[Sidenote: The City and Fox's East India Bill, 1783.]
[Sidenote: _Vide_ Printed addresses.]
Before the preliminaries of peace became converted into definite
treaties, the Shelburne ministry had been forced to give way to a
coalition with Fox and North as secretaries of state, and the Duke
of Portland as nominal head. The new ministry found little favour
with the City, firstly on account of its Stamp Act--imposing a duty
upon all receipts for sums of forty shillings and upwards--which the
citizens (wrongly, as it turned out) believed would be a hindrance to
trade;[514] and secondly on account of Fox's attack on the chartered
rights of the East India Company. If Fox's East India Bill were passed,
what, they asked, was to become of their own chartered rights and
privileges? Every corporation in the kingdom was solemnly warned of
the consequences to themselves if the Bill were allowed to pass. "Our
property and charter are invaded, look to your own" was the message
the Company sent, together with a copy of Fox's Bill, to every borough
in the country. The Bill passed the Commons, but when it came before
the Lords the king declared himself so strongly against it that it was
thrown out, and before the close of the year (1783) the ministers were
suddenly and somewhat unceremoniously dismissed. For the first time
in history we find the City unanimously supporting the king in the
exercise of his prerogative. The Common Council hastened to assure his
majesty that his faithful citizens had "lately beheld with infinite
concern the progress of a measure which equally tended to encroach on
the rights of your majesty's crown, to annihilate the chartered rights
of the East India Company, and to raise a new power unknown to this
free government and highly inimical to its safety. [As the dangerous
measure was warmly supported by your majesty's late ministers, we
heartily rejoice in their dismission, and humbly thank your majesty for
exerting your prerogative in a manner so salutary and constitutional."]
Finally they assured the king that as the prerogatives of his majesty's
high office were intended for the good of the people, the citizens
of London would always support the constitutional exercise of them
to the utmost of their power. In other words, the king might always
look to the City for support so long as he was content to exercise
his prerogative for the preservation of "parliamentary engagements"
and chartered rights.[515] The livery and the Common Council, so long
opposed to each other, became allies again, and the former body passed
a formal vote of thanks at a special Common Hall (13 Feb., 1784) to the
representative body of the City for the address they had carried up
to the throne "thereby setting an example to the whole kingdom."[516]
Truly, as Macaulay remarks, "the successors of the old Roundheads had
turned courtiers." Not content with thanking the Common Council for
its attitude in the matter, the livery passed resolutions of their
own in support of the just prerogative of the crown, the privileges of
Parliament and the rights of the people, whilst they ordered that the
city members should be instructed to advance in every way the business
of the House, and particularly by the granting of supplies.[517]
[Sidenote: Pitt's struggle with the Coalition, 1783-1784.]
Fox's East India Bill had been strongly opposed by Pitt, who at the
early age of twenty-three had been Chancellor of the Exchequer and
leader of the House of Commons under the Shelburne ministry. It was to
this youth that the king now appealed for assistance, and although the
task of forming a ministry of any stability was almost beyond hope,
Pitt undertook the struggle. As it was useless to look for any support
in the Commons he chose his cabinet entirely from the Upper House,
reserving for himself the post of First Commissioner of the Treasury
and Chancellor of the Exchequer. Even before Pitt was able to take his
seat as prime minister (a new election being necessary on his accepting
office), it was evident that the Opposition intended to show him no
pity or favour. It was not until the 12th January (1784)--the day that
the House re-assembled after the Christmas recess--that he made his
first appearance as prime minister. He came prepared with an India
Bill, similar in most respects to that which he afterwards succeeded in
carrying, but the Bill was now rejected although by a small majority.
For weeks he struggled against the violent attacks of the Opposition,
refusing either to resign or to dissolve Parliament until he could
take his opponents at a disadvantage.
[Sidenote: Civic honours for Pitt, Feb., 1784.]
At length, the nation at large became attracted by the indomitable
courage and unflinching honesty of the young minister and began to
rally round him. The city of London had been from the outset one of his
staunchest supporters. On the 10th February (1784), the Common Council
voted him the Freedom of the City and a gold box for his zeal in
"supporting the legal prerogative of the crown and the constitutional
rights of the people."[518] On the 28th, he was made free of the
Grocers' Company and hospitably entertained by them in their hall.
There are members of the Grocers' Company still alive who can recall
the time when "the immortal memory of William Pitt" was honoured in
solemn silence at all public gatherings in Grocers' Hall, and the
esteem in which the company continues to hold one of the greatest
statesmen that England has ever produced recently manifested itself
afresh, when on the 28th February, 1884, the Grocers celebrated the
"Pitt Centenary" by a banquet in their hall.
[Sidenote: Dissolution of Parliament and defeat of Whigs, 1784.]
As soon as the minister perceived the attack of the Opposition wearing
itself out, and the balance of parties becoming more equal, he seized
the opportunity of dissolving Parliament and appealing to the country.
One of the first elections to take place was, as usual, that for the
City. Without his knowledge or consent Pitt himself was nominated among
others; he declined, however, to stand, and was eventually returned for
Cambridge University, a seat he continued to hold for the remainder
of his life. The result of the City election was that all the old
members were returned,[519] although Sawbridge nearly lost his seat
in consequence of his attachment to Fox.[520] It soon became evident
that the country was with Pitt. No less than 160 of Fox's friends
and supporters--"Fox's martyrs," as they were popularly called--lost
their seats, and Fox himself had, for a time, to content himself with
a seat for a close borough, although he was eventually returned for
Westminster, after one of the severest contests ever known.
[Sidenote: Pitt's East India Bill. 1784.]
When the new Parliament met (18 May) three subjects more especially
demanded attention. These were the finances of the country, the affairs
of the East India Company, and the state of Ireland. The first two were
immediately taken in hand. Having in an incredibly short time placed
the finance of the country on a firm basis, Pitt again introduced
his East India Bill. This Bill, it must be borne in mind, differed
essentially from Fox's Bill, which had recently excited such fears
in the City, inasmuch as it merely proposed to establish a board of
control for political purposes, and did not lay a finger upon the
company's material possessions. The chartered rights of the company
being left untouched, the directors offered no opposition, the fears of
the City for their own chartered rights and possessions were lulled,
and the Bill was allowed to pass. The dual system then established
proved to work so well that it continued to be the system under which
India was governed from that day down to 1858.
[Sidenote: Pitt's Reform Bill, 1785.]
In the course of the session Sawbridge brought forward his perennial
motion in favour of short parliaments, but although it received the
support of Pitt, notwithstanding his deeming it inopportune, the
motion was lost.[521] In the following spring (1785) Pitt himself for
the third, and, as it proved, for the last, time attempted to carry a
measure for parliamentary reform, but this, too, was defeated, and,
strange to say, by the same majority as Sawbridge's motion.[522]
The Common Council had previously passed a resolution urging every
alderman who had a seat in the House to do his utmost to secure shorter
parliaments,[523] but it was all in vain, and Pitt, disappointed at his
failure, again turned his attention from parliamentary to financial
reform.
[Sidenote: The City and the Shop Tax, May, 1785.]
One of the many schemes which he proposed for filling the exchequer
was a tax on retail shops. As soon as the proposal got wind the City
was at once up in arms, and a committee was appointed (14 May, 1785)
to confer with Pitt on the matter. Upon the citizens objecting that
they would have to bear nearly the whole burden of the tax, they were
told they could recoup themselves by raising the price of their goods
to the consumer.[524] Disappointed in this quarter, they resolved to
lay their case before Parliament; and accordingly a petition was drawn
up, which set forth that the citizens of London had always been ready
and willing to bear their fair share of the necessary burdens of the
state, but that the tax now proposed was partial, unjust and oppressive
to trade; that the inhabitants and traders of the city were already
overburdened with taxation; that London and Middlesex paid 80 parts out
of 513, or more than one-sixth of the whole Land Tax annually raised
in the kingdom; and that, finally, it was a grave mistake to suppose
that a tax on trade eventually fell on the consumers, for the price of
every commodity was regulated by supply and demand.[525] This petition
was laid before the House on the 19th May, but with little effect, and
on the 30th the Bill passed the Commons[526] in spite of the strong
protest against it made by the city members, who received the thanks
of the Common Council for their spirited and manly opposition to a tax
"universally condemned for its partiality and injustice."[527]
[Sidenote: Efforts to get it repealed, 1785-1789.]
No sooner was the Bill passed than a committee of shopkeepers was
formed to get it repealed, and in this they were assisted by the
committee appointed by the Common Council on the 14th May. The costs
incurred by the latter committee were to be discharged to the extent
of £300 out of the City's Chamber.[528] In November (1785), the Common
Council instructed their committee to prepare a petition to Parliament
for a repeal of the obnoxious Act. This was accordingly done and the
petition duly laid before the House, but with no better success than
before (27 Jan., 1786).[529] In the meantime a split had occurred among
the commissioners whose duty it was to carry out the provisions of
the Act. Some of them had duly qualified themselves for the purpose,
whilst others had not, and so long as disagreement continued among the
executive officers, the City shop-keeper ran the risk of incurring a
double assessment.[530] Early in 1787, the agitation was renewed, and
the mayor was asked to allow of a meeting of the discontents in the
Guildhall on the evening of Friday, the 19th January. The mayor was
willing enough, but the Court of Aldermen were afraid of a disturbance
and the meeting was put off.[531] A fortnight later (31 Jan.) the
Common Council resolved to present another petition to Parliament for
the repeal of the Act. Further experience, they assured the House, had
confirmed their opinion of the partiality and oppression of the Act,
and of the impossibility of shifting the burden upon the consumer.[532]
The petition was presented the following day, but the House remained
obdurate.[533] The shopkeepers passed a vote of thanks to the Common
Council for the pains they had taken in the matter.[534] For another
two years the City agitated for the repeal of the tax, receiving the
support of Fox, among others,[535] but all their efforts proved futile,
until in April, 1789, they were at last crowned with success and the
Act was repealed.[536]
[Sidenote: Convention with France, 1787.]
The Shop Tax was not the only point in Pitt's financial schemes which
tended to bring him into direct opposition to the City, as we shall
shorty see; but as a whole his schemes were eminently successful, and
not the least successful of them all was his commercial treaty with
France. Duties were lowered in each country on the productions of the
other and both England and France were the better for the change, but
the treaty as originally drafted threatened unfortunately to diminish
the revenues of the city of London. Pitt's attention having been drawn
to the matter, a proviso was inserted in a subsequent convention
signed at Versailles (15 Jan., 1787) whereby the City's rights were
safeguarded.[537] The convention was followed in October by a joint
declaration whereby England and France mutually agreed to discontinue
warlike operations.[538]
[Sidenote: The City and the slave trade, 1788-1792.]
The year 1788 witnessed the first steps taken in Parliament for
the abolition of the slave trade. Wilberforce a prominent leader
in the movement succeeded in winning over Pitt to the cause, and
the City threw its influence into the scale. On the 4th February,
the Common Council petitioned the House to take the matter into its
consideration.[539] Little however was done beyond the introduction
of a temporary measure for improving the sanitary condition of
vessels employed in the slave traffic. The Bill passed the Commons,
but underwent such a change in the House of Lords that it became
practically useless. In 1789, and again in 1790, Wilberforce urged the
Commons to abolish the slave trade in its entirety, and in 1792, Pitt
supported the proposal in a speech which surpassed all his previous
oratorical efforts. It was to no purpose. The Liverpool merchants,
whose interests in the nefarious traffic were enormous, succeeded in
frustrating every attempt to put it down. At last, even the city of
London refused to petition Parliament any further on the matter.[540]
[Sidenote: Pitt's Regency Bill, 1788-1789.]
In the meanwhile an event had occurred which for the moment threatened
to overthrow the ministry. In November, 1788, the king who had
previously shown signs of mental derangement became so seriously ill
that a regency seemed inevitable. That the Prince of Wales ought to
be Regent all parties were agreed, but whether he should be allowed
to take upon himself the regency as a matter of right, or whether he
should accept it at the hands of Parliament and with such limitations
as Parliament might think fit to create, opinions differed. Pitt was
strongly in favour of upholding the authority of Parliament in the
matter and introduced a Regency Bill. The Bill passed the Commons, but
before it passed the Lords the king unexpectedly recovered, and further
proceedings were stayed. For having thus maintained "the important
right of the Lords and Commons of this realm to provide the means for
supplying the defect of the personal exercise of the royal authority
arising from his majesty's indisposition," the Common Council passed
a vote of thanks to Pitt and his supporters, which the minister duly
acknowledged;[541] but when it was proposed to present an address to
the prince condoling with him on the king's illness, and congratulating
him upon his being invested with the government "by the united wisdom
of the two Houses," a debate of three hours ensued and the motion was
eventually lost.[542]
[Sidenote: Gift of £1,000 by Prince of Wales for poor of city, Jan.,
1789.]
It speaks well for the prince that he not only bore the City no
ill-will, but was careful to forward to the city Chamberlain the sum of
£1,000 for the poor of the city, who were suffering from the inclemency
of the season, as he feared that his father's illness might prevent the
king sending his usual annual gift. The Common Council were touched
with the prince's thoughtful act of charity, and sent to Carlton House
to thank him. His highness took the opportunity of assuring them that
no one was more sensible than himself of the attention of the City, and
no one would be more ready to show regard "towards the most respectable
city in Europe."[543]
[Sidenote: City addresses on king's recovery, 19 March, 1789.]
Towards the end of February (1789) the king was himself again. The news
of his recovery was a cause of sincere joy to the city of London, as
well as to the nation at large, however disappointing to those who had
built their hopes upon a regency. On the night of the 10th March the
whole of London was illuminated. From one extremity of the town to
the other and far out into the surrounding suburbs there was one blaze
of light. Two days later the Common Council prepared congratulatory
addresses to the king and queen. These were presented to their
majesties at Kew on the Thursday, the 19th March, and were graciously
received, the City on this occasion, in compliance with the king's
wishes, who was still far from strong, waiving their right to present
the address to him on the throne.[544]
[Sidenote: Thanksgiving service at St. Paul's, 23 April, 1789.]
A solemn thanksgiving service was held at St. Paul's on Thursday, the
23rd April--St. George's day--and was attended by the king and queen,
the royal family, the members of both Houses and great officers of
state, as well as by the lord mayor, the aldermen, the sheriffs and
members of the Common Council. In carrying out the preparations for
the king's reception in the city everything was done with the view of
sparing the king all unnecessary exertions.[545] The Earl of Salisbury,
in his capacity as lord chamberlain, suggested that if the lord mayor
and sheriffs and those aldermen who represented the city in Parliament
were to meet the king at Temple Bar and conduct him to St. Paul's
it would be more agreeable to his majesty than the attendance of a
greater number of persons. For the same reason it was decided that no
more than four members of the Common Council should attend. The formal
presentation to the king of the City's sword at Temple Bar and of its
re-delivery into the hands of William Gill, the lord mayor, was made
the subject of a large oil painting, mounted on a screen of six panels,
by Ralph Dodd.[546]
[Sidenote: Pitt's Bill for excise duty on tobacco, 1789.]
As soon as the king's health allowed of Parliament resuming its
ordinary course of business Pitt consented to remit the Shop Tax, which
had caused so much bad feeling in the city. Scarcely was this done,
however, before he again gave umbrage to the citizens by a proposal
to transfer the duty on tobacco from the customs to the excise.
Walpole had endeavoured to carry out a similar change in 1733, but the
opposition he met with was so overpowering that he was obliged to give
way. Pitt was more successful. The City withstood his Bill, as it had
withstood Walpole's, but in spite of all opposition Pitt's Bill passed,
and all subsequent efforts to get it repealed proved futile.[547]
[Sidenote: Negotiations for the removal of the Bank guard, 1788-1790.]
The king's illness had interrupted negotiations that had been opened
for the withdrawal of the guard of soldiers that had been accustomed
ever since the Gordon riots, to pass through the city daily for the
purpose of protecting the Bank of England. In 1787 a citizen had
complained to the Court of Aldermen of his having been pushed off the
footway by soldiers of the guard passing to the Bank on the evening of
the 5th July; and the Court had thereupon instructed the lord mayor to
request the secretary at war to give such directions as he might think
proper that the guard might in future march in single file and not two
abreast as they hitherto had done.[548]
The secretary at war (Sir George Yonge) had replied that the lord
mayor's suggestion would be likely to lead to great inconvenience;
that he undertook to promise that the officers of the guards would for
their part endeavour to conduct their detachments on the march in a
quiet, decent and soldier-like manner, but that from representations
that had been made to him by officers commanding the guards as to the
treatment the detachments sometimes met with in their passage through
the city, he felt bound to ask the lord mayor to take such steps as he
might deem fit to prevent any cause of complaint arising in future on
either side.[549] This letter had been referred to a committee, with
instructions to report their opinion as to the best way of affording
sufficient protection to the Bank and at the same time of avoiding
the inconveniences complained of. The committee showed no haste in
the matter, and it was not until the following May (1788) that they
reported in favour of furnishing the Bank with a guard of the city's
militia, in place of the detachment of foot guards. The Court of
Aldermen on receiving this report wished to know what the directors of
the Bank of England thought of the suggestion,[550] but all the answer
they got was that if the existing mode of protecting the Bank were
discontinued, the directors would not "put the city to the trouble of
providing any other." The Court scarcely knew how to treat this answer.
At length, after several adjournments, it resolved (21 Oct.) that
the lord mayor should write to the secretary at war and request that
the guard at the Bank should be withdrawn.[551] Four days later Sir
George Yonge informed the lord mayor by letter that the matter had been
referred to his majesty's ministers, that the directors of the Bank had
been desired to attend Lord Sydney on the subject, and that further
information would be given as soon as the king's pleasure should be
known.[552]
The king's severe illness served as an excuse for letting the matter
drop, and nothing more was done until January, 1790, when Pickett,
the lord mayor, on his own responsibility and without any authority
from the Court of Aldermen, wrote to Grenville, then secretary of
state (having previously solicited an interview with Sir George
Yonge), desiring to know the king's pleasure as to the removal of the
Bank guard. Grenville replied by asking the lord mayor to specify on
what grounds his application was made, and whether the resolution
of the Court of Aldermen of the 21st October, 1788 (referred to in
his letter), was based on "any legal right or exemption claimed by
the City."[553] The secretary was told in reply that no reasons were
assigned for the resolution of the Court of Aldermen, nor had any been
desired by the late secretary of state when approached on the subject;
but the lord mayor volunteered some reasons of his own (27 Jan). He
apprehended that "the unnecessary introduction of the military into
the civil government of this nation" was unconstitutional. The Bank
guard was originally adopted at the time of an extraordinary crisis.
It was no longer needed, or if needed, could be more constitutionally
furnished by the city's militia. The introduction of the regulars
was considered an infringement of the ancient privileges of the
City,[554] and their presence was an annoyance to his majesty's
peaceable and commercial subjects. This answer of the lord mayor seemed
far from satisfactory to the secretary of state as it ignored the
question whether the City claimed any privilege. As soon as the mayor
satisfied him on this point, he promised to take an early opportunity
of consulting the king. The correspondence having been laid before
the Court of Aldermen, the Court showed a disposition to let the
matter rest. The mayor, however, wrote another letter to Grenville
(notwithstanding the Court's request that he should do nothing more
without instructions from them), intimating that he would still have to
press the withdrawal of the guard as "unconstitutional, unnecessary,
and offensive," but its only effect was to draw forth a formal
acknowledgment of its receipt by the secretary of state, and there the
matter was allowed to drop.[555]
[Sidenote: Outbreak of the French Revolution.]
Just at a time when there seemed a fair prospect of the country
enjoying a long spell of prosperity the whole of the civilised world
was moved by the outbreak of the French Revolution. Englishmen were at
first disposed to look upon the movement with interest, if not with
approval, as of a nation struggling to be free. But in course of time
the sparks of sedition crossed the channel, and it became necessary to
suppress by royal proclamation (21 May, 1792) the numerous pamphlets
with which the country was flooded. Fox was one of the few statesmen
who still believed in the honesty of purpose underlying the revolution,
and he signified publicly his disapproval of the proclamation. The City
supported the king, however, and its example was widely followed by
other corporate bodies throughout the kingdom.[556]
[Sidenote: The September massacres, 1792.]
Pitt had hoped to save England by preserving a strict neutrality, and
for a time he was successful, although frequently urged to declare
war. The massacres of September (1792) rendered his peace policy
almost hopeless by the shock they gave to English public opinion. The
streets of London swarmed with French refugees, and subscriptions had
to be opened for their relief.[557] How imminent was the danger which
threatened England was brought home to the citizens by the appearance
of a placard--headed _A House to let_--affixed to Newgate Prison,
and bearing these words:--"Peaceable possession will be given by the
present tenants on or before the first day of January, 1793, being
the commencement of the first year of liberty in Great Britain. The
Republic of France having rooted out despotism, their glorious example
and eventful success against tyranny render such infamous bastiles no
longer necessary."[558]
[Sidenote: Resolutions of Common Council, 29 Nov., 1792.]
With the spirit of revolution thus rife in the city the new lord mayor
(Sir James Sanderson) had his hands full. He proved himself, however,
equal to the occasion, and the Common Council thanked him (29 Nov.)
for his pains in suppressing seditious meetings,[559] and promised him
every assistance in the work of carrying into execution his majesty's
late proclamation. The council at the same time passed a series of
resolutions touching the duty of every corporation and every freeman to
suppress seditious assemblies, and to bring to justice every disturber
of the peace, and gave orders to the aldermen and common councilmen of
each ward to take steps for the preservation of tranquility and for
securing obedience to the law. These resolutions were to be printed
in all the public papers of the United Kingdom.[560] The officers and
men of the London militia had already received orders to be ready at
short notice to be under arms for the purpose of suppressing riot and
tumult.[561]
[Sidenote: War declared by France, 1 Feb., 1793.]
In anticipation of war being sooner or later declared by one side or
the other the Common Council resolved on the 10th January (1793) to
offer bounties for seamen for a term not exceeding one month from that
date.[562] Before that month expired the blow had fallen. Instead of
England declaring war France took the initiative, and after sending
her king to the scaffold declared war against England (1 Feb.). The
citizens immediately extended their bounties for another month,[563]
and pledged themselves to stand by the king and constitution.[564] They
furthermore contributed the sum of £500 to the fund that was being
raised by merchants of the city for privateering purposes.[565]
[Sidenote: The campaign of 1793.]
In the course of the spring a British force, under the command of the
Duke of York, landed at Ostend, and having joined the imperial army
under the Prince of Saxe-Coburg, contributed in no small measure to
the success achieved against the French during the earlier part of the
campaign. Later on the Duke of York attempted the siege of Dunkirk, but
was compelled to retire. A ward committee was appointed in the City
for the purpose of raising subscriptions for providing the troops with
warm clothing and other necessaries during the winter, and the Common
Council voted the sum of £500 for the same purpose.[566] Subscriptions
came in from various parts of the country. Some towns, like Wigan
and Hereford, sent clothing, but most of them sent cash. The result
was that the City was able to despatch to the army a large number of
greatcoats, trousers, shoes, stockings, shirts, mittens and other
articles of apparel to the value of nearly £4,000. An offer made by the
Grocers' Company to furnish the troops with a supply of "porter" was
declined by the committee with thanks, as it appeared to them that "the
advantage thereof could only be partial and temporary at best."[567]
The Duke of York, writing from Ghent (10 Jan., 1794) to acknowledge the
gift, paid a high tribute to the patience and courage of the troops
under his command.[568]
[Sidenote: The "Battle of the 1st of June," 1794.]
The campaign of 1794 proved disastrous to the allies, and before the
end of the year the Duke of York resigned his command. The want of
success on the continent was in part compensated by Howe's victory over
the French at sea. The French had resolved to dispute the sovereignty
of the seas, and had prepared a fleet at Brest. In course of time Howe
fell in with it, and on the 1st June a general engagement took place,
in which the enemy, although far superior to the English fleet in
weight of metal, was completely worsted. For this victory Howe received
the thanks of Parliament and of the City, and also the Freedom of the
latter in a gold box.[569] The City, moreover, voted a sum of £500 for
the relief of those wounded in the engagement, and of the widows and
children of those who had been killed. Howe acknowledged the honour
conferred upon him and the liberality and benevolence of the City
towards those who had served under him in most gracious terms.[570]
Success also attended our arms in the West Indies, where Admiral
Sir John Jervis and Lieutenant-General Sir Charles Grey captured
Martinique and other French islands. For these exploits the Common
Council voted both gallant officers the Freedom of the City and gold
boxes,[571] and presented a congratulatory address to the king.[572]
[Sidenote: Riots in the city, Aug., 1794.]
In the meantime (17 April) proceedings had been taken to raise a
regiment of infantry and a troop of cavalry to be called "The Loyal
London Volunteers." Their chief duty was to be the defence of the
city, but they were to be ready to enter the service of the government
whenever occasion might require. A committee was nominated to raise
subscriptions, and an Act of Parliament was passed for placing the
Militia of the City on a better footing.[573] Scarcely was this done
before riots again broke out, and on the 20th August the mayor (Paul
le Mesurier) had to send for the Honourable Artillery Company for
the protection of houses where recruits were being enlisted for the
army. The military remained on duty all night in the neighbourhood of
Whitecross Street, and effectually checked the rioters in the wanton
destruction of property. The next night they were again on duty, this
time in Shoe Lane, where they succeeded in dispelling a mob. For these
services they were not only thanked by the mayor, but, more formally,
by the Common Council, the latter body extending its acknowledgments to
the light horse volunteers, as well as to the Military Association at
Grocers' Hall, for their respective services during the crisis.[574]
[Sidenote: Scarcity of wheat, 1795.]
To add to the City's troubles a famine was threatening, and on the last
day of the year (1794) the lord mayor received instructions to confer
with the Duke of Portland (he had recently joined the ministry) as to
the best means of averting the calamity.[575] In the course of the next
twelvemonth the City voted two sums of £1,000 for the relief of the
poor.[576] There was even some talk of discontinuing all Corporation
dinners for one whole year, in order that the money thus saved might be
devoted to the poor; but the civic fathers had not the courage to adopt
such a self-denying ordinance, although they consented to a compromise.
They agreed that no committee should dine at the City's expense between
the 16th July and the 1st October.[577] More than this they could not
do.
[Sidenote: "Standard bread."]
In the hope of affording some relief the Lords of the Council proposed
to put a stop to the use of fine flour for baking purposes, and to
substitute a coarse but wholesome bread known as "standard wheaten
bread" for the better class of bread. Their lordships themselves set
an excellent example by signing a document pledging themselves and
their families to use no other bread than standard wheaten bread
until the following 1st October (by which time the harvest would have
been gathered in), and to avoid as far as possible the use of flour
in other articles of food. They further expressed a hope that their
example might be generally followed. There was a difficulty, however,
in adopting the standard wheaten bread in the city, where the assise of
bread was regularly set by the mayor and aldermen. One reason against
it was that its price as fixed by Statute was so low that bakers
could not afford to make it, and penalties were attached to its sale
at a higher price. The Lords of the Council were asked if they would
indemnify bakers against such penalties if they infringed the Statute?
They replied that this was beyond their power, but they suggested that
the City might well make good any loss the trade might sustain, out of
public subscriptions.[578]
[Sidenote: The City's desire for peace, Jan., 1795.]
The scarcity of wheat and the prospect of a bad harvest in 1795, had
already predisposed the citizens for a cessation of hostilities abroad.
As early as the 23rd January, 1795, a special Common Hall had been
summoned by request, and a petition to the House of Commons had been
drawn up praying the House to disclaim all right of interference in the
internal concerns of France, and to take such measures as it should
seem fit to bring about a speedy peace. The war, they said, ought never
to have been entered upon and was based on a wrong principle.[579] The
Common Council were more reserved, and, whilst assuring the king of
their support, expressed a desire for such a peace only as could be
procured with dignity and honour.[580]
[Sidenote: Assault on the king, 29 Oct., 1795.]
As the year wore on and distress increased, the cry for peace became
more general, and the government resolved upon an Autumn Session.
Matters indeed had become so serious that when the king drove down to
Westminster to open Parliament he was assailed on all sides with cries
of "bread, bread! peace, peace!" and his carriage window was broken by
a pebble or bullet. On his return he was again met with similar shouts,
and he escaped with difficulty to Buckingham Palace. The Common Council
at once offered their congratulations on his providential escape, and
expressed their horror at the attack that had been made upon him.
They at the same time embraced the opportunity, thus afforded, of
thanking him for the declaration he had made of giving "the fullest and
speediest effect to a negotiation for a general peace," whenever the
condition of affairs in France would allow of it.[581] In consequence
of this ebullition of public feeling, Pitt introduced and passed two
Bills, commonly known as the Sedition and Treason Bills. The severity
of these Bills was thought by many to be unreasonable, and brought much
obloquy upon the minister; but the necessity of some such steps being
taken to put down sedition was acknowledged by the Common Council.[582]
[Sidenote: Negotiations for peace, 1796.]
In December (1795), Pitt brought a royal message to Parliament
declaring that the establishment of a new constitution (viz., the
Directory) in France offered facilities for negotiations,[583] and in
the following March (1796), overtures were made through the British
envoy in Switzerland. They were, however, ungraciously received, and
matters remained as they were until the following October, when the
king notified his intention to the new Parliament of despatching a
minister to Paris for the purpose of re-opening negotiations. By a
certain section of the Common Council the news was received with
anything but favour, and they would gladly have seen Pitt dismissed.
The majority, however, preferred to present a loyal address to the
king, assuring him that in the event of the negotiations failing he
might depend upon the City for future support in any crisis that might
arise. The king thanked the City.[584] As was feared, the negotiations
again proved fruitless. France was all the while preparing to make a
descent on Ireland, and as soon as these preparations were complete,
the British ambassador was abruptly ordered to quit Paris (19 Dec.).
[Sidenote: The "Loyalty Loan" of £18,000,000 Dec., 1796.]
Thanks to the minister at the head of affairs the crisis did not find
England unprepared. Fresh levies had already been made, both for the
army and the navy; supplementary corps of militia had been raised, and
plans laid for forming bodies of irregular infantry and cavalry. One
thing only was wanting, and that was money. In order to raise this,
Pitt at first thought of introducing a Bill to compel all persons
enjoying a certain amount of income to subscribe one-fourth for the
service of the country. On second thoughts, however, he preferred to
trust to the patriotic spirit of the nation. He believed that many
would be found ready to contribute even a larger proportion of their
income if only an example were set by the Bank of England and the
Corporation of London. The sum required was large, being no less than
£18,000,000, and the terms he had to offer were scarcely remunerative.
On the last day of November he addressed a letter to the governor
of the Bank of England, desiring him to lay the proposal before the
directors, and at the same time expressing a hope that they might
"not be disinclined to take the lead in a measure which must have the
most beneficial effect on public credit and the most evident tendency
to accelerate the restoration of peace on secure and honourable
terms."[585]
[Sidenote: Pitt's letter to the lord mayor, 1 Dec., 1796.]
The next day (1 Dec.) he wrote to the lord mayor, urging him to lay
the matter before the Common Council;--"The repeated proofs which the
citizens of London have given of their zeal and public spirit leave
me no doubt that if it appears likely to promote the interests of
the country at this important crisis, it will receive their cheerful
support in their individual capacity, as well as that of the corporate
body and of the different public companies. It is unnecessary for me
to state the effect which such an example would produce throughout the
kingdom." To this the mayor (Brook Watson) replied that previous to the
receipt of the letter he had been desired by a number of members to
call a Common Council as soon as possible to consider the grant of an
aid to government at the present crisis, and that he had in consequence
summoned a court for the following Monday (5 Dec.).[586]
[Sidenote: The loan subscribed.]
For once the Corporation found themselves left in the lurch. Long
before the time named for the Common Council to consider Pitt's
proposal the directors of the Bank of England had met, public
subscriptions had been invited, and the whole loan of eighteen millions
had been subscribed. Here is an account by a contemporary writer of
the scene witnessed in the Bank on Thursday, the 1st December, and two
following days[587];--"At ten o'clock this morning [1 Dec.] the parlour
doors were opened, before which time the lobby was crowded. Numbers
could not get near the books at all; while others, to testify their
zeal, called to the persons at the books then signing to put down their
names for them, as they were fearful of being shut out. At about twenty
minutes past eleven the subscription was declared to be completely
full, and hundreds in the room were reluctantly obliged to go away. By
the post innumerable orders came from the country for subscriptions to
be put down, scarcely one of which could be executed. And long after
the subscription was closed persons continued coming, and were obliged
to depart disappointed. It is a curious fact, and well worth stating,
that the subscription completely filled in fifteen hours and twenty
minutes: two hours on Thursday, six ditto on Friday, six ditto on
Saturday and one ditto and twenty minutes on Monday--fifteen hours and
twenty minutes." The directors of the Bank subscribed one million in
their corporate capacity and £400,000 individually. The Common Council
finding themselves left out in the cold, scarcely knew what to do. At
first a somewhat pompous proposal was made for a committee to "prepare
a plan for assisting the exigencies of the state in the present
conjuncture." This, however, fell through, and the court finally
contented itself with voting a sum of £100,000 towards the loan.[588]
[Sidenote: The City and foreign subsidies, Dec., 1796.]
Pitt's method of disposing of public money, when he got it, was not
always approved by the citizens, more especially when it went to
subsidise foreign mercenaries, without any authority from Parliament.
Here, again, the livery and the Common Council entertained opposite
views, and whilst the former called upon the city members to move or
support a motion for censuring the ministry for sending money to the
Emperor of Germany during the sitting of Parliament without the consent
of Parliament,[589] the latter gave public testimony of their opinion
that such payments as had been made to the Emperor had been beneficial
to the country.[590]
[Sidenote: Suspension of cash payments, 1797.]
The constant drain of gold to the continent under Pitt's administration
again began to affect the Bank of England as it had formerly done in
1793. On the previous occasion the difficulty had been got over by
the issue of Exchequer Bills. Since that time the financial state of
the country had been going from bad to worse. A run on country banks
set in, resulting in demands being made on the Bank of England, which
threatened to exhaust its reserve. At this crisis the Bank applied to
the government. Pitt, with his usual promptitude, summoned a council,
although it was Sunday (26 Feb., 1797), and a proclamation was issued
suspending cash payments until Parliament should decide what should
be done. The next day a meeting of the leading merchants of the city
was held at the Mansion House under the presidency of the lord mayor.
They at once grasped the situation, and unanimously consented to accept
bank-notes as legal tender.[591] The Order in Council was subsequently
approved by Parliament, and though intended only as a temporary
expedient, the Act then passed continued in operation for twenty-two
years, the resumption of cash payments not taking place until May, 1819.
[Sidenote: Naval victory off Cape St. Vincent, 14 Feb., 1797.]
At a time when England seemed on the verge of bankruptcy, she seemed
also likely to lose her supremacy at sea. A plan was set on foot for
a junction of the French and Spanish fleets, whereby an overwhelming
force might be brought into the English Channel and an invasion
rendered comparatively easy. Both the king and the citizens expressed
the greatest confidence in the navy,[592] although there were not
wanting signs of discontent among the seamen. Fortunately the Spanish
fleet was intercepted by Sir John Jervis off Cape St. Vincent; the
British sailors forgot their grievances in the presence of the enemy,
and a signal victory was won (14 Feb.), for which Jervis received the
thanks of the City and a sword of honour, whilst Nelson and others
serving under him were voted the Freedom and gold boxes.[593]
[Sidenote: Address of the livery, 23 March, 1797.]
Although the Common Council--_i.e._, the City in its corporate
capacity--were satisfied that the king had done all that was possible
to procure an honourable peace, the livery were far from content.
Again, they drew up an address to the king demanding the instant
dismissal of his ministers, and once more they made an attempt to get
their address received by the king on the throne. The king, however,
stood out, and all that the livery could do was to pass resolutions
in their Common Hall to the effect that they had always possessed the
privilege they claimed, and that it had never been questioned "except
under the corrupt and infamous administration" of those who were
responsible for the American war.[594]
[Sidenote: Mutiny at the Nore, May, 1797.]
All immediate danger from the foreign enemy being over, the crews of
the Channel Fleet at Portsmouth broke out into open mutiny. Their
grievances were real, and as soon as they were assured of a remedy they
returned to their duty. No sooner was one mutiny quelled, however, than
another broke out at the Nore and threatened danger to London. The two
movements were entirely distinct, and the sailors at Spithead expressed
their strong disapproval of the conduct of their fellow seamen at the
Nore. The danger was none the less. The Common Council resolved (6
June) to form ward associations for the defence of the city, but only
one association, viz., the "Cornhill Military Association," appears to
have been actually formed, and that comprised no more than fifty-three
members.[595]
[Sidenote: Duncan's victory off Camperdown, 11 Oct., 1797.]
The mutiny soon spread to the fleet off the Texel where Admiral Duncan
was stationed for the purpose of preventing a junction between the
French and the Dutch. Many of the ships sailed away to join the fleet
at the Nore and Duncan was left in great straits. Nevertheless he
still continued to make a show of force, and after the suppression
of the mutiny, had the satisfaction of defeating the Dutch fleet off
Camperdown (11 Oct.), and so putting an end to another projected
invasion of Ireland. The Common Council presented a congratulatory
address to the king; passed votes of thanks and presented swords of
honour to Duncan and Sir Richard Onslow, and contributed £500 for the
relief of the wounded and the widows and orphans of those who had
fallen.[596]
[Sidenote: Thanksgiving service at St. Paul's, 19 Dec., 1797.]
Three such naval victories as those achieved by Howe, Jervis, and
Duncan, deserved a solemn service of thanksgiving at St. Paul's, and on
Saturday, the 25th November, the lord mayor received orders from the
Duke of Portland to prepare for the king's reception in the city.[597]
Tuesday, the 19th December, was the day fixed for the ceremony, and on
that day the king and queen, the royal family, the cabinet and foreign
ministers, the two Houses of Parliament, and a large body of naval
officers and seamen came in solemn procession to the city, being met
at Temple Bar by the mayor, sheriffs, and a deputation of the Common
Council.[598] The gallant Duncan received an ovation, but Pitt was
so grossly insulted on his way to the city that after the ceremony,
instead of returning in his own carriage as he came, he betook himself
to some friends in Doctors Commons and there dined, being afterwards
conveyed home under military escort.[599]
[Sidenote: Dispute as to command of London militia, 1797-1798.]
The occasion caused a re-opening of the question as to the command of
the London militia. Was the command vested in the lord mayor or in
the Court of Lieutenancy?[600] The latter body had claimed to have
the disposition of troops brought into the city to keep order on
thanksgiving day. The lord mayor conceived such a claim to be opposed
to his own prerogative, and he at once communicated with the Duke of
York desiring his royal highness to order up the regiment of militia
then quartered at Greenwich, and to place it for the day under his (the
mayor's) command, and that had accordingly been done.[601] The question
whether the lord mayor, for the time being, could on his own individual
responsibility, and without consulting the Court of Lieutenancy, call
out the London militia except in cases of emergency, was afterwards
submitted to the law officers of the City, and they unanimously
pronounced an opinion in favour of the lord mayor's contention.[602]
[Sidenote: Military associations in the city, 1798.]
Except for the naval victories of Jervis and Duncan the year 1797 had
been one of the darkest in the nation's history. The war had lasted
over four years, and although it had already added a hundred and
thirty-five millions to the National Debt, Pitt found it necessary
early in 1798 to make another appeal to the country for a voluntary
loan. Determined not to be behindhand again, the Common Council at
once resolved (13 Feb.) to subscribe £10,000; but the money had to be
borrowed.[603] A third invasion was threatening under the command of
Napoleon Bonaparte himself. The Duke of York sent for the lord mayor
to learn what military associations had been formed in the city, and
was disappointed to find that only one existed (viz., the Cornhill
Military Association just mentioned), and even that had threatened to
dissolve itself when it found the rest of the city wards doing nothing.
It now resolved, however, to put itself into active training. In
April Secretary Dundas wrote more than once to the lord mayor urging
the necessity of forming as many military associations as possible.
The municipal authorities and the Court of Lieutenancy buried their
differences, and vied with each other in inspiring the inhabitants of
the city with military ardour. The Phoenix Fire Office offered its
firemen for military training, and every effort was made to bring the
militia regiments up to their full strength.[604]
[Sidenote: The Battle of the Nile, 1 Aug., 1798.]
Instead of making a descent on England Bonaparte sailed to Egypt,
seizing Malta on his way, and there he was forced to remain, owing to
the destruction of his transports by Nelson at the battle of the Nile
(1 Aug.). Nelson, a freeman of the City, presented to the Corporation
the French admiral's (Blanquet) sword, which lies in the Guildhall
Museum.[605] The Corporation, on their part, presented Nelson with a
sword of honour, and Captain Berry with the Freedom of the City in a
gold box. They also passed a vote of thanks to the officers and men
engaged in the action, and contributed the sum of £500 for the relief
of the widows and orphans of those who had fallen.[606] The City
further proposed to erect a suitable memorial of Nelson's victory.
Several suggestions were offered. Copley recommended pictures to hang
in the Council Chamber opposite his siege of Gibraltar, others were in
favour of sculpture.[607] All suggestions were set aside, however, when
it became known that a national memorial, in the shape of a Grand Naval
Pillar, or _Rostra_, to be set up on Portsdown Hill, was proposed,
and subscriptions invited. The Common Council at once resolved to
subscribe 100 guineas to the fund.[608] Contributions, however, came
in so slowly that the idea of a national monument had to be abandoned,
and subscriptions were returned, the City's 100 guineas being paid
over to the Marine Society by order of the Common Council.[609] On the
17th January (1799) the Honourable Mrs. Damer, a daughter of General
Conway, and a clever artist, offered to execute a bust of Nelson for
the Corporation, either in bronze or marble, in commemoration of his
recent victory. The offer was gracefully made and no less gracefully
accepted;[610] and the City's Art Gallery is enriched by an admirable
specimen of that lady's handiwork.[611]
[Sidenote: Pitt's Income Tax Bill, 3 Dec., 1798.]
Soon after Parliament met in November (1798) Pitt introduced his
financial scheme for the coming year. The principal feature of this
scheme was a Bill for imposing a tax upon all the leading branches
of income. The tax was professedly of a temporary character and was
to be employed solely to meet the exigencies of the war. Some little
opposition was made to the Bill both before and after it passed, as
well in the city as in Parliament. The Common Council objected to it
on the ground that it drew no distinction between the precarious and
fluctuating income arising from labour, trade and professions and the
more settled income arising from landed and funded property. They were
afraid also that unless the assessors were bound to secrecy a man's
credit might be unduly prejudiced.[612] In spite of all opposition the
Bill passed the Commons by a large majority on the last day of the
year, and early in 1799 was accepted by the Lords.
[Sidenote: The Siege of Acre raised, 21 May, 1799.]
In the meantime the situation of Bonaparte and the French army--shut
up as they were in Egypt--had become very critical. To complete his
scheme of Eastern conquest Bonaparte had marched into Syria. After
capturing Joppa, where he massacred his prisoners, he advanced to Acre,
the key of Syria. There he was met by Sir Sidney Smith, who succeeded
in throwing himself into the town, and at length compelled him to raise
the siege (21 May).[613] For his extraordinary gallantry in defending
the fortress Sir Sidney was accorded the thanks of the City and a sword
of honour.[614]
[Sidenote: Royal review of City volunteers, 21 June, 1799.]
On the 21st June (1799) the king himself came to the City, accompanied
by the Dukes of York, Gloucester, Kent and Cumberland, and officers of
the Life Guards, for the purpose of reviewing the several volunteer
corps of the City, drawn up in Bridge Street, Blackfriars, at St.
Paul's, the Bank, the Royal Exchange and on Tower Hill. The royal party
were met on the south side of Blackfriars Bridge, where the City's
jurisdiction commenced, by the mayor, sheriffs and city marshals on
horseback, followed by the grenadiers of the East Regiment of London
militia. The ceremony of delivering the City's sword into the king's
hands having been gone through, the inspection of the regiments took
place. The royal party afterwards repaired to Finsbury to hold an
inspection of the Artillery Company in their own ground;[615] and
in Sun Street, the limit of the City's jurisdiction, the mayor took
leave by lowering the sword. The Duke of Portland was subsequently
commissioned by the king to express to the mayor the gratification the
visit had given his majesty.[616]
[Sidenote: Capture of the Dutch fleet, Aug., 1799.]
Pitt, in the meanwhile, though failing in health, had succeeded in
forming a new coalition, and in August (1799), the whole of the
Dutch fleet fell into the hands of Sir Ralph Abercromby and Admiral
Mitchell. A series of reverses, however, quickly followed, and before
the end of November the allied forces, English and Russians, were glad
to accept terms and quit Holland. Some members of the Common Council
were for presenting a strongly worded address to the king demanding
an enquiry into the cause of the failure of the expedition, and the
punishment of the authors, but the motion was eventually allowed to
drop.[617] The Council had previously congratulated the king upon the
capture of the Dutch fleet.[618]
[Sidenote: French overtures rejected, Jan., 1800.]
As soon as Bonaparte heard of the new coalition that had been formed
against him he hurried to Paris, leaving his army behind him in Egypt
to shift for itself. Soon after his arrival he succeeded in putting an
end to the Directory, and in getting himself appointed First Consul.
He was now practically supreme, and on his own responsibility made
overtures to England for peace. These overtures were declined, to the
great disappointment of the livery of London, who again petitioned
Parliament against the prolongation of the war, which had been
undertaken, they said, for no other purpose than for restoring the
Bourbon family to the throne.[619]
[Sidenote: The Act of Union, 1800.]
The disaffection that had so long manifested itself in Ireland led at
last to the passing of an Act of Union. The subject was brought before
Parliament by the king on the 2nd April (1800). A Bill was subsequently
introduced and read a first time on the 17th June. On the 24th it
passed the Commons.[620]
The assent of the Irish Parliament was necessary for the scheme to
take effect. This occasioned some difficulty, but by a wholesale
system of bribery and corruption, such as was only too common in those
days, it was at last obtained, and it was agreed that the union of
Great Britain and Ireland should commence from the 1st January, 1801.
Thenceforth there was to be but one Parliament for the two countries.
[Sidenote: Bread riots in the city, 15-20 Sept., 1800.]
In the meantime distress in England had been increasing to an alarming
extent owing to the bad harvests and the consequent scarcity of wheat.
At the commencement of the year (1800), the price of flour had risen
to such an extent that the Court of Aldermen resolved to enforce the
consumption of the standard wheaten bread according to the Statute
(13 Geo. III, c. 62).[621] As time went on matters became worse. In
September the city was threatened with riot. On the night of Saturday
the 13th, the following placard was stuck upon the Monument[622]:--
"Bread will be sixpence the quartern loaf if the people will assemble
at the Corn Market on Monday.
"Fellow countrymen.
"How long will ye quietly and cowardly suffer yourselves to be thus
imposed upon and half starved by a set of mercenary slaves and
government hirelings; can you still suffer them to proceed in their
extensive monopolies and your families are crying for food? No, let
them exist not a day longer. Ye are the sovereignty. Rouse then from
your lethargy and meet at the Corn Market, Monday."
As soon as the attention of the lord mayor (Harvey Combe) was drawn
to the placard, he forthwith took steps to put down any disturbance
that might arise. The city constables were posted in the neighbourhood
of the Corn Market. The West Regiment of the city militia was held
ready for action under the command of Alderman Newnham, at their
head-quarters in the Old Bailey, whilst the South-East Division of
Loyal London Volunteers under the command of Alderman Curtis took up
its station at Fishmongers' Hall. The fact of inflammatory papers
having appeared posted on the Monument, and the steps he had thus
taken to prevent disturbance, were duly reported by the mayor to the
Duke of Portland, who signified his approval of the chief magistrate's
conduct.[623] At eleven o'clock on Monday morning word was brought
to the lord mayor that a crowd had collected at the Corn Market in
Mark Lane, and that business was impeded. He immediately set out,
accompanied by Alderman Hibbert, for Mark Lane. At the Corn Market they
were joined by Sir William Leighton and Sheriff Flower. Finding a large
number of people assembled who had no business in the Corn Market, his
lordship ascended the staircase and proceeded to address the assembly,
entreating them to go home, as that was the best way of getting rid of
their grievance. Thereupon he was met with loud cries of "bread, bread,
give us bread, and don't starve us!" On the whole, the mob appeared
fairly good tempered and cheered the mayor as he left for the Mansion
House. In the afternoon, however, his presence was again required, and
the Riot Act had to be read. Still nothing very serious occurred; one
man suspected of being connected with the corn trade received rough
treatment at the hands of the mob, and a few rioters were committed by
the mayor to the Compter for attacking the city marshal with bludgeons,
but matters soon quieted down and the mayor again returned to the
Mansion House to write a report of the day's doings to the Duke of
Portland as before. Whilst thus occupied, he was again sent for. This
was at half-past six in the evening. As the mob were at that time
beginning to display signs of mischief, he sent to Colonel Newnham to
have his men ready at a moment's warning, whilst he drew the volunteers
from Fishmongers' Hall, and with their assistance succeeded in clearing
the whole of Mark Lane and guarding its approaches. The East India
Volunteers, the Bishopsgate Volunteers, and the Portsoken also rendered
assistance. In the course of the evening the Loyal London Volunteers
were relieved by the militia; but nothing serious happened, and at one
o'clock in the morning the troops were withdrawn.
[Sidenote: Proceedings of Court of Aldermen, 16 Sept., 1800.]
On Tuesday (16 Sept.) the lord mayor gave a full account of all that
had taken place to the Court of Aldermen, and informed that body
that he had caused advertisements to be published offering a reward
of £100 for the apprehension and conviction of the person or persons
who had written or caused to be stuck up the inflammatory placards
on the Monument.[624] At the suggestion of the Duke of Portland the
amount of the reward was afterwards raised to £500.[625] The Court of
Aldermen passed a vote of thanks to the mayor for what he had done.
They also placed on record their opinion that, but for business in the
Corn Market being hindered by the mob, the price of wheat and flour
would have experienced a greater fall than it actually had done on the
15th, and further, that as nothing would more tend to the reduction
of the existing high price of the principal articles of food than the
affording protection to dealers bringing corn and other commodities to
the market, the Court was resolved at once and by force (if necessary)
to put down any attempt to impede the regular business of the markets
of the metropolis.[626]
[Sidenote: Letter of the Duke of Portland to the mayor, 16 Sept., 1800.]
Whilst the mayor was presiding over the Court of Aldermen a letter
was placed in his hands from the Duke of Portland, informing him that
the duke had instructed Colonel Herries, commanding the London and
Westminster light horse volunteers, to lose no time in placing his
services at the lord mayor's disposal. The duke at the same time seemed
to suggest that the lord mayor had been somewhat remiss in apprehending
the ringleaders in yesterday's disturbances.[627] The mayor sent a
reply that evening. He thanked the duke for his offer of assistance;
but he had no occasion for it, as the city was perfectly quiet. As to
his grace's suggestion that the arrest of some of the ringleaders might
have been useful, the mayor begged to inform him that four of them had
been arrested, and had been committed for trial. If his grace thought
that their prosecution by the crown would be more efficacious than by
the city, he would forward the minutes of evidence that had been taken.
The letter concluded by an assurance that at the time of writing (5
p.m.) the mayor had not the smallest intimation of any disorder in any
part of the city.[628]
[Sidenote: Precautions taken by the lord mayor.]
Notwithstanding the apparent tranquillity of the city, the mayor
received notice three hours later that a mob had gathered in
Bishopsgate Street and was threatening the premises of Messrs. Wood,
Fossick and Wood. In anticipation of some further outbreak he had
already massed troops in Drapers' Hall Gardens and at the Royal
Exchange, whilst he had given orders to Colonel le Mesurier to hold
the Artillery Company in readiness in the Artillery House. The colonel
thought fit to disobey orders--to the mayor's great indignation--and
on his own responsibility marched 150 men to Bishopsgate Street,
and sent orders for a party of the light horse to follow him. The
troops continued to parade the streets until nearly one o'clock in
the morning, when all fear of a disturbance having passed away, they
were withdrawn for the night, and the mayor went home to write another
report to the Duke of Portland.[629] Disturbances continued to occur in
different parts of the city between Wednesday, the 17th September, and
the following Saturday, but they were not of a serious kind, the damage
being chiefly confined to the breaking of street lamps.[630] After
Saturday the streets resumed their wonted appearance, and business was
carried on at Smithfield and the Corn Market as usual.
[Sidenote: The lord mayor's speech to Common Council, 14 Oct., 1800.]
The lord mayor of London for the time being has, as we have seen,
always jealously guarded his right to the supreme control over all
military forces within his jurisdiction. Harvey Combe was no exception.
When the colonel commanding the Artillery Company ventured to disobey
his orders during the recent riots Combe was justly indignant. He was
more indignant when, a few weeks later, the military associations were
called out without his orders on information of a likelihood of a riot
sent by the Duke of Portland to the police officers of the city, and
not to himself; and he laid the matter before the Common Council in the
following speech,[631] delivered on the 14th October:--
"Gentlemen of the Common Council,
"After the disturbances which existed within this city a month ago it
is very natural for everyone to be alarmed by the appearance of the
least symptom of their return. I have the satisfaction to state to this
Court that from the time I had the honor to sit here last [27 Sept.]
to the present moment I have not received the slightest information of
that tendency, nor has any one person expressed to me an apprehension
on that head. I should not have thought it necessary to have made this
declaration had it not been that a considerable agitation prevailed
in the city yesterday because the police officers round the city had
ordered out various military associations to assist the civil power in
consequence of information received from the Secretary of State that
riots were expected--no such information was given to me."
[Sidenote: City petition to king to summon Parliament, 16 Oct., 1800.]
The same day that the lord mayor thus addressed the Common Council the
Court resolved to present an humble address to the king praying him to
hasten the meeting of Parliament in order to consider the enormously
high price of provisions. To this the king replied that he was always
desirous of recurring to the advice and assistance of Parliament on any
public emergency, and that previous to receiving the City's petition he
had already given directions for convening Parliament for the despatch
of business. This was scarcely the reply the City looked for, and it
gave rise to much debate in the Common Council. When the usual motion
was made and question put that his majesty's gracious answer should be
entered in the Journal of the Court, an amendment was moved reflecting
upon the character of the answer received as one disrespectful to the
Court and regardless of the extreme sufferings and distress of his
majesty's subjects. This amendment was, however, negatived.[632] When
Parliament at last met, the question of remedial measures was at once
referred to select committees of both Houses. Nevertheless, the high
price of bread continued to exercise the minds of the civic authorities
for some time to come.[633]
[Sidenote: Pitt's resignation and the king's illness, Feb., 1801.]
Early in the following year (1801), Pitt resigned. It had been his
intention to introduce a Bill into Parliament--the first united
Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland--for the full emancipation of
Roman Catholics, and thereby to fulfil a pledge he had given before the
Union was effected. The king, however, displayed so much opposition
to the proposal, that Pitt could not do otherwise than send in his
resignation, which the king reluctantly accepted. The excitement caused
by recent events brought on a recurrence of the king's insanity, and
measures were taken for appointing a regent on the terms formerly
insisted on by Pitt. The king's illness, however, again proved to
be only of a temporary character, and when he recovered, the Common
Council who had recently presented him with a congratulatory address on
the Union,[634] deemed it best to take no notice either of his illness
or recovery.[635]
[Sidenote: Battle of Alexandria, 21 March, 1801.]
The new ministry, with Addington, the late Speaker, at its head,
was fortunate so far as the war was concerned. In March (1801) an
expedition under Sir Ralph Abercromby landed in Egypt and succeeded
in defeating the French army left there by Bonaparte. Abercromby was
killed, but General Hutchinson, who succeeded him, continued to act
with vigour, and was backed up by Admiral Lord Keith. The Common
Council voted (23 July) a sum of £500 towards the relief of the widows
and orphans of those who had perished in the expedition.[636] A month
later the town of Alexandria capitulated, and the French army was
allowed to evacuate Egypt. For these services the Freedom of the City
was conferred on Keith and Hutchinson, and the thanks of the Common
Council voted to the officers and men of the army and navy under their
command, as well as to Sir Sidney Smith, who had recently been mixed up
in the El Arish Treaty.[637]
[Sidenote: Battle of Copenhagen, 2 April, 1801.]
At sea the British government was no less successful. A few days after
the battle of Alexandria it became necessary to despatch a fleet to
the Baltic in order to break up a Northern confederacy formed between
Russia, Sweden, and Denmark, which threatened the interests of this
country. The fleet was placed under the command of Sir Hyde Parker.
Thanks to Nelson's insubordination in declining to obey the Admiral's
signal to discontinue action, the battle of Copenhagen was won. The
Common Council voted another sum of £500 for the relief of the wounded
and the widows and orphans of those who had died in the action, but
Nelson's name is not even mentioned.[638]
[Sidenote: Peace of Amiens, 27 March, 1802.]
Defeated in Egypt, and thwarted in her Northern policy, France was now
willing to accede to terms, and on the night of the 1st October, Lord
Hawkesbury, foreign secretary, was able to inform the lord mayor by
letter that preliminaries of peace had been signed that evening. On the
10th, he wrote again informing the mayor that the preliminaries had
been ratified.[639] The news caused immense satisfaction. Some time,
however, was still to elapse before the final ratification took place.
Negotiations to this end were carried on at Amiens, and although a
number of outstanding questions were still left unsettled, peace was
finally concluded on the 27th March, 1802, and proclaimed in the city
on the 29th April, amid general rejoicing.[640] The termination (as it
was thought to be) of a war which left the British navy "more proudly
pre-eminent" than the termination of any former war, called forth
another of that long series of loyal addresses which the citizens found
it their duty to present to the king in the course of his long and
eventful reign.[641]
FOOTNOTES:
[514] Journal 69, fos. 15, 16b-18b, 20-21. Common Hall Book, No. 8,
fos. 239b-240. In May, 1784, the Common Council petitioned Parliament
for its repeal. Journal 69, fo. 113b.
[515] Journal 69, fo. 65.
[516] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 246.
[517] Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 246b.
[518] Journal 69, fos. 67, 128. The gold box was not presented until
the 5th Feb., 1785. _Id._, fos. 265b-266b.
[519] Alderman Bull had died during the Christmas recess, and his place
had been taken by Brook Watson.--Annual Register xxvii, 179.
[520] Wraxall, Memoirs iii, 433, 434.
[521] Parliamentary History xxiv, 975-1006.
[522] The votes against Sawbridge's motion had been 199 to 125, whilst
those against Pitt were 248 to 174, or a majority of 74 in each
case.--Journal House of Commons, xl, 216, 863.
[523] Journal 69, fo. 223b.
[524] _Id._, fos. 248-249.
[525] Journal 69, fos. 249b-250.
[526] Journal House of Commons, xl, 1000, 1032.
[527] Journal 69, fo. 250b.
[528] _Id._, fos. 288b-290.
[529] Journal 69, fos. 330, 338b-339, 355. Journal House of Commons,
xli, 151.
[530] Journal 69, fos. 297b-298, 302-305.
[531] Repertory 191, fos. 74-79.
[532] Journal 70, fos. 132-133.
[533] Journal House of Commons, xlii, 289.
[534] Journal 70, fos. 134, 134b.
[535] Journal 71, fos. 48-49, 74b, 75, 93, 99-99b.
[536] Journal House of Commons, xliv, 276.
[537] Journal House of Commons, xlii, 266, 289. The city solicitor and
comptroller were specially commended for their services in preserving
the city's rights in the treaty.--Journal 71, fos. 17b-18b.
[538] Journal 70, fo. 303b.
[539] Journal 71, fo. 47b. Journal House of Commons, xliii, 166, 167.
[540] Journal 73, fo. 87.
[541] Journal 71, fos. 179b, 180, 188.
[542] _Id._, fos. 190, 190b.
[543] ID., fos. 186b-187, 190.
[544] Journal 71, fos. 212-213b, 216-216b, 221.
[545] Journal 71, fos. 221b, 222b-223b, 231b; Repertory 193, fos.
193-201, 206-215.
[546] The picture was painted as a private speculation by the artist,
and was offered for sale to the Corporation in 1791. The committee
to whom the matter was referred suggested that the City might give
200 guineas for the picture, not so much on account of its intrinsic
merit as because the artist was an industrious and promising man with
a numerous family. This suggestion did not meet with the approval of
the Common Council. It preferred to give the artist half that sum in
acknowledgment of his pains and to allow him to keep the picture.
Whether the artist thought himself thus sufficiently paid for his work
is not clear, but the picture for many years stood in the Long Parlour
at the Mansion House, where it served as a screen. It has recently been
restored, and is now hung in the lobby of the Guildhall.--Journal 72,
fos. 357b, 431-431b.
[547] Journal 71, fos. 253, 272, 274b; Journal 72, fo. 55.
[548] Repertory 191, fos. 363-364.
[549] _Id._, fos. 381-383.
[550] Repertory 192, fos. 201-203.
[551] Repertory 192, fos. 296, 308, 344, 394.
[552] Repertory, 193, fo. 34.
[553] Repertory 194, fos. 128-132.
[554] To this day the secretary of state for the home department
requests the sanction of the lord mayor before despatching troops
through the city, and when permission is given, it is on the
understanding that all troops (with the exception of the "buffs," who
claim to be directly descended from the ancient trained bands), march
without colours flying, drums beating, or bayonets fixed. As a further
token of the lord mayor's supremacy in the city, we may add that the
pass-word of the Tower is sent to him quarterly.
[555] Repertory 194, fos. 132-137, 150-152.
[556] Journal 73, fos. 144b-145; Annual Register xxxiv, 36.
[557] Annual Register xxxiv, 36, 39.
[558] Annual Register xxxiv, 44.
[559] At the close of his mayoralty he again received the thanks of the
Common Council for having hazarded his life in putting down seditious
meetings.--Journal 74, fo. 2.
[560] Journal 73, fo. 218.
[561] Annual Register xxxiv, 46.
[562] Journal 73, fo. 237.
[563] _Id._, fo. 249b.
[564] _Id._, fos. 255b-257.
[565] _Id._, fo. 273.
[566] Journal 74, fo. 2b.
[567] Committee Book, 21 Dec, 1793.
[568] Journal 74, fos. 126b-129b.
[569] Journal 74, fo. 172; Journal 75, fo. 33.
[570] Journal 74, fos. 172b, 174b.
[571] Journal 74, fos. 156b-157, 195b; Journal 75, fo. 5.
[572] Journal 74, fos. 170b-172.
[573] Stat. 34 Geo. III, c. 81; Journal 74, fos. 133b, 145b, 153, 178.
[574] Journal 74, fos. 187-187b; Raikes, History of Hon. Artillery
Company ii, 130, 131; Annual Register xxxvi, 25.
[575] Repertory 199, fo. 39.
[576] Journal 75, fos. 38, 239b.
[577] _Id._, fos. 181, 243.
[578] Repertory 199, fos. 363-366, 369-371, 387-395. Journal 75, fos.
238b-247.
[579] Common Hall Book, No. 9, fo. 50b.
[580] Journal 75, fos. 43b-44b.
[581] Journal 75, fos. 312-313b.
[582] Journal 76, fos. 25-26.
[583] A proposal had previously (5 Nov.) been made in the Common
Council to beseech the king "not to consider the Directory as incapable
of maintaining the relations of peace and amity." The motion was,
however, negatived.--Journal 75, fo. 312.
[584] Journal 76, fos. 309-311, 314.
[585] Journal 77, fos. 14b-15.
[586] _Id._, fos. 14-16.
[587] Annual Register xxxviii, 44.
[588] Journal 77, fo. 16.
[589] Common Hall Book, No. 9, fo. 72b.
[590] Journal 77, fo. 34b.
[591] Annual Register xxxix, 9.
[592] Journal 77, fos. 23, 36.
[593] Journal 77, fos. 83b-84.
[594] Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 75-76, 80b.
[595] Journal 77, fos. 195-196b, 353-354.
[596] Journal 77, fos. 264-266, 277, 305b, 388.
[597] Repertory 202, fo. 36. Journal 77, fo. 300b.
[598] Repertory 202, fos. 167b-169b. A picture by John Graham
representing the reception of his majesty at Temple Bar was offered
to the City by the artist for the sum of £300, but the offer was
not accepted. In 1798, after the battle of the Nile, Alderman
Boydell presented to the City portraits of Howe, St. Vincent, and
Duncan, together with one of Nelson, and these were gratefully
accepted.--Journal 78, fos. 61b, 94, 107.
[599] Annual Register xxxix, 83.
[600] The question had arisen in the month of July, when the Court of
Lieutenancy took upon itself to change the quarters of the East and
West regiments without consulting the lord mayor, but no decision had
been arrived at.--Journal 77, fos. 222b, 238b. Journal 78, fos. 60,
152b.
[601] Repertory 202, fos. 162-166.
[602] _Id._, fos. 308-316, 423-428.
[603] Journal 77, fo. 369.
[604] Journal 78, fos. 7-8, 82b; Repertory 202, fos. 231, 268-281.
[605] Journal 78, fos. 100, 100b. It was originally placed in the
Council Chamber with the medal struck by order of Alexander Davison,
Nelson's friend and agent, and presented by him to the city.--_Id._,
fos. 105b, 287b-288.
[606] _Id._, fos. 103, 106-107, 258b.
[607] _Id._, fos. 147, 150, 165b, 171-172, 196, 244, 267.
[608] _Id._, fos. 299b-301; Journal 79, fos. 160b-161.
[609] Journal 85, fos. 165b-166b.
[610] Journal 78, fos. 159b, 168.
[611] In May, 1817, Mrs. Damer obtained permission to have the bust
removed from the city in order to allow her to make an alteration, and
it was not returned until March, 1820.--Journal 91, fo. 159b; Journal
94, fo. 73b.
[612] Journal 78, fos. 157b-158, 204b-205.
[613] Annual Register xli, 35.
[614] Journal 78, fo. 320.
[615] Raikes, History of Hon. Artillery Company ii, 216.
[616] Repertory 203, fos. 308, 340-343; Journal 78, fos. 298-299.
[617] Journal 79, fo. 28b.
[618] Journal 78, fo. 314.
[619] Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 118-119.
[620] Journal House of Commons, lv, 362, 667, 694.
[621] Repertory 204, fos. 58-60.
[622] _Id._, fo. 412.
[623] Repertory 204, fos. 413, 418-420.
[624] Repertory 204, fos. 414-418.
[625] _Id._, fos. 423-425.
[626] _Id._, fos. 427, 428.
[627] _Id._, fo. 423.
[628] Repertory 204, fos. 432-434.
[629] _Id._, fos. 434-437.
[630] _Id._, fos. 439-446, 469-472.
[631] Journal 79, fo. 209b.
[632] Journal 79, fos. 215-217, 218-218b.
[633] Repertory 205, fos. 85, 319-328. Journal 80, fos. 113b, 125.
[634] Journal 79, fos. 255, 256, 283.
[635] _Id._, fo. 325.
[636] Journal 80, fo. 46b.
[637] _Id._, fos. 97-97b.
[638] Journal 80, fos. 46-46b.
[639] Repertory 205, fos. 644-646.
[640] Repertory 206, fos. 292-293, 458-465.
[641] Journal 80, fos. 219b, 237b-238b.