[Sidenote: Court martial of Admiral Keppel, Jan., 1779.]
The extension of the sphere of war owing to the French alliance
with America brought great difficulties to the ministry. A powerful
fleet under Keppel was sent into the Channel, and in July engaged
the French fleet off Ushant, but the action was indecisive, and both
fleets retired, the one to Brest, and the other to Plymouth. Keppel
had signalled Sir Hugh Palliser, his second in command, to bear up
with his squadron, and renew the action, but Palliser's ship was much
crippled, and he was either unable or unwilling to comply. Mutual
recriminations followed, and as both admirals were in Parliament and
political adversaries, Keppel being in Opposition, whilst Palliser was
a Lord of the Admiralty, the charges led to a fierce Parliamentary war,
and eventually Keppel had to submit to a court martial. The trial took
place at Portsmouth, and lasted over a month. The result was anxiously
awaited by the City and the country. At length, late in the evening of
the 11th February (1779), a courier brought the news that Keppel had
been honourably acquitted. The whole of London was at once one blaze
of illuminations. Palliser had to make his escape out of Portsmouth
for fear of violence, and a house in Pall Mall once occupied by him
was completely gutted by the mob and its contents burnt in St. James's
Square. The gates of the Admiralty were taken off their hinges. Lord
Sandwich had his windows smashed, so had Lord North, and greater damage
would have been done but for the interference of the military.
[Sidenote: Vote of thanks and Freedom of City to Keppel, 12 Feb., 1779.]
The next day (12 Feb.) the Common Council passed a vote of thanks to
Keppel "for his spirited behaviour on the 27th of July last in his
attack on the French fleet, for his glorious and gallant efforts to
renew the engagement in the afternoon of that day, efforts rendered
unsuccessful thro' the want of obedience to his orders by the
Vice-Admiral of the Blue."[435] They further voted him the Freedom of
the City in a box of heart of oak, in testimony of the respect and
gratitude which they entertained of his long and faithful services
to his country.[436] That night the illuminations were repeated, but
stringent measures were taken to prevent tumult.[437] The vote of
thanks was conveyed to the admiral without delay, but circumstances
prevented the Freedom being conferred on him until the following
December. On the first occasion, Keppel was entertained with a few of
his most intimate friends at the London Tavern;[438] on the second the
admiral entertained a deputation from the Common Council at his own
house in Audley Square. He and Lord Howe had by that time become so
disgusted with the government that they had signified their intention
of withdrawing their services from the navy so long as the ministers
remained in power;[439] but he assured his guests that his zeal for
the public good had in no wise abated, notwithstanding his withdrawal
from the command of the fleet.[440] The friendly attitude of the City
towards Keppel could not have been otherwise than distasteful to the
king who looked upon "poor" Palliser as an ill-used man, and had even
suggested his appointment to the command of the North American fleet
until the recent affair had blown over.[441]
[Sidenote: Spain declares war, 17 June, 1779.]
The situation in which ministers found themselves was daily becoming
more difficult, when Spain rendered it worse by allying herself (June,
1779) with France and America against Great Britain. North had again
and again intimated his readiness to resign, but the king would not
hear of it, and the minister yielded to his master's stronger will
and consented to remain in office against his own convictions. With
this increase of danger Parliament again rallied round the throne,
and voted loyal addresses. At the same time the leading Whig lords
protested against the affairs of the country being left in the hands of
a ministry that had proved itself so incapable;--"In such a situation
a change of system appears to us to be our indispensable duty to
advise."[442] This too was the opinion of a large body of citizens, but
the Common Council declined to hamper the king with another address on
the subject.[443]
[Sidenote: Economical reform.]
The country for the most part was in favour of prosecuting the war
with vigour, notwithstanding the addition of a fresh enemy. At
the same time there was increasing dissatisfaction at the national
expenditure and the excessive use of court influence over Parliament.
The Opposition took advantage of this feeling, and in December motions
were brought before the House of Lords in favour of economical reform.
These were rejected, and the further consideration of the matter was
postponed until the 8th February (1780). The Common Council sympathised
with the Dukes of Devonshire, Grafton, Manchester, Portland and other
Whig lords in their endeavours to promote reform, and passed them a
vote of thanks. The Corporation was convinced that the cause of all
the existing trouble lay in the "enormous and undue influence of
the crown," and promised them support. Each of the lords wrote to
acknowledge the vote of thanks, and their answers were given a wide
circulation.[444]
[Sidenote: Committees of Association, 1779.]
Before the question came on again the country had become thoroughly
roused. Committees of Association--as they were called--sprang up in
all directions, their object being to impress upon Parliament the
necessity of economy and the abolition of sinecures. Petitions flowed
in from all parts. Yorkshire took the lead, but was closely followed by
London.[445] The day that the City's petition was laid before the House
(11 Feb.) Burke introduced a Bill for carrying out economical reform,
but the measure had to be abandoned owing to the opposition it met with
in committee.[446]
[Sidenote: Dunning's motion, 6 April, 1780.]
Although Burke's Bill had failed to pass, the movement continued to
gain force both in and out of Parliament, and on the 6th April Dunning
moved his famous resolution that "it is the opinion of this committee
that the influence of the crown has increased, is increasing, and ought
to be diminished." This resolution, with but a slight variation, was,
after a hot debate, carried by a majority of eighteen.[447] It was
followed by two other resolutions in the same direction, one (moved
also by Dunning) to the effect that it was competent for the House to
reform the Civil List, the other (moved by Thomas Pitt) that it was
the duty of the House to remedy the abuses mentioned in the petitions.
Both were carried, and the movers were accorded the thanks of the City
(which they in due course acknowledged[448]), but when it came to
taking further action on these resolutions the House raised so many
objections that all thought of carrying them into effect had to be
abandoned.
[Sidenote: The City's letter to Lord Shelburne, 7 April, 1780.]
As time went on the Committees of Association, not content with
their legitimate work--the work for which they were originally
established--viz., economical reform, took upon themselves to push
parliamentary reform, a matter on which the country was not as yet
agreed. The City approved of their action, having long been anxious
to see a recurrence to short parliaments and a change made in the
mode of representation, but in other places the new departure caused
alarm. In Wiltshire, Lord Shelburne's county, the Association had
been disavowed[449] owing to its recent action, and his lordship
had in consequence written a letter to the county upholding the
Association. Soon after this Shelburne was wounded in a duel, and upon
his recovery the City took the opportunity of sending him a letter of
congratulation, and at the same time of testifying their appreciation
of his letter to the county of Wilts;--"The noble and manly proof
which your lordship has given in your letter to the county of Wilts of
your decided concurrence in the undoubted right of the people to short
parliaments and the necessity of a more equal representation cannot but
increase our regard, esteem and confidence; and your lordship in your
further prosecution of those great constitutional objects may depend on
the most firm and determined support of the city of London."[450]
[Sidenote: Lord Shelburne's reply, 12 April, 1780.]
The earl in reply assured the Common Council that the support of the
City of London was the most honourable incentive he was capable of
feeling, as well as the strongest preservative against despondency.
As regards the proposals for shortening the duration of parliaments
and a more equitable representation, which the counties, cities and
boroughs of England were combining to obtain, they would certainly
meet his zealous concurrence whenever they should appear "to be the
public sense." Without wishing to influence others, he was bound at so
critical a juncture to confess that his own opinion was in favour of
both proposals.[451]
[Sidenote: The City accepts a Form of Association, 13 April, 1780.]
The day that the earl's answer was read before the Common Council
(13 April) a Form of Association was submitted for their approval.
It followed the lines of the Yorkshire Association, and subject to
certain alterations it was recommended for acceptance by the City of
London.[452] The main point was that subscribers to the form pledged
themselves to support only those parliamentary candidates who were in
favour (1) of cutting down public expenditure, (2) of shortening the
duration of parliaments, and (3) of establishing greater equality in
parliamentary representation by allowing the several counties of Great
Britain to elect in a due proportion 100 members at least in addition
to their present number. The Common Council at once approved of the
form, and ordered the Town Clerk to subscribe to it in the name of the
Corporation. The citizens were to be recommended also to subscribe to
it as being the best plan for effecting the objects in view. The Court
at the same time deemed it opportune to place on record the passage in
Chatham's letter to Lord Temple of the 17th April, 1771, in which the
writer signified his approval of shorter parliaments and more equal
representation, and this was accordingly entered on their Journal.[453]
[Sidenote: Outcry against Sir George Savile's Act.]
Scarcely had the ministry managed to escape from Dunning's attack
before they were threatened by a new danger. This time they did not
stand alone; the strife of parties ceased in the presence of a common
danger. For some time past an agitation had been set on foot against
a Bill which Sir George Savile had carried in 1778, for the relief of
Catholics from some of the hardships inflicted upon them by law. The
cry of "No Popery" had been raised, and in March last a motion had
been made in the Common Council against any proceedings in Parliament
calculated to favour Papists. The consideration of the motion was
adjourned, and did not come on again until the 31st May, when the
court came to a resolution that the passing of any Acts of Parliament
in favour of Papists, or the repealing of any Acts against Popery,
was repugnant to the true interests of the country. It, at the same
time, directed the City's representatives in Parliament to support
any movement for the repeal of Savile's Act, so far as it related "to
the establishment of seminaries for the education of youth, and the
purchasing of lands within the realm."[454] Protestant associations
were formed in different parts of the country, and on all sides a cry
was raised against catholic emancipation.
[Sidenote: Lord George Gordon at Westminster, 2 June, 1780.]
The chief leader of the movement was the crack-brained fanatic, Lord
George Gordon, who led a mob some thousands strong, wearing blue
cockades, through the city to Westminster with a petition which he
desired to lay before the House of Commons. A motion that the petition
should be brought up was seconded by Alderman Bull. This took place
on Friday, the 2nd June. Whilst Lord George was thus engaged, the
mob clamoured to be admitted into the House and would have forced an
entrance, but for the arrival of a party of horse and foot guards.
Foiled in their attempt to intimidate the House, the mob dispersed in
various directions, and proceeded to sack and burn the Roman Catholic
chapels attached to the Sardinian and Bavarian embassies, standing in
Duke Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields, and Warwick Street, Golden Square,
and having so far wreaked their vengeance they retired to rest for the
night.[455]
[Sidenote: Riot in Moorfields, 4 and 5 June, 1780.]
Matters were not allowed to rest here. On Saturday afternoon (3 June),
Kennet, the lord mayor, received a letter from Lord Stormont, secretary
of state, forewarning him of the likelihood of tumults arising within
his jurisdiction and strongly recommending him to take the necessary
steps for preserving the peace. The day passed off quietly, however.
A few people gathered in Ropemakers Alley, Little Moorfields, where
stood a Roman Catholic chapel, but no disturbance took place. On Sunday
afternoon (4 June) matters took a turn for the worse, and the mayor,
being informed that a very great concourse of people had assembled in
Moorfields in a riotous manner, and was threatening the chapel, at once
sent for the marshals and their men and instructed them to procure
as many constables as possible, and disperse the mob. In the evening
the mayor himself went to the scene of riot, and stayed there until
three o'clock in the morning. In the course of the night he received
another and more urgent letter from Lord Stormont;--"I cannot but hope,
and trust from your lordship's known zeal and activity that every
effectual legal method will be used by you to preserve the public
peace by guarding it against those dangers to which it stands exposed."
The mayor was quick to grasp the situation. There were not nearly
sufficient constables procurable to put down the riot, and those that
were present declined to exert themselves to save the property of Roman
Catholics. Kennet therefore took the only course open to him, and sent
to the Tower for military assistance. The commander, however, was slow
to give the aid required, and could be prevailed upon to send no more
than 73 men, all told, and even these were sent in detachments. The
force was utterly inadequate to cope with the crowd, but fortunately
the mob were by this time ready to listen to the appeals of the mayor
and aldermen, and quiet was at length restored. The mayor went home
to seek a much needed rest, leaving one of the sheriffs on the spot
in case of emergency. On Monday morning (5 June) a fresh riot broke
out, and the mayor sent again to the Tower. A detachment of horse and
foot was despatched to his assistance, but by the time it arrived the
chapel and several houses adjoining had been burnt and destroyed.[456]
The principal object of attack outside the city was Savile House in
Leicester Fields, the house of Sir George Savile himself, the indirect
author of all the mischief, and this was sacked by the mob.
[Sidenote: The conduct of the civic authorities impugned.]
Upon hearing of this fresh outbreak the secretaries of state,
Lords Stormont and Hillsborough, wrote a joint letter to the mayor
expressing concern and surprise that houses in the city should be
demolished in broad daylight, and--as they were informed--"without
the least interposition of the civic magistrates to preserve the
public peace."[457] This was scarcely true. The mayor, aldermen and
sheriffs appear to have done their duty, but they experienced no
little difficulty in getting the marshalmen and constables--who were
no friends to the Catholics, and had no real wish to save them from
the mob--to do theirs. One marshalman, in fact, openly refused to
obey the summons that was sent him, declaring that he would not go to
protect any such Popish rascals, and for this he was suspended from
office.[458] The mayor, in reply, justified himself (and with reason)
by laying the blame upon the commanding officer at the Tower, who had
failed to supply him with the requisite assistance. Lord Stormont
accepted the mayor's explanation, and immediately sent copies of his
letter to the field officer of the guards with directions to send to
the city forthwith a detachment of foot guards and light dragoons, as
well as to the commanding officer at the Tower, directing him to supply
the lord mayor with such assistance as he might require.[459]
[Sidenote: More rioting, 6 June, 1780.]
On Tuesday morning (6 June) a Court of Aldermen sat, and the mayor
reported all that had taken place since the previous Saturday. He
was recommended to take the most effectual methods he could devise
for preventing further tumult, and the Court promised to defray all
expenses.[460] During the day the city was quiet, but at night the
rioters split themselves up into various parties, and whilst one
party was engaged in sacking and burning Lord Mansfield's house in
Bloomsbury Square, another attacked the house of Sir John Fielding, and
others broke into old Newgate and Clerkenwell prisons, and set free the
prisoners.
[Sidenote: The king's letter to Lord North, 6 June, 1780.]
Writing to Lord North late that night the king expressed surprise
that Lord Gordon was still allowed to be at large, and complained of
the "great supineness of the civil magistrates," whereby the rioters
received encouragement;--"I fear without more vigour that this will
not subside; indeed, unless exemplary punishment is procured, it
will remain a lasting disgrace, and will be a precedent for future
commotions."[461] The fact was that many justices of the peace had run
away, and it was with the greatest difficulty that a magistrate was
found to read the Riot Act in Bloomsbury, and when found it was too
late to save Lord Mansfield's house.
[Sidenote: The City in the hands of the mob, 7 June.]
Early next morning (7 June) the mayor despatched a letter to the
secretaries of state asking for more troops, and at half-past two
o'clock a reply was sent that he should have such additional force as
could be spared. In the meanwhile he was urged to take every possible
measure for protecting the Bank of England, which there was reason to
believe was about to be attacked.[462] On receipt of this letter the
mayor summoned a Common Council to meet that evening at six o'clock.
It was at once resolved to direct the sheriffs to raise the _posse
comitatus_. The services of the Military Association were offered and
readily accepted. Many officers of the City's militia volunteered for
duty, and they were desired to place themselves at the disposal of the
sheriffs, who were instructed more particularly to protect the Mansion
House, the Guildhall and the Bank of England.[463] The measures were
not taken a whit too soon. Two attempts were made on the Bank, but in
each case the rioters were repulsed. The King's Bench and Fleet prisons
were fired; and as many as thirty-six fires, all blazing at one time
and in different quarters of the city, might be seen from one spot.
Houses were pillaged in all directions. In Broad Street the Artillery
Company and the London Association were ordered to fire on the mob,
and several were killed.[464] The streets were flooded in many places
with raw spirits from wrecked distilleries, and as many (if not more)
perished from excessive drink as from the firing of the military,
although by an order of Lord Amherst, the adjutant-general, the latter
were authorised to act without waiting for directions from the civil
magistrates.[465] The return of the number of killed and wounded during
the disturbances was 458.[466]
[Sidenote: City petition for repeal of Savile's Act, 8 June, 1780]
In the meanwhile troops had arrived in London from their various
quarters in the country, and were encamped in the public parks.
Their presence served to intimidate the rioters and order began to
be restored. Before the Common Council of Wednesday evening broke
up, it resolved to petition Parliament for a repeal of Savile's Act,
and the next day (8 June) the petition was drawn up. It set out, in
effect, that since the Act made in the 11th and 12th years of King
William III, entitled "an Act for the further preventing the growth
of Popery," the Papists had experienced no persecution, and the state
had enjoyed perfect tranquility, and that the repealing of part of the
Act had occasioned much discontent and produced dangerous tumults.
The petitioners therefore prayed that the repealing Act should be
itself repealed as being in their opinion "the most probable means
of immediately quieting the minds of the people." The sheriffs and
the remembrancer were instructed to present the petition to the House
of Commons without delay, but rather than listen to a debate for a
repeal of the Act, of which General Conway had given notice, the House
suddenly adjourned until the 19th.[467]
[Sidenote: Instructions of Lords of the Council, 9 June, 1780.]
On Friday morning (9 June) the Lords of the Council issued a warrant
for the arrest of the arch-mover in the recent troubles, and before
nightfall Lord George Gordon was lodged in the Tower. Their lordships
at the same time directed the lord mayor to make diligent search
for all idle and disorderly persons, and to commit them for trial.
All guns, pistols, and other offensive weapons were to be seized. A
difficulty arose as to where to keep prisoners or those awaiting trial,
now that Newgate and the other prisons were no longer serviceable. The
mayor suggested the Tower, but the Lords of the Council would not hear
of such a thing. They recommended him to commit his prisoners to some
of the city halls or other public buildings, as he might deem most fit,
and they (the lords) would furnish a sufficient force to guard these
temporary prisons. The Court of Aldermen lost no time in carrying out
the instructions thus given.[468] That evening the mayor was desired
to meet the Lords of the Council at the Cockpit, Whitehall. What took
place at the interview does not appear to be recorded.[469]
[Sidenote: The civic and military authorities at variance, June, 1780.]
A proposal to form an armed association of householders for future
protection, brought the City into variance with the military
authorities. No sooner was the proposal set on foot than Colonel
Twistleton who was in command of the troops in the city, informed the
adjutant-general of it. The latter at once signified his disapproval
on the ground that "no person can bear arms in this country but under
officers having the king's commission," and he instructed Colonel
Twistleton (13 June) to see that all arms in the hands of persons who
were not of the City militia, or authorised by the king to be armed,
were given up. The existing London Association which had been on duty
since the beginning of the riots, on learning this order, flatly
refused to surrender their arms, on the ground that by the articles
of the Bill of Rights, all his majesty's Protestant subjects were
permitted to have arms for their defence suitable to their condition
and as allowed by law.[470] The Court of Aldermen could not understand
this interference of the military in the City's affairs, and directed
the lord mayor to apply to Colonel Twistleton for a copy of the orders
under which he acted in the city. Thereupon that officer produced the
original orders of the 7th June, signed by the adjutant-general.
[Sidenote: Letter to Lord Bathurst, 14 June, 1780.]
This did not satisfy the Aldermen, and by their directions the lord
mayor addressed a letter to Earl Bathurst, the president of the Council
(14 June), informing him that in pursuance to his orders they had made
diligent search for disorderly persons implicated in the late riots,
and had "taken to their assistance the house-keepers in each district,
who have armed themselves" under the directions of the Court for the
purpose of supporting the civil magistrate, but the Court's attention
having been drawn to Lord Amherst's letters to Colonel Twistleton, they
desired some explanation, as those letters militated against former
orders from the Lords of the Council. The Court further desired to
know whether Lord Amherst's order of the 7th June was to continue in
force.[471]
[Sidenote: Lord Bathurst's reply, 15 June.]
In reply to this letter, the President of the Council explained that
Lord Amherst's letters had been misunderstood, "for when he speaks of
the arms in the hands of the city militia or other persons authorised
by the king to be armed, he certainly includes the arms in the hands
of the citizens and house-keepers, who by virtue of an order of the
Court of Lieutenancy are required to keep them in their houses." As
regards the order of the adjutant-general of the 7th June, he was of
opinion that it had better remain in force so long as the presence of
the military in the city was necessary for the preservation of peace.
His letter concluded with a warning lest the armed house-keepers
should expose themselves to the military, who in a tumult would have
difficulty in distinguishing them from the rioters.[472]
[Sidenote: The City's second letter to Lord Bathurst. 17 June, 1780.]
This reply being deemed unsatisfactory, the lord mayor wrote a second
letter (17 June) pointing out that Lord Amherst's orders to Colonel
Twistleton, of the 13th, would, if literally executed, disarm those
very persons without whose assistance it would have been impossible for
the civic authorities to have executed the Order of Council of the 9th
instant. This (he explains) is what was meant in his former letter,
when he said that Lord Amherst's letters militated against the orders
first received from the Lords of the Council, and the Court of Aldermen
now desired him to submit to his lordship's consideration "whether some
further explanation might not be necessary to prevent a construction
which would leave the civil magistrate without power to act at all, for
want of necessary support."[473]
[Sidenote: Lord Bathurst's reply, 20 June, 1780.]
The lord mayor's letter having been submitted to the Lords of the
Council, the President replied, three days later (20 June), that in
the opinion of their lordships the matter had been fully explained
in his letter of the 15th. With regard, however, to the alleged
impracticability of executing the Orders of Council of the 9th instant
without the assistance of the inhabitants of the several wards who had
armed themselves, the Council was of opinion that in times of danger
"a reasonable number of inhabitants, armed according to the nature and
circumstances of the case, may attend the peace-officers, as assistants
to them, for the preservation of the public peace, until the danger
be over." He concluded by reminding the aldermen that the privilege
enjoyed by subjects of carrying arms under the Bill of Rights (to
which they had referred in the mayor's last letter) did not extend to
mustering and arraying armed bodies without the king's permission.[474]
The next day (21 June) the Duke of Richmond moved in the Lords that
the adjutant-general's orders contravened the Bill of Rights, but the
motion was negatived without a division.[475]
[Sidenote: Another letter to Lord Bathurst, 24 June, 1780.]
Still the Court of Aldermen were far from being satisfied. They foresaw
that difficulties were likely to arise in the execution of their duty
if the military were to be allowed to act independently. They desired,
therefore, the lord mayor once more to address the President of the
Council with the view of getting the order of the adjutant-general
respecting the military acting without previous directions from the
civil magistrates, withdrawn. Accordingly on the 24th June Kennet
wrote again to this effect,[476] but the only answer vouchsafed to
this was the passing of a Bill of Indemnity for the acts of the
military.[477] It was useless, therefore, for the Court of Aldermen
to proceed further in the matter, and they had the wisdom to ignore
a series of propositions which one of their number introduced later
on (18 July) touching the rights of the citizens to bear arms and the
noninterference of the military powers.[478]
[Sidenote: Speech of Wilkes in the House, 19 June, 1780.]
When Parliament resumed its sitting on the 19th Wilkes, who had
displayed great zeal during the riots, not only made an attack on the
lord mayor for not having taken proper precautions to prevent their
occurrence in the city, but he declared that the petition drawn up and
approved by the Common Council on the 8th had been improperly procured,
having been moved in the Court after many of the members had gone
home under the impression that business was over. He next proceeded
to attack his former friend and colleague, Alderman Bull, who (he
said) had not only omitted to take steps to quell the rioters, but had
allowed the constables of his wards to "wear the ensigns of riot in
their hats," and had been seen leaving the House of Commons arm-in-arm
with Lord George Gordon himself. Bull could only reply that it was true
that constables of his ward had worn the cockades, but he had made four
of them remove them.[479] Permission was eventually given for bringing
in a Bill for securing the Protestant religion.
[Sidenote: City address to the king on late riots, 28 July, 1780.]
On the 8th July a motion was made in the Common Council for presenting
an address to the king "expressing the grateful thanks of this Court
for his majesty's care and attention to the citizens of London
in granting them such aid as became necessary to subdue the late
dangerous riots, they being too formidable for the control of the civil
authority." To this the previous question was moved and lost, and the
original motion was at length carried, but when it came to nominating
four aldermen and eight commoners to draw up the address, there were
not found sufficient aldermen present, and the matter had to be
postponed.[480] It was eventually passed on the 24th, and presented on
the 28th, when the king made a suitable reply.[481]
[Sidenote: City claims for damages during the riots.]
The riots over, and the ringleaders (all except Lord George Gordon
himself) brought to justice, it remained to pay the costs. To make
good all the damages involved much time and expenditure. The new
gaol at Newgate on which so much money had been spent, and which was
approaching completion at the outbreak of the riots, was completely
"gutted," only the external walls being left standing. The keeper's
house was demolished, and much damage done to the neighbouring Sessions
House. For all this the City sent in claims for compensation,[482] and
in course of time succeeded in getting from Parliament three several
sums of £10,000 to assist in defraying the expense of rebuilding
Newgate.[483] The cost of maintaining the military force quartered in
the city during the riots was no slight one, and had to be provided
for by the Common Council. One ward alone, that of Farringdon Within,
sent in a bill exceeding £350 for victuals supplied to a party of light
horse quartered at the Oxford Arms in Warwick Lane, and the Sessions
House, to a detachment of foot guards quartered in St. Paul's, and
several companies of militia at Christchurch, Newgate.[484] There were,
moreover, legal expenses incurred by the City in defending actions
brought against the sheriffs by various inhabitants of the city for
damage done to houses.[485]
[Sidenote: A new Parliament, 31 Oct., 1780.]
Whilst the riots brought a respite to Parliament from the importunity
of associations, their suppression brought temporary support to the
king, who embraced the opportunity of dissolving Parliament before the
court party lost ground.[486] Parliament was accordingly prorogued on
the 8th July, and on the 1st September, was dissolved, another being
summoned to meet on the last day of October. Only two of the old
city members were re-elected. These were Bull and Hayley. The places
of Sawbridge and Oliver were taken by two other aldermen, namely,
Kirkman--who commanded the light horse volunteers during the riots--and
Nathaniel Newnham. Sawbridge, however, recovered his seat upon
Kirkman's death, which occurred within a few days after his election.
A year later (Sept., 1781) Hayley died, and Lord George Gordon, whom
a jury had recently acquitted of high treason, made some show of
contesting the seat. He soon, however, discovered that the City would
have none of him, and withdrew before the election came on. The seat
was won, after a severe contest, by Sir Watkin Lewes the outgoing lord
mayor.[487]
[Sidenote: The City's Committee of Correspondence dissolved, 15 March,
1781.]
The late riots had somewhat cooled the ardour of the associations.
Many of them, according to Walpole,[488] had been formed chiefly with
a view to the coming Parliamentary elections, and now that these were
over, the various committees became less active. The City's Committee
of Correspondence was dissolved, and the civic authorities after some
wavering refused to allow country associations the use of the Guildhall
for fear of renewed disturbances.[489]
[Sidenote: Proceedings of Common Hall, 6 Dec., 1781.]
The news of the capitulation of Cornwallis and his army at Yorktown
which reached London on Sunday, the 25th November (1781), induced the
livery to urge the king once more to put an end to the war. A Common
Hall was summoned by special request to meet on Thursday, the 6th
December. Alderman Bull being too ill to attend and to consult his
constituents as he wished, contented himself with addressing a letter
to the "Gentlemen of the Livery" calling upon them to continue to be an
example to the nation, as they always had been. With their assistance
he hoped to see a change effected which should put an end to the evils
from which the country was suffering. This letter having been read to
the livery they proceeded to consider the terms of a new remonstrance,
which was produced ready cut and dried. After expressing concern at
the king's recent speech in Parliament, declaring his intention
to persevere in a system of measures which had already proved so
disastrous, the document plainly told the king that he had been deluded
by his ministers, and the consequences of that delusion had been the
almost total extinction of trade and commerce, and the annihilation
of public and private credit. "Your majesty's fleets"--it went on
to say--"have lost their wonted superiority. Your armies have been
captured. Your dominions have been lost." The petitioners expressed a
desire publicly to declare not only to the king, but to Europe and to
America itself, their abhorence of the continuation of the unnatural
and unfortunate war, which could only tend to the alienation of the
American colonies with whom they still hoped to live on terms of
intercourse and friendship so necessary to the commercial prosperity
of the kingdom; and they concluded by imploring his majesty to dismiss
his present advisers as a pledge to the world of his determination to
abandon a system incompatible with the interests of his crown and the
happiness of his people.[490]
The remonstrance was ordered to be presented by the lord mayor, the
city members, the Court of Aldermen [_not_ the Common Council], the
sheriffs and ten of the livery--the number permitted by Stat. 13,
Chas. II, c. 5--attended by the Recorder and city officers; and
notwithstanding all previous objections on the part of the king it was
resolved that the sheriffs should enquire when his Majesty would be
pleased to receive it on the throne. The result was such as might have
been, and no doubt was, expected. When those "fellows in fur,"[491] as
George called the sheriffs, attended at court to deliver their message,
the king told them he would consider the matter, and would let them
know; and in due course Lord Hertford addressed (10 Dec.) the following
letter to the mayor:--"It is well known to be the settled custom for
the King to receive upon the Throne an address from the City of London
only in their corporate capacity, and the same was signified by a
letter written by me, in obedience to His Majesty's command, on the
eleventh of April, 1775, to the then Lord Mayor. In consequence thereof
I am commanded by His Majesty to acquaint you that His Majesty will
receive at the levée on Friday the 14th inst. the Address, Petition
and Remonstrance of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Livery in Common Hall
assembled. I have, etc." To this the mayor replied by referring the
lord chamberlain to Wilkes's letter of the 2nd May, 1775, as to the
question of custom. With regard to the present address, petition and
remonstrance he contented himself with representing to his lordship
that as the resolution of the livery was that it should be presented
to the king on the throne, the persons directed by the said resolution
to present it could not dispense therewith by presenting it in any
other mode.[492] The remonstrance was in consequence never presented,
although Walpole believed it to have been presented at the levée.[493]
[Sidenote: Resolutions of Common Hall, 31 Jan., 1782.]
Thus baulked in their design the livery proceeded at another special
Common Hall (31 Jan., 1782) to pass a number of resolutions condemning
the king's advisers and maintaining the necessity of shorter
parliaments and fairer representation. They declared that the Committee
of Correspondence appointed by the Common Council in February, 1780
(and since abolished) had "proved themselves firm friends to the
people," and they resolved to appoint a similar committee from among
themselves, and to petition the Common Council to grant the use of
their new council chamber[494] to the committee for the purpose of
occasionally meeting therein.[495] When the petition was laid before
the Court on the 5th February it was refused, but in the following
April it was granted, and the Committee of Correspondence was permitted
to meet in the council chamber, or in any other part of the Guildhall
that might be most convenient.[496]
[Sidenote: The fall of North's ministry, 20 March, 1782.]
The ministry was now fast tottering to its fall. On the 22nd February
General Conway moved the House of Commons to address the king for the
purpose of restoring peace and giving up all thoughts of subduing
America by force. After prolonged debate the motion was lost by one
vote only.[497] Five days later (27 Feb.) the City agreed to a petition
to the House imploring the Commons to interpose and prevent the
continuation of the war,[498] and that same day the attack was renewed
by Conway, who moved that the use of force to put down the colonies was
impracticable. This time he was more successful.
His motion was carried by a majority of nineteen,[499] and a few weeks
later (20 March) North resigned.
[Sidenote: City's address on change of ministry, 12 April, 1782.]
Much to his annoyance, the king found himself compelled to place the
Opposition in office, with Rockingham as prime minister and Fox and
Shelburne as secretaries of state, and to consent to negotiations
for peace being opened on the basis of an acknowledgment of American
independence. As soon as the change of government had taken place the
Common Council presented a loyal address to the king expressing their
warmest thanks for having complied with the wishes of the people and
taken into his confidence men who were respected by the country for
their constitutional principles. They trusted that with the assistance
of these new advisers, and with the blessing of Providence, the dignity
of the crown would be restored, and prosperity and unity promoted
throughout the king's dominions. The king thanked the City for their
address, and assured them that the dignity of the crown, the union of
his people and the interests and prosperity of his dominions must ever
be the principal objects of his care.[500]
[Sidenote: Parliamentary reform, 1782.]
The new ministers were pledged to do something towards purifying
Parliament, and accordingly they carried a measure disqualifying
contractors from sitting in the House of Commons, unless their
contract should have been made at a public bidding. It was thought
that government contractors might be too easily moved to support the
party that happened to be in power. Alderman Harley, who sat with Sir
George Cornewall for the county of Hereford, was one of those whom the
Bill affected, inasmuch as he held a contract for supplying the army
in Canada, Nova Scotia, Carolina, New York and the West Indies with
money. He rose from his seat in the House and boldly defended himself.
He had never (he said) asked for the contract; he was not in the habit
of asking favours of ministers; "he got his contract in consequence of
an address which the late Lord Suffolk intended to have moved to the
king, that his majesty would be pleased to confer upon him some mark
of his favour ... he was afterwards offered a pension which he would
not accept, saying at the same time that he had rather have something
in the way of his profession; on this he got the gold contract,
which he fulfilled for twelve years with the fairest character, and
he now felt himself hurt indeed that he should be treated as if he
were a criminal, in being forced to give up a valuable branch of his
business, or renounce the honour, which he held so high, of sitting in
Parliament."[501] The measure was carried on the 1st May. As Harley
retained his seat, and continued to hold it until 1802, it is presumed
he gave up his contract. On the 7th, William Pitt, the second son of
the late Earl Chatham--who had already displayed such oratorical powers
in defence of Burke's economical reform Bill that Burke himself, no
less delighted than surprised, had declared him to be not a chip of
the old block, but "the old block itself"[502]--moved for a committee
to examine into the state of the representation of the country. The
motion was rejected by only a majority of twenty, the closest division
that the reformers ever achieved until 1831, the eve of their ultimate
success.
[Sidenote: Military reform, May, 1782.]
The ministers now turned their attention to a reform of another kind.
On the same day that Pitt made his motion in the House, Lord Shelburne,
one of the secretaries of state, sent a letter to the lord mayor
enclosing copies of a plan for augmenting the home force, and of a
circular thereon he had sent to the chief magistrates of principal
towns. His majesty (the letter said) expected that "his faithful
citizens of London" would set an example to the rest of the kingdom, as
they had so often done before, in gathering forces for the protection
of their sovereign and their country; the more so, as the city of
London had greater interests at stake. The Common Council not only
voted (17 May) a sum of £5,000 to put the City militia on a proper
footing, but resolved to invite subscriptions in the several wards of
the city, and to send copies of Shelburne's letter to all the chartered
and trading companies of the city.[503] The matter had already (9 May)
been laid before the Court of Aldermen, and the lord mayor had been
requested to wait upon Lord Shelburne, to thank him for the letter,
and to assure him that the Court would at once proceed to accomplish
his majesty's wish "and to do justice to his majesty's most gratifying
sentiments of the exemplary loyalty and zeal of his faithful citizens
of London."[504]
[Sidenote: Rodney's naval victory, 12 April, 1782.]
On the 18th May, news arrived that the French fleet under De Grasse
had been defeated by Rodney in the West Indies (12 April). The City
presented a congratulatory address to the king, who in reply (5 June)
assured his "good city of London" of his constant attention to their
commerce and happiness.[505] Rodney who had previously been in disgrace
was now raised to the Peerage; but a proposal to entertain him at a
public banquet at the City's expense fell through.[506] In October,
however, the Common Council unanimously passed a vote of thanks to
him for the service he had rendered to the commercial interests of
the City, and the committee appointed to convey the same entertained
him and his friends at a banquet given at the London Tavern--[507]an
event which Horace Walpole had cause to remember, for the windows of
his house in Berkeley Square were smashed by the mob which accompanied
Rodney home from the City.[508]
[Sidenote: The wreck of the Royal George, Aug., 1782.]
In the meantime the British navy suffered a severe loss by the
capsizing of the Royal George off Spithead. The vessel was reckoned the
finest ship in the navy. The unfortunate circumstances, which carried
her to the bottom with 800 souls, including Kempenfelt, the admiral,
who was at the time writing in his cabin, have been immortalised in
Cowper's well known lines:--
"Toll for the brave!"
The brave that are no more!
All sunk beneath the wave
Fast by their native shore!
It was, possibly, this loss which prompted the Common Council to
consider the question of raising a sum of money (the Corporation
itself contributing £10,000) for the purpose of presenting the king
with a man-of-war, to be called the "City of London." It will be
remembered that in 1665, when the ship "London" suddenly blew up on
her way up to the Hope from Chatham, the City made good the loss then
sustained by the navy. It was proposed now to follow the precedent
then set, but after several adjournments the proposal was allowed to
drop.[509]
[Sidenote: The relief of Gibraltar, Sept., 1782.]
In September Lord Howe set sail to relieve Gibraltar, which had endured
a siege of three years and more. It was defended by General Elliot,
afterwards raised to the peerage as Lord Heathfield, and the sufferings
of the garrison had at times been terrible. When Shelburne succeeded
to the premiership, on the death of Rockingham in July, negotiations
for a peace with America and her allies were far advanced, but before
a peace was signed France and Spain were anxious above all things to
regain Gibraltar. Accordingly on the 13th September a tremendous attack
was made on the fortress by the combined fleets. The forts replied
with red hot shot, and eventually succeeded in destroying the floating
batteries. Just when these were silenced Lord Howe appeared in the bay,
and the combined fleet, not venturing to attack him, withdrew. The
siege had attracted the eyes of all Europe, and in February (1783) the
Common Council appointed a committee to consider the most suitable mode
to be adopted by the City to express their respect to Elliot and Howe
and the officers of the army and navy employed in "the glorious defence
and relief of Gibraltar."
[Sidenote: Copley's picture at the Guildhall.]
Two artists were consulted on the matter, namely, West and Copley. The
former was of opinion that it would be better to have two pictures
instead of one, inasmuch as the defence of the Rock by Elliot and
the relief by Howe were two distinct subjects. Copley, on the other
hand, thought that both subjects could be treated in one picture of
sufficient size to fill one of the side windows of the Common Council
Chamber. The cost of such a picture he estimated at £1,500, but rather
than lose the commission he was prepared to paint it for 1,000 guineas.
His offer was in course of time accepted,[510] and his picture now
adorns one entire wall of the Guildhall Art Gallery.[511]
[Sidenote: The Peace of Paris, 3 Sept., 1783.]
This great success, following so close upon Rodney's victory in the
West Indies, convinced the allies that England was not by any means so
prostrate as her failures in America had led them to believe, and they
now showed a disposition to negotiate. Accordingly in January (1783)
preliminaries of peace were signed at Paris. A provisional treaty had
already been concluded with America, by which the independence of
the United States was formally acknowledged. The news was received in
the city with the greatest joy, and the Common Council congratulated
the king on his having paid "final attention" to the petitions of his
faithful citizens and people. They took the opportunity of expressing
their firm conviction that the commercial interests of this country and
of North America were inseparably united--a sentiment with which the
king declared in his reply that he entirely concurred--and hoped that
the stipulations of the treaty would restore commercial intercourse
between the two countries.[512] The preliminaries of both treaties were
converted into definitive treaties on the 3rd September, and on the
6th October the peace was proclaimed in the city of London in the same
manner as at the proclamation of peace with France on the 22nd March,
1763.[513]
FOOTNOTES:
[435] Walpole makes the following comment upon this paragraph:--"The
French will not like the _éclaircissement_ of the court martial by
which it is clear that they were beaten and fled. The city which does
not haggle, has expressed this a little grossly in their address to
Keppel."--Walpole to Mann, 18 Feb., 1779. Letters vii, 179.
[436] Journal 67, fo. 200b.
[437] Walpole, Journal ii, 345.
[438] Journal 67, fos. 2O9b-212.
[439] Walpole to Mann, 9 March, 1779. Letters vii, 182.
[440] Journal 67, fos. 329b-331b.
[441] The king to Lord North, 29 Jan. and 19 Feb.,
1779.--Correspondence ii, 224, 232.
[442] Journal House of Lords, xxxv, 802.
[443] Journal 67, fo. 268-271.
[444] Journal 67, fos. 331b-333b. Journal 68, fos. 5b-12b.
[445] Journal 68, fo. 13.
[446] Walpole, Journal ii, 366, 367, 374.
[447] When that staunchest of Tories, Dr. Johnson, was asked by
his friend Boswell if he had not felt vexed at the passing of
such a resolution he characteristically replied, "I would have
knocked the factious dogs on the head, to be sure, but I was not
_vexed_."--Boswell's Life of Johnson (Napier) iv, 154.
[448] Journal 68, fos. 47-47b, 49-50.
[449] Walpole to Mason, 13 and 17 April, 1780.--Letters vii, 352, 353;
Walpole, Journal ii, 378, 379.
[450] Journal 68, fo. 46b.
[451] _Id._, fo. 49.
[452] "The Form of Association prepared by the committee appointed by
the Court of Common Council to correspond with the committees appointed
or to be appointed by the several Counties, Cities and Boroughs in the
kingdom."--Journal 68, fo. 51.
[453] Journal 68, fo. 52.
[454] Journal 68, fos. 29-29b, 61.
[455] Walpole to the Countess of Ossory. 3 June, 1780.--Letters vii,
377.
[456] Repertory 184, fos. 204-207.
[457] Repertory 184, fo. 207.
[458] _Id._, fo. 209.
[459] Journal 68, fos. 65, 65b.
[460] Repertory 184, fo. 210.
[461] The king to Lord North, 6 June, 1780.--Correspondence ii, 324.
[462] Journal 68, fo. 65b.
[463] Journal 68, fo. 66. Notwithstanding these precautions--and it is
difficult to see what more could be done--Walpole declares that "the
Lord Mayor Kennet and Sheriff Pughe behaved shamefully."--Journal ii,
408.
[464] This incident is depicted in a well known engraving, where the
Mayor is represented, with his hat off, giving the command to fire.
A prominent figure in the group is the surgeon, Sir William Blizard,
tending a wounded man, whilst an attempt is being made on his own life
by one of the rioters.--See Raikes's History of the Hon. Artillery
Company ii, 68.
[465] Repertory 184, fo. 246; Walpole, Journal ii, 407-409; Walpole to
the Countess of Ossory, 7 June, 1780.--Letters vii, 386-389.
[466] Annual Register xxiii, 262.
[467] Journal 68, fo. 67. Walpole, Journal ii, 409, 410.
[468] Repertory 184, fos. 228-236.
[469] _Id._, fo. 232. According to the Gentleman's Magazine (Vol. 50,
p. 295) it would appear that the mayor was put on his defence for we
read: "The lord mayor of London was summoned before the privy council;
but discharged the same evening." A modern writer goes so far as to
say "the lord mayor was tried and convicted of criminal negligence."
(Bright, Hist, of England iii, 1,094). Another goes still further, and
states that he was "prosecuted by the attorney general for a gross
neglect of duty and was convicted, but his death prevented the passing
sentence." (See note by editor of Letters of George III to Lord North,
ii, 324). As a matter of fact Kennet did not die until two years later,
and he continued to perform his civic duties to the last.--Repertory
186, fo. 196.
[470] Highmore, Hist, of Hon. Artillery Company, p. 332. On the 16th
June, the Court of Aldermen passed a vote of thanks to the association,
as well as to the corps of light horse volunteers, serving under
Alderman Kirkman, who had been the first to call the attention of
the Court of Aldermen to Lord Amherst's orders. (Repertory 184,
fos. 251-253.) The Common Council also acknowledged the services
of both bodies, by resolving to present the first mentioned corps
with a handsome pair of colours, and the second with a pair of
standards.--Journal 68, fos. 72b-73.
[471] Repertory 184, fos. 243-248.
[472] Repertory 184, fos. 249-250.
[473] _Id._, fos. 254-256.
[474] Repertory 184, fo. 267.
[475] Journal House of Lords, xxxvi, 151.
[476] Repertory 184, fo. 270.
[477] Journal House of Commons, xxxvii, 929.
[478] Repertory 184, fos. 309-312.
[479] Hansard, Parliamentary History xxi, 701, 702; Walpole, Journal
ii, 418.
[480] Journal 68, fo. 338. The entry is misplaced.
[481] _Id._, fos. 70, 74b.
[482] _Id._, fos. 71, 77b-78.
[483] _Id._, fos. 159b, 196b, 296. Journal 69, fo. 257b.
[484] Journal 68, fos. 164b, 165.
[485] _Id._, fo. 152b.
[486] Walpole, Journal ii, 425.
[487] Walpole, Journal ii, 468-471.
[488] _Id._, 453.
[489] Journal 68, fos. 127-128.
[490] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 227b-228b.
[491] Walpole, Journal ii, 484.
[492] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 229.
[493] Walpole, Journal ii, 484.
[494] Now known as the old council chamber.
[495] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 229-230.
[496] Journal 68, fos. 198, 221b.
[497] Journal House of Commons xxxviii, 814.
[498] Journal 68, fo. 217b.
[499] Journal House of Commons, xxxviii, 860, 861; Walpole, Journal ii,
5O5-5O9.
[500] Journal 68, fos. 221-221b, 226.
[501] Hansard, Parliamentary History xxii, 1, 335.
[502] Walpole, Journal ii, 446.
[503] Journal 68, fos. 226b-228.
[504] Repertory 186, fos. 187-194.
[505] Journal 68, fos. 230, 238b.
[506] _Id._, fo. 251.
[507] _Id._, fos. 265, 290.
[508] Walpole to Mann, 26 Nov., 1782.--Letters viii, 309.
[509] Journal 68, fos. 273b, 284, 293, 296.
[510] Journal 68, fos. 298, 317. Considerable additions having been
made to the picture as originally designed, a further sum of 300
guineas was voted to the artist, on condition, however, that he repaid
Alderman Boydell the sum of 200 guineas which the worthy alderman
had advanced to enable him to proceed to Germany for the purpose of
painting certain portraits of Hanoverian officers for his picture.
Copley objected to the Common Council taking cognisance of what was a
private pecuniary transaction, and declined to pay Boydell out of the
sum voted by the City. Thereupon the Common Council rescinded its vote,
and paid 200 guineas to Boydell direct. This was in March, 1794. Five
years later Copley changed his mood, and petitioned the Court for the
other 100 guineas and for the return of the sketch of his picture. Both
requests were granted.--Journal 70, fo. 259; Journal 74, fos. 63, 164b,
221; Journal 75, fo. 108; Journal 79, fo. 33. In 1817 this picture was
lent to the British Institution for exhibition.--Journal 91, fo. 89b.
[511] The picture is so large, measuring over 24 feet in length,
that it necessitated certain structural alterations in the old
Council Chamber, where it was originally placed in 1793, at a cost of
£300.--Journal 73, fo. 309b.
[512] Journal 68, fos. 307-307b, 310-310b.
[513] Repertory 187, fos. 310, 311.