[Sidenote: The City opposes renewal of Income Tax, Feb., 1816.]
Now that the war was over, a period of tranquillity, prosperity and
retrenchment was eagerly looked for. The country therefore experienced
bitter disappointment when, on the resumption of the parliamentary
session in February (_1816_), the government declared its intention
of continuing to levy the income or property tax (which, from the
first, had been avowedly a war tax) although the assessment was to
be reduced by one-half. The citizens were among the first to express
their indignation at such a proceeding. The Common Council and the
livery passed a number of resolutions against the continuance of a tax
that was at once inquisitorial, unjust and vexatious, and both bodies
presented petitions to parliament against its renewal.[718] The Common
Council submitted to the House that having patiently endured great
burdens and privations during a war of unexampled difficulty they had
naturally expected that on the return of peace "they should have been
relieved from the burthens of war establishments and war taxes, that
at least the most obnoxious and oppressive of them would have been
removed, and they confidently hoped that by such reductions in the
public expenditure with the necessary reformations and the abolishing
of all unnecessary places, pensions and sinecures, there would have
been no pretence for the continuance of a tax subversive of freedom
and destructive to the peace and happiness of the people." The livery
for their part reminded the House that the first imposition of the
tax was accompanied by "the most unequivocal and solemn declaration
that the same should be withdrawn immediately after the termination
of the then existing hostilities," and they expressed the utmost
surprise and indignation at the government proposing to continue the
oppressive and odious tax now that peace had been restored. As for
the proposed reduction from ten to five per cent. the change so far
from being likely to render the tax less vexatious would produce the
opposite effect, and would, in their opinion, "be the occasion of the
most degrading and inquisitorial proceedings, worse, if possible, than
have been experienced under the former pressure of this heavy burden."
The outcry of the city was quickly taken up by the country, and such a
flood of petitions against the renewal of the tax poured in that the
government had to give way and the tax was abandoned.
[Sidenote: Agricultural depression, 1811-1815.]
At the opening of the session the Prince Regent had congratulated the
country upon the prosperity of the revenue and of all branches of
trade and manufacture.[719] As a matter of fact both the commercial
and agricultural interests of the country were in a very bad way.
The high prices produced during the latter part of the war by the
continental system, which virtually excluded foreign competition, had
been most disastrous to agriculture by encouraging a bad system of
farming, whilst they inflicted the greatest hardship upon all but the
wealthiest class. In 1811 the price of a quartern loaf--as set from
time to time by the Court of Aldermen, according to the custom of the
city,[720] "within the city and the liberties thereof, and the weekly
Bills of mortality, and within ten miles of the Royal Exchange"--had
risen to such a height that the Common Council presented an address
to the Regent (18 Dec.) praying him to take measures for re-opening
commercial intercourse with foreign, and especially neutral, nations.
To this the Regent replied that nothing should be wanting on his part
towards restoring commercial intercourse between this country and other
nations "to the footing on which it has been usually conducted, even in
the midst of war."[721] The average price of the quartern loaf, from
this period until the autumn of 1813, when the country was blessed
with a rich harvest, may be set down at 1_s._ 6_d._ It then began to
fall rapidly. Flour, however, kept up in price for some time owing to
the dryness of the summer, which prevented many mills near London from
working, whilst several of the mills which could work "were engaged
in answering the demands of government for the army abroad, and the
prisoners of war confined in this country."[722]
[Sidenote: The City and the first Corn Law, March, 1815.]
No sooner had the price of wheat fallen than a Corn Law Bill was
introduced into Parliament, in the interests of the landed gentry,
to raise it again. The Bill was brought in on the 1st March (1815),
and rapidly passed the Commons, in spite of protests from the Common
Council, as well as the livery of London, who objected to the
landowner, who had benefited by the war, being made richer at the
expense of the tradesman and merchant, whose burdens the war had so
much increased.[723] On the 21st the Bill passed the Lords, and only
awaited the Regent's assent to become law. Determined to make one more
effort the Common Council presented an address to his royal highness
begging him to withhold his assent.[724] They complained of the
"precipitancy" with which the Bill had been passed, and of the utter
disregard of public feeling and opinion which both Houses--composed as
they were of landed proprietors, to whom the war had been a source of
emolument--had throughout displayed. The Bill had been passed (they
repeated) in the interest of landowners, who already enjoyed sufficient
immunities, whereas the manufacturer and the merchant, who had done
so much to make England what she was, had to suffer from foreign
competition and the recent introduction of machinery. The Bill, if
passed, would keep up the price of food, and so drive the manufacturer
and artisan to foreign parts, and transfer the skill, industry and
capital of the kingdom to other nations. They prayed his highness,
therefore, to exercise his prerogative of refusing his assent to the
Bill. This he refused, however, to do, and the Bill became law. As
to the merits or demerits of free-trade, opinions are still divided;
but for thirty years after the passing of the first Corn Law the City
never lost an opportunity of declaring its opposition to the principle
involved,[725] and never rested until in 1846 the first steps were
taken for the abolition of all corn duties. However much others have
benefited by their repeal, one cannot shut one's eyes to the fact
that to the agricultural class the result has been little short of
disastrous.
[Sidenote: A year of general depression, 1816.]
Unfortunately the depression was not confined to agriculture, as the
Common Council took an early opportunity of pointing out to Parliament
in their petition against the renewal of the income tax (8 Feb.): "Your
petitioners are deeply sensible"--they told the House of Commons--"of
the depressed state of the agricultural interests and of the ruinous
effect of such a burthen thereon, they nevertheless beg to state that
the manufacturing and trading interests are equally depressed and
equally borne down with the weight of taxation."[726]
[Sidenote: Address of the livery to Regent, 21 Aug., 1816.]
As time went on matters became worse, and in August the livery resolved
to present another address to the Regent, calling his attention to
the prevalent distress, which they characterised as "unparalleled
in the history of our country," and which they declared to be "the
natural result of a corrupt system of administration," as well as of
the profligate waste of public money during the late war. An address
was accordingly drawn up (21 Aug.) praying his highness to lose no
time in recommending to the serious consideration of Parliament (1)
the distressed state of the country; (2) the prompt abolition of all
useless places and pensions; (3) the immediate and effectual reduction
of the standing army; (4) a system of the most rigid economy in every
public department, and last, but not least, (5) such a reform of
Parliament as should restore and secure to the people their ancient
constitutional rights. This address they ordered to be presented to the
Prince Regent "seated on his throne." The address was never presented,
for the reason that the Regent refused to receive it in any other way
than at a levée or through the medium of his secretary of state. The
livery therefore had once more to console themselves with passing a
number of resolutions after the usual manner.[727]
[Sidenote: The city flooded with vagrants.]
The streets of the city, meanwhile, swarmed not only with artisans out
of work, but, what was worse, with discharged soldiers and sailors. A
large proportion of the last mentioned class were foreign seamen. At
the close of the war the government had taken steps to send to their
respective countries all foreign seamen who had served on British
vessels. Many of them, however, had either declined the government
offer, or, having accepted it and obtained a passage home, had come
to England with the view of entering the English merchant service or
obtaining some other employment in this country. It was in vain that
the lord mayor (Matthew Wood)[728] applied to the foreign consuls to
send them home. The answer was that they had "forfeited all claim on
their native country and violated the allegiance they owed to it by
entering the service of Great Britain." The consequence was that great
numbers of these unfortunate men wandered about the city in an utterly
destitute condition. Oftentimes when opportunity offered for sending
some of them to their own country their consuls could not find them.
The lord mayor, who was in communication both with Lord Sidmouth and
Lord Melville, suggested the advisability of mooring an old vessel in
the Thames for the reception of foreign seamen until they could be sent
home. Lord Melville, as first lord of the admiralty, signified his
approval of the plan and promised to supply a suitable vessel. In the
meanwhile, matters daily grew worse. The lord mayor complained to Lord
Sidmouth (16 Nov.) that he had frequently been engaged from nine in
the morning until six in the evening attending to destitute cases:--"I
have had before me two hundred in a day, of whom the greater number
have come from Wapping and the out parishes, and not one in twenty has
slept in London." If only the magistrates (he declared) would examine
into the cases of their own districts, "it would divide the labour
and prevent the daily assemblage of from one to two hundred of these
poor creatures around the Mansion House, some of whom linger about it
all night." In conclusion he begged to draw his lordship's attention
once more to the situation of the foreign seamen who were found on the
bridges and in the streets "literally starving," and to ask that the
government should do something to relieve the City of the heavy expense
which their presence entailed. The only reply which the secretary of
state vouchsafed to this appeal was a _non possumus_. The government
had done all they could do, and relief could only be looked for at the
hands of the foreign consuls, whose duty it was to provide for their
own poor.[729]
[Sidenote: Resolutions of the livery, 29 Nov., 1816.]
Moved at the sad spectacle which met them on every side, the livery of
London again met in Common Hall on the 29th November. They felt that it
was useless to attempt to get an address received by the Regent in the
manner they deemed proper; so they again passed resolutions urging all
counties, corporate bodies, towns, wards and parishes throughout the
kingdom to lay their grievances at the foot of the throne and before
Parliament in a firm, temperate, and peaceable manner, with the view of
eventually obtaining that economical and parliamentary reform they had
so long and so anxiously desired.[730]
[Sidenote: Lord Mayor's report of Spa Fields Riot, 3 Dec., 1816.]
In the meanwhile a series of riots had taken place in various parts of
the country. In agricultural districts ricks had been fired, and in
manufacturing towns machinery had been wantonly destroyed. In December,
a riot known as the "Spa Fields Riot" broke out, but was repressed
without much difficulty, thanks to the courage of the lord mayor. The
first intimation that Matthew Wood received that anything was wrong,
was about mid-day on Monday, the 2nd December. He was then told that a
mob some thousands strong was approaching the city by way of Aldersgate
Street; that a man had already been shot in a gun-maker's shop in
Skinner Street, and that the shop had been cleared of a large quantity
of arms. What subsequently took place is best told in Matthew Wood's
own report[731] to his brother aldermen:--"I immediately signified my
intention of going out to meet them and instantly Sir James Shaw and
Mr. White offered their services. On enquiring for Police Officers,
only two were to be found. We hurried to Guildhall, where we met with
only three more, and attended by these five we advanced by the back
streets in the hope of reaching the top of Cheapside before the Mob;
in Lad Lane we were told that they had already entered Cheapside in
great force with Colors, and the firing was distinctly heard by us, we
returned therefore immediately with all imaginable speed by the way of
Princes Street into Cornhill, with the view of heading them in that
direction; in this however we were again foiled, for in reaching the
West end of Cornhill, we saw them pressing [_sic_] the front of the
Exchange. We followed them close, and seeing the head of their Column
crossing into Sweeting's Alley we rushed thro' the Royal Exchange
in order to take them in front and we succeeded. We met them on the
North of the Royal Exchange near the Old Stock Exchange, on seeing me
they cheered, we immediately attacked them, upon which they began to
seperate in all directions and some laid down their arms. Sir James
Shaw intrepidly seized the Flag and its Bearer, Mr. White seized one
man and I another. The Mob were now seen flying in all directions:
about this time Mr. Favell and Mr. Hick joined us, a man with a
tricolored Cockade in his hat (Hooper) came up to me with a desire
to explain. I made him go before me into the Exchange which he did
without resistance. I had him in the centre when two fellows levelled
their Musketts at me. I said, 'fire away, you Rascals.' One of them
fired. I then gave Hooper into the Custody of the Officers, who found
in his pockets two Horse Pistols, one loaded with Ball, the other with
Slugs. A cry that the mob had rallied was heard just as we were making
arrangements for securing the Prisoners. I ordered the gates of the
Exchange to be shut, which we accomplished with some difficulty and
not before several guns loaded with shot were fired under the gates at
our feet, but without any effect. Information being now received that
a portion of the Rioters had gone towards the East end of the City, it
was determined to follow them, directions having been first given to
put the prisoners into the custody of the Master of Lloyd's, with whom
Sir James Shaw also lodged the Standard. I proceeded accompanied by Sir
James and a few Constables up Cornhill and Leadenhall Street, but here
we were told, the Mob had wholly dispersed; which induced us to return
to the Mansion House, where I found Sir William Curtis, who in his zeal
for the Public Service, had lost sight of all personal ailments, and
had come, ill as he was, to offer me his best services, by this time
also the Dragoons had reached the City. Mr. Alderman Atkins who had
been sitting in the Justice Room for me also joined us, and it being
suggested, that it would be proper that the different Wards should
collect as many of their respectable Inhabitants as possible, to be
sworn in Special Constables, I immediately gave directions to that
effect. Sir James Shaw and Mr. Alderman Atkins tendered their Services
to convey my wishes to Lloyd's and the Stock Exchange and these
Gentlemen informed me that the proposition was received and accepted
at each of these places by the Gentlemen with cheers. These Gentlemen
next proceeded to the Bank where they saw the Governor, and had the
satisfaction to learn he had anticipated their wishes; a division of
the Bank Corps being then actually under arms. From the Bank they
proceeded to the India House and met with several of the Directors
in attendance who immediately gave orders for 500 of their men to be
selected as a Guard on their warehouses, who were soon after sworn in
Constables by Mr. Alderman Atkins. When these Gentlemen returned to the
Mansion House there were assembled Sir John Eamer, Sir John Perring,
Sir William Leighton, Sir Charles Flower, Alderman J.J. Smith, Alderman
Scholey, Alderman Birch, Alderman Magnay, Alderman Heygate, Alderman
Cox and Sheriffs Bridges and Kirby with their Under-Sheriffs. About
3 o'clock information was brought me, that the Mob had broken into
the Warehouses of Messrs. Branden and Co. and Mr. Rea's and had taken
from each a quantity of arms, and almost at the same moment I received
intelligence that the plunderers had been met and dispersed by the
Dragoons, who had made some Prisoners, and recovered most of the arms.
During the absence of Sir James Shaw and Mr. Alderman Atkins Mr. White
of Bishopsgate Street had arrived with a Troop of Light Dragoons which
he had fetched from the Light Horse Stables, Grays Inn Lane, and Mr.
Goldham having been dispatched with a few of them to reconnoitre, now
returned with a Coach loaded with Musketts, Swords, Blunderbusses,
Pikes, Halbuts, and a brass Cannon which had been taken from the Mob
in the Minories by the Life Guardsmen and three Prisoners were sent
into Aldgate Watchouse and committed to the care of a Constable, who
by a shameful dereliction of his duty suffered them to escape. Mr. Mc
Lean of Brunswick Square, who had not long left the Mansion House,
returned about four o'Clock and informed me, that, the Meeting in
the Fields had broken up, and that, there were 15,000 people coming
down Holborn and passing to Fleet Market. I determined to go and meet
them; Sir James Shaw and Mr. Mc Lean tendered their Services, when
taking some Police Officers some Special Constables and a Detachment
of Dragoons with us we moved on in a quick pace by the North side of
St. Paul's Church Yard where we met about 2,000 persons, but seeing
they were without arms of any kind and perfectly peaceable, we allowed
them to pass on. We proceeded Westward and nearly to the middle of
Fleet Street when meeting another party of Dragoons, who informed us
everything was quiet in that Quarter we returned to the Mansion House,
I having first directed a party of the Horse accompanied with Police
Officers to make the Circuit of the Prisons and to report to me when
they had so done. The City was quiet from this time. About 12 o'Clock
at Night some papers taken by the Constable out of the Pocket of the
Man who shot Mr. Platt were shown to me, by which I learned that Hooper
was connected with Preston the Secretary of the Spa Fields Meeting.
These papers state that subscriptions towards defraying the expences
of erecting Hustings, Printing &c., will be received by J. Hooper No.
9 Graystock Place Fetter Lane signed Preston Secretary. About one in
morning accompanied by Mr. Sheriff Kirby, Mr. Under-Sheriff Kearsey and
others with some Constables, I went to No. 9 Graystock Place and made
the Householder come down, who proved to be Preston the Secretary. We
searched the House and found in it very few papers--one an Hymn, and
another a letter of exhortation on the subject of 'England expects
every Man to do his duty.' There was likewise a small quantity of
Tricolored Ribbon. Preston had two daughters and there were only two
Beds on the floor in the same room, the whole house in a most wretched
condition--with scarsely a chair; in the room used by Hooper for the
reception of subscriptions there was no other furniture but a table.
Preston said Hooper did not lodge there nor did he know where he lived.
It is supposed Watson Junr. was the Person who fired the Pistol at Mr.
Platt, as Hooper says he did not see Watson for some time after they
left the Fields, and it appears that he went into the Shop alone. The
Officer was induced to let him escape through the entreaties of Mr.
Beckwith's family who were apprehensive should he be detained that
the house would be pulled down. I have no doubt had the Mob not been
prevented it was their intention to have collected a great number of
fire arms and then to have returned to Spa Fields and from thence to
Carlton House. Hooper admits that they intended to go to Carlton House,
but not with fire arms. Hooper said that Watson Junr. gave him the
Pistols on Sunday night at Preston's House and in his presence said
that if they were opposed by the Civil power, they were to use them."
The lord mayor closed his narrative with a handsome acknowledgment of
the services rendered by his brother aldermen, the special constables
and others, whilst he expressed a desire more particularly to call
the attention of the Court to the conduct of Sir James Shaw, "whose
zeal, activity, coolness and undaunted courage," had rendered him such
valuable assistance throughout the day.
[Sidenote: The City's address to Regent on state of affairs, 9 Dec.,
1816.]
On the 9th December--just one week after the riot--the Common Council
presented an address to the Regent praying for a reformation of
abuses, a speedy meeting of Parliament, and a more equitable system of
representation. The address was received with "surprise and regret."
His highness expressed his opinion, shared as he said, by a large
portion of his subjects, that the prevailing distress was the result
of "unavoidable causes." He was confident that the good sense, public
spirit, and loyalty of the nation would prove superior to the attempts
that had been made to "irritate and mislead" his subjects. And he
declared his readiness to meet Parliament at the time appointed and not
before.[732]
[Sidenote: Reflections on the Regent's reply.]
When it came to recording the Regent's "most gracious" answer on the
Journal of the Common Council, an amendment was made and carried, to
leave out the words "most gracious." The Council went further than
this. It passed a resolution expressing its own "surprise and regret,"
that his highness should have been advised to return such an answer at
such a time; that he should have imputed to those who sought only a
reformation of abuses, a desire to "irritate and mislead" the people,
and that he should have attributed to "unavoidable causes" what was in
reality due to reckless public expenditure, sanctioned by a corrupt
Parliament.[733]
[Sidenote: Outrage upon the Regent, 28 Jan., 1817.]
The general discontent vented itself by a personal attack on the Regent
as he drove from Westminster after opening Parliament in January
(1817), and one of the windows of his carriage was broken by a missile.
The City at once expressed its indignation at the outrage and offered
addresses congratulating the prince on his escape.[734]
[Sidenote: City petitions to Parliament for Reform, Feb., 1817.]
Parliament had not sat many days before the Common Council and the
livery presented strongly-worded petitions to both Houses for Reform.
The Common Council pointed out--as an example of one of the most
glaring anomalies--that Cornwall alone returned more borough members
than fifteen other counties together including Middlesex, and more than
eleven counties even including county members,[735] whilst the livery
referred all the evils which the country was suffering--"the prodigious
amount of the National Debt, the enormous and unconstitutional military
establishments, the profusion of sinecure places and pensions, and a
long course of lavish expenditure of the public money"--to one source,
viz., "the corrupt, dependent, and inadequate representation of the
people in Parliament." They disclaimed all wild and visionary plans of
Reform. All they desired was "to see the House of Commons in conformity
with pure constitutional principles, a fair and honest organ of the
public voice exercising a controuling power over the servants of the
Crown, and not an instrument in their hands to oppress the people."[736]
[Sidenote: Repressive measures of the Government, March, 1817.]
It was to no purpose. The outrage on the Regent frightened the
ministers, and instead of following the advice offered by the City and
appeasing the public by showing a willingness to correct abuses, they
proceeded to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act and to pursue a cruel system
of repression, which only served to increase the evil.[737]
[Sidenote: The trial of Hone, the bookseller, Dec., 1817.]
Not only were seditious actions proceeded against but seditious
writings. A quiet and inoffensive bookseller of Old Bailey, named
Hone, was prosecuted on three several charges for which he was put
on trial three several days. The charges were professedly for having
published pamphlets of a blasphemous character, but the persistency
with which they were pressed after a first and second acquittal,
sufficiently showed that the prosecution had been undertaken from
political and not from any religious motives, and the City did not
hesitate to tell Parliament as much.[738] They declared that they had
viewed with indignation and horror the vindictive cruelty with which
ministers had exercised their power since the suspension of the Act.
Numerous individuals (they said) had been torn from their wives and
families, dragged to distant prisons and kept in irons, and afterwards
released without being brought to trial, or even knowing the nature
of the charges against them. The country had been flooded with spies
and informers in the pay of the government, and these inhuman wretches
had endeavoured to excite simple and deluded men into acts of outrage
and treason. The petitioners did not disguise their belief that "the
groundless alarms excited by ministers were solely for the purpose of
stifling complaints and protecting abuses."
[Sidenote: The Indemnity Bill, 13 March, 1818.]
When the Habeas Corpus Act was again allowed to come into force (29
Jan., 1818), after nearly a year's suspension,[739] the ministers were
anxious to cover their recent proceedings under a Bill of Indemnity.
A sealed bag of papers was laid upon the table of the House which
the government demanded to be referred to a secret committee, but as
this committee was virtually nominated by the government itself, the
citizens of London lost no time in declaring that they for their part,
would have no confidence in any report such a committee might think fit
to make.[740]
[Sidenote: The City and the parliamentary election, June, 1818.]
The City had its revenge in the following June, when parliament was
hurriedly dissolved and a new election took place. Three of the
old city members,--Sir William Curtis, Sir James Shaw, and John
Atkins,--all of them aldermen with ministerial proclivities, were
rejected, and four liberals were returned, the best known being Matthew
Wood, who had sat in the last parliament on the withdrawal of Harvey
Combe, and Robert Waithman, afterwards an alderman. In the country
the elections were attended with the bitterest party strife, but as
the representation then stood, no great change was possible, and the
ministers found themselves still in possession of a large majority.
[Sidenote: Mass meetings in Smithfield, 21 July, 25 Aug., 1819.]
Although the harvest of 1817 had been a good one, and commercial
activity had succeeded a period of extraordinary depression, the
year 1818 was marked with great distress among artisans, owing to
overproduction. As is usually the case at such times, demagogues were
at hand urging the sufferers to revolutionary measures. Among them
was the Rev. Joseph Harrison, a schoolmaster at Stockport, who, after
making a violent speech in that town on the 28th June (1819), was
arrested on a warrant at a mass meeting held in Smithfield, on the 21st
July.[741]
[Sidenote: The "Manchester massacre" or "Peterloo," 16 Aug., 1819.]
Another of these demagogues was Henry Hunt, commonly known as "Orator"
Hunt, who had offered himself as a candidate for Westminster at the
last general election, and figured in the Spa Fields commotion. He was
a man, however, more ready to stir up others to deeds of violence than
risk his own skin. An attempt to arrest him at a meeting which he was
about to address in St. Peter's Fields, near Manchester, led to five
or six being killed by the military, and to a number of others being
wounded. The affair, which was caused by magisterial blundering, came
to be known as the "Manchester massacre" or "Peterloo," and proved a
formidable weapon against the government. Hunt was taken, but liberated
on bail, and on the 13th September was conducted in great triumph from
Islington to the Crown and Anchor Tavern, in the Strand.[742]
[Sidenote: City address to Regent, 9 Sept., 1819.]
The Common Council expressed much sympathy with the sufferers, whose
only fault had been to assemble for the purpose of lawfully and
peacefully discussing public grievances, and they petitioned the
Regent for a full and immediate enquiry into the outrage and for the
punishment of the authors. They assured his highness that he had been
deceived by false representations, otherwise he would never have
been induced to express approval of the conduct of the abettors and
perpetrators of the late atrocities.[743] The Prince in reply flatly
told the citizens they knew nothing about the real state of the case,
and this "most gracious" answer was ordered to be entered in the
Journal of the Court.[744]
[Sidenote: The six Acts, 1819.]
The passing of a series of suppressory enactments, known as "The
Six Acts," at an autumn session, gave the Common Council another
opportunity for recommending parliamentary reform. It at the same
time suggested--as reformers of the present day will do well to
remember--_the extension of the municipal form of government_ as a
better panacea for existing evils than more drastic measures.[745] The
Court of Aldermen, on the other hand, kept silence. They had, however,
already passed a number of resolutions upholding the magistracy in
putting down seditious meetings, and calling upon the labouring classes
to have confidence in themselves, and not to be led by agitators, but
to wait patiently until the present difficulties--"springing alone from
the termination of a protracted war"--should pass away.[746]
[Sidenote: Proceedings in Common Hall, 29 Sept., 1819.]
The city itself presented signs of uneasiness. On Michaelmas-day, when
the election of a lord mayor took place, a great commotion had been
raised in Common Hall by sheriff Parkins, alderman Waithman, "Orator"
Hunt and others, who wished to introduce violent resolutions against
the government. The sheriff made himself especially obnoxious to the
outgoing lord mayor (Atkins), chiefly, it appears, on account of the
Court of Aldermen having refused to recognise him (Parkins) as the
senior sheriff. His conduct in Common Hall, as well as the conduct of
Waithman and certain others, was deemed so bad by the Court of Aldermen
that legal proceedings were ordered to be taken against them.[747] The
Common Council expressed disapproval at any proceedings being taken,
and recommended their withdrawal. The Court at the same time directed
the City Chamberlain not to pay any costs of the proceedings.[748]
The Court of Aldermen were not unnaturally indignant at this,[749] but
declined to withdraw from their position, and eventually a judgment was
obtained in the King's Bench, which completely justified the position
they had taken up. It was laid down by the judges that when a Common
Hall has been summoned for a particular purpose, the livery have no
right to introduce matter for consideration distinct from that for
which they were assembled. The defendants in this case, however, were
exonerated on the ground that they had been misled by an opinion given
by Glynn, the City's Recorder in 1773, as to their rights.[750]
[Sidenote: Conduct of Sheriff Parkins.]
In the meantime, sheriff Parkins had continued to make himself
as obnoxious as he could. He refused to attend at church on
Michaelmas-day, and on the following day, when he should have
accompanied his fellow sheriff, to be presented at Westminster to the
Barons of the Exchequer, he wrote a rude letter to the mayor, excusing
himself joining the procession on the score that he was busily engaged
in his duties at the Old Bailey, and could not be "at two places
one and the same time." Later in the day, he presented himself at
Westminster, but without any state, and declined to invite the Barons
of the Exchequer to the entertainment usually provided by the sheriffs
on such occasions. He, in fact, gave no entertainment at all. He ought
to have accompanied the mayor to the Court of Aldermen on the 8th
October, but he again excused himself, on the plea of a headache,
which he had the coolness to attribute to "the incessant noise and
dreadful screams" at the last Common Hall. The mayor complained to
the Court of Aldermen, and the sheriff was called upon to explain his
conduct at the next Court.[751] When the Court met, Parkins read a long
statement, which for sheer impudence will bear comparison with some
productions of Wilkes or Junius, whilst lacking their cleverness. The
reason he gave for not having accompanied the lord mayor to Westminster
was that he did "not choose to divide with the lord mayor those marks
of popular feeling which everywhere follow the track of the city state
carriage during the present mayoralty." The lord mayor and the other
sheriff had made the best part of the journey to Westminster by water,
as was then the custom, but Parkins had reverted to the more ancient
custom of riding thither on horseback.[752] It was true (he said) that
he was not accompanied by any member of his company, but that was
because "it would have been neither decorous nor prudent to have set
on foot or even on horseback any rival procession, since it might have
been deemed by the lord mayor a demonstration of hostility against his
own supremacy," and so on and so on. His whole defence was after the
same manner, but all that the Court of Aldermen did was to refer his
conduct to a Committee of Privileges (12 Oct.), and there the matter
appears to have ended.[753]
[Sidenote: Accession of George IV, 29 Jan., 1820.]
On the evening of Saturday, the 29th January, (1820) George III
passed away, and on Sunday morning his death was notified to the lord
mayor. A special Court of Aldermen was immediately summoned to sit
at the Mansion House, when the mayor laid before them two letters
from Lord Sidmouth, one informing him of the king's decease, and the
other desiring his attendance at Carlton House, at one o'clock that
afternoon. He also laid before the Court another letter which he
had subsequently received. This was a letter from the Clerk of the
Privy Council, stating that the lords of the Council would meet at
one o'clock, at Carlton House, and that the lord mayor and Court of
Aldermen might attend, if they thought proper. Thereupon the lord
mayor, the aldermen, and the high officers of the city proceeded in
state (the black sword being borne before the mayor) to Carlton House,
where they heard and subscribed the proclamation of King George IV.
On their return to the Mansion House, the York herald delivered a
copy of the ceremonial to be observed the next day, when the king
should be proclaimed. Upon the arrival of the procession the following
day at Temple Bar, the lord mayor took up his position in his state
coach immediately before the archbishop of Canterbury; the aldermen,
sheriffs, chamberlain, common serjeant, town clerk and city officers
immediately after the lords of the Privy Council. The proclamation
was publicly read at Carlton House and Charing Cross and at three
different places within the City's jurisdiction, viz.: at the corner of
Chancery Lane, the corner of Wood Street, Cheapside, and at the Royal
Exchange.[754]
[Sidenote: City addresses to George IV, 28 Feb., 1820.]
When sheriff Parkins and his brother sheriff, Rothwell, attended at
Carlton Palace to learn when it would be convenient for the king
to receive addresses from the City, they found his majesty much
indisposed. Monday, the 28th February, was fixed for receiving the
addresses of the Courts of Aldermen and Common Council, but an
intimation was given to the sheriffs (privately, it appears) that the
state of the king's health would require the addresses to be presented
in a room adjoining his majesty's bedroom by a small deputation from
each Court. When Rothwell, the senior sheriff, communicated the result
of their mission to the aldermen and the Common Council, Parkins again
made himself obnoxious, declaring that _he_ had heard nothing about the
addresses being presented by small deputations, and that as a matter
of fact "his majesty did not appear to him to be so unwell as he had
been led to expect from the various reports he had heard." No notice
was taken of this exhibition of bad taste, and both Courts agreed to
present their addresses by deputation. To each of them the king made
gracious replies, promising that the welfare and prosperity of the City
and the maintenance of its rights and liberties should be objects of
his constant care.[755]
[Sidenote: The coronation of George IV, 19 July, 1821.]
The coronation was originally fixed for Tuesday, the 1st August, but
was subsequently postponed to Thursday, the 19th July, 1821.[756] The
City lost no time in sending in its customary claim of services; and
the masters and prime wardens of the twelve principal livery companies
were invited, as usual, to assist the lord mayor in his duties at
the coronation banquet.[757] These services were now performed
for the last time, the coronation banquet and all ceremonial in
connexion therewith in Westminster Hall being dispensed with, by royal
proclamation, at the accession of William IV.[758]
[Sidenote: City addresses to Queen Caroline, June, 1820.]
The ceremony was somewhat marred by an injudicious attempt of the
unhappy queen to force her way into the abbey. Whatever may have
been the extent of her folly or her guilt no one can question the
misfortune of Queen Caroline. From the first moment of their meeting
she was treated by her husband with scant courtesy and was soon forced
to quit his side and lead a life of retirement at Blackheath. A watch
was set on her movements and her conduct made the subject of a private
enquiry by the lords. The City was no less indignant than the princess
herself at such a proceeding. The livery presented her with an address
of sympathy,[759] and at the close of the enquiry the Common Council
congratulated her upon having escaped from a "foul and atrocious
conspiracy against her life and honour."[760] The Court of Aldermen,
however, once more held aloof. This was in 1813. In the following
year she withdrew disgusted to the continent and there remained until
her husband succeeded to the throne. Again the livery and the Common
Council presented addresses and testified their attachment to one
whom most people looked upon as an injured woman, who had in vain
challenged her accusers to appear before a public and impartial
tribunal.[761] Her wish was now to be gratified.
[Sidenote: The queen's trial, Aug.-Nov., 1820.]
Another secret enquiry into her conduct was held by the lords, at the
king's command, and upon evidence thus scraped together and unsupported
by oath a Bill of Pains and Penalties was introduced into the House of
Lords for depriving the queen of her title and dissolving her marriage.
The Common Council entered a strong protest and appealed to both Houses
to reject the Bill,[762] but in vain. The queen was put on her defence,
and after a protracted trial succeeded with the help of her learned
counsel--Brougham, Denman and Lushington--in placing her conduct in
such a light that the Bill had to be abandoned.
[Sidenote: City address to the queen, 21 Nov., 1820.]
The news of the queen's triumph was received with the wildest delight,
and for three nights in succession London was illuminated. Addresses
began to flow in upon her in such quantities that a special day of the
week had to be set apart for their reception.[763] The Common Council
assured her that they had never entertained the slightest doubt as to
what would be the result of a trial unconstitutionally instituted and
unfairly carried on; and expressed a hope that she would continue to
reside among them.[764] The Freedom of the City was voted to counsel
engaged in her defence.[765]
[Sidenote: The queen's reply, 24 Nov., 1820.]
In acknowledging the City's address the queen referred to her late
victory as a triumph for the people. "If my enemies had prevailed"--she
said--"the people who are now feared would have been despised, their
oppression would have been indefinitely increased." She declared that
it was to the sympathy and support of the people and of the Press that
she was chiefly indebted for her escape from a conspiracy such as had
never before threatened an individual, and although she doubted whether
her presence in the country was conducive to the national welfare, as
seemed to be generally supposed, she expressed herself as being always
ready to conform to the will of the community at large:--"The people
have made many sacrifices for me, and I will live for the people."[766]
[Sidenote: The queen at Brandenburgh House.]
The Court of Aldermen, as a body, had rigidly withheld their support
from the unfortunate queen. Nevertheless, there were two members of
the Court who thoroughly believed in her innocence, and who rendered
her every assistance in their power. These were Matthew Wood, in whose
house in South Audley Street she first found shelter on her return
from abroad, and Robert Waithman. Matthew Wood continued to attend her
at Brandenburgh House, where she kept her court, and where he dined
with her the day that the Bill against her was thrown out. The motley
character of her attendants elicited a satirical poem from Theodore
Hook, in which the alderman comes in for his share of ridicule in the
following lines:--
"And who were attending her--heigh ma'am; ho ma'am?
Who were attending her, ho?
--Lord Hood for a man,
For a maid Lady Anne,[767]
And Alderman Wood for a _beau--beau_
And Alderman Wood for a _beau_."
[Sidenote: Presents her portrait to the City.]
It was Matthew Wood whom the queen employed to write to the
Corporation, whilst her trial was still pending, asking that body to
accept her portrait in testimony of her attachment and gratitude to
"the first city in the world" for the zeal they had manifested in
her cause, and it was Waithman who laid the letter before the Common
Council. The offer was graciously accepted, and Queen Caroline's
picture, as well as that of her deceased daughter, the Princess
Charlotte--a subsequent gift--are preserved in the Guildhall Art
Gallery.[768]
[Sidenote: The queen at St. Paul's, 29 Nov., 1820.]
An intimation which the Common Council received from the gentleman
acting as the queen's vice-chamberlain that she proposed to attend
the usual service held at St. Paul's on Wednesday, the 29th November,
was received with mixed feelings. It was feared that her appearance
in the city might cause inconvenience, and perhaps lead to riot.
Nevertheless a special committee was appointed to give her a suitable
reception.[769] A similar foreboding was felt by the Court of Aldermen
as soon as they heard of the queen's intention, and a motion was made
expressing regret; but before any vote could be taken on the matter,
the Court was abruptly broken up by Wood and Waithman leaving.[770] On
the 27th, the Court again met, when communications were read from the
Dean of St. Paul's, and from Lord Sidmouth, touching the preparations
to be made for her majesty's reception in the Cathedral, and the
precautions to be taken against injury being done by accident or
otherwise within the sacred precinct or in the public streets. The
lord mayor was promised the assistance of the military if necessary.
Again, a motion was made expressive of regret at the queen's proposal,
but with no better success than at the previous Court. Alderman Wood
again got up and left the Court so as to reduce the number present
to less than a _quorum_, and Alderman Waithman immediately moved a
count out.[771] Fortunately the day passed off without any mishap.
One of the chief grievances which the queen had been made to suffer
had been the omission of her name from the Liturgy. On this occasion
she desired that "the particular thanksgiving, which at the request
of any parishioner, it is customary to offer up" might be offered on
her behalf, but the officiating minister refused on the ground that
the rubric directed that "those may be named, who have been previously
prayed for, but that the queen not having been prayed for, could not be
named in the thanksgiving." After all was over, the queen communicated
her thanks to the lord mayor and the committee for the trouble they
had taken, and expressed herself as particularly obliged to his
lordship for not yielding to alarm, and for declining all military
assistance.[772]
[Sidenote: Address of Common Council to the king, 7 Dec., 1820.]
The queen's trial served only to increase the City's dissatisfaction
with the ministers, and the Common Council once more urged their
dismissal (9 Dec.). In their address to the king they referred
"with pain and reluctance" to the late proceedings against the
queen--proceedings which (they said) had drawn forth "the reprobation
of the great body of the people"--and they expressed indignation at the
flagrant outrage that had been committed on the moral and religious
feelings of the nation.[773]
[Sidenote: The king's reply, 9 Dec.]
It is not to be supposed that the king would receive such an address
very graciously. Indeed, he acknowledged that he received it "with the
most painful feelings," and he vouchsafed no further answer than to
tell the citizens that whatever might be their motives in presenting
the address, it served no other purpose than to inflame the passions
and mislead the judgment of the less enlightened of his subjects, and
to aggravate the difficulties with which he had to contend.[774]
[Sidenote: Address, Court of Aldermen.]
Very different had been the reception accorded the previous day (8
Dec.) to an address from the Court of Aldermen, in which they informed
the king of their resolution to defend the monarchy and other branches
of the constitution, at that time so bitterly attacked. The subject of
the queen's trial was not mentioned, although an attempt had been made
to introduce it into the address by some members of the Court. This
"loyal and dutiful" address was graciously received with the king's
"warmest thanks."[775]
[Sidenote: The queen's death, 7 Aug., 1821.]
Early in the following year (Jan., 1821) the Common Council petitioned
both Houses for the restoration of the queen's name in the Liturgy,
and for making her a proper provision to enable her to support her
rights and dignities. It at the same time demanded an enquiry into the
manner in which the queen's prosecution had been brought about.[776]
As regards a provision to be made for the queen, she had previously
declined to accept any at the hands of the ministry.[777] The Commons
now voted her an annuity of £50,000,[778] which she accepted but did
not long enjoy, for in the following August she died.
[Sidenote: Disgraceful scene at her funeral, 14 Aug., 1821.]
The circumstances attending her funeral were of a most disgraceful
character. She had expressed a wish to be buried in her own country,
and this wish was carried out. The citizens were extremely anxious
to pay a last token of respect in the event of her corpse being
brought through the city to Harwich, the port of embarkation, and the
Remembrancer waited upon Lord Liverpool for the purpose of notifying to
him the resolutions passed by the Common Council to that effect. As in
Chatham's case, so in the case of this unfortunate queen, the wishes
of the citizens were ignored. After some delay they were informed that
the funeral arrangements were already completed, and had been laid
before the king, and that it was not intended that the procession
should pass through the city.[779] The people, nevertheless, decided
otherwise, and succeeded in gaining the day. This was not accomplished,
however, without bloodshed. In order to insure the funeral procession
passing through the city, the roads not leading in that direction were
blocked and the pavement taken up. At Knightsbridge the mob came into
collision with the military quartered in the barracks there. Stones and
mud were freely thrown, and the guards were tempted at last to fire on
the mob, killing two of their number. After the procession had passed
through the city, with the lord mayor at its head, it was allowed to
continue its course without further opposition. This took place on
Tuesday, the 14th August.[780]
[Sidenote: The sheriff assaulted by the military, 26 Aug., 1821.]
On the 26th, when the funeral procession of the two men shot by the
military had to pass in front of Knightsbridge barracks, another
disgraceful scene occurred. Waithman, who was sheriff at the time,
fearing lest the sight of soldiers outside the barracks might infuriate
the people, had taken the precaution of asking the officers in command
to keep their men within the gates until the procession had gone by,
but the only answer he got was that "the sheriff might be d--d, they
would not make their men prisoners for him." In the course of the day
Waithman himself was struck. This led to a long correspondence with
Lord Bathurst, one of the principal secretaries of state, but the
sheriff failed to get any redress. The Common Council instituted an
enquiry, and upheld his action.[781] The Court of Aldermen ignored
the whole affair, but one of their number, viz., Sir William Curtis,
a member for the City, made a violent speech in the House against
the Common Council for having dared to institute an enquiry. The
alderman himself was a member of the General Purposes Committee to
which the matter had been referred, but did not attend its meetings.
The Common Council voted his speech a gross and injurious reflection
upon the members of the Corporation and an unfounded calumny upon the
committee.[782]
[Sidenote: The City and the Holy Alliance, 1823-1824.]
The citizens appreciated too well the blessings of freedom not to
sympathise with the struggles of others to obtain it, and they
looked askance at the Holy Alliance which had been formed with the
view of dictating to the rest of the world. In their eyes "national
independence is to states what liberty is to individuals," and that
being so the Common Council readily voted two sums of £1,000 to assist
Spain and Greece in throwing off their respective yokes.[783] In 1823
the relations between the City and Spain, then threatened by France,
were of such a friendly nature that a proposal was actually made to set
up, in the centre of Moorfields, a statue of Don Rafael Del Riego, a
patriotic Spanish general, who had lost his life in the cause.[784] In
the following year (1824) the City again raised its voice against the
pretensions of the Holy Alliance, and opposed the renewal of the Alien
Act, mainly on the ground that its renewal would appear to countenance
the action of the allies "against the independence of nations and the
rights and liberties of mankind."[785]
[Sidenote: Revival of trade followed by wild speculation, 1825-1826.]
A revival of commerce, which commenced in 1821, was succeeded in 1825
by an era of wild speculation such as had not been seen since the days
of the South Sea Bubble. The civic authorities protested against the
reckless formation of Joint Stock Companies, but in vain.[786] Before
the end of the year a crash came, firms and companies began to break,
credit was shaken, trade depressed, and a run on banks took place,
resulting in many of them stopping payment altogether. In six weeks
between sixty and seventy banks are said to have stopped payment,
of which six or seven were London houses. The distress which ensued
was widespread, so widespread indeed that it extended to Scotland,
and brought to grief that "wizard of the North," whose writings have
delighted, and continue to delight, so many thousands, both young and
old--Sir Walter Scott. In the city of London the Spitalfield weavers
were reduced to such straits that the Corporation had to come to their
assistance with a grant of £500.[787] Although the worst was over by
the end of 1825, bankruptcies were frequent during the following year,
whilst the country was much disturbed by riots and attacks on all kinds
of machinery, which the artisan foolishly regarded as the chief cause
of all the misery. When Venables, the lord mayor, went out of office
(Nov., 1826) and the Common Council passed the usual vote of thanks,
they expressly referred to the decision, energy and judgment he had
evinced "during a recent period of commercial embarrassment," and the
prompt measures he had taken for relieving distress and restoring
confidence.[788]
FOOTNOTES:
[718] Journal 90, fos. 123-125; Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 339-340.
[719] Journal House of Commons, lxxi, 4.
[720] The custom of setting the assize in the city continued until
1822, when it was abolished by Stat. 3 Geo. III, c. cvi.
[721] Journal 87, fos. 68, 104b.
[722] See Report of Special Committee on the continued high price of
bread, 24 March, 1814.--Journal 88, fos. 262b-268b.
[723] Journal 89, fos. 216b, 217b-219, 237b; Common Hall Book, No. 9,
fos. 316-318b.
[724] Journal 89, fos. 242b-244.
[725] Journal 99, fos. 101-105; Journal 100, fos. 113b-115; Journal
117, fos. 225-226; Journal 118, fos. 438b-441.
[726] Journal 90, fo. 124b.
[727] Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 343-345, 346b-347.
[728] He had just entered upon his second year of office, and had given
no little offence to Lord Sidmouth--at that time high steward of the
city and liberties of Westminster, as well as secretary of state for
the home department--by returning from Westminster after being sworn
in, through the streets of Westminster instead of by water, without
having given notice to the high steward. Wood justified his conduct to
Sidmouth in a letter in which he protested against the claim of the
high steward to dictate to the lord mayor, the city of London, and
the sheriffs of London and Middlesex, the particular course they were
to take in going or returning on the occasion of the lord mayor being
sworn before the Barons of the Exchequer.--Journal 90, fos. 348b-349b.
[729] Journal 90, fos. 345b-348.
[730] Common Hall Book, No. 9, fo. 348b-350b.
[731] Repertory 221, fos. 6-18.
[732] Journal 90, fos. 377-380b, 384-384b.
[733] Journal 90, fos. 383-384.
[734] Repertory 221, fo. 175. Journal 91, fo. 18. A curious incident is
recorded in connection with these addresses. Owing to the requisition
for a Common Council having referred to the attack on the Regent as
an act of some "rash and intemperate" individuals only, and not as
a treasonable outrage, the Recorder declared the Common Council to
be illegal, and the Court at once broke up, there being no aldermen
present. The Common Council resented what they considered to be an
unjust attempt on the part of the aldermen to dictate to them in
the exercise of their duty, and an unwarrantable attack upon their
privileges, and a few days later (13 Feb.) passed resolutions to that
effect, and ordered them to be published in the morning and evening
papers.--Journal 91, fos. 33b, 34.
[735] Journal 91, fo. 12.
[736] Common Hall Book, No. 10, fo. 9.
[737] Journal 91, fos. 34b-40. Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 14-22.
[738] Journal 92, fos. 57b-58.
[739] Journal House of Commons, lxxiii, 11. The suspension had
been renewed in June (1817), notwithstanding the City's continued
opposition.--Journal 91, fos. 187-189b.--Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos.
23-31.
[740] Addresses of Common Council and Common Hall to parliament, 23 and
27 Feb., 1818.--Journal 92, fos. 54b-58b.--Common Hall Book, No. 10,
fos. 48-55.--Journal House of Commons, lxxiii, 90, 106.
[741] See report of lord mayor to Court of Aldermen on the public
meetings held in Smithfield, 21 July, and 25 Aug., 1819.--Repertory
223, 627-632.
[742] Repertory 223, fos. 629-630.
[743] Journal 93, fos. 156b-157b.
[744] _Id._, fos. 159b-160.
[745] Journal 93, fos. 332-335b.
[746] Repertory 223, fos. 656-659.
[747] _Id._, fos. 635-636, 758-764.
[748] Journal 93, fos. 323b-325.
[749] Repertory 224, fos. 26-34.
[750] Repertory 225, fos. 61-69, 907, _seq._ For Glynn's opinion _vide
sup._, p. 138.
[751] Repertory 223, fos. 636-645.
[752] Sir Gilbert Heathcote is said to have been the last mayor
(1710-11) to have ridden to Westminster on horseback for the purpose of
being sworn in.
[753] Repertory 223, fos. 660-672.
[754] Repertory 224, fos. 181-193.
[755] Journal 94, fos. 32-34, 71b-73b; Repertory 224, fos. 193-200.
[756] Repertory 224, fos. 333-341; Repertory 225, fo. 499.
[757] Repertory 224, fos. 342-343, 350, seq. 427; Repertory 225, fos.
502-514, 582-584.
[758] Repertory 235, fos. 551-557.
[759] Common Hall Book, No. 9, fo. 285; the address was not allowed to
be printed in the Gazette; _Id._, fos. 287b-288b.
[760] Journal 87, fo. 508.
[761] Journal 94, fo. 182b; Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 92-93.
[762] Journal 94, fos. 199b-203b.
[763] Annual register lxii, 482, 483, 498.
[764] Journal 94, fo. 277b.
[765] _Id._, fos. 291b-292.
[766] Journal 94, fos. 278b-279b.
[767] Lady Anne Hamilton.
[768] Journal 94, fos. 231b, 242, 275.
[769] _Id._, fos. 273-275. She had originally proposed to attend on
Sunday, the 26th Nov., but changed the day, lest her presence should
lead to a desecration of the Sabbath.
[770] Repertory 225, fos. 25-28. Annual Register lxii, 499-500.
[771] Repertory 225, fos. 29-37. Annual Register lxii, 500.
[772] Journal 94, fo. 285b. Annual Register lxii, 503-506.
[773] Journal 94, fos. 287-289.
[774] _Id._, fo. 304.
[775] Repertory 225, fos. 42-50, 59-60.
[776] Journal 94, fos. 337-340b.
[777] Annual Register lxii, 491-492.
[778] Journal House of Commons lxxvi, 24, 73.
[779] Journal 95, fos. 327, 327b, 331-331b.
[780] Annual Register lxiii, 127.
[781] Journal 95, fos. 332, 370-375; Journal 96, fos. 21-22. After
Waithman's death, in 1833, an obelisk was erected to his memory in
Ludgate Circus, opposite to that erected to commemorate the mayoralty
of Wilkes in 1775.
[782] Journal 96, fos. 101-102.
[783] Journal 97, fos. 168b, 170-171b, 172b-173b.
[784] _Id._, fos. 313-314.
[785] Journal 98, fos. 40-43.
[786] Journal 99, fos. 83b-87b; Journal 100, fos. 116-118b.
[787] Journal 100, fo. 76.
[788] _Id._, fo. 298.