_ himself. After assuring Wilkes
of his willingness to support him so long as he (Wilkes) depended only
upon public favour and made common cause with the people, _Junius_
comes to the real purport of his letter. He was especially anxious
that Sawbridge should be chosen mayor at the coming election on
Michaelmas-day, and he uses all his art of persuasion upon Wilkes to
get him to support Sawbridge's candidature. He repudiates all idea
of self-interest in wishing to see Sawbridge in the mayoralty chair
in place of Crosby, who was reported to be seeking a second year of
office. "By all that's honourable I mean nothing but the cause"--his
letter concluded--"and I may defy your keenest penetration to assign a
satisfactory reason why _Junius_, whoever he be, should have a personal
interest in giving the mayoralty to Mr. Sawbridge, rather than to Mr.
Crosby."
[Sidenote: The reply of Wilkes, 12 Sept., 1771.]
The letter was very flattering, and Wilkes was pleased. "I am satisfied
that _Junius_ now means me well,"--he wrote in reply (12 Sept.)--"and
I wish to merit more than his regard, his friendship," but with his
usual independence he declined to desert Brass Crosby, to whom he had
promised his support before the arrival of _Junius's_ letter. He was
even prepared to do a little juggling in order to support Crosby's
re-election. "To make Crosby mayor, it is necessary to return to the
Court of Aldermen another man so obnoxious that it is impossible for
them to elect him. Bridgen I take to be this man. While he presided
in the city, he treated them with insolence, was exceedingly rude and
scurrilous to them personally, starved them at the few entertainments
he gave, and pocketed the city cash.[321]" Even if Bridgen were
re-elected by any chance, Crosby would probably be appointed his
_locum tenens_ (Wilkes proceeded to point out), and so in any event
all would be well. As for Sawbridge, little good could come of a
reconciliation, "I allow him honest, but think he has more mulishness
than understanding, more understanding than candour." Sawbridge
moreover had already declared, that if he were chosen mayor at the next
election he would pay fine rather than serve, "because Townshend ought
to be mayor"--a declaration which Wilkes characterises as bordering on
insanity.[322]
The correspondence thus commenced in so warm and friendly a manner was
continued for several months. Finding himself unable to prevail upon
Wilkes to become reconciled with Sawbridge, _Junius_ contented himself
with warning him at all hazards not to allow a "ministerial alderman"
to be elected into the mayoralty chair, and begging that if after a
fair canvas of the livery it was found that Bridgen had no chance of
being returned, he would give up the point at once, and let Sawbridge
be returned with Crosby--"a more likely way, in _my_ judgment, to make
Crosby lord mayor."[323]
[Sidenote: The election of Nash, Mayor, 8 Oct., 1771.]
When the election came on, Bridgen was not even nominated. The choice
of the livery was declared to have fallen on Sawbridge and Crosby.
Thereupon a poll was demanded on behalf of Bankes, Nash, Hallifax
and Townshend. Whilst the poll was proceeding _Junius_ issued an
impassioned address to the livery calling upon them to set aside
Nash--to whom he refers as the senior alderman below the chair, which
Nash was not[324]--and to return Crosby and Sawbridge, men who were
ready to execute the extraordinary as well as the ordinary duties of
the mayoralty, who would grant Common Halls whenever necessary, carry
up remonstrances to the king, and not be afraid to face the House of
Commons or to suffer imprisonment. Of Nash's private character he
declared he knew nothing, but as a public man he knew him to have done
everything in his power to destroy the freedom of popular election
in the city, and to have distinguished himself by thwarting the
livery. He concludes his address by apologising for his passionate
language.--"The subject comes home to us all. It is the language of my
heart."[325] The efforts of _Junius_ were of little avail. On the 8th
October, the result of the poll was declared, and Nash and Sawbridge
being returned (the former by a large majority), the Court of Aldermen
selected Nash to be mayor for the ensuing year. The "ministerial
candidate" had got in. During the election Wilkes and his brother
aldermen, Townshend and Sawbridge, were frequently at loggerheads,
whilst Nash was so grievously assaulted on his way to the Guildhall
that his life was in danger.[326]
[Sidenote: Gifts of plate to Crosby, Wilkes and Oliver.]
Upon Crosby's quitting office the Common Council passed him a vote
of thanks for the courage he had displayed in refusing to back press
warrants, and for his conduct in respect of the arrest of Miller. Early
in the following year he was voted a silver cup of the value of £200,
whilst Wilkes and Oliver were presented with other cups each of the
value of £100. A proposal that a piece of plate of the value of £400
should be provided at the City's expense and inscribed in honour of
these champions of the City's liberties, to form a part of the City's
plate, was not adopted.[327]
[Sidenote: Nash refuses to summon a Common Hall, Feb., 1772.]
Nash had not long been mayor before he came into collision both with
the livery and the Common Council. When a requisition was made to
him in February, 1772, to summon a Common Hall for the purpose of
instructing the city members to support Sawbridge in one of his many
attempts to obtain triennial parliaments, he refused to do so on the
ground that by an order of the livery of Midsummer-day last, the
question of the rights of the livery was about to be decided in a court
of law, informations having been laid against those companies who
had refused to obey the mayor's precept.[328] He thought that in the
meantime it would be well to suspend the exercise of his prerogative,
more especially as most matters of importance connected with the city
could be settled by the Common Council, which he professed himself
always ready to call when necessity required. Not satisfied with his
reply the livery held an informal meeting at the Half Moon Tavern in
Cheapside, and persuaded a number of members of the Common Council to
make a written application to the mayor to summon a court on the 18th
February, for the purpose of considering the request of the livery. The
mayor agreed to summon a court but declined to allow the application
of the livery to be placed on the paper of business. A Common Council
was eventually summoned for the 20th, when the several applications
of the livery and of the members of the court having been read, a
motion was made that the Common Council should give instructions to
the city members to support Sawbridge's bill. This motion being lost,
another was made and carried, desiring the lord mayor to summon a
Common Hall for the same purpose. Thereupon Nash addressed the court
in these words:--"I am very sorry this question has been put, I cannot
grant your request for the reasons given in my former answer to the
livery to which I refer you." After passing a resolution that such
members of the court as were also members of parliament, should be
requested to support every measure tending to shorten the duration of
parliaments, the court proceeded to consider whether it should not on
its own responsibility issue precepts for a Common Hall. It was at
length decided to leave this question to a committee.[329] _Junius_
was very disgusted at Nash's conduct. "What an abandoned prostituted
idiot is your lord mayor,"--is the choice expression he makes use of to
Woodfall, his printer. Again, "the shameful mismanagement which brought
him into office, gave me the first and unconquerable disgust."[330]
In the following May the committee just mentioned recommended that
counsel's opinion should be taken on the matter referred to them, but
by this time Sawbridge's motion had been rejected, and all immediate
necessity for an extraordinary Common Hall had passed away.[331] When
Nash quitted office, this refusal of his to summon a Common Hall was
remembered against him, and the customary vote of thanks was denied
him.[332]
[Sidenote: Instructions of livery to city members, _re_ short
parliaments, 24 June, 1772.]
Matters remained as they were until Midsummer-day, when the livery took
the opportunity of a meeting of Common Hall to draw up instructions to
the city members to support Sawbridge and short parliaments. The terms
of the address were scarcely such as a member of Parliament of the
present day would tolerate from his constituents:--"When we made choice
of you, sirs, to transact our business in Parliament we considered all
of you to be possessed of fortune sufficient to render you independent;
but such is the depravity of the present age that the more wealthy
seem the easiest to be corrupted. Altho' some of you may have approved
yourselves worthy of the confidence reposed in you, yet others, we are
sorry to be obliged to observe, have been deficient in their duty. It
becomes necessary, therefore, that we should exercise our indisputable
right of instructing you, our representatives." All the oppression
under which the country had suffered for the last thirteen years were
due (they said) to long parliaments. As for the existing House they had
not a good word to say. What (they asked) was to be thought of a House
"which, devoid of all decency, could force the poor timid servant of a
corporation to erase a judicial record--an House that could even punish
two members of its own body in a most arbitrary manner for acting with
integrity in a judicial capacity, nay! for adhering to their charters
and their oaths, and virtuously administering justice!" Experience
had taught them that what had been intended as a bulwark of their
liberties had become a mere engine of oppression. A worthy alderman
of the city (they declared in conclusion) had realised the danger of
septennial parliaments, and had more than once endeavoured to shorten
their duration, but unfortunately he had not received the support he
deserved. As Sawbridge would no doubt renew his motion in the coming
winter they insisted that each member should "afford him all possible
support in order to restore us to our antient right of annually
electing our representatives in Parliament."[333] Brave words, these!
but all to little purpose. The Septennial Act outlived this and many
another effort to obtain its repeal, and remains in force to this day.
[Sidenote: Townshend elected mayor, 24 Oct., 1772.]
The election of a mayor to succeed Nash was keenly contested. Bankes,
Hallifax and Shakespeare were the senior aldermen below the chair, but
these were set aside by the livery in favour of Wilkes and Townshend. A
poll was demanded, and the business of taking the poll lasted until the
8th October. The king was in a great state of excitement, and was kept
posted up by Lord North with each day's proceedings. "I trust by your
account of this day's poll," he wrote to the minister (3 Oct.),[334]
"that there can be no doubt that it will end favourably; the mob being
less quiet this day is a proof that to [_sic_] _riot_, not numbers, the
_patriots_ alone can draw advantage." Again on the 5th October, when
the voice of the city was evidently in favour of Wilkes, he writes:
"The unpromising appearance of this day's poll does not in the least
surprise me, knowing that Wilkes is not bound by any tyes, therefore
would poll non-freemen rather than lose the election." He fancied that
if Wilkes failed to get returned as one of the two to be submitted to
the Court of Aldermen for selection he would not be allowed to stand
again,[335] but here the king was in error. His hopes were damped by
Wilkes being returned at the head of the poll, followed closely by
Townshend, their respective votes being 2,301 and 2,278.[336] Although
Townshend and Wilkes were at the time personal enemies, yet many of
Wilkes's friends were induced to give Townshend their second votes, in
order to prevent a "court candidate" being successful. This at least
is Horace Walpole's account, who declares that Townshend "disdained
to canvass or even to attend the election," and that without the
assistance of Wilkes's supporters he would have had "scarce any votes."
On the other hand we must remember that, intense as was the personal
animosity at this time between Townshend and Wilkes, both of them
had one and the same political object in view, viz., the overthrow
of the government, and Townshend must have added considerably to his
popularity in the city by his recent refusal to pay his land tax on the
plea that the Parliament which had ordained it was no true Parliament
owing to the exclusion of Wilkes and intrusion of Luttrell.[337] The
king's only remaining hope was that the result of the poll might be
upset by a scrutiny demanded on behalf of Hallifax and Shakespeare. "I
hope the scrutiny will be conducted with great exactness," he again
writes to Lord North (6 Oct.), at the same time expressing a doubt
as to whether such a thing was to be expected from Oliver and Watkin
Lewes, who had succeeded Wilkes and Bull in the shrievalty. If these
did their duty he felt sure it would go hard with Wilkes, whose "little
regard to true votes" would soon be exposed, and "do him great injury,
even among his admirers."[338]
Again the king was doomed to disappointment. The scrutiny, according
to the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Common Hall preserved at the
Guildhall, continued until the 24th day of the month, when the votes
for each candidate were declared to be exactly the same as before,
and Wilkes and Townshend being returned to the Court of Aldermen for
their selection of one, that body chose Townshend to be mayor for the
ensuing year. According to Walpole[339] the scrutiny was not proceeded
with, and Wilkes was certain of being elected (Townshend being expected
to withdraw in his favour) had not alderman and sheriff Oliver, his
former friend, brought about his defeat by hastily collecting a Court
of Aldermen before the Wilkite aldermen could take their seats, and
getting Townshend named lord mayor. Such a proceeding on the part of
Oliver is scarcely probable, if, indeed possible, and receives no
corroboration from the City's record of what took place.[340]
[Sidenote: Riot at the Guildhall on lord mayor's day, 9 Nov., 1772.]
On lord mayor's day the partisans of Wilkes, smarting at their defeat,
raised a riot at night outside the Guildhall, where a ball was being
held. The assistance of the Artillery Company had to be called in, and
they remained on duty all night. The new lord mayor, who was somewhat
hot-headed, "proposed to sally out with drawn swords and fall on the
mob," but was restrained. He, however, caused some of the rioters to be
seized and committed to Newgate, and declared that he would bring home
the riot to Wilkes. The whole city was now, and had been for some time,
so split up into factions that even a vote of thanks to the Artillery
Company for striving to keep order was with difficulty passed.[341] "A
headstrong, self-willed spirit has sunk the City into nothing," wrote
Chatham at the beginning of the year.[342] The government could afford
to look upon Wilkes's disappointment and the unpopularity of Townshend
with complacency, the real damage was to the nation, which, to use the
words of Walpole, "saw those who would have gone farthest to stem the
encroachments of the crown divided and warring each other."[343]
[Sidenote: Resolution of Court of Aldermen _re_ short parliaments, 16
Feb., 1773.]
Following in the steps of Sawbridge, his brother alderman and colleague
during his shrievalty, Townshend introduced a motion before the
Court of Aldermen on the 16th February (1773) to the effect "that
a frequent appeal to the constituent part of the people by short
parliaments is their undoubted right and the only means by which they
can enjoy or maintain their right of a real representation."[344]
Wilkes was the only alderman who raised any objection to the motion.
He would willingly have given his vote against it, if only to spite
Townshend, but he dared not do so. The motion was therefore carried
unanimously.[345]
[Sidenote: Another remonstrance of the livery, 11 March, 1773.]
Three weeks later (11 March) a special Common Hall was summoned for the
purpose of drawing up another remonstrance to the king, and of pledging
the livery and the city members to use their utmost endeavours to
obtain shorter parliaments. This new remonstrance--a "flagrant piece
of impertinence," as the king styled it in a letter to Lord North (13
March)[346]--was said to have been the work of Wilkes, who drafted
it in such terms that his enemy the lord mayor "would be undone at
St. James's if he presented it, and stoned by the people if he did
not."[347] It was resolved that the remonstrance should be presented by
the mayor, the city members, the aldermen, the sheriffs and ten of the
livery in their gowns, attended by the Recorder and city officers.[348]
Wilkes showed considerable shrewdness in declining to attend, excusing
himself on the ground that he knew himself to be personally disliked
by the king. He would, he said, willingly have attended had he been
sheriff, but now that he was only an alderman there was no reason
for him to thrust himself where he was not wanted. "I am not used
to go into any gentleman's house who does not wish to see me."[349]
Even the livery seemed to shrink from having a hand in presenting so
disreputable an address, for only eight of them attended at St. James's.
[Sidenote: The king's reply, 26 March.]
The document was presented to the king on Friday, the 26th March. It
was (presumably) received on the throne, although the Common Council
do not appear to have been present to give it a corporate character.
A copy of it had previously reached the king's hands, and he had made
up his mind, as he told Lord North,[350] that a "dry answer, rather
bordering on contempt than anger," was the most suitable reply to make
to a representation at once "the most violent, insolent and licentious
ever presented." The answer he actually returned was more than "dry,"
and the deputation was dismissed with his majesty declaring that their
petition was so void of foundation, and withal so disrespectful, that
"I am convinced you do not yourselves seriously imagine it can be
complied with."[351]
[Sidenote: Wilkes again claims his seat, 26 April, 1773.]
A month later an opportunity was afforded Wilkes of again claiming
his seat in Parliament. War with France seemed imminent, and a call
of the House[352] was moved for the 26th April. The sheriffs of
London[353] thereupon sent a summons to Wilkes (_not_ Luttrell) as
member for Middlesex, and informed the Speaker of what they had done.
Wilkes also wrote a bold letter to the Speaker asserting his right. On
the day of the call Wilkes went to the crown office and demanded his
writ, which was refused him by the deputy-clerk. Thence he proceeded
to Westminster, attended by his friends and supporters. The guards
were held in readiness, but there was no disturbance. Glynn--recently
appointed Recorder of London--moved that Wilkes should be heard at the
bar of the House as to his complaint against the deputy-clerk, and the
motion was seconded by Sawbridge. The House was in no mood, however, to
meet one who had so often worsted them, and the motion was rejected by
227 votes to 124.[354]
[Sidenote: The powers of the livery defined, 1773.]
When Midsummer-day (1773) came round Plumbe and Kirkman were for the
fourth time rejected for the shrievalty in favour of Plomer and Sayre.
Plomer paid fine and Lee was elected in his place. The livery being
determined more than ever to win their independence and to break away
from the authority of the mayor, took the opportunity of their meeting
together to consult the new Recorder upon the question "whether the
livery of London legally assembled in Common Hall, either on this or
any other day, have not a right to enter upon any matter of public
grievance they may think proper?" Glynn at once replied that they had
an undoubted right, and that it was "beyond dispute that the right is
inherent in them."[355] This important _dictum_ negativing, as it did,
a decision of Glynn's predecessor,[356] was afterwards used by Wilkes
with effect in his famous letter to Lord Hertford (2 May, 1775).
[Sidenote: Plumbe's case.]
The aspirations of the livery were (at least for a time) damped by the
decision given a few weeks later in a case known as "Plumbe's case." It
will be remembered that in 1770 certain livery companies had objected
to the tone of a recent remonstrance, and had in consequence passed
resolutions forbidding their members to attend Common Halls except
for the purpose of elections. A joint committee of the livery and the
Common Council had thereupon been appointed to take counsel's opinion
upon the rights of the livery.[357] Among the counsel consulted on
the question was Glynn, and he and his brethren had given it as their
opinion (June, 1771) that the mayor for the time being might legally
summon a Common Hall; that it was the duty of those livery companies
to whom precepts were sent by the mayor to execute those precepts, and
that a wilful refusal was punishable by disfranchisement, the procedure
being by way of information filed by the common sergeant in the mayor's
court. Informations had accordingly been filed against the masters or
wardens of the several companies of Goldsmiths, Weavers and Grocers by
order of Common Hall,[358] but only one, viz., that against Alderman
Plumbe, of the Goldsmiths, was proceeded with. The question was tried
before a jury on the 14th July of this year (1773) with the result that
Plumbe was convicted and adjudged to be disfranchised.[359]
[Sidenote: Counsel's opinion on the powers of Common Hall.]
The powers of the livery were further defined in a legal opinion
delivered about this time by the Recorder and Common Sergeant on the
questions (1) Whether the lord mayor, aldermen and livery of London
in Common Hall assembled could do any corporate act except under the
powers given them by Acts of Parliament; (2) Whether an order of the
livery in Common Hall to the Town Clerk to affix his signature to such
a document as the last remonstrance would be a sufficient justification
for him in a court of law in case of a criminal prosecution; and
lastly (3) Whether individuals signing such a remonstrance be liable
to a prosecution of libel? To the first two questions counsel made
the following answer;--"From the best information wee can get of the
usage and constitution of the City the Common Hall is not empowered
to do any act strictly corporate not having the direction of the
City Seal. They can do no act that binds the estate of the City or
that effects the admission or removal of any of its members." Then,
referring to the former opinion of the Recorder just mentioned, they
proceeded to say;--"wee did in concurrence with Mr. Solicitor-General
and Mr. Dunning upon consideration give an opinion that a Common Hall
was a lawful assembly vested with legal powers. Wee find that opinion
warranted by Lord Coke's authority, and therefore without more research
and enquiry than can now be made, wee cannot alter our opinion." They
were further of opinion "that no Act of Common Hall can endanger the
Charters or Franchises of the city, and wee think that the right of
petitioning a necessary consequence of a lawful assembly." As a result
of their answer to the first question they believed that the Town
Clerk, being by office the clerk of a legally convened meeting of the
Common Hall, would not render himself criminally liable by giving his
signature to the acts and resolutions of that assembly. As to the
question of libel, that depended upon a variety of circumstances, but
in their private opinion counsel believed that no one presenting the
late remonstrance could be treated legally as a criminal.[360]
[Sidenote: Bull, mayor, elected M.P. for the City, Dec., 1773.]
At Michaelmas, Wilkes again put up for the mayoralty, but although
he was again returned at the head of the poll he was again rejected
by the Court of Aldermen in favour of his friend Bull.[361] Before
the end of the year Bull was also chosen member for the City in the
place of Ladbroke, who had died. A petition was laid before Parliament
against his election, and in favour of his opponent, John Roberts, a
court candidate, but was afterwards withdrawn.[362] The king had at
one time expressed himself to North as thinking it best not to offer
any opposition to Bull's election as member for the city, unless there
was a good hope of success. "If Alderman Bull can be with success
opposed, I should think it eligible; but if that is not pretty certain
it is best not to interfere."[363] On learning, however, that Roberts,
a former director of the East India Company, was about to stand he
wished him success.[364] Previous to his election Bull signed an
engagement (formulated by the livery at their meeting in March), to
use his best endeavours to shorten the duration of parliaments; to
exclude pensioners and placemen from the House; to establish a fair and
equal representation of the people in Parliament; and to redress the
grievances and secure the constitutional rights of his fellow subjects
in Great Britain, Ireland and America. He also solemnly promised not to
accept from the crown or its ministers any place, pension, contract,
title, gratuity or emolument whatsoever.[365]
[Sidenote: England and the American colonies,
1765-1774.]
It was during Bull's mayoralty that the relations between England and
her American colonies became so strained that in 1775 the two countries
were at open war. For the past ten years the colonies had displayed
more or less resistance to the British government. In 1765 the Stamp
Act was passed, and in the following year it had to be repealed.
The irritation caused by its imposition remained, however, and the
colonists began to ignore the authority of British Acts of Parliament.
In 1767 another Act was passed by Parliament imposing import duties in
America upon certain articles, and among them upon tea; but the Act was
rendered from the outset almost a dead letter through the resistance
offered to the execution of its provisions. Matters were not improved
by the repeal of all the duties, except that on tea, three years later
(1770), more especially when the Americans learnt that Lord North
openly acknowledged that he retained the tea duty, not on account of
its value, but simply in order to assert the right of England to tax
her colonies. The crisis came in 1773, when the tea-ships lying in
Boston harbour were attacked, and their cargo flung into the sea. In
September of the following year (1774) all the American colonies agreed
to combine in stopping commercial intercourse with Great Britain until
their grievances were redressed.
[Sidenote: The city and the Quebec Bill, 1774.]
In the meantime a Bill had passed the Lords, and been sent down to
the Commons, giving a constitution to Canada. The City presented a
strong petition against the Bill (3 June) as unduly favouring the
Roman Catholics, and begged the king to withhold his assent after the
Bill had passed both Houses.[366] It was to no purpose. The country
generally, and the clergy of the Established Church more particularly,
showed great indifference,[367] and the Bill became law. The mayor
received a letter of thanks from the Protestant settlers in Quebec,
through Francis Maseres, (Cursitor Baron) for what the City had done
in the matter; and the City thus encouraged resolved to continue its
efforts and endeavour to get the Act repealed as soon as possible.[368]
The king was strongly of opinion that the agitation in the City was
merely got up "just to make a noise" at the coming elections in Common
Hall,[369] and Walpole appears to have been much of the same opinion.
He believed it was a move on the part of Wilkes in order to carry the
election of sheriffs. By getting two friends appointed sheriffs he
would be in a position to get Reynolds, his own attorney and election
agent, appointed under-sheriff, and so "be more sure of the returning
officer against the general election," which was fast approaching.[370]
If this were so his scheme was frustrated for his nominees failed to
get elected.
[Sidenote: Wilkes elected mayor, 8 Oct., 1774.]
His star nevertheless was soon to be again in the ascendant. At the
next election to the mayoralty, he was not only again returned at the
head of the poll, but second to him was Bull, his friend, and actual
mayor. The other candidates who went to the poll were James Esdaile
and Brackley Kennet, both of them senior to Wilkes. Hallifax and
Shakespeare, the senior of all did not even go to the poll. Sawbridge
who was next below Wilkes did not press his candidature, as the
latter--according to Walpole--"had regained him by promising to bring
him into parliament for the city." According to the same authority
Wilkes "made" Bull decline the chair a second time, and hence it came
to pass that when these two were returned to the Court of Aldermen,
eleven voted for Wilkes, whilst only two, viz., Townshend and Oliver,
voted for Bull. "Thus, after so much persecution of the court, after
so many attempts on his life, after a long imprisonment in a goal,
after all his crimes and indiscretions, did this extraordinary man, of
more extraordinary fortune, attain the highest office in so grave and
important a city as the capital of England."[371] That night Alderman
Harley, an old opponent of Wilkes, had his windows broken, and the
culprit was carried before Wilkes himself.[372]
[Sidenote: Takes his seat as M.P. for Middlesex, Nov., 1774.]
Nor did his success end here. The mayoralty election was still pending
when parliament was dissolved (30 Sept.), and writs issued for a
new one to meet on the 29th November. Wilkes was again returned for
Middlesex and with him his friend, Glynn, the Recorder. The popularity
of Wilkes was indeed now so great that he was believed to be capable
of carrying no less than twelve seats. Prior to their election both
candidates signed an undertaking to use their best endeavours to
shorten the duration of parliaments, remove placemen and pensioners
from the House, advocate the repeal of the Quebec Act, and generally
to follow the line of policy adopted by the livery of London, and
recently accepted by Bull.[373] When the City elections came on, Bull
and Oliver kept their seats, although Oliver declined to enter into
any engagement. Wilkes kept his promise with Sawbridge (if any were
really given), and Sawbridge was returned together with Wilkes's own
brother-in-law, George Hayley. The irrepressible demagogue was at
last allowed to take his seat without any opposition. Had he been
permitted to have done so five years before, he would probably have
sunk into insignificance, but now he "forced his way triumphantly, and
came vested with the insignia of the first magistracy in England, and
supported by half a dozen members of his own nomination."[374] His
triumph was complete in 1782, when he succeeded in getting the House to
stultify itself by rescinding its proceedings touching the Middlesex
elections.[375] In the dogged persistence with which he fought the
House of Commons and finally came off victorious, he reminds us of no
one so much as of the late Charles Bradlaugh, member for Northampton;
in other respects the two characters will not bear comparison.
FOOTNOTES:
[269] See _Annals of the Mayoralty of the Right Hon. Barlow Trecothick,
Esq._, ascribed to Wilkes, printed in Stephens's Memoirs of John Horne
Tooke, i, 191, note.
[270] Annual Register, xiii, 161, 162.
[271] _Id._, xiii, 157.
[272] Journal 65, fos. 140 _seq._ The king was very angry at having
to receive more of this "stuff." "The idea of a fresh address,
remonstrance and petition is so extremely absurd, and considering the
time I may add puerile, that it deserves contempt."--The king to Lord
North, 15 Nov., 1770.--Correspondence, i, 39.
[273] Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 196, 197.
[274] Journal House of Commons, xxi, 238.
[275] Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 278, 287-289.
[276] Correspondence, i, 64.
[277] Crosby sat for Honiton, whilst Oliver had succeeded Beckford as
one of the members for the city. Wilkes was also summoned to attend,
but not as a member. He therefore disobeyed the summons, informing
the Speaker by letter that when admitted to his seat for Middlesex he
would attend, but not before.--Gentleman's Magazine, xli, 140; Annual
Register, xiv, 188.
[278] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 275.
[279] Annual Register, xiv, 83.
[280] Walpole to Mann, 22 March.--Letters, v, 286.
[281] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 269.
[282] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 275; Journal 65, fo. 210.
[283] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 279, 280.
[284] "Last night, when I went to bed at half-an-hour after twelve, I
had just been told that all the avenues to the House were blockaded,
and had beaten back the peace-officers who had been summoned, for it
was _toute autre chose_ yesterday when the lord mayor went to the
House from what it had been the first day." Walpole to Mann, 26 March,
1771.--Letters, v, 291.
[285] Annual Register, xiv, 84; Gentleman's Magazine, xli, 141.
[286] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 283-285.
[287] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 285, 286. Walpole to Mann, 26
March, 1771, Letters, v, 291. Calcraft to Chatham, 26 March; Barré
to the same, 26 March, Chatham Correspondence, iv, 125-127, 131-133.
Walpole, Memoirs of reign of George III, iv, 299, 300.
[288] Barré to Chatham, 26 March.--Chatham Correspondence, iv, 134.
Gentleman's Magazine, xli, 170. Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 300, 301.
[289] Journal 65, fos. 212-212b.
[290] Chatham to Calcraft, 26 March, 1771; The same to Barré. 26
March.--Chatham Correspondence, iv, 129-130, 136-137.
[291] Letters of Junius, iii, 376.
[292] Annual Register, xiv, 85. Gentleman's Magazine, xli, 141.
Calcraft to Chatham, 28 March, 1771.--Chatham Correspondence, iv,
138-140. Walpole to Mann, 30 March.--Letters, v, 292. Walpole Memoirs,
iv, 292.
[293] Baker sat for Plympton Earls, co. Devon, and Martin for Gatton,
co. Surrey.
[294] Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 289.
[295] _Id., ibid._
[296] Journal 65, fos. 213, 214, 214b.
[297] Referring to Bills in Parliament for embanking the Thames for the
purpose of building Adelphi Terrace, which was deemed to encroach upon
the City's rights of conservancy.--Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 173.
[298] Journal 65, fo. 214b.
[299] Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 307; The _Middlesex Journal_, 2 April,
1771; The _London Chronicle_, 2-6 April.
[300] Junius to the _Public Advertiser_, 13 Aug., 1771; Woodfall,
Letters of Junius, ii, 307.
[301] Journal 65, fo. 222.
[302] _Id._, fo. 226.
[303] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 165.
[304] Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 328. The number "allowed by law" appears to
have been ten.
[305] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 167.
[306] The _London Chronicle_, 13-16 April, 1771.
[307] The king to Lord North, 26 June, 1771.--Correspondence, i. 76.
[308] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 161, 161b.
[309] Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 328. The letter will be found printed in
Woodfall's Letters of Junius, ii, 252, 253, note.
[310] Walpole to Mann, 6 July, 1771.--Letters, v, 313.
[311] Wilkes to Junius, 12 Sept. and 17 Oct., 1771.--Woodfall, Letters
of Junius, i, 299, 323.
[312] Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i, 322.
[313] Wilkes to Junius, 17 Oct., 1771. Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i,
323-325.
[314] Junius to Wilkes, 21 Oct., 1771.--Letters of Junius, i, 325-328.
[315] Horne to Junius, 13 July, 1771. _Id._, ii, 259.
[316] A hit at Wilkes's connection with the city. It was usual at one
time for the chamberlain thus to address a recipient of the honorary
freedom of the city. The expression went out of use, but was revived by
Wilkes when he became chamberlain.
[317] Horne to Wilkes, 10 July.--Stephens, Memoirs of John Horne Tooke,
i, 310.
[318] "Mr. Wilkes, if not persecuted, will soon be forgotten."--Junius
to the Duke of Grafton, 24 April, 1769. Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i,
478.
[319] Junius to Horne, 24 July, 1771. _Id._, ii, 267.
[320] The letter was placed in Wilkes's hand by a chairman, who said he
brought it from a gentleman he had met in the Strand. _Id._, i, 263,
note.
[321] It is strange to find Wilkes giving this character of a mayor,
who had shown him great partiality at the time that No. 45 of the
_North Briton_ was ordered to be burnt at the Royal Exchange--and who
in other respects displayed a distinct democratic tendency. Can it
be possible that Wilkes was hood-winking _Junius_, and that he would
have been equally pleased to have seen either Bridgen or Crosby in the
mayoralty chair?
[322] Wilkes to Junius, 12 Sept., 1771.--Woodfall, i, 297-304.
[323] Junius to Wilkes, 18 Sept., 1771.--Woodfall, i, 307-308.
[324] Both Sir Henry Bankes and Richard Peers were senior to Nash, and
both were nominated at the election.--Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 166.
[325] Woodfall, Letters of Junius, ii, 338-344.
[326] Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 346.
[327] Journal 65, fos. 250, 253. Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 165.
[328] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 162-163.
[329] Journal 65, fos. 278b-280b.
[330] Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i, 250.
[331] Journal 65, fos. 289b, 290. Journal House of Commons, xxxiii,
553. Walpole, Journal of reign of George III, i, 26, 42.
[332] Journal 65, fo. 311.
[333] These instructions were not entered on record until the following
Midsummer-day (1773).--Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 176b, 177.
[334] Correspondence, i, 110.
[335] _Ibid._
[336] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 171b.
[337] Townshend even allowed his goods to be seized rather than pay the
tax, and then brought an action for trespass. The case had come on for
hearing in June last, when Lord Mansfield, finding that counsel for
the plaintiff wanted the court to retry the judgment of the House of
Commons touching the case of the Middlesex election, stopt the case,
and ordered the jury to find for the defendant.--Walpole, "Journal of
the reign of George III," i, 124-126.
[338] Correspondence, i, 112.
[339] Journal of the reign of George III, i, 164.
[340] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 171b.
[341] Journal 65, fo. 311b.
[342] Chatham to Shelburne, 10 Jan., 1772.--Chatham Correspondence, iv,
187.
[343] "Journal of the reign of George III," i, 164, 165.
[344] Repertory 177, fo. 164.
[345] Walpole, Journal, i, 184, 185.
[346] Correspondence, i, 125.
[347] Walpole, Journal, i, 188, 189.
[348] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 175b.
[349] Walpole, Journal, i, 192.
[350] The king to Lord North, 13 March, 1773.--Correspondence, i, 125.
[351] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 176b.
[352] This was something in the nature of a "whip," the custom being
for the Speaker to send notice to the sheriffs to summon all their
members to attend on a certain day.
[353] Watkin Lewes and Oliver.
[354] Journal House of Commons, xxxiv, 283; Walpole, Journal, i,
194-197.
[355] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 176b.
[356] Gentleman's Magazine, xliii, 300.
[357] _Supra_, p. 94.
[358] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 162-163.
[359] This judgment was reversed in 1775, and from that day to this the
lord mayor has been unable to compel the attendance of the livery at
Common Hall.--Journal 66, fos. 36b, 349b-350b. See also "Case of Mr.
Alderman Plumbe" (Guildhall Library) where the judgments of the several
judges in error are set out with comments by James Roberts, the city
solicitor.
[360] This opinion was ordered to be entered in the Repertory of the
Court of Aldermen (19 Oct., 1773).--Repertory 177, fos. 439-445.
[361] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 178. The contest was so
equal that Wilkes only lost the election by the casting vote of
Townshend.--Walpole, Journal, i, 262.
[362] Walpole, Journal, i, 275, 297, 301, 325; Gentleman's Magazine,
xliv, 291.
[363] The king to North, 31 Oct., 1773.--Correspondence, i, 153.
[364] The same to the same, 12 Nov., 1773.--_Id._, i, 155-156.
[365] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 183.
[366] Journal 66, fos. 105b-106; Journal House of Commons, xxxiv, 765,
803; Gentleman's Magazine, xliv, 247, 283.
[367] Walpole, Journal, i, 376, 377.
[368] Journal 66, fos. 170-172, 178, 179.
[369] The king to Lord North, 18 June, 1774.--Correspondence, i, 192.
[370] Walpole, Journal, i, 380-382.
[371] Walpole, Journal, i, 420.
[372] Gentleman's Magazine, xliv, 491.
[373] Gentleman's Magazine, xliv, 444.
[374] Walpole, Journal, i, 427.
[375] Journal House of Commons, xxxviii, 977.