[Sidenote: Resumption of hostilities, May, 1803.]
The peace proved to be no more than a temporary suspension of
hostilities, and England's refusal to surrender Malta, which she had
recovered in 1800, and which she had covenanted by the terms of the
treaty to surrender to France under certain guarantees, served Napoleon
for an excuse to renew the war. On the 12th May, 1803, Lord Whitworth,
the British ambassador, quitted Paris, where he had been subjected to
much rudeness by the First Consul, and at the same time the French
ambassador was directed to leave London. Much as the City disliked war,
and eager as it had been for peace, the Common Council were among the
first to express their determination to support the king and country
"against the insatiable ambition of the French Republic."[642]
[Sidenote: Defensive operations.]
As soon as war was declared Pitt, after a prolonged absence in the
country, re-appeared in the House, and in an impassioned speech,
lasting two hours and a half, expatiated upon the justice and necessity
of the war. This took place on the 3rd May. Two months later (22 July)
he urged the House to take measures for the fortification of London
itself:--"If the fortification of the capital can add to the security
of the country I think it ought to be done. If by the erection of works
such as I am recommending you can delay the progress of the enemy for
three days, it may make the difference between the safety and the
destruction of the capital."[643] An army of reserve was already in
course of formation, and on the 28th June the secretary at war (Charles
Yorke) wrote to the lord mayor expressing a hope that a contingent of
800 men might easily be furnished by "the first city in the world."
The letter having been laid before the Common Council it was at once
resolved to furnish the quota desired.[644] In addition to this army
of reserve, which was to be 50,000 strong, the militia, to the number
of 70,000, were embodied, whilst 300,000 volunteers were enrolled. In
the city the _employés_ in the Bank of England formed themselves into a
regiment of volunteers, and the Guildhall became a drill-hall for the
various military associations.[645] Besides ten regiments of volunteers
and a cavalry corps, there were associations of River Fencibles and
Harbour Marines. The Common Council voted two field pieces to the
"Loyal London Cavalry" and colours to the other corps.[646]
[Sidenote: Renewal of the Income Tax.]
By way of raising supplies Addington brought forward a plan for the
renewal of the Income Tax, which had been abolished at the conclusion
of the Peace. The plan involved a distinction between incomes derived
from land and funded property and incomes derived from the more
precarious sources of trade and commerce--a distinction previously
advocated by the City--but Pitt offered so strong an opposition to the
proposal, although beaten on a division, that Addington gave way.
[Sidenote: Nelson's ungraciousness towards the City, 1804.]
A sharp look-out was kept in the Channel to prevent the embarkation
of the forces gathered on Boulogne heights, and all French and
Dutch ports were closely blockaded by Cornwallis, Nelson and other
naval commanders, whose services in this direction were handsomely
acknowledged by the City in March (1804).[647] Nelson alone, of all
the officers, showed dissatisfaction, and found fault with the City,
because, forsooth, he had been described as "blockading" Toulon.
Blockading Toulon! he had been doing "quite the reverse," so he
informed the lord mayor by letter, written on board the "Victory" the
1st August;--"Every opportunity had been offered the enemy to put to
sea, for it is there that we hope to realize the hopes and expectations
of our country, and I trust they will not be disappointed." Not only
did he ungraciously decline the City's vote of thanks, but he found
fault with the civic authorities for having omitted to pass similar
votes of thanks to Rear-Admiral Sir Richard Bickerton and Rear-Admiral
Campbell, an omission which the writer imputed to wilful negligence in
making proper enquiries.[648] The letter was referred to a committee to
consider and report thereon. As regards the first objection raised by
Nelson, viz., his having been represented as "blockading" the port of
Toulon, the committee failed to see in this representation, although
perhaps not technically correct, any solid reason for his not accepting
the vote of thanks, more especially as others who had been similarly
employed in different parts of the world had gladly accepted this mark
of the City's gratitude. The Common Council, however, preferred to
ignore the objection altogether and to let the matter drop, whilst they
tendered a handsome apology to Rear-Admirals Bickerton and Campbell for
having unwittingly omitted their names in the vote of the Court of the
26th March.[649] This apology, coupled with an assurance that there did
not exist a body of men in his majesty's dominions more sensible of
the distinguished services of these two officers than the Corporation
of London, was duly transmitted by the lord mayor to Nelson. That
gallant admiral remained, however, still dissatisfied, and before the
close of the year (27 Dec.) he again wrote from Toulon, complaining
of other omissions on the part of the City, and recommending that for
the future the municipal authorities should apply to the secretary of
the Admiralty for the names of all officers in fleets intended to be
thanked, and so avoid "such very unpleasant omissions." This savoured
too much of dictation. The consequence was that instead of remedying
the defect pointed out in the admiral's letter, the Common Council
merely thanked the lord mayor for having communicated the letter to
them.[650]
[Sidenote: Resignation of Addington and recall of Pitt, May, 1804.]
Meanwhile the state of affairs required a stronger man at the helm than
Addington. There was only one man equal to the task. That man was Pitt.
Between these two statesmen there was no comparison, except such as
Canning wittily drew:--
"Pitt is to Addington
As London is to Paddington."
For some time past the country had displayed impatience of Addington's
weak ministry and a desire for Pitt's recall; but Addington was loth
to acknowledge his own incompetence and stuck to office. The prime
minister of to-day has happily hit off Addington's ministerial method
in a single sentence. Addington's father had been a respectable and
respected family physician to Pitt's family, and the son--writes Lord
Rosebery in his excellent monograph on Pitt (p. 230)--"carried into
politics the indescribable air of a village apothecary inspecting the
tongue of the state." More than once indeed he went so far as to open
negotiations with Pitt through a third party, but the terms offered
were such as Pitt could not possibly entertain without loss of self
respect. Now that England was embarked on a fresh war, the country
became fairly aroused and the minister was forced to bow to public
opinion and resign (10 May). Pitt undertook to form a ministry, but
was at once confronted with difficulties from the king. It was Pitt's
wish that the new ministry should be a large and comprehensive one,
embracing both Fox and Grenville, but the king positively refused
to admit Fox, although he offered no great opposition to Grenville.
As Grenville refused to accept office without his friend, both were
excluded, and Pitt had to form a government as best he could on a
narrow Tory basis.[651]
[Sidenote: Proceedings of Common Council, 19 June, 1804.]
Soon after the formation of the new ministry, an attempt was made in
the Common Council (19 June) to pass a vote of thanks to Addington for
his recent services, but an amendment was proposed to thank the late
minister for having resigned office as soon as he discovered that he no
longer enjoyed the confidence of the country. The amendment further
expressed regret that the late "partial changes" in the government
appeared so little calculated to promote the interests of the nation
and to secure the confidence of Parliament and the nation at so
momentous a crisis. Before the amendment, however, could be put to the
vote, it was found that a _quorum_ was not present, and so "no decision
was made thereon."[652]
[Sidenote: Review of city volunteers at Blackheath, 18 May, 1804.]
On the 18th May, Pitt resumed the reins of government, having submitted
himself for re-election to his constituents at Cambridge. That same day
the First Consul, Pitt's arch enemy, was solemnly proclaimed sovereign
of the French under the title of the Emperor Napoleon. That same day,
too, witnessed the presentation of colours which the Common Council had
in October last (1803) voted to the London regiments. The presentation
took place at Blackheath, the lord mayor being conveyed down the river
in the City's state barge, accompanied by the commander-in-chief
and a brilliant staff of officers, and the troops being conducted
to Greenwich by the River Fencibles. One officer, viz., Colonel
Kensington, commanding the third regiment of Loyal London Volunteers,
declined to accept the colours, for what reason we are not told. The
ceremony passed off without any accident or confusion, but a banquet
which it was proposed to give the commander-in-chief and his staff
after the review could not take place in consequence of the London
Tavern being previously engaged, and time did not allow of another
suitable place being sought for.[653]
[Sidenote: Pitt's Additional Force Bill, June, 1804.]
It was quite clear that if the country was to be saved from invasion,
the military forces of the kingdom would still have to be greatly
strengthened. Before consenting to form a ministry, Pitt did not
disguise from the king the serious character of the situation. "It is
in the first place, evident"--he wrote to Lord Eldon for communication
to the king--"that zealous and united as the country appears to be
at this moment [2 May] in its efforts against the enemy, the present
contest may probably be of very long duration, attended with great
and heavy burdens, and likely to press severely on the resources and
conveniences of all classes of persons." Filled with these sentiments,
Pitt, as soon as he returned to office, prepared a measure for the
better defence of the country and for substituting a more permanent
military force for the existing militia. The Additional Force Bill,
as this measure was called, was no sooner laid before the House than
it met with the most strenuous opposition. The City, according to
the provisions of the Bill, would have had to furnish 1,600 men for
military service, but the Remembrancer, whose business it is to watch
Bills in Parliament affecting the City's interests, applied to have the
clause affecting the City struck out by an amendment in the House of
Lords, "it having been uniformly the practice for the city of London to
have separate Bills for such purposes." Two of the city members also
made similar applications. They were told that the objection came too
late to allow of any omission or addition being made to the Bill, but
that if the Corporation were desirous of having a separate Bill on this
occasion "they might prepare the same with such powers for raising
the men or money required as were more consonant to their accustomed
forms and practice."[654] In spite of the opposition of Addington,
Sheridan, and Fox, the Bill eventually passed the Commons by a majority
of forty-two, and was carried up to the Lords. There it was again
strongly opposed and was only carried by a majority of thirty-four. The
City took the advice offered and introduced a separate Bill on its own
account, and this also passed.[655]
[Sidenote: Artillery practice in Finsbury.]
Nothing could exceed the energy of the prime minister in superintending
personally the defences of the country, and although some of his
measures (as for instance the erection of martello towers along the
south coast and the cutting a canal from Hythe to Rye) could have done
little to check the advance of the French army had a landing been once
effected, the real value of such measures lay in the confidence and
energy which they excited in the people. Nor were the citizens less
energetic. The Artillery Company and the London militia, instead of
marching out to the suburbs for practice took to discharging their
field pieces in their own grounds in Finsbury, causing the houses in
the vicinity to shake and windows to be broken by the concussion. The
noise of their discharge frightened the horses of the frequenters of
the City Road--the Rotten Row of the East end--and disturbed those who
had sought ease and quiet, in what was in those days a respectable if
not an aristocratic suburb of the city. In July (1804) the annoyance
became so great that a formal complaint was made to the Common Council,
who agreed that the practice complained of should not be continued.[656]
[Sidenote: The French camp at Boulogne.]
Whilst the City and the country were for the most part inspired with
Pitt's enthusiasm, there were not wanting some who ridiculed the prime
minister for intermeddling in military matters, and for the anxiety
he displayed at the prospect of an invasion which they thought to
be in the highest degree improbable. "Can he possibly be serious in
expecting Bonaparte now!"--wrote Grenville to Lord Buckingham on the
25th August--although it was well known that Napoleon had himself gone
recently to Boulogne to view the army that had long been encamped
on its heights. He had even gone so far as to order a medal to be
prepared, bearing the words _Frappée a Londres_, in commemoration of
his expected conquest. Circumstances eventually led him to postpone his
descent on the English coast, but the project was far from abandoned.
[Sidenote: Disgrace of Lord Melville, April, 1805.]
Strong as Pitt was in the country he was weak in parliament. Before
the end of the year (1804) he sought at once to gratify the king and
strengthen his own position in the House by becoming reconciled with
Addington, who entered the ministry as President of the Council and
was created Viscount Sidmouth. The coalition lasted, however, but a
short time. On the 8th April (1805) Henry Dundas, now Lord Melville
and first lord of the admiralty, was charged with peculation, and had
to stand his trial in Westminster hall. The lord mayor claimed to have
a certain number of tickets allowed him to witness the trial, on the
ground that a former lord mayor had been allowed them to witness the
trial of Warren Hastings. He experienced, however, some difficulty
in getting them as he could produce no record of the mayor having
established his claim at the former trial.[657] Although the trial
resulted in Melville's acquittal, Pitt could not do otherwise than
advise the removal of his old friend from the Privy Council. It was
a bitter blow and one that he must have felt the more keenly when he
found his old supporters, the citizens of London, animadverting in
no measured terms upon his friend's conduct and congratulating the
king on his having rid himself and his councils of so obnoxious a
minister.[658] The unfortunate affair again caused an estrangement
between Pitt and Sidmouth, which ended in the latter withdrawing from
the ministry (7 July).
[Sidenote: The battle of Trafalgar, 21 Oct., 1805.]
Although misfortune continued thus to follow Pitt in the House, his
foreign policy promised well. Spain it is true had thrown in her
lot with France. On the other hand, Pitt had succeeded in forming a
strong coalition against the Emperor on the continent, and on the
21st October, Nelson succeeded in vanquishing the French and Spanish
fleets off Cape Trafalgar, although at the cost of his own life. On
the 13th November, the Common Council drew up an address to the king,
congratulating him upon the recent victory, whilst expressing sincere
sorrow at the loss of so brave a commander.[659] A fortnight later
they resolved to bestow the Freedom of the City with swords of honour
upon Collingwood and others who had distinguished themselves in this
action.[660]
[Sidenote: The funeral of Nelson, 8 and 9 Jan., 1806.]
Nelson's funeral afforded an opportunity for a solemn water pageant
such as has seldom been seen. On Wednesday, the 8th January (1806) his
remains were borne up the Thames, by barge from Greenwich to Whitehall,
and thence to the Admiralty. The mayor, aldermen and city officers
drove down to Greenwich after breakfast, and were there received by
Lord Hood. The City's barge had been sent on, and the barges of the
Drapers' Company, the Fishmongers, the Goldsmiths, the Skinners, the
Merchant Taylors, the Ironmongers, the Stationers and the Apothecaries
were already there. The lord mayor's barge immediately followed the
royal barges and the barge containing the lords commissioners of the
Admiralty. As the procession made its way up the river, with a slow
hanging stroke befitting the solemnity of the occasion, minute guns
were fired. The body lay at the Admiralty that night, and the next
day (9 Jan.) was brought to its last resting place in St. Paul's.
The whole of the military arrangements for keeping the streets of
the city were left in the hands of the lord mayor, and no question
as to his authority was raised, such as had been raised in 1797. On
the other hand, a controversy had arisen as to the position allotted
to the lord mayor in the procession, after its entrance in the city;
the mayor claiming to take precedence of all subjects of the crown
within his own jurisdiction in the city and liberties, whether the
king was present or not. The king was not to attend on this occasion;
nevertheless the mayor claimed the same precedence as if his majesty
were present, on the ground that in all commissions of gaol delivery
he was named before the chancellor, the judges and all other subjects
whatever. Time did not allow of the question being fully enquired
into at the Heralds' College, and the difficulty had to be solved by
a special royal warrant to Garter King-at-arms, authorising him to
allot the same place to the lord mayor that he would have enjoyed had
the king himself been there to receive the City's sword. When the
procession entered the city, the mayor accordingly took up his position
between the carriage of the Prince of Wales and the funeral car. At the
moment the remains were lowered into the crypt volleys were fired by
the troops, in Moorfields, by signal given from the gallery on the top
of the dome of the cathedral.[661]
[Sidenote: Nelson's monument in the Guildhall.]
The City having resolved to erect a monument to the deceased admiral,
the Hon. Mrs. Damer again offered her services. Her offer, however,
was not accepted, the Common Council preferring to submit the matter
to public competition. A number of designs were sent in, one of which
was especially recommended by a committee of so-called experts (not
being themselves artists). This was, however, eventually rejected on a
ballot being taken, and a design accepted, which proved to be by James
Smith, an artist who had studied under Flaxman, and who had assisted
Mrs. Damer. His estimate of cost was the lowest of five selected by the
committee of experts.[662]
[Sidenote: Death of Pitt, 23 Jan., 1806.]
Although the victory of Trafalgar had established England's supremacy
at sea and had effectually put an end to Napoleon's project of
invasion, the victory he subsequently gained (2 Dec.) over the allied
forces on the field of Austerlitz, completely shattered the coalition,
and made him all-powerful on the continent. The shock was too much
for Pitt, whose health had long been failing. Last lord mayor's day,
when news of Nelson's victory and death had recently arrived, he
had attended the banquet at the Guildhall, but at the cost of much
personal suffering. Once more he was received with acclamation,
and his coach was drawn in triumph. It was for the last time. When
the lord mayor proposed his health as "the Saviour of Europe," he
replied in one of the shortest, and under the circumstances perhaps
one of the most effective speeches ever delivered on the occasion by
a prime minister:--"I return you many thanks," he said, addressing
the mayor, "for the honour you have done me; but Europe is not to be
saved by any single man. England has saved herself by her exertions
and will, I trust, save Europe by her example."[663] With only these
two sentences--the last words spoken by him in public--Pitt sat down.
A month later (7 Dec.) he set out for Bath, and there he received the
fatal news. From that day his health rapidly declined. He recovered
sufficiently to be removed to a house he had hired at Putney, but on
the 23rd January he died.
[Sidenote: His funeral, 22 Feb., 1806.]
A month later (22 Feb.) the deceased statesman, whose praises Canning
had sung as "The pilot that weathered the storm," was laid to rest
in Westminster Abbey. The City expressed no wish, as at his father's
death, to be present in their corporate capacity, but the lord mayor
attended in state, and that there might not be wanting in after years
(as in the case of Hastings's trial), a record of his attendance and of
the precedence allotted him on this occasion, he caused the facts to be
entered in the minutes of the Court of Aldermen.[664]
[Sidenote: Pitt's monument in the Guildhall.]
In the meantime (6 Feb.) a motion had been made in the Common Council
to erect a monument in the Guildhall to the late minister. After
long debate, the motion was carried, but only by a majority of six
votes. A ward committee was thereupon appointed to carry the same
into execution. On the 28th, an attempt was made to stop all further
proceedings, but the court after further debate, decided otherwise,
and unanimously resolved that the committee should submit such models
and designs as they might think worthy, together with estimates of
expense. On the 18th September, five models were submitted to the
Common Council,[665] the estimates varying from £3,675 to £5,500.
Eventually, the lowest estimate was selected. The artist who had sent
in the model at this estimate, proved to be J.G. Bubb, of whom little
is known, except that he carved the sculptures in front of the Custom
House, and modelled the figures adorning the façade of the Opera House,
in the Haymarket, recently pulled down. The monument occupied the
artist for more than six years, and it was not set up in the Guildhall
until 1813. The inscription, written by Canning, bears testimony to
the affectionate regret with which the City of London cherished Pitt's
memory.
[Sidenote: City address to the king, 19 Feb., 1806.]
Upon the formation of a new ministry with Grenville as prime minister,
and Fox as foreign secretary, the Common Council presented an address
to the king, offering their sincere thanks and congratulations "on
the formation of an administration, combining men of the highest
consideration and talents"--the administration was known as "the
ministry of all the talents"; they hoped that by such an union of
wisdom and energy in his majesty's councils, a policy of "vigour,
vigilance, and economy" would be pursued, and they promised the
king the City's support in every demand necessary for resisting the
unreasonable pretensions of Napoleon and for effecting a permanent and
honourable peace.[666]
[Sidenote: The City and Sir Home Popham, 1806.]
Whilst Napoleon was bent on forming on the continent a western empire,
England succeeded in securing the sea route to India by the re-capture
of the Cape of Good Hope from the Dutch. The importance of this
exploit by the British navy, under the command of Sir Home Popham,
was misconceived by the City, and a vote of thanks to Popham moved
in the Common Council was lost. The capture of Buenos Ayres, on the
other hand, by the same officer, was welcomed by them with extravagant
joy as opening a new source of commerce to British manufacturers, and
the Common Council not only accorded Popham and the fleet a vote of
thanks, but voted that officer a sword of honour of the value of 200
guineas.[667] Yet Buenos Ayres was shortly afterwards lost and never
recovered, whereas the Cape still remains one of the most valuable
possessions of the country.
[Sidenote: Battle of Maida, 3 July, 1806.]
The only military success of the Grenville ministry besides the
conquest of the Cape of Good Hope, was gained in the south of Italy,
where Sir John Stuart beat the French general Regnier at Maida. The
victory was the more welcome, because it proved to the world that "the
boasted prowess" of the French could not stand against well disciplined
British soldiers when fairly put to the test. The Common Council, ever
ready to recognise merit, voted Stuart the Freedom of the City and a
sword.[668]
[Sidenote: Fall of the Grenville ministry, March, 1807.]
The Grenville ministry did not last long. It showed a singular
inaptitude for war, but it fell on the question of Catholic
emancipation, the same question that had caused Pitt to resign in 1801.
In consideration of the king's increasing age and bad health, Fox
had given his word immediately on assuming office, not to bring the
question forward. Fox died in September, 1806, and early the following
year Grenville, who had given no such pledge, notified his intention
of bringing forward a Bill for throwing open all ranks of the army
and navy to Catholics and Protestants alike. The king looked upon any
assent that he might give to Catholic emancipation as nothing less
than an infringement of his coronation oath, and he conscientiously
and consistently opposed every measure tending in that direction. A
certain section of the Common Council was also opposed to the Bill
as subversive of the constitution, but a motion to move parliament
against the Bill was rejected.[669] Not satisfied with the withdrawal
of Grenville's Bill the king in his morbid sensibility, insisted upon
a promise that he would never bring forward a similar measure again--a
promise that no constitutional minister could give. Thereupon he was
summarily dismissed (March, 1807), and the Duke of Portland became
nominally prime minister, although the leadership was virtually assumed
by Spencer Perceval.
[Sidenote: City address, 22 April, 1807]
Once more the "successors of the Roundheads" congratulated the king
upon his having vindicated "the glorious independence of the crown."
Owing to the state of the king's health, and more particularly his
defective eyesight, the City waived its right to present the address
on the throne; and only a deputation of the Common Council was
present.[670] A dissolution took place soon afterwards, when it was
found that not only the City but the country supported the king.
[Sidenote: The Berlin Decree, 21 Nov., 1806.]
Having devastated the continent to such an extent that both London and
the kingdom were called upon to contribute towards the alleviation of
the prevalent distress,[671] the Emperor had recently aimed a direct
blow at England by issuing the famous Berlin Decree (21 Nov., 1806),
forbidding all intercourse with this country, and confiscating all
English merchandise found on the continent. This was the commencement
of the "continental system" which ultimately proved more injurious to
Napoleon himself than to England.
[Sidenote: Napoleon and Spain, 1807-1808.]
The system was accepted everywhere except in Portugal, and Napoleon,
who had long fixed his eyes on the Peninsula, seized the opportunity
afforded by Portugal refusing to close its ports to England to wage war
not only upon that country but upon Spain. The city of London became
more than ever alive to the danger which threatened this country from
the "vast gigantic confederacy" established mainly for the destruction
of England, and the citizens set an example, as the king himself
graciously acknowledged (30 March, 1808), "of union and public spirit"
at this important crisis.[672] When Napoleon succeeded by a gross piece
of chicanery in setting his own brother Joseph on the throne of Spain
(15 June), the high-spirited Spaniards, rebelled, and sent envoys to
England asking for assistance. They were everywhere received with
enthusiasm, and the City offered them its customary hospitality.[673]
[Sidenote: City's address to the king, 20 July, 1808.]
Their appeal was not in vain. Money and arms were promised, to the
great delight of the citizens, who formally offered their thanks to
the king for granting his protection and support to a "high-minded and
gallant nation in defence of their dearest rights and privileges."
They declared that the king's solemn recognition of the Spanish nation
as a friend and ally against "the common enemy of all established
governments"--as they styled Napoleon--had excited in their breasts
the most lively and grateful sensations, and they assured him that they
would spare no sacrifice to assist in preventing "twelve millions of
fellow freemen from being accursed with the most galling and profligate
despotism recorded in the history of the world."[674]
[Sidenote: The City and the Convention of Cintra, 1808.]
A force was despatched to Portugal under the command of Sir Arthur
Wellesley; but no sooner had he achieved some success than he found
himself superseded by Sir Harry Burrard, who in turn had to give place
to Sir Hugh Dalrymple. The consequence was, that the good accomplished
by one commander was quickly undone by another, and in August a
Convention--known as the Convention of Cintra--was signed, and the
French army was allowed to return home scot free. This raised a storm
of indignation among the citizens, and the king to pacify them promised
an enquiry. He little liked, however, the City's interference in the
matter, and said so:--"I should have hoped"--he told the Common Council
who waited upon him--"that recent occurrences would have convinced
you, that I am at all times ready to institute enquiries on occasions
in which the character of the country or the honor of my arms is
concerned; and that the interposition of the city of London could not
be necessary for inducing me to direct due enquiry to be made into a
transaction which has disappointed the hopes and expectations of the
nation."[675] Wellesley and his two official superiors were thereupon
ordered home to give an account of their conduct, the command of the
army in Portugal being left in the hands of Sir John Moore, who soon
afterwards lost his life at Corunna.
[Sidenote: Scandal of the Duke of York, 1809.]
The Convention of Cintra and the retreat of Sir John Moore,
successful as that retreat had been, although costing him his own
life, discouraged the government which now was called upon to meet an
attack from another quarter. Early in the spring of 1809, the Duke
of York, commander-in-chief, was charged by a militia colonel named
Wardle, member for Okehampton, with having allowed his mistress, Mrs.
Clarke, to dispose of commissions, and having himself participated in
the proceeds of this nefarious traffic. The scandal was aggravated
by a public investigation before the entire House of Commons, and
although the duke was eventually acquitted of personal corruption,
he felt compelled to resign his post. His acquittal disgusted the
Common Council, who desired to place on record their belief that it
was greatly due to that "preponderating influence" of which they had
formerly complained. On the other hand they voted Wardle the Freedom of
the City in a gold box (6 April).[676] In the course of a few months
Wardle was himself sued by a tradesman for the price of goods with
which he had furnished a house for Mrs. Clarke. This put a new aspect
on the charges Wardle had brought and greatly diminished the feeling
against the duke, who was soon afterwards restored to office. The City,
however, still upheld Wardle, and not only refused to rescind their
vote of the 6th April, but placed on record an elaborate statement
showing how by his means, and in the face of unexampled threats and
difficulties, a system of "scandalous abuse and corruption, not only
in the army, but in the various departments of the State" had been
brought to light. This statement they ordered to be published in the
morning and evening papers.[677]
[Sidenote: The Walcheren expedition, July-August, 1809.]
The ministry had scarcely recovered from the effects of the scandal
before it received a fatal shock from the disastrous failure of the
Walcheren expedition, owing chiefly to senseless disputes between the
naval and military commanders. Canning and Castlereagh--the foreign
minister and the war minister--endeavoured to throw the blame on each
other's shoulders. They both resigned office and then fought a duel.
Their resignation was followed by that of the Duke of Portland, whose
failing health had from the first rendered him unfit for his position,
and who shortly afterwards died. His place was taken by Spencer
Perceval.
[Sidenote: The king's Jubilee, 25 Oct., 1809.]
The City was greatly depressed at the result of the expedition,
and there was some talk of the Corporation taking no part in the
celebration of the king's jubilee, his majesty being about to enter
upon the 50th year of his reign on the 25th October of this year. To
some members of the Common Council it seemed out of place to set apart
a day for public rejoicing at a time when the country was involved in
so much disgrace.[678] The majority, however, thought otherwise, and
the City joined with the rest of his majesty's subjects in offering
congratulations. The citizens could forgive much, if only trade were
good, and as to this they were in a position to assure the king that
notwithstanding the unexampled struggles through which the country had
passed since the day of his accession, its commerce was "flourishing to
an extent unknown in any former war."[679] A thanksgiving service was
held in St. Paul's, which the municipal authorities attended in state.
The City contributed £1,000 for the relief of poor debtors, whilst
twice that amount was forwarded by the king for the same purpose.
Resolutions were passed to illuminate the Guildhall and to go to the
expense of a City banquet, but they were afterwards rescinded.[680]
[Sidenote: City address _re_ Walcheren expedition, 13 Dec., 1809.]
The jubilee over, the City drew up and agreed to an address to the king
complaining that no proper enquiry had been made into the circumstances
under which the Convention of Cintra had been signed, as his majesty
had promised, and urging another enquiry into the causes of the recent
Walcheren disaster. The address was agreed to at a special Court
of Common Council held on the 5th December. On the 13th, however,
this address was set aside, and another and more temperate address
substituted for it.[681]
[Sidenote: The king's reply, 20 Dec.]
Upon the latter address being presented to the king, a short, dry
answer was returned, such as he was accustomed to give when displeased.
He had not judged it necessary, he told the citizens, to direct any
military enquiry into the conduct of the commanders of the expedition
at sea and on shore; but it rested with parliament to ask for such
information or to take such measures as they thought best for the
public good.[682]
[Sidenote: Address of the livery, 14 Dec., 1809.]
Before the presentation of the City's address a special meeting of the
livery took place (14 Dec.), when the original address agreed to by the
Common Council and afterwards discarded was adopted by the livery as
their own, and ordered to be presented to the king at the next public
levée. Then followed another of those unseemly wrangles we have had so
often to record. When the sheriffs proceeded to carry out the wishes of
the livery they found that for some years past no public levée had been
held owing to the king's failing eyesight, and when asked to do as all
others did--with the exception of the corporation of London and the two
Universities--and to leave the address with the principal secretary of
state, who would in due course lay it before the king, they refused.
[Sidenote: Resolution of the livery, 9 Jan., 1810.]
The matter being reported to the livery (9 Jan., 1810), they proceeded
forthwith to draw up resolutions condemning the king's advisers, and
these the sheriffs were ordered to deliver "into his majesty's hands."
The secretary of state very naturally objected to trouble the king any
further in the matter, as there was, in reality, no difference between
presenting an address and presenting resolutions. At the same time,
he signified his willingness to lay a copy of the resolutions before
the king in the manner adopted since the cessation of public levées.
This offer was refused. An attempt was then made to have the document
presented at a private levée, and the sheriffs wrote a joint letter to
the secretary of state informing him of their intention of attending
for the purpose at the next private levée, unless it should be his
majesty's pleasure to receive them at some other time and place. To
this the secretary replied that no one was admitted to private levées
without the king's permission; that he had laid their letter before
the king and that his majesty saw no reason for drawing a distinction
between the resolutions and the address; that had the sheriffs been
deputed by the body corporate of London, his majesty would have
received them differently, but he could not receive them at the levée
or elsewhere for the purpose of presenting proceedings not adopted
at any meeting of the corporation as such, without allowing others
the same privilege, and thereby exposing himself to that personal
inconvenience which the discontinuance of public levées was intended
to prevent. Thus baffled, the livery had to content themselves with
entering a formal protest against what they still believed to be a
"flagrant violation of city rights."[683]
[Sidenote: The City opposes proposed Wellington's annuity, Feb., 1810.]
A few weeks later (23 Feb.) when a Bill was before the House for
granting an annuity to Wellesley (recently created Viscount Wellington
for his victory at Talavera) the Common Council took the matter up
and complained to Parliament of the recent failure of the livery to
get their address received by the king owing to the misconduct of his
majesty's ministers, who had "placed a barrier between the king and
the people," and whose conduct was now aggravated by the proposal
respecting Wellington, made "in defiance of public opinion." Whilst
petitioning against the Bill the City assured the House that they did
so from no motives of economy, but from a sense that, notwithstanding
Wellington's indisputable valour, his military conduct was not
deserving national remuneration. What were the facts? That in the short
period of his service in Europe, not amounting to two years, they had
seen his gallant efforts in Portugal lead only to the "disgraceful and
scandalous" Convention of Cintra; while in Spain, notwithstanding his
defeat of the French at Talavera, he had been compelled to retreat and
leave his sick and wounded to the care of the enemy. No enquiry had
been made into either of these campaigns, although it was but due to
the nation that a most rigid investigation as to why so much valour
should have been uselessly and unprofitably displayed should first take
place before the nation's pecuniary resources should be thus applied.
In India Wellington had received ample remuneration for his services,
and at home he had held valuable appointments. As for making provision
for his family, none had been made for the family of Sir John Moore,
who had so nobly died.[684] This attitude of the City towards the Bill
becomes the more intelligible when we consider that Wellington at that
time had many enemies, both in and out of Parliament, and that his
military genius had not yet awakened recognition. When, a year later,
it was found that, owing to his skill, his patient self-reliance (for
he received but little encouragement from the government at home) and
his foresight, not a single French soldier remained in Portugal, the
City, like the rest of the nation, were ready to acknowledge his
"consummate ability, fortitude and perseverance," and presented him
with the Freedom and a sword of honour, despatching at the same time
the sum of £1,000 for the relief of poor Portuguese.[685]
[Sidenote: Sir Francis Burdett committed to the Tower, 9 April, 1810.]
In the spring of this year (1810) the question of parliamentary
reform was (after an interval of twenty-five years) again brought
into prominence by the committal of Sir Francis Burdett to the Tower
by order of the House of Commons. The House had recently committed to
Newgate a man named John Gale Jones for having published an attack on
its proceedings, and Sir Francis Burdett had questioned its right to
commit any man to prison. The consequence was that on the 6th April a
warrant was issued for the committal of Burdett himself to the Tower.
Burdett resisted the warrant as illegal, and had to be conveyed to the
Tower by an armed force (9 April). The ministry anticipated a riot, and
made application to the lord mayor for permission to quarter troops
in the government storehouses situate on the banks of the river. The
mayor, in reply, assured the secretary of state, through whom the
application had been made, that the city was perfectly quiet, but he
would consult his brother aldermen on the matter. The next day--the
day that Burdett was to be conveyed to the Tower--he wrote again to
the secretary, assuring him that the city continued quiet, but that
if necessity arose for military assistance to protect the government
stores he (the mayor) would allow the premises to be occupied by
troops, but only on the express condition that they acted under his
own directions or the directions of one of the city marshals.[686]
[Sidenote: Riots in the city.]
Unfortunately the day did not pass off without bloodshed.
Notwithstanding the care taken to conduct their prisoner by a
circuitous route instead of by the direct way through Eastcheap to
the Tower, the troops were severely handled by the mob both going
and returning. For a long time the soldiers exhibited the greatest
patience, but at length they were forced in sheer self-defence to fire,
and a man named Thomas Ebrall was killed and others wounded. The Court
of Aldermen were asked to offer a reward of £200 for the discovery of
the man who had shot Ebrall, on whose death a jury had brought in a
verdict of wilful murder against a guardsman, name unknown, but the
Court declined. They instituted an enquiry, however, into the whole of
the proceedings of the day, and after taking numerous depositions and
giving the matter their best attention they came to the conclusion that
the firing by the soldiers was justified.[687]
[Sidenote: Petition of the livery to Parliament, 4 May, 1810.]
The livery in the meanwhile had insisted upon a special Common Hall
being summoned for the purpose of taking into consideration "the
alarming assumption of privilege by the honourable the House of
Commons, of arresting and imprisoning during pleasure the people of
England, for offences cognisable in the usual courts of law," and
on the 4th May, they passed a cordial vote of thanks to Burdett for
having resisted the Speaker's warrant, and for having upheld the
right of freedom of speech. They also thanked the lord mayor for his
"constitutional endeavours to preserve the peace of the city without
the aid of the military." Furthermore, they resolved that the only
means left to save the constitution and the country was parliamentary
reform, which must be both speedy and radical, and they called upon the
people of the United Kingdom to join them in endeavouring to bring this
reform about. A petition to the House was then read and adopted, the
language of which was so strong that even the petitioners themselves
felt constrained to offer some kind of apology, and to declare that
by it they intended no disrespect to the House. After commenting upon
what they deemed an illegal and totally unjustifiable act of the House,
in committing Jones and Burdett to prison without legal process,
they proceeded to remind the Commons that so far from representing
the people, they were known to have been sent to Parliament "by the
absolute nomination or powerful influence of about 150 peers and
others;" that they had refused to examine the charge brought against
Lord Castlereagh and Spencer Perceval, two ministers of the Crown, of
trafficking in seats; that when, on a former occasion, it was averred
before the House "that seats for legislation in the House of Commons
were as notoriously rented and bought as the standings for cattle at a
fair," the House had treated the assertion with affected indignation,
and ministers had threatened to punish the petitioners for presenting
a scandalous and libellous petition. The petitioners, nevertheless,
had lived "to see a House of Commons avow the traffick and screen
those accused of this breach of law and right, because it had been
equally committed by all parties, and was a practice as notorious as
the sun at noon-day." Where, they asked, was the justice of the House?
Where its dignity? Jones was confined to prison for an alleged offence
which if committed against any subject of the realm, or even the king
himself, would have been made the subject of legal investigation; Lord
Castlereagh continued to be a principal minister of the Crown, and was
at that very time a free member of Parliament; Sir Francis Burdett
had been dragged from the bosom of his family and committed to the
Tower, for exercising the right of constitutional discussion, common
and undeniable to all, whilst Spencer Perceval continued a member of
the House, taking a lead in its deliberations, the first minister of
the Crown, and the chief adviser of the royal council. There was no
need, the petitioners said, to recapitulate to the House the numerous
instances of neglect to punish public delinquents, to economise the
public money, to obtain redress for the lavish profusion of blood and
money in the late Walcheren expedition. These and similar proceedings
required no comment. Under these circumstances the petitioners called
upon the House to expunge from its Journal all its orders respecting
Jones and Sir Francis Burdett, and in conjunction with the latter
to adopt such measures as would effect an immediate and radical
parliamentary reform.[688]
[Sidenote: The petition dismissed.]
Such strong language addressed to the Parliament of the United Kingdom
was more than some of the livery then present in Common Hall could
approve of, and they adjourned to the London Tavern where they drew up
a formal protest against what they conceived to be nothing less than
an attempt "to degrade the legislature; to alienate the affections
of the people from the Government, to produce contempt and distrust
of the House of Commons, to introduce anarchy, and to subvert the
constitution." The petition nevertheless was presented to the House,
but after considerable debate, and after a motion that it should be
allowed to lie on the table had been lost by a large majority, it was
dismissed.[689]
[Sidenote: Proceedings of Common Hall, 21 May, 1810.]
The rejection of their petition occasioned the holding of another
Common Hall for the purpose of maintaining the rights of the livery
constitutionally assembled. As soon as the Hall met (21 May), the
livery proceeded to pass a number of resolutions. They declared that
the recent protest had been signed by "contractors, commissioners, and
collectors of taxes, placemen, and place-hunters," and that its object
was "the excitement of civil dissension, the increase of public abuses,
and the further and fuller participation in the wages of corruption,"
by many of those who had signed it; that the right of petitioning,
which had been denied to the subject in 1680, and allowed and confirmed
in 1688 by the Bill of Rights, had again been invaded, and a new race
of _Abhorrers_ had sprung up, and that it behoved every real friend
of the country "to resist their mischievous designs by recurring to
the genuine principles of the constitution, and by using every legal
means for obtaining a full, fair and free representation of the people
in Parliament." They resolved, notwithstanding the rejection of their
last petition, to give the House of Commons every opportunity of
hearing and redressing the grievances of the people, and sanctioned the
presentation of another humble address, petition and remonstrance. This
new petition, which differed but slightly from the last, was presented
to the House on the 25th, and instead of being rejected, was ordered to
lie on the table.[690]
[Sidenote: The king's illness, Nov., 1810.]
Just as lord mayor's day was approaching the king suffered a sudden
relapse, owing in a great measure to the loss of his favourite
daughter, and became hopelessly insane. The question thereupon
arose whether the new lord mayor could, under the circumstances, be
sworn before the barons of the exchequer. Counsel were of opinion
that this was the proper course to pursue and the incoming mayor
was so sworn.[691] There was no pageant owing to the death of the
princess.[692]
[Sidenote: His statue in the Council Chamber.]
A few days prior to the king's seizure the City resolved to place
his statue in their council chamber, in token of their sense of his
"endearing and amiable qualities."[693] The work was entrusted to
Chantrey who had already executed a bust of the younger Pitt for the
Trinity House Brethren.[694] The artist undertook to complete the
statue in three years, but it was not until 1815 that it was ready to
be set up. It originally bore an inscription written by Samuel Birch,
who was mayor at the time, but upon the removal of the statue to the
new council chamber, in 1884, the pedestal bearing the inscription was
left behind.
[Sidenote: The Regency Bill, Feb., 1811.]
The necessity of a regency soon became manifest, and in January, 1811,
a Bill was introduced for the purpose of appointing the Prince of
Wales. When Pitt introduced a similar Bill in 1788 he had displayed no
little courage in upholding the authority of parliament and imposing
certain restrictions and limitations upon the regency of the prince
whose character was none of the best, and the City had acknowledged
the wisdom of his policy and passed him a vote of thanks. At that
time it was a matter of uncertainty whether the king might not
recover, as recover he did, and there was danger of prematurely paying
court to the rising sun. More than twenty years had since passed
away. The king was now an old man and the Prince of Wales must, in
the ordinary course of things, succeed to the throne before long.
Parliament still wished to impose restrictions upon the regency, but
in a more modified form than in the former Bill. The prince, however,
was adverse to any restrictions and the City sided with the prince
against parliament.[695] In spite of their protest the Bill, with its
limitations, was passed (5 Feb., 1811) and the prince submitted to
take the oaths. A few days later the City offered him an address of
condolence and congratulation, and at the same time appealed to him for
redress of grievances and more especially for parliamentary reform.[696]
[Sidenote: The Freedom declined by Prince Regent.]
In May the Common Council offered him the Freedom of the City, but
this he declined on the strange plea that its acceptation would be
incompatible with his station as Regent. He made, however, a gracious
reply to the deputation which waited upon him to learn his pleasure
(he declined to receive more than the lord mayor, the sheriff, the
recorder, and the remembrancer, as being contrary to precedent), and
assured them that it was his earnest desire at all times to promote the
interest and welfare of the ancient corporation.[697]
[Sidenote: Proposed reform meeting at the Guildhall, 3 June, 1811.]
The regency being thus settled the "friends of parliamentary reform"
appointed a committee (May, 1811) to organise a meeting in London.
The meeting was to take place on Whit Monday (3 June) and was to be
attended by delegates from all parts of the kingdom. The Common Council
were disposed to accede to a request for the use of the Guildhall for
the purpose of the meeting, but upon representation being made to them
by the Court of Aldermen, and by some of the livery, that such a course
would be without precedent as well as dangerous to the peace of the
city, the permission was withdrawn.[698]
[Sidenote: Address of the livery to the Regent, 26 Mar., 1812.]
As time wore on and the livery who had confessedly looked upon the
regency as the "dawn of a new era" found their hopes disappointed, no
change being made in the ministry and no reforms carried out, they
resolved to address themselves to the Regent. They accordingly drew up
a petition after their kind, and appointed a deputation of twenty-one
liverymen to attend its presentation (26 March, 1812). Not a word
was said about the petition being presented to the prince on the
throne. When the sheriffs attended at Carlton House on Wednesday, the
1st April, to learn when the Regent would be pleased to receive it,
they were told that he would receive it at the levée on the following
Thursday week (9th) in "the usual way." When asked if he would receive
the deputation appointed by the livery, the prince demurred. There
were "certain forms attending that," but he would communicate with
the secretary of state who would give them an answer. The next day
(2 April), secretary Ryder informed the sheriffs by letter, that no
persons beyond "the number allowed by law," to present petitions to his
majesty, would be admitted to the levée on the 9th, except the lord
mayor, aldermen, sheriffs, and city officers. The sheriffs, on the
receipt of this letter again came to the charge and represented to the
secretary of state--apparently for the first time, and on their own
responsibility--that the livery had expected that the Regent would have
received their address on the throne. What, moreover, did the Regent
mean when he said that he would receive it in "the usual way"? To this
query, the secretary replied that by the words "in the usual way," the
prince meant "the way in which the petitions of persons in general were
received, and not in which the addresses or petitions of the livery
of London had been received in some instances previous to the year
1775." He also added that the address and petition would not be read
at the levée nor would any answer be given, and, further, that only a
deputation of the livery, not exceeding ten persons, might attend. On
being informed of all this the livery were furious, but had to content
themselves as before, with passing a number of resolutions against the
advisers of the crown, etc., etc., and these the sheriffs were ordered
to deliver into the prince's own hands.[699]
[Sidenote: Address of Common Council to regent, 28 April, 1812.]
Ten days later (17 April), the Common Council drew up an address to
the prince, which proved to be such a formidable indictment of the
government that it was characterised by his highness (who presumably
received it on the throne) as one that involved "the total change
in the domestic government and foreign policy of the country." This
address did not appear in the _London Gazette_, as it ought to have
done according to custom, and upon enquiry as to the reason for this
omission, answer was made that "the _London Gazette_ was the king's
paper," and nothing appeared therein without the order of government;
that no such order had been received in this case; that nevertheless,
as it had been found to be usual to insert addresses of the Corporation
presented to the king with the answer thereto, the secretary of state
would give directions for inserting the last address and answer "on
account of the usage," and not as a matter of right.[700]
[Sidenote: Assassination of Spencer Perceval, 11 May, 1812.]
Dissatisfied as the citizens were with the ministry, they nevertheless
viewed with horror the dastardly assassination of Spencer Perceval
in the lobby of the House of Commons (11 May), and both the Court of
Aldermen and the Common Council presented addresses on the subject to
the Prince Regent.[701] As soon as news of the outrage reached the
lord mayor, he dispatched messengers to the House for confirmation of
the report, and at the same time sent his chaplain to the secretaries
of state for further particulars. The city marshals were immediately
ordered to take steps for calling out the watch and ward, and to report
every half-hour to the Mansion House. All that night a double patrol
was kept, and half-hourly reports sent in until daylight. At eight
o'clock the following morning, the East Regiment of London militia
mustered at head-quarters in case of an outbreak,[702] but it soon
became known that the outrage was the work of a single individual--one
Bellingham, a Liverpool broker, with some real or fancied
grievance--and not of a political conspiracy as was at first believed.
The assassin was convicted and hanged within a week. All the ministers
resigned, and an attempt was made to construct a Whig cabinet, but it
failed and Lord Liverpool became premier.
[Sidenote: The Battle of Salamanca, 22 July, 1812.]
In June, Napoleon entered Russia, and Wellington prepared to carry
out offensive operations in Spain. In the following month (22 July)
the latter defeated the French general, Marmont, at Salamanca, and
afterwards entered Madrid in triumph. For his victory at Salamanca,
the Common Council added a gold box to the Freedom of the City already
accorded to him but not yet conferred;[703] whilst later on they
voted a sum of £2,000 in aid of the sufferers from Napoleon's Russian
invasion.[704]
[Sidenote: The "Shannon" and "Chesapeake," 1 June, 1813.]
The year 1813 found England at war, not only with France but with
America. For some time past the United States had felt aggrieved at
certain Orders in Council which had been issued by way of retaliation
for the famous Berlin decree; and in contravention of these orders
they had insisted on the doctrine that a neutral flag made free goods.
The orders had been revoked in favour of America in June, 1812, but
the concession came too late, and war had been declared. An attempt to
draw off Canada from her allegiance failed, but at sea the Americans
succeeded in capturing some of our frigates. At length, a duel was,
by arrangement, fought outside Boston harbour, between the English
vessel "Shannon," Captain Broke in command, and the American frigate
"Chesapeake." The vessels were well matched, but the action which
took place on the 1st June (1813), lasted little more than a quarter
of an hour. It was reported at the time that an explosion took place
on the "Chesapeake," and that it was owing to this rather than to
any superiority in courage or tactics on the part of the crew of the
English vessel that the American was made a prize.[705] But, however,
this may have been, the honour of the day rested with Captain Broke,
who was presented with the Freedom of the City and a sword of the value
of 100 guineas.[706] The unhappy war was not brought to a close until
December (1814).
[Sidenote: Treaty of Paris, May, 1814.]
In the meantime, Napoleon had met with a series of unprecedented
reverses, and been forced to abdicate; Louis XVIII had succeeded to
his murdered brother's throne, and peace between England and France
had been signed at Paris (May, 1814). The City presented a long
congratulatory address to the Prince Regent, on the fall of Napoleon
and the accession of Louis to the throne.[707] Swords of honour were
showered on foreign officers,[708] whilst our royal allies, the czar
of Russia and the king of Prussia, as well as the new French king
were presented with congratulatory addresses, and with the Prince
Regent magnificently entertained by the citizens at the Guildhall (18
June).[709] Two days later the peace was proclaimed in the city with
the same formalities as those used in the proclamation of peace with
France and Spain, in 1783,[710] and on Thursday, the 7th July, a solemn
thanksgiving service was held in St. Paul's, and was attended by the
Regent.[711]
[Sidenote: The Duke of Wellington at the Guildhall, 9 July, 1814.]
The entertainment at the Guildhall was followed at a short interval
(9 July) by another given to the Duke of Wellington, when opportunity
was taken of presenting him with the Freedom of the City, which he
had hitherto been unable to "take up," as also with the sword of
honour and gold box already voted to him. The second entertainment was
scarcely less brilliant than the former, the general arrangements and
decorations being the same on both occasions.[712]
[Sidenote: Petition Common Council for abolition of slave trade, 4
July, 1814.]
Before the terms of peace were actually settled, the House of Commons
embraced the opportunity of addressing the Regent upon the advisability
of provision being made against the revival of the slave trade in
those parts which were about to be ceded to France.[713] Ever since
1792 Bills had from time to time been introduced, with the view of
putting down or at least suspending the nefarious traffic, but with
little or no success, until in 1807 an Act was passed prohibiting
the slave trade, under a penalty of heavy fines. As this Act was not
sufficiently deterrent, another Act had been passed in 1811, making
slave trading a felony, and so the trade had, after a long struggle,
been finally abolished throughout the British dominion. Since 1792
the civic fathers do not appear to have taken any active part in the
matter; but when it became known that the peace had been concluded,
not only without any guarantee against the revival of the slave trade
in parts where it had been abolished by England, and which were now
to be ceded to France, but with express stipulations that the traffic
should and might be exercised in those parts for a certain number of
years, the City again took the matter up. A strong petition was drawn
up by the Common Council (4 July), and submitted to both Houses of
Parliament. They expressed the deepest regret that by such stipulations
"all the labours and exertions of the wise and virtuous in this
country, and all the enactments of the legislature," for the abolition
of the slave trade had been rendered useless and unavailing. After such
a formal recognition in the treaty of the right of France to carry
on the abominable traffic, it would be preposterous for the British
government to ask the assistance of other powers to put it down. The
petitioners, therefore, humbly prayed both Houses to take speedy steps
to impress upon his majesty's government the necessity of having the
obnoxious clauses rescinded.[714] A week later (11 July) the prince,
who, when originally applied to on the matter by the House of Commons,
had returned what was then considered a favourable answer, now assured
Parliament that he would endeavour to carry out its wishes.[715]
[Sidenote: Battle of Waterloo, 18 June, 1815.]
Early in the following year, whilst a congress was sitting at Vienna to
regulate the affairs of Europe, news was brought that Napoleon had made
his escape from Elba. Louis XVIII, the restored Bourbon king, who had
already become unpopular, fled to Lille, and Napoleon became once more
emperor of the French. His reign was, however, cut short on the field
of Waterloo (18 June). The allies entered Paris in triumph (7 July),
Napoleon took refuge on board the "Bellerophon," a British man-of-war,
and claimed the hospitality of the Prince Regent. It was, however, only
too clear that the peace of Europe would be constantly menaced were he
to be allowed his liberty. He was, therefore, removed to St. Helena,
and kept under guard. Louis XVIII was again restored, and negotiations
were resumed, which resulted in a second treaty of Paris (20 Nov.).
Once more the City offered congratulations to the Regent,[716]
and as the swords of honour, voted last year to Blucher and other
distinguished foreign officers, had not yet been presented, the lord
mayor (Samuel Birch) proposed going to Paris himself, with a small
deputation of the Common Council, and making the presentation--as he
said--"in the face of the world." Although he had received assurances
that every possible respect would be shown him, he eventually abandoned
the idea, and contented himself with despatching the swords to the Duke
of Wellington for delivery to their respective owners.[717]
FOOTNOTES:
[642] Journal 81, fo. 142
[643] Parliamentary History xxxvi, 1,661, 1,662.
[644] Journal 81, fos. 166-167.
[645] _Id._, fos. 171-172, 204.
[646] _Id._, fos. 219b, 231b.
[647] Journal 81, fos. 345-345b.
[648] Journal 82, fos. 54-55.
[649] Journal 82, fos. 97-98.
[650] _Id._, fos. 181-182.
[651] See Appendix to Stanhope's Life of Pitt, Vol. iv, pp. iv-xiii.
[652] Journal 82, fos. 27-28.
[653] Journal 82, fos. 34b-36.
[654] Journal 82, fos. 33-34.
[655] Journal House of Commons, lix, 406-422.
[656] Journal 82, fos. 44, 69b.
[657] Repertory 210, fos. 375-376.
[658] Journal 82, fo. 253.
[659] Journal 82, fos. 368-368b.
[660] _Id._, fos. 381-382.
[661] Repertory 210, fos. 54-62, 65, 102-168; Journal 82, fo. 393b;
Journal 83, fos. 12Ob-128b.
[662] Journal 82, fo. 380; Journal 83 fos. 117-118b, 144-144b.
[663] Stanhope "Life of Pitt," iv, 345, 346.
[664] Repertory 210, fos. 373-375.
[665] Journal 83, fos. 11b-12, 45b-46, 225-226.
[666] Journal 83, fo. 16.
[667] Journal 83, fos. 154, 233-4.
[668] _Id._, fo. 234.
[669] Journal 83, fo. 352b.
[670] _Id._, fos. 382, 384b, 388.
[671] _Id._, fos. 67, 151, 170-170b, 171b. Journal 84, fo. 96b.
[672] Journal 84, fos. 197b-198b, 201.
[673] Upon the lord mayor (Ansley) quitting office a vote of thanks
was moved for the hospitality he had shown the Spanish envoys, but the
motion was negatived. Affairs had not gone so well in Spain as the City
had hoped.--Journal 84, fo. 357b.
[674] Journal 84, fo. 294b.
[675] _Id._, fos. 333, 336b.
[676] Journal 85, fos. 79b-80b.
[677] Journal 85, fos. 201b-205. See Annual Register li, 457.
[678] Journal 85, fo. 258.
[679] Journal 85, fo. 279b.
[680] _Id._, fos. 277b-278, 291.
[681] _Id._, fos. 322-325b, 350. The substitution of a new address
in the place of one already agreed to was afterwards (8 Feb., 1810)
declared irregular.--_Id._, fo. 397.
[682] Journal 85, fo. 355b.
[683] Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 237b-243.
[684] Journal 85, fos. 420-422b.
[685] Journal 86, fos. 380, 380b.
[686] Repertory 214, fos. 307-311.
[687] _Id._, fos. 336-339, 373-477.
[688] Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 245-248b.
[689] Journal House of Commons, lxv, 346.
[690] Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 249b-253b. Journal House of
Commons, lxv, 410, 411.
[691] Repertory 214, fos. 772-812.
[692] _Id._, fos. 761-762.
[693] Journal 86, fo. 216b.
[694] Journal 86, fo. 332.--See minutes of committee relative to the
king's statue, 19 April, 1811.
[695] Journal 86, fos. 262b-268. Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 259-261b.
[696] Journal 86, fos. 290-291b.
[697] Journal 86, fos. 373b-374, 384-385b.
[698] _Id._, fos. 386b-387b, 400-405; Repertory 215, fos. 345-350;
Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 263-265.
[699] Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 272-277b.
[700] Journal 87, fos. 195, 196b, 204b.
[701] Journal 87, fos. 228b-23lb; Repertory 216, fo. 340.
[702] Repertory 216, fos. 338-339.
[703] Journal 87, fos. 397b.
[704] _Id._, fos. 438b.
[705] See letter from Commodore William Bainbridge to the secretary of
the navy. Dated Charleston (Mass.), 2 June.--_Examiner_, No. 294.
[706] Journal 88, fos. 114, 171.
[707] Journal 88, fo. 285b.
[708] Journal 89, fos. 45b-46.
[709] Journal 88, fos. 295b, 297b; Journal 89, fos. 42-45, 47-47b,
50-52b, 307b-320; Repertory 218, fos. 448-453, 472-481. A plaster of
Paris bust of the Czar was presented to the lord mayor, and set up in
the centre niche of the Egyptian Hall, in the Mansion House. Journal
89, fo. 93b; Journal 90, fo. 47.
[710] Repertory 218, fos. 485-487.
[711] Journal 89, fos. 39b, 56.
[712] Journal 90, fos. 71-80b.
[713] Journal House of Commons, lxix, 231.
[714] Journal 89, fos. 61b-64b.
[715] Journal House of Commons, lxix, 450.
[716] Journal 89, fos. 352-353b.
[717] Journal 89, fos. 368-368b; Journal 90, fo. 57b.