[Sidenote: Wilkes and the Court of Aldermen.]
Wilkes had not long occupied the mayoralty chair before he came into
serious collision with the Court of Aldermen. In November (1774) an
election of an alderman for the Ward of Bridge Within took place, and
John Hart, one of the sheriffs, was returned at the head of the poll,
defeating his opponent, William Neate, by four votes. A scrutiny was
demanded, and, in spite of an objection raised by Hart on technical
grounds, was allowed to proceed. Whilst the scrutiny was proceeding
Hart appeared before the Court of Aldermen and claimed to be admitted
to his seat. Neate was also in attendance, but the Court declined to
hear him. Wilkes thereupon adjourned the Court until after the result
of the scrutiny was known. On the 24th November the votes were cast up
in the presence of Wilkes and his predecessor in office (under whom the
original wardmote for the election had been held), when there appeared
95 votes for Neate, as against 84 for Hart. The result of the poll
was thus reversed. Nevertheless, when the Court of Aldermen met the
next day they insisted upon Wilkes putting the question for Hart to be
called in and sworn, whilst they persistently refused to hear Neate or
his attorney, Reynolds--Wilkes's own friend and election agent. This
he positively refused to do, and the matter was allowed to stand over,
both parties having in the meantime applied to the King's Bench for
writs of _mandamus_.[376]
[Sidenote: Comments of the _Public Advertiser_, 28 Nov., 1774.]
The proceedings of the aldermen were published in the _Public
Advertiser_ of the 28th November, and were severely commented upon,
whilst the action of Wilkes was highly approved of. "The spirit of
injustice and violence which influenced the proceedings of the Court
of Aldermen on Tuesday"--it was reported--"predominated stronger on
Friday by the arrival of Mr. Harley. One of the candidates for the
vacant aldermanship of Bridge Within, William Neate, Esq., was refused
to be heard, and likewise his agent, Mr. John Reynolds. Mr. Houston,
the attorney who officiated at the wardmote, was not suffered to make
his report of the election. Mr. Alderman Kirkman acquainted the Court
that he had been served with a _mandamus_ from the Court of King's
Bench to swear in Mr. Neate, but no attention was paid to him. Mr.
Townshend and Mr. Oliver insisted on the swearing in of Mr. Hart
immediately, and Mr. Harley's natural violence and rage were brought
in aid to the intemperate and unjust spirit of the other two aldermen.
The lord mayor, however, had too much firmness to yield to an act of
palpable partiality and injustice, and prevented the disgrace, which
otherwise that Court would have received, by repeatedly refusing to put
the question."[377] The whole passage reads very much as if inspired
by Wilkes himself; but whether this were so or not, Wilkes entered
his protest against a resolution of the Court that the paragraph was
injurious to the honour of the Court and "not founded in truth,"
because he apprehended that it _was_ "founded in truth."
[Sidenote: Refusal by Wilkes to put a question reflecting upon himself,
29 Nov., 1774.]
Before the aldermen again met (29 Nov.) the city solicitor, acting
(apparently) upon instructions from Wilkes, had defended Hart's
_mandamus_, and at the next Court that officer was severely questioned
on the matter, and was told that the Court would not allow him his
costs. A motion was at the same time made to the effect that the lord
mayor having refused to put a question which the Court of Aldermen
was competent to decide, had violated the right of election in the
freemen of the city, as represented in that Court. It was, of course,
the business of Wilkes to put this question, but unlike Trevor, the
Speaker, who stultified himself before the House of Commons in 1695,
Wilkes positively declined, telling his brother aldermen that he
thanked God he was "not quite idiot enough" for that.[378] A week later
(6 Dec.) the Court passed a resolution to the effect that Neate had
not been duly elected, and Wilkes again protested. The Court thereupon
proposed to swear in Hart, but Wilkes again refused to put the question
for the reason that the parties had not been heard.[379] Matters were
thus brought to a deadlock. At length--on the 17th January, 1775--the
Court put itself in order by hearing Neate, and immediately afterwards
passed a resolution for calling in and swearing Hart. Wilkes no longer
raised any objection, and Hart was sworn.[380] Hart did not long
enjoy his victory, for by a judgment of the King's Bench, pronounced
in Easter term, 1776, he was excluded from intermeddling with the
aldermanry, and on the 18th June Thomas Wooldridge (_not_ Neate) was
admitted in his place.[381] As between Wilkes and the Court of Aldermen
the honours certainly lay with the former, and he did not hesitate to
tell the Court that he intended to pursue the same line of conduct
throughout his year of office in spite of all the Court might think or
do;--"I declared that I never would put a question to decide the merits
of a cause before this Court until both the parties had been heard.
The Court at last consented that Mr. Neate should be heard, and only
after he had been heard did I put the question.... The same line of
truth and impartiality I will steadily pursue thro' the whole course
of my mayoralty, regardless of any resolutions of this Court which are
repugnant to the great principles of justice or the fair rights of the
chief magistrate."[382]
[Sidenote: The new Parliament and the American colonies, 1775.]
The result of the recent general election proved to be in favour of the
ministry, and distinctly anti-American. The nation had declared for
war, and nothing that the City could do was of any avail to prevent
it. As soon as Parliament met (19 Jan., 1775) Chatham went down to
the Lords and urged the advisability of addressing the king for the
removal of the troops from Boston as a conciliatory measure. He was
determined, he said, not to let the matter rest, but would labour to
bring the country to a sense of the impending danger:--"I wish, my
lords, not to lose a day in this urgent, pressing crisis; an hour now
lost in allaying ferments in America may produce years of calamity;
for my own part, I will not desert, for a moment, the conduct of this
weighty business from the first to the last, unless nailed to my bed
by the extremity of sickness. I will give it unremitted attention;
I will knock at the door of this sleeping and confounded ministry,
and will rouse them to a sense of their impending danger."[383] The
citizens of London were among the few who supported Chatham at this
momentous crisis in the country's history, and they despatched the
Town Clerk to the earl's country seat with an address of thanks, which
was acknowledged in very flattering terms.[384] So far from showing
any disposition to conciliate the colonies by withdrawing troops and
repealing obnoxious Acts, the new House proceeded to consider a Bill
for cutting off the inhabitants of Massachusetts and other parts from
the Newfoundland fishery. To this the Common Council at once entered
their protest, both before the Lords and Commons. It was not to be
supposed, they plainly told Parliament, that a great number of men,
naturally hardy and brave, would quietly submit to a law which would
reduce them to the verge of famine.[385] The warning was to no purpose.
The Bill passed.[386]
[Sidenote: Remonstrance of livery, 5 April, 1775.]
At length matters looked so serious that the livery of London met
in Common Hall on the 5th April and drew up a respectful but solemn
warning to the king himself against the fatal policy pursued by
his ministers towards America. The measures which the government
had recently adopted were declared to be "big with all consequences
which can alarm a free and commercial people." They inflicted (said
the livery) a deep and perhaps fatal wound to commerce; they ruined
manufactures; they reduced the revenue and increased the taxes; and
they alienated the colonists. Here, as ever, commercial interests were
placed by the citizens in the foreground. But commercial interests
did not form the sole motive for this remonstrance. The City's own
liberties were at stake if the liberties of the subject in any part
of the kingdom were infringed;--"Your petitioners conceive the
liberties of the whole to be inevitably connected with those of every
part of an empire, founded on the common rights of mankind. They
cannot, therefore, observe without the greatest concern and alarm the
constitution fundamentally violated in any part of your majesty's
dominions. They esteem it an essential, unalterable principle of
liberty, the source and security of all constitutional rights that no
part of the dominion can be taxed without being represented."[387] The
livery resolved that this address or remonstrance should be presented
by the lord mayor, the city members, the Court of Aldermen (_not_ the
Common Council) and the sheriffs, and that they themselves should
also attend the presentation in a body (and not by deputation, as in
1771 and 1773). Having settled this business, they next proceeded to
pass votes of thanks to the Lords and Commons who had opposed "the
impolitic and inhuman Bill for prohibiting the people of New England
from the Newfoundland fishery, and for their opposition to other
arbitrary, cruel and anti-commercial measures" against their fellow
subjects in America. They also thanked Chatham and Burke for the plan
they had proposed for conciliating the American colonies; and lastly,
they passed a vote of thanks to such of the Commons as had recently
voted on Wilkes's oft repeated motion for expunging the resolutions of
the late Parliament respecting Wilkes and the Middlesex election.[388]
[Sidenote: The King's reply, 10 April, 1775.]
Notwithstanding the absence of the Common Council and the inordinate
number of the livery that had expressed their intention of being
present, the king submitted, rather than risk a contest with the City
with Wilkes in the mayoralty chair. With Wilkes's personal behaviour
at court the king was agreeably surprised, and owned that he had
never seen "so well-bred a lord mayor."[389] The conduct of the
mayor, however, took nothing off the asperity of the king's reply. He
expressed the "utmost astonishment" that any of his subjects should be
capable of encouraging the rebellious spirit which had displayed itself
in some of the colonies in North America. As to the Parliament, which
the livery had recently characterised as a "formidable instrument of
arbitrary power," instead of being the guardian of liberty, he declared
that he had every confidence in it and intended to carry out its
measures.
[Sidenote: Letter from the lord chamberlain to Wilkes, 11 April, 1775.]
The next day (11 April) the Earl of Hertford, the lord chamberlain,
wrote to Wilkes by the king's command, giving him notice that in future
his majesty would not receive on the throne any address, remonstrance
or petition except from the body corporate of the City.
[Sidenote: The lord mayor's reply, 2 May, 1775.]
The lord chamberlain's letter drew forth a long and spirited reply from
Wilkes[390] as to the legal position of Common Halls and the powers and
rights of the livery, in which he refers Lord Hertford to the opinions
of counsel delivered in 1771 and 1773.[391] He reminds his lordship
that the claim which he was making on behalf of the livery of London to
the right of presenting addresses to the king on his throne was of no
little importance, and not to be lightly abandoned or set aside;--"When
his majesty receives on the throne any address it is read by the
proper officer to the king in the presence of the petitioners. They
have the satisfaction of knowing that their sovereign has heard their
complaints. They receive an answer. If the same address is presented
at a levée, or in any other mode, no answer is given. A suspicion may
arise that the address is never heard or read, because it is only
received, and immediately delivered to the lord in waiting." It was on
the throne (the letter continued) that the king and his predecessors
had constantly received addresses of the livery, and "on the most
exact research" not a single instance had been found to the contrary.
Wilkes concluded by expressing his fears lest the unfavourable answer
the king had returned to the remonstrance should be considered by the
American colonies as a fresh mark of the king's anger towards them, as
well as of his displeasure against the faithful citizens of London. The
livery would comfort themselves with the assurance of the king's sense
of justice, which would sooner or later restore them to royal favour;
but the Americans might be driven to despair unless by the merciful
interposition of Providence the hearts of ministers were turned. Wilkes
took care that his letter received the necessary publicity.[392]
[Sidenote: Appeal from New York to the City, 5 May, 1775.]
The warning came too late; open hostilities had already commenced.
The attitude of the colonies towards the mother-country was clearly
defined in a letter addressed to the City of London by the committee
of Association of New York on the 5th May.[393] All the horrors of a
civil war, the letter protested, would never compel America to submit
to taxation by authority of Parliament, although it was perfectly ready
to make voluntary contributions "as Englishmen" to assist the king if
properly requisitioned. The writers appealed to the City of London,
well knowing its attachment to the cause of justice and liberty, and
they concluded their letter with an expression of confidence that it
would use its utmost exertions "to restore union, mutual confidence
and peace to the whole empire." The letter was laid before the Common
Council on Friday, the 23rd June, when it was ordered to be printed,
and a copy to be sent to every member of the Court.[394]
[Sidenote: Proceedings of Common Hall, 24 June, 1775.]
The next day being Midsummer-day the livery met as usual in Common
Hall for the purpose of electing sheriffs and other officers. Alderman
Hayley, the brother-in-law of Wilkes, was one of the sheriffs elected
and Alderman Newnham the other. The ordinary business of the day having
been got through Wilkes formally reported to the Common Hall the king's
reply to the last address of the livery, and next proceeded to lay
before them Lord Hertford's letter and his own reply. These having been
read the Town Clerk was ordered to enter both letters in the City's
Records, and a vote of thanks was passed to Wilkes "for his very able,
judicious and spirited defence of the rights and privileges of the
livery." The livery next proceeded to pass a resolution condemning the
conduct of those ministers who had advised the king not to receive
in future on the throne any address, remonstrance or petition from
the livery of London, as being subversive of the right of the subject
to petition the throne, and as calculated to alienate the minds of
Englishmen from the Hanoverian succession. Then turning from their own
grievances to those of America they passed a vote of thanks to the Earl
of Effingham for his courageous conduct in throwing up his commission
in the army rather than draw his sword against the lives and liberties
of his fellow subjects, and next proceeded to prepare another
remonstrance to the king on the American war.[395]
This new remonstrance was, if possible, stronger and more plain spoken
than any yet presented. The king was told that the power which he
and his ministers claimed to exercise over the colonies, under the
specious name of "dignity," was nothing less than "despotism," and
that as the livery of London would not suffer any man, or any body of
men, to establish arbitrary power over themselves, so they would not
acquiesce in an attempt to force it upon any of their fellow subjects.
They did not hesitate to declare that the majority of the members of
that Parliament, in which the king had recently avowed he placed entire
confidence, were "notoriously bribed to betray their constituents and
their country."[396] Notwithstanding Lord Hertford's recent letter,
they insisted upon the king receiving their address upon the throne,
and intimated their intention of attending the presentation in a body.
This was more than the king could stand, and he determined to put
his foot down. The address not being an address of the Corporation
of London, he expressed his intention of receiving it at his next
levée, and when objection was raised by the sheriffs to this course,
he told them that he was judge where to receive it.[397] This decision
being reported to the livery they resolved (4 July) to publish their
remonstrance, and not to present it. They at the same time passed a
number of resolutions condemning the king's advisers, and ordered the
sheriffs to place in the king's own hands a copy of these resolutions
as well as of those passed on Midsummer-day, signed by the Town
Clerk.[398]
[Sidenote: City Address to the king for cessation of hostilities, 7
July, 1775.]
On Friday, the 7th July, the Common Council took into consideration
the letter from New York, which had been read to the Court on the 23rd
June, and which had by this time been printed and circulated among the
members of the Council, as ordered. A motion was thereupon made that a
humble address and petition should be presented from the Court to his
majesty praying him to suspend hostilities in America, and adopt such
conciliatory measures as might restore union, confidence and peace to
the whole Empire. The motion was carried, but only by a majority of
fifteen; and the address having been drawn up by a committee appointed
for the purpose, was in due course read and approved.[399] It is clear
that the Common Council was half-hearted in the matter. According to
Walpole, it only voted the address in order to satisfy the Americans
who had appealed to London.[400] No doubt Court influence had been at
work;--"If the Common Council can on Friday be prevented from taking
any step with regard to the rebellion in America"--wrote the king to
Lord North--"it would be desirable," at the same time he comforted
himself with the thought that anything that the Common Council might do
would have but little real effect.[401]
[Sidenote: The king's reply, 14 July, 1775.]
The king received the address on the throne with becoming dignity, and
returned for answer that it was a duty he owed his faithful subjects
to enforce respect for the constitutional authority of the kingdom on
those of his American subjects who had openly resisted it. This answer
appears to have had considerable effect upon the Common Council, for
when, a week later, a motion was made to send a reply to the letter
from New York, together with a copy of the City's late address, and the
king's answer, the motion was lost.[402]
[Sidenote: Address of the livery to electors of Great Britain, 29
Sept., 1775.]
On Michaelmas-day, when his successor in the mayoralty chair was chosen
by the livery, Wilkes, who had recently refused to countenance by his
presence the proclamation of the Americans as rebels (23 Aug.),[403]
produced a letter he had received from the Congress at Philadelphia
appealing to the city of London, as the "patron of liberty," to mediate
for the restoration of peace. Thereupon an address to the electors of
Great Britain (prepared at a previous meeting of the livery held at the
Half Moon tavern in Cheapside) calling upon them to assist the livery
to bring to justice the authors of the evils that had arisen in this
country and America was also produced and read. The document pointed to
the increase of national debt and the decrease of national resources
that must supervene if a ruinous and expensive war was to be undertaken
against the American colonies. What was the object of the war? It could
not be the security of England's commerce, for that was not in danger;
neither could it be to bring the colonies into due subordination to
the mother-country, for the colonies themselves had repeatedly and
solemnly acknowledged their subordination and submission to England.
It appeared, then, that the object of the war was nothing else than to
establish the arbitrary power of the crown over their fellow subjects
in America--a measure which would greatly endanger the constitution
at home and increase the number of placemen and pensioners. All that
the colonies asked for was peace, liberty and safety. They had pledged
themselves to be ready and willing in time of war to show their
loyalty to the king and to assist him with money and men to the utmost
of their ability. What more could in justice be required? They had
recently made a final appeal in the hope that the effusion of blood
might be stayed, but to this appeal no answer had been vouchsafed.
"This, gentlemen," the address continued, "is the alarming state of
America, which fills us with anxiety and apprehensions. We lament the
blood that has been already shed; we deplore the fate of those brave
men who are devoted to hazard their lives--not against the enemies
of the British name, but against the friends of the prosperity and
glory of Great Britain; we feel for the honour of the British arms,
sullied--not by the misbehaviour of those who bore them, but by the
misconduct of the ministers who employed them to the oppression of
their fellow subjects; we are alarmed at the immediate, insupportable
expense and the probable consequences of a war which, we are convinced,
originates in violence and injustice, and must end in ruin. These
are the sentiments, gentlemen," concluded this impassionate address,
"which we take the liberty of communicating to you as the reasons upon
which we have acted; trusting that if they meet with your approbation
you will co-operate with us in endeavouring to bring the authors of
those evils to the justice of their country." This "decent but very
strong address," as Walpole called it,[404] was at once adopted as "the
address of the lord mayor, aldermen and livery of London in Common Hall
assembled," and was ordered to be published in the papers.[405]
[Sidenote: Petitions of Common Council in favour of peace, 25 Oct.,
1775.]
The day before Parliament re-assembled in October the Common Council
backed up the livery and prepared addresses to both Houses in favour
of a cessation of hostilities; but the nation was so distinctly in
favour of war that the City could avail nothing, and its petitions were
ordered to lie on the table.[406]
[Sidenote: Arrest of Sayre, an ex-sheriff of London, Oct., 1775.]
The tension of men's minds at this crisis was so great that all kinds
of rumours gained credit, and a certain comical element was introduced
in the midst of the prevailing gloom. A young American officer named
Richardson, who was confined in the Tower, solemnly declared on oath
that Stephen Sayre, an ex-sheriff of London, had paid him a visit and
privately offered him a large sum of money to assist in seizing the
Tower. This was only a part of the conspiracy. The king himself was to
be seized on his way to the House of Lords and forced to call a new
Parliament. Everybody, except the ministers, laughed at the folly of
such a charge. A council was summoned, and by order of the Earl of
Rochfort, secretary of state, Sayre was arrested and--in compliment
to the City, so it was said--committed to the Tower. He was, however,
shortly released.[407]
[Sidenote: Proceedings of Parliament, Oct.-Nov., 1775.]
Parliament met on the 26th without any disturbance, and the king in
his address showed a determination to prosecute the war with vigour.
Sawbridge, who had been elected successor to Wilkes in the mayoralty
chair, took occasion to compare the conduct of Lord Effingham with
that of Lord George Germaine, formerly Lord Sackville, who had
behaved so discreditably at the battle of Minden in 1759, and who
had recently accepted office under the ministry. The one had thrown
up his commission rather than engage in civil war, whilst the other
"had turned pale at the head of squadrons."[408] In the last week of
November, Alderman Oliver, in accordance with a resolution of the
livery of London of the 4th July, moved the House to address his
majesty, that he might be pleased to inform the Commons who were the
advisers of the several measures so obnoxious to the American Colonies.
The motion, however, found but little support except from Wilkes
and Sawbridge, and upon being pressed to a division, was lost by an
overwhelming majority.[409]
[Sidenote: Expenses of Wilkes's mayoralty.]
At the close of Wilkes's mayoralty he received the thanks of the
City for the splendour and hospitality that had marked his year of
office, as well as for "his vigilant and steady attachment to, and
his very able vindication of the constitutional rights of his fellow
subjects."[410] It would never have done for one who had so severely
taken Trecothick to task for failing to maintain the City's reputation
for hospitality, to have himself been deficient in that respect,
whilst occupying the mayoralty chair; but setting this aside, Wilkes
was naturally prone to lavish expenditure whether in or out of office.
The result was that the close of his mayoralty found him in serious
pecuniary difficulties. The lord mayors of that day derived their
income from various sources, among them, being the sale of those places
under the Corporation which happened to fall vacant during their
year of office.[411] No two mayors therefore enjoyed precisely the
same income, whilst their expenditure was then, as now, only limited
by their individual tastes, or the length of their private purses.
Wilkes's receipts during his year of office had amounted to £4,889
o_s._ 6-1/2_d._, whereas his expenditure had been no less than £8,226
13_s._[412] He was therefore out of pocket to the amount of nearly
£3,500, or perhaps we ought rather to say that he would have been out
of pocket to that extent, had he actually disbursed the money. This he
had not done, for the simple reason that he had none to disburse.
[Sidenote: Wilkes a candidate for the Chamberlainship, 1776-1778.]
His impecuniosity led him to consider seriously the advisability of
becoming a candidate for one or other of the more lucrative posts
in the gift of the citizens. Hitherto he had been averse to taking
such a course, but matters had now come to such a pass that when the
Chamberlainship of the City happened to fall vacant in February,
1776, through the resignation of Sir Stephen Janssen, he followed the
advice of his friends, and became a candidate for the post. He was
unsuccessful, however, being defeated by Benjamin Hopkins, a brother
alderman. This being an _interim_ election, Hopkins had again to seek
the suffrages of the livery at Midsummer. Wilkes again opposed him, and
was again defeated; this time by a crushing majority. Here it would
have been well if he had rested satisfied, and not offered any further
opposition when his more successful rival offered himself annually for
re-election, the appointment being virtually during good behaviour.
He was not, however, a man to let any scruples of delicacy stand in
his way, and, moreover, he was being sorely pressed by creditors.
Accordingly, he offered himself as a candidate, in opposition to
Hopkins, at Midsummer, 1777, and again in 1778, but on both occasions
he was defeated.[413]
[Sidenote: His creditors appeal to Common Council, Oct., 1777.]
In the meantime his creditors had again and again applied to him
for the discharge of his mayoralty debts, but could obtain no
satisfaction, beyond a cool assurance that he had expended the whole
of the allowance made him by the City in executing the duties of the
mayoralty; that their claims exceeded this allowance and he could not
therefore discharge them! Was ever impertinence more sublime? Any other
man they would have had laid by the heels, without further ado, but
Wilkes they feared to touch. After much patience and long suffering,
they made so bold as to appeal to the Common Council. This was in
October, 1777. Someone suggested the bestowal of an annuity of £500
upon Wilkes for his public services, but the City wisely decided that
the granting of any annuity to him, or the payment of his debts whether
contracted in or out of office, would establish a bad precedent.[414]
[Sidenote: Wilkes elected Chamberlain. Nov., 1779.]
At Midsummer, 1779, Hopkins offered himself, as usual, to the livery
for re-election to the Chamberlainship, and this time he was returned
unopposed. Wilkes had at last seen the futility of continuing the
struggle. Possibly the state of Hopkins's health may have had something
to do with Wilkes's withdrawal. This, however, is only conjecture. All
that we know is that in the following November Hopkins died, and his
rival at last succeeded in obtaining the much coveted post.[415] This
post--described by Wilkes himself as one of "profit, patronage and
extensive usefulness, with rank and dignity," and sufficient, after the
payment of his debts, to gratify every wish he could form at the age of
fifty-three[416]--he continued to fill with credit to the City (as his
friend Dr. Johnson predicted he would) until the day of his death (26
Dec., 1797), no one being found bold enough ever to oppose his annual
re-election.
[Sidenote: The Freedom of the City to Dr. Richard Price, 14 March,
1776.]
Early in 1776 England and America were startled by the appearance of a
small treatise entitled "Observations on the nature of civil liberty,
the principles of government and the justice and policy of the war in
America." The writer was Dr. Richard Price, a Dissenting minister, who
had devoted much of his leisure to the consideration of questions of
public interest, and more especially finance. The demand for his latest
work was so great that it outran the supply. The Freedom of the City in
a gold box was voted the author,[417] and two years later he received
an invitation to become a citizen of the United States, ample provision
being promised him for the rest of his life if he would go to America
and undertake the regulation of the finances of that country. The offer
was, however, declined on the score of old age.
[Sidenote: City address and king's reply, 22 March, 1776.]
The day that the Common Council voted Dr. Price the Freedom of the
City (14 March, 1776) it resolved once more to address the king with
the view, if possible, of obtaining the postponement of any further
military operations until America had had an opportunity of definitely
refusing such just and honourable terms as this country was willing
to offer. If this were done, England would free herself of any taint
or suspicion of injustice and oppression, whilst the refusal of the
colonies would then become rebellion. The king's reply was brief. He
avoided giving a direct answer to the City's proposal, but contented
himself with expressing his deep concern at the misery which the
colonies had brought upon themselves, and his readiness to extend mercy
and clemency as soon as the "existing rebellion was at an end."[418]
[Sidenote: Declaration of Independence, 4 July, 1776.]
The king's answer shows how little he was acquainted with the real
feeling of the colonists at this time. With them it was no longer
a question of clemency or redress. The idea of a total separation
from the mother-country had already taken shape. France had shown a
disposition to assist them, and thus avenge herself on England for the
Seven Years' war; but with or without France the colonies were bent on
separation, and on the 4th July the Declaration of Independence was
signed.
[Sidenote: Refusal of Sawbridge and Hallifax to back press warrants,
1776-1777.]
In anticipation of France openly declaring war against England, the
government caused warrants to be issued for pressing seamen. These
were executed with great cruelty, and met with much opposition.
When Parliament met on the last day of October, Wilkes took the
opportunity of an amendment being moved to the address to inveigh
against press warrants, as well as against the "savage and piratical,
as well as unjust, war" into which the country had been plunged by
the king's ministers. He told the House that the press-gangs did not
dare enter the City, knowing full well the character of Sawbridge,
the lord mayor.[419] "It is certain," he said, "that no pressing
has at this time been carried on in the city of London or its
liberties. No press-gangs have dared to make their appearance in that
jurisdiction.... The city has hitherto remained in perfect tranquility
by the vigilance, intrepidity and noble love of liberty which are
conspicuous in its present worthy chief magistrate."[420] Sir Thomas
Hallifax, who succeeded Sawbridge in the mayoralty chair,[421] was
equally stern in refusing to back press warrants in the City, and on
two occasions received a formal vote of thanks for so doing from the
Common Council, the first time being in February (1777) and the second
when he quitted office.[422]
[Sidenote: The City refuses to countenance the war.]
In 1777 the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended against all Americans, and
in 1778 public subscriptions were set on foot in support of the war.
The City did all it could to prevent the suspension of Habeas Corpus,
and absolutely refused to subscribe to any bounties or to in any way
countenance, or be instrumental in, the continuation of the war.[423]
The king expressed to Lord North the mortification he felt at the
City's attitude;--"I feared the city was not yet enough returned to
sobriety to be persuaded heartily to support the cause, and therefore
think the friends of government would have acted wiser in adopting a
public subscription unattended with the mortifying circumstance of a
defeat in the Corporation."[424]
[Sidenote: City address, 13 March, 1778.]
At last the ministers themselves began to show a change of front, and
conciliatory measures were introduced and passed.[425] Whilst the
consideration of these measures was pending, the Common Council drew
up another address to the king exhorting him to give effect to those
concessions which they feared might have been granted too late.[426]
[Sidenote: Announcement of alliance between France and America, 13
March, 1778.]
The fears entertained by the citizens were well founded. On the very
day that their address was presented, the French ambassador delivered
to Lord Weymouth a declaration that the king of France had entered into
a treaty of commerce and amity with the Independent States of America,
and that any attempt to interfere with that commerce between those two
countries would be resented by his master. A few days later Benjamin
Franklin was formally received at Versailles as ambassador for the
United States of America.[427] In the face of this new danger, both
Houses rallied round the throne, with vows of support in maintaining
the honour and dignity of the crown and nation, although in both Houses
there were not wanting those who were in favour of petitioning the
king for the removal of those ministers who had brought about all the
mischief. The insulting message sent by France touching interruption
of commerce with America, had in fact rather strengthened the ministry
than otherwise, and a proposal in the Court of Aldermen to summon
a Common Hall for the purpose of agitating for their removal fell
flat.[428]
[Sidenote: The death of Chatham, 11 May, 1778.]
Chatham now became one of the foremost advocates for the maintenance
of the supremacy of Great Britain over its dependencies, however
opposed he had been to the fatal policy that brought the country
to such a crisis; and it was to him that Lord North, who had long
wished to withdraw from the ministry, advised the king to apply for
aid. Even if the king had been willing to trust Chatham, which he was
not, the state of the Earl's health would scarcely have allowed him
to accept a position of such responsibility. His days were in fact
numbered. On Tuesday, the 7th April, he unexpectedly appeared in the
House of Lords, having risen from a sick bed with the sole object of
opposing a motion of the Duke of Richmond, virtually conceding the
independence of the American Colonies. When the Duke had finished his
speech, Chatham, slowly and with difficulty, rose from his seat. In
words that at first were scarcely audible he explained that ill-health
had prevented him from attending, at so important a crisis, to his
parliamentary duties. He had that day made an effort, almost beyond
his strength, to attend the House where, perhaps he might never speak
again, and to express his indignation at the suggestion that had been
made of yielding up the sovereignty of America. "My lords," he said, "I
rejoice that the grave has not closed upon me: that I am still alive
to lift up my voice against the dismemberment of the ancient and most
noble monarchy," and he concluded a spirited and affecting speech by
exhorting his countrymen to make an effort to maintain their supremacy
[that supremacy to which he himself had contributed so much] and, if
they fell, to fall like men.[429] Even as he spoke, his words began to
falter, and on rising to make a second speech, he staggered and fell
back in a fit of apoplexy. To all appearance he was in a dying state.
He rallied however, but only for a few weeks, and on the 11th May he
died.
[Sidenote: His funeral, 9 June, 1778.]
The City lost no time in petitioning Parliament that the remains of the
statesman "whose vigour and counsels had so much contributed to the
protection and extension of its commerce," might rest in St. Paul's,
and the Lord Chamberlain was asked to give timely notice of the funeral
in order that the Common Council might pay their last token of respect.
The Chamberlain promised to accede to this request, but the City's
petition to Parliament met with no further notice than an order that
it should lie on the table.[430] Having failed in this direction the
City determined to approach the king himself on the subject, and a
"remarkably decent and respectful" address was prepared for the purpose
in the Common Council.[431] Unfortunately the City had incurred the
king's displeasure not only on account of its recent addresses, but
also for the respect and affection it had always entertained towards
Chatham, who for years had been the object of his special aversion.
When asked to name a day for the reception of the address, the first
question was as to its nature. He was afraid of having to listen to
more "stuff." His curiosity, however, on the point was not gratified.
The sheriff (Clarke) respectfully declined to inform him of the nature
of the address, and for his "prudent conduct" was rewarded with the
thanks of the Common Council.[432]
At length Friday, the 5th June, was appointed for receiving the
address. By that time arrangements had been made for the interment to
take place in Westminster Abbey, and the king notified the citizens of
the fact in a somewhat dry and ungracious manner.[433] Although the
ceremony was fixed for the 9th no notice had been sent to the City,
notwithstanding the Lord Chamberlain's promise. The Common Council
therefore, finding themselves thus trifled with, rescinded their
resolution to attend.[434] Indeed the attitude taken up by the king and
his ministers throughout the whole business was singularly childish and
undignified.
[Sidenote: The City's monument to Chatham.]
The citizens, on the other hand, though prevented from showing their
respect at the grave-side of the deceased statesman, were resolved
to erect a memorial to one who, when in power, had never (as they
declared) allowed them to return from the throne dissatisfied. A
sculptured monument by Bacon, with an inscription from the pen of the
great Edmund Burke, was in due course erected in the Guildhall, for the
express purpose that citizens might "never meet for the transaction of
their affairs without being reminded that the means by which Providence
raises a nation to greatness are the virtues infused into great men;
and that to withhold from those virtues, either of the living or the
dead, the tribute of esteem and veneration, is to deny themselves the
means of happiness and honour."
FOOTNOTES:
[376] Repertory 179, fos. 10-14, 17-20, 54-65.
[377] _Id._, fos. 24-25.
[378] Repertory 179, fo. 24.
[379] _Id._, fos. 65-68.
[380] _Id._, fos. 96, 97.
[381] Repertory 180, fos. 288-294.
[382] Repertory 179, fo. 194.
[383] Chatham Correspondence iv, 378, note.
[384] Journal 66, fos. 179, 181b.
[385] Journal 66, fos. 185-185b, 188b-190, 191-192.
[386] Journal House of Commons, xxxv, 182, 241; Journal House of Lords,
xxxiv, 365.
[387] On the 7th March a pamphlet had been published entitled "Taxation
no Tyranny; an Answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American
Congress,"--from the pen of Dr. Johnson.--Boswell's Life of Johnson
(Napier), ii, 289.
[388] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 186b-188.
[389] Walpole, Journal i, 484. Wilkes's winning manner was never more
conspicuous than when, a year later (15 May, 1776), he first met Dr.
Johnson at dinner. The story how he succeeded in completely winning
over the learned lexicographer who had hitherto looked upon Wilkes as
little more than a low demagogue, is admirably told in Boswell's Life
(iii, 108-117). They afterwards became very good friends, and Johnson
was fain to confess that "Jack was a scholar" and "Jack had the manners
of a gentleman," and that "although Jack had always been at him, he
would do Jack a kindness rather than not."--(_Id._, iii, 208.)
[390] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 189b-191.
[391] See Plumbe's case. _Supra_ pp. 138, 139.
[392] Walpole's Journal i, 487. It is printed in the Gentleman's
Magazine, xlv, 220-222, and in the Volume of Addresses, etc. (ed. 1778)
in the Guildhall Library.
[393] Journal 66, fos. 236-237b.
[394] Journal 66, fo. 238.
[395] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 188b-191.
[396] _Id._, fos. 191-192.
[397] Walpole, Journal i, 495.
[398] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 192b, 193.
[399] Journal 66, fos. 239b-240b.
[400] "They could not help doing it, to satisfy the Americans on their
address to them."--Walpole, Journal i, 496.
[401] The king to Lord North, 5 July, 1775.--Correspondence i, 253.
[402] Journal 66, fo. 241.
[403] Walpole, Journal i, 500; Gentleman's Magazine xlv, 405.
[404] Walpole, Journal i, 503.
[405] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 193b-195b.
[406] Journal 66, fos. 259b-260b; Walpole, Journal i, 501, 502; Journal
House of Commons, xxxv, 405; Journal House of Lords, xxxiv, 489.
[407] Walpole, Journal i, 508, 509; Walpole to Mann, 28 Oct., 1775;
Letters vi, 277; Annual Register xviii, 167, 239-243.
[408] Walpole, Journal i, 523.
[409] Journal House of Commons, xxxv, 462. Walpole, Journal i, 524.
[410] Journal 66, fo. 261b.
[411] In November, 1776, an alteration was made in this respect, and it
was ordained that for the future the sum of £1,000 should be paid to
each mayor in lieu of the sale of offices. Journal 67, fo. 8b.
[412] Journal 67, fo. 9. The respective amounts of receipts and
expenditure by some of his more immediate predecessors in office, are
recorded as having been as follows:--
Receipts. Payments.
1768. Turner £5,731 5 10 £7,749 12 4.
1770. Crosby 4,251 11 6 6,685 10 11.
1772. Townshend 3,896 0 0 7,592 16 9.
1773. Bull 5,647 13 8 9,293 10 0.
[413] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 199, 200, 205-205b, 211.
[414] Journal 67, fos. 85b, 100.
[415] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 217b.
[416] Almon, Wilkes's Correspondence v, 37.
[417] Journal 66, fos. 296, 354.
[418] Journal 66, fos. 296-297, 299b.
[419] Walpole, Journal ii, 77.
[420] Parliamentary History, vol. xviii, cols. 1,402, 1,403.
Notwithstanding Wilkes's statement, instances are recorded of men
having been pressed in the City; but their instant discharge was
demanded.--Journal 67, fos. 12b-13, 43-43b.
[421] On coming into office Hallifax invited the ministers to his
banquet. They had not been asked to the lord mayor's banquet for the
last seven years.--Walpole, Journal ii, 84.
[422] Journal 67, fos. 42b, 95.
[423] Journal 67, fos. 42, 107.
[424] The king to Lord North, 17 Jan., 1778.--Correspondence ii, 122.
[425] Walpole, Journal ii, 222, 223.
[426] Journal 67, fos. 126-8.
[427] Walpole, Journal ii, 223.
[428] Repertory 182, fo. 184.
[429] Parliamentary History xix, 1,022, 1,023.
[430] Journal 67, fos. 137b-138b, 149b. Journal House of Commons,
xxxvi, 990.
[431] Journal 67, fo. 148.
[432] Journal 67, fo. 150; Annual Register xxi, 243.
[433] Journal 67, fo. 149b.
[434] _Id._, fo. 150.