The Project Gutenberg EBook of London and the Kingdom - Volume III, by Reginald R. Sharpe This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org Title: London and the Kingdom - Volume III A History Derived Mainly from the Archives at Guildhall in the Custody of the Corporation of the City of London. Author: Reginald R. Sharpe Release Date: May 25, 2014 [EBook #45759] Language: English Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LONDON AND THE KINGDOM VOL III *** Produced by Richard Tonsing, Paul Murray and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries) FACSIMILE OF WRIT AND RETURN [Pg i] LONDON AND THE KINGDOM A HISTORY DERIVED MAINLY FROM THE ARCHIVES AT GUILDHALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON. BY REGINALD R. SHARPE, D.C.L., RECORDS CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK OF THE CITY OF LONDON; EDITOR OF "CALENDAR OF WILLS ENROLLED IN THE COURT OF HUSTING," ETC. IN THREE VOLUMES. VOL. III. PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE CORPORATION UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE LIBRARY COMMITTEE. LONDON LONGMANS, GREEN & Co. AND NEW YORK: 15 EAST 16TH STREET. 1895. All rights reserved. London: Printed by Blades, East & Blades, 23, Abchurch Lane, E.C. [Pg ii] [Pg iii] CONTENTS. CHAPTER XXXV. Accession of George I.—The Old Pretender.—Impeachment of Ministers.—Tory re-action.— End of Jacobite Rebellion.—The King's Picture and Statue.—The Septennial Act.—Trial of the Earl of Oxford.—Disputed Elections.—The right of the City to discharge law costs incurred in Elections over the Chamber, questioned.—Paying "Scot" defined.—An Alderman insulted by the Military.—The South Sea Company.—Supremacy of Walpole.— Fears of another Jacobite rising.—The Election Act, II George I, c. 18.—Death of the King. Page 1 CHAPTER XXXVI. Accession of George II.—Walpole and the Queen.—Dissenters and the Corporation and Test Acts.—Walpole's Excise Bill.—Unpopularity of Billers, Mayor.—Disputes with Spain.— Jenkin's ear.—The Spanish Convention.—"Leonidas" Glover.—War with Spain declared. —Capture of Porto Bello.—George Heathcote.—The Aldermanic Veto again.— Resignation of Walpole.—War declared with France.—The Young Pretender.—"Black Friday."—The Victory of Culloden.—City Address.—Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.—The Newcastle Administration.—The National Militia Bill.—A tax on Plate.—The loss of Minorca.—Newcastle succeeded by Pitt.—Execution of Byng.—Civic honours for Pitt and Legge.—Coalition of Pitt and Newcastle.—Conquest of Canada. Page 31 CHAPTER XXXVII. Accession of George III.—The fall of Pitt.—Alderman Beckford.—Unpopularity of Bute.—The King and Queen at the Guildhall.—John Wilkes.—War with Spain.—The Peace of Paris. —Resignation of Bute.—Wilkes and the "North Briton."—No. 45 burnt at the Royal Exchange.—Conduct of the Lord Mayor.—Wilkes's "Essay on Woman."—Wilkes Expelled the House.—Is outlawed.—Pitt created Earl of Chatham, proposes to bring in an East India Bill.—Wilkes's letters to the Duke of Grafton, is elected M.P. for Middlesex. —Committed to the King's Bench.—Sentence pronounced.—Wilkes elected Alderman.— Again expelled the House.—Is thrice elected for Middlesex and thrice rejected.—Colonel Luttrell usurps his Seat.—Remonstrance of the Livery.—The City and Lord Holland.— Beckford's second Mayoralty.—Another remonstrance of the Livery.—The remonstrance approved by "Junius."—Condemned by the Goldsmiths, Weavers and Grocers.—The King hesitates to receive it as being "entirely new."—Consults Lord North.—Consents to receive it on the Throne.—The remonstrance condemned by Parliament.—Beckford entertains the Opposition at the Mansion House.—Wilkes regains his liberty.—City address to the King.—Beckford's famous Speech.—Chatham's approval.—Vote of thanks to Chatham.—Beckford's death. Page 66 CHAPTER XXXVIII. Brass Crosby, Mayor.—The legality of Press Warrants.—The Freedom of the Press.—The Messenger of the House of Commons arrested in the City.—His recognizance ordered to be expunged.—Crosby and Oliver before the House.—Committed to the Tower.— Chatham's opinion as to the conduct of the civic magistrates.— Bitter feeling against the Ministry.—Crosby and Oliver regain their liberty.—Another remonstrance of the Livery. —Received on the Throne.—Wilkes and Bull, Sheriffs.—Wilkes and Junius join forces.— Parson Horne.—Nash elected Mayor.—Refuses to summon a Common Hall.—Sawbridge and Short Parliaments.—Townshend elected Mayor.—Riot at the Guildhall.—Address of the Livery in favour of Short Parliaments.—Wilkes declines to attend its presentation.— Claims his seat in the House.—The Recorder's opinion touching the rights of the Livery in Common Hall.—Plumbe's case.—Alderman Bull elected M.P. for the City.—England and America.—The Quebec Bill.—Wilkes elected Mayor.—Takes his seat as Member for Middlesex. Page 106 [Pg iv] [Pg v] CHAPTER XXXIX. Wilkes and his brother Aldermen.—Chatham and the City deprecate England's policy towards America.—The King notifies his intention of receiving no more Addresses of the Livery on the Throne.—Wilkes and the Lord Chamberlain.—New York appeals to London.—An Address of the Livery not received.—Address of the Common Council received in usual manner.—Address of the Livery to the Electors of Great Britain.—Ex-Sheriff Sayre committed to the Tower.—Expenses of Wilkes's Mayoralty.—Wilkes and the Chamberlainship.—Doctor Richard Price.—The Declaration of Independence.—The City and Press Warrants.—Alliance between France and America.—The Death of Chatham.— His Funeral.—His Monument in the Guildhall. Page 146 CHAPTER XL. Court Martial of Admiral Keppel.—The Freedom of the City conferred on Keppel.—Spain declares war.—Economical Reform.—Committees of Association.—Dunning's Motion.— The City accepts a Form of Association.—Sir George Savile's Act.—The Gordon Riots.— The City's petition for repeal of Savile's Act.—Dispute between Civic and Military Authorities.—Wilkes attacks the Lord Mayor in a violent speech in the House.—The City's claim for damages arising out of the Riots.—A New Parliament.—Alderman Bull and the Livery.—Another remonstrance of the Livery not received.—The fall of North's Ministry. —The City's congratulations to the King.—The first step taken towards Parliamentary Reform.—Alderman Harley.—The younger Pitt.—Rodney's Victory.—The relief of Gibraltar.—The Peace of Paris. Page 172 CHAPTER XLI. Fox's East India Bill.—Pitt and the Coalition.—The City and Pitt.—Pitt's East India Bill.— The Reform Bill.—The City and the Shop Tax.—The Convention with France.—The City and the Slave trade.—Pitt's Regency Bill.—Thanksgiving service at St. Paul's for the King's recovery.—Pitt's Excise Bill for duty on tobacco.—The Military Guard of the Bank of England.—The French Revolution.—France declares war.—The Battle of the first of June.—Riots in the City.—Great scarcity of wheat.—Standard wheaten bread.—Assault on the King.—Negotiations for Peace.—Pitt's Loyalty Loan.—Foreign subsidies.— Suspension of cash payments by Bank of England.—Another remonstrance of the Livery not received.—The Mutiny at the Nore.—Duncan's victory off Camperdown.—Pitt mobbed in the City.—Military associations in the City.—The Battle of the Nile.—Pitt's Income Tax Bill.—Royal review of City volunteers.—Capture of the Dutch fleet.—French overtures for peace declined.—The Livery protest against the prolongation of the war.— The Act of Union.—Bread riots in the City.—Conduct of Harvey Combe, Mayor.—Pitt resigns.—Battle of Copenhagen.—Peace of Amiens. Page 204 CHAPTER XLII. Resumption of hostilities.—Pitt recommends the fortifying of London.—Renewal of the Income Tax.—Nelson takes offence at the City.—Addington gives place to Pitt.— Volunteer review at Blackheath.—Pitt's Additional Force Bill.—The City claims to be treated in a separate Bill.—Artillery practice in Finsbury Fields.—The French camp at Boulogne.—Disgrace of Lord Melville.—The Battle of Trafalgar.—Nelson's funeral.—His monument in the Guildhall.—Death of Pitt.—The Ministry of all the Talents.—The fall of the Ministry.—The Duke of Portland.—The Berlin Decree.—The Peninsular War.—The Convention of Cintra.—The Scandal of the Duke of York.—The Walcheren Expedition.— The King's Jubilee.—The City urges an enquiry into the cause of recent failures.— Another remonstrance of the Livery not received.—The City opposes Wellington's annuity.—Sir Francis Burdett committed to the Tower.—Riots in the City.—Petition of the Livery to Parliament.—Petition dismissed.—Another Petition.—Ordered to lie on the table.—The King seriously ill.—The Regency Bill.—The Freedom of the City declined by the Prince Regent.—An address of the Livery to the Regent not received.—Assassination of Spencer Perceval.—Battle of Salamanca.—The Shannon and the Chesapeake.—Treaty of Paris.—The Freedom of the City conferred on Wellington.—The City and the Slave trade.—The Battle of Waterloo. [Pg vi] [Pg vii] [Pg viii] Page 251 CHAPTER XLIII. The City opposes renewal of Income Tax.—Agricultural depression.—The First Corn Law.— Another address of the Livery not received.—Vagrants in the City.—The Spa Fields Riot. —Matthew Wood, Mayor.—City address to Regent on state of affairs.—Outrage on the Regent.—The City urges Parliamentary Reform.—The trial of Hone.—Parliamentary Elections.—The Manchester Massacre or "Peterloo."—The Six Acts.—Tumultuous proceedings in Common Hall.—Conduct of Sheriff Parkins.—Accession of George IV.— Addresses of sympathy to Queen Caroline.—The Queen's trial.—Matthew Wood at Brandenburgh House.—The Queen presents her portrait to the City.—The Queen attends at St. Paul's.—The City urges the dismissal of the King's Ministers.—The Queen's death. —Disgraceful scene at her funeral.—Riots at Knightsbridge.—Sheriff Waithman assaulted.—The City and the Holy Alliance.—Wild speculation followed by great distress. Page 292 CHAPTER XLIV. The Repeal of Corporation and Test Acts.—The Catholic Emancipation Bill.—Accession of William IV.—The King's visit to the City postponed for fear of riot.—Resolutions respecting Reform.—Introduction of the first Reform Bill.—The Bill approved by the City. —The Bill withdrawn and Parliament dissolved.—The Bill re-introduced.—Passes the Commons, rejected by the Lords.—City address and King's reply.—Political Unions formed.—Sir John Key re-elected Mayor.—The Freedom of the City voted to lords Grey and Althorp.—Resignation of the Ministry.—The City expresses dissatisfaction.—The Ministry recalled.—The Reform Bill passed.—The rights of the Livery saved.—Grand Entertainment at the Guildhall.—A retrospect.—The Enfranchisement of Jews.—The City's public spirit.—The abolition of Coal and Wine Dues.—The City and the Port of London. Page 326 [Pg ix] [Pg x] [Pg 1] George I proclaimed king, 1 Aug., 1714. City addresses to the new king. The reception of George I by the City, 20 Sept., 1714. Precautions against the Pretender. The king attends the lord mayor's banquet, 29 Oct., 1714. Thanksgiving service at St. Paul's, 20 Jan., 1715. General Election, 1715. CHAPTER XXXV. Like her predecessor on the throne, Queen Anne died on a Sunday. A proclamation was immediately drawn up by the lords spiritual and temporal, assisted by the members of the Privy Council and the lord mayor, aldermen and citizens of London, announcing the accession of Prince George, the Elector of Hanover, and that same afternoon he was duly proclaimed at Temple Bar and elsewhere. The proclamation does not appear on this occasion to have borne the signature of the lord mayor or any of the aldermen.[1] Some weeks elapsed before George arrived in England. Meanwhile the Common Council prepared an address which the lords justices, who held the reins of government until the king's arrival, transmitted to his majesty. The address was graciously received, and the king, who knew little or no English, sent word by the lords justices that the City might count upon his support. Both the Common Council and the Court of Aldermen were desirous of presenting addresses to the king in person soon after his arrival.[2] The 20th September being the day fixed for the king's passage through the city to St. James's Palace great preparations were made to give him a befitting reception. It was decided to adopt the same measures as those taken for the reception of William III in 1697, after the conclusion of the Peace of Ryswick but with this exception, viz., that members of the Common Council should take the place in the procession of those who had either served or fined for sheriff.[3] The earl marshal, however, ruled that the common councilmen of London should neither ride nor march in the procession. The court thereupon appealed to the lords justices, but the result is not recorded.[4] On the day appointed the mayor and aldermen took up their station at the court-house on St. Margaret's Hill in Southwark. Cushions from the Bridge House were borrowed for the occasion, and the open space before the court-house was fenced with rail to prevent crowding.[5] His lordship was provided with a new crimson velvet gown, the city marshal's men with new liveries, and the city trumpeters with new cloaks.[6] The conduits ran with claret furnished by order of the Court of Aldermen. The erection of balcony stands was discouraged for fear of accidents, and for the same reason the firing of guns or padreros under the piazza of the Royal Exchange was forbidden.[7] At St. Margaret's Hill the king was welcomed by the Recorder, who read a congratulatory address on behalf of the citizens, after which the procession moved on towards the city, the Recorder taking up his position immediately in front of the mayor,[8] who rode bareheaded with the city sword in his hand. Three days later (23 Sept.) the whole of the Common Council proceeded to St. James' to present their congratulations to the king on his safe arrival, and to assure him of their loyalty.[9] This assurance was opportune, for the country was being flooded with pamphlets advocating the claim of Prince James Edward, better known as the Pretender, to the throne, and a reward had been offered for the capture of the prince should he attempt to set foot in any of his majesty's dominions.[10] When Humphreys entered on his mayoralty in the following October he made himself especially active in putting a stop to the spread of seditious literature in the city, and for his services in this respect was heartily thanked by Secretary Townsend.[11] On the 20th October the king was crowned,[12] and on the 29th, according to custom, he attended the lord mayor's banquet. The lord mayor was called upon to contribute the sum of £300, and each of the sheriffs the sum of £150 towards defraying the cost of the entertainment. The rest of the expenses were paid out of the Chamber.[13] So pleased was the king with the entertainment that he conferred a baronetcy upon the lord mayor. He also bestowed the sum of £1,000 for the relief of poor debtors.[14] By the end of the year all immediate danger appeared to have passed away, and Thursday, the 20th January, 1715, was appointed to be kept as a day of solemn thanksgiving for the king's peaceful accession.[15] Once more the majestic but gloomy walls of St. Paul's contained a brilliant assembly of worshippers. King George attended the service accompanied by the royal family, and there, too, were the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs of the city seated in their accustomed places in the lower gallery on the south side of the altar, their wives and ladies being accommodated in the opposite gallery.[16] In the meanwhile the statutory period of six months—during which the parliament existing at the time of the demise of the crown was to continue to sit—had elapsed, and the last parliament of Queen Anne had been dissolved (13 Jan.), a new one being summoned to meet in March. Riots such as had occurred at previous elections were strongly deprecated by royal proclamation (11 Jan.), and a reward of £500 was offered for the discovery of the printer or publisher of a paper intituled "English advice to the freeholders of England," which had been freely circulated for the purpose of advocating the Pretender's claims.[17] The elections, which were hotly contested, resulted in the Whigs—the party already in power—obtaining a large majority. The City returned two aldermen, viz.: Sir John Ward, who had sat in the parliament of 1708 in the Tory interest, and Sir Thomas Scawen;[18] and two commoners, viz.: Robert Heysham and Peter Godfrey, of whom little is known. As delegates of the City, they were to carry out the City's instructions given to them under twenty-one heads. They were more particularly to cause an enquiry to be made as to the manner in which the Peace of Utrecht had been [Pg 2] [Pg 3] [Pg 4] [Pg 5] Impeachment of late Ministers, March, 1715. Tory re-action. Jacobite Conspiracy, July, 1715. The City's loyal address. Precautionary measures. End of Jacobite rebellion, Feb., 1716. City address. 11 May, 1716. The king's statue and brought about.[19] Similar instructions were drawn up by electors in other parts of the country, and so well were they carried out that as soon as the Houses met preparations were made to impeach Harley, Bolingbroke and the Duke of Ormond, for the part they had taken in the secret agreements made with the French during the negotiations for peace. Bolingbroke and Ormond immediately took fright and fled to France, where the former entered the service of the Pretender as secretary of state. Oxford, who alone stayed at home and faced the storm, was forthwith committed to the Tower. Such high-handed proceedings on the part of the triumphant Whigs led to a Tory re-action. In spite of all precautions[20] riots broke out in the city on the 28th May, when the king's birthday was being kept with bonfires and illuminations. The next day (29 May), being the anniversary of the restoration of Charles II, there were more bonfires, and those who refused to light up their houses had their windows broken. A patrol of life guards was insulted and made to join in the cry "High Church and Ormond!" A print of King William III was publicly burnt in Smithfield, and the mob carried everything before them until stopt in Cheapside by ward constables and dispersed.[21] The Jacobites took advantage of the general disaffection that prevailed to push forward the conspiracy which had been set on foot at the close of the last reign. Ormond had up to the moment of his flight been busily engaged in organising it in England, while Bolingbroke had been no less busy in endeavouring to obtain the assistance of France. On the 20th July the king announced to the new parliament that he had received information of a projected invasion by the Pretender, which was abetted and encouraged by disaffected persons in this country.[22] Three days later (23 July) a similar announcement was made to the lord mayor by letter from secretary Townshend. Notwithstanding the recent riots to which the aggressive policy of the whigs had given rise, the respectable citizen remained true Hanoverian and staunch supporter of the established church. The municipal body were proud of the part they had taken in bringing about the "glorious" Revolution, and in later years took occasion more than once to remind George the Third that the House of Hanover owed its accession to the crown of England in no small measure to the citizens of London. As soon as the secretary's letter was communicated to the Common Council, they immediately drew up a loyal address, in which they assured the king that they entertained the utmost abhorrence and detestation of all who encouraged either openly or secretly the hopes of the Pretender, and promised their adherence to his majesty's person and government against the Pretender and all other enemies to the king at home and abroad.[23] An Act known in those days as the Proclamation Act, but better known at the present day as the Riot Act, investing magistrates with the power of compelling any number of persons exceeding twelve to disperse on pain of being held guilty of felony without benefit of clergy was passed (20 July, 1715),[24] whilst another Act authorising the appointment of commissioners for tendering the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, as well as the abjuration oath to all suspected persons, was passed a month later (20 Aug).[25] Pursuant to this last Act, commissioners were afterwards (5 Dec.) appointed for the purpose of administering the oaths in each city ward. The names of recusants were to be returned to the next quarter sessions and there enrolled.[26] Nor were the municipal authorities idle. The anniversary of the king's coronation (20 Oct.) was to have been celebrated in the city by a solemn procession with "effigies of several persons," and money had been collected for the purpose of defraying expenses. The mayor, however, hearing of this, issued a precept to the effect that although the promoters of the scheme might well have intended thereby to show their affection to his majesty's person and government "yet at this time, when the nation is alarmed by a rebellion, it is not thought convenient to be permitted, lest under that pretence many disaffected persons might gather together and raise tumults to the endangering of the public peace." The constables were accordingly instructed to prevent any meeting for the purpose, and to prevent all bonfires and illuminations.[27] These precautionary measures were taken not a whit too soon. The Earl of Mar, who had undertaken the organization of an insurrection in Scotland in favour of the Pretender, had already made himself complete master of that country as far as the Forth. He was, however, soon afterwards (13 Nov.) defeated by the Earl of Argyle at Sheriffmuir near Stirling, and although the Pretender himself appeared in Scotland before the close of the year, not another blow was struck, and in the following February (1716) Prince James stole back to France, leaving his army to shift for itself. The rebellion being thus put down, the Common Council unanimously resolved (11 May, 1716) to present another address to the king, in which after offering their congratulations upon the failure of the rebels to depose and murder his majesty, and to subvert the Church and State, they declared their resolution (1) as friends to monarchy to promote true zeal and loyalty towards his majesty's person, (2) as members of the Church of England to act up to its principles by submitting to the powers that be, and (3) by all possible means to prevent discord and support the Protestant succession. To this the king returned a gracious answer, and expressed his conviction that the example set by the City would have a good effect upon the nation.[28] The Council at the same time resolved to set up a statue of the king at the Royal Exchange [Pg 6] [Pg 7] [Pg 8] [Pg 9] picture. Thanksgiving service at St. Paul's, 7 June, 1716. The Septennial Act, April, 1716. The King and the Prince of Wales. Trial of the Earl of Oxford, June, 1717. Act for quieting and establishing corporations (5 Geo. i, c. 6) 1718. Disputed election in Tower Ward, 1717 1719. as well as his picture in the Guildhall. The royal assent having been asked and obtained, Sir Godfrey Kneller was sent for to paint the portrait. Considerable delay took place in the execution of the work,[29] but the picture was at last completed and is still believed to grace the walls of the members' reading room at the Guildhall, although in 1779 it was reported to be so much decayed and torn as to be incapable of repair.[30] The statue, if ever set up at the Royal Exchange, probably shared the fate of other statues erected there, and was destroyed in the fire of 1838. Thursday, the 7th June (1716), was ordered by royal proclamation (8 May) to be kept as a day of public thanksgiving for the suppression of the rebellion. A sermon was preached at St. Paul's on the occasion. The members of the livery companies were desired to attend in their best gowns and hoods, at nine o'clock in the morning; this early hour being probably fixed so as not unduly to interfere with the business of the day.[31] One of the immediate effects of the rebellion was the repeal of the Triennial Act (passed Dec., 1694), limiting the duration of parliament to three years. According to the provisions of this Act a new parliament would have to be elected in 1718. The Whigs were afraid, however, to face the country and risk the return of a Jacobite majority. The ministers therefore proposed and parliament agreed that the existing parliament should continue for a term of seven instead of three years—a somewhat arbitrary proceeding on their part and only to be justified by the exigency of the time. The Septennial Act[32] was only intended as a temporary measure, but it has been found to work so well that it continues to this day to regulate the duration of parliaments, notwithstanding repeated efforts made by the City in general and by Alderman Sawbridge in particular to get it repealed. A few weeks later, parliament was prorogued (26 June, 1716) and the king paid a visit— often repeated during his reign—to his beloved Hanover, leaving his son, the Prince of Wales, as guardian of the realm and his lieutenant. Between father and son there was never any love lost, there was a sort of hereditary family quarrel, which in this case was brought to a climax in November of the following year over the christening of a babe. The court became split up into two distinct parts. The prince was ordered to quit St. James's and those who paid court to the prince and princess were for ever banished from the king's presence.[33] After remaining a prisoner in the Tower for nearly two years, the Earl of Oxford was at length, at his own request, brought to trial. The 13th June (1717) was originally fixed as the day on which he was to appear at Westminster Hall, but this was afterwards changed to the 24th by desire of the House of Commons, who wished to put off the trial as long as possible. The lord mayor and sheriffs being directed by the House of Lords to take precautions for guarding the city's gates and preventing an unnecessary concourse of people resorting to Westminster, it was resolved to place double watch in the ward of Farringdon Without during the trial "as was done in the tryal of my Lord Winton and the like cases."[34] Fortunately for the earl, a dispute arose between the two houses on a question of procedure. The Commons were glad of the opportunity of backing out and declined to appear as his accusers, and the Lords thereupon ordered his discharge.[35] For many years past the Corporation Act of 1661, had not been strictly enforced in the city. Such negligence laid the citizens open to pains and penalties. It was therefore deemed advisable towards the end of the next year (1718) to address the king on the subject and a petition was drawn up by the Court of Aldermen setting forth the apprehension of the petitioners of being "disquieted in the execution of their offices by pretence of not subscribing a declaration against the Solemn League and Covenant at the time of their admission into their respective offices" according to the Statute. Such subscription they submitted had been generally disused, and the Act in that particular, disregarded. Nevertheless, the petitioners had behaved themselves in their offices with all duty and affection to his majesty and the government. They humbly prayed therefore that His Majesty would take such order as should effectually quiet their minds and enable them "to proceed with cheerfulness in the execution of their respective duties."[36] This petition was received very graciously by the king, who looked upon it as a mark of the City's trust and confidence in him. "I shall be glad"—he said—"not only for your sakes, but my own, if any defects which may touch the rights of my good subjects are discovered in my time, since that will furnish me with means of giving you and all my people an indisputable proof of my tenderness for their privileges, and how unwilling I shall ever be to take advantage of their mistakes."[37] His Majesty's assurance thus given was quickly followed by the passing of an Act for the purpose of relieving the City of London and other boroughs of any disabilities for their neglect in subscribing the prescribed declaration.[38] The reign of George I was marked not only with repeated disputes between the Court of Aldermen and the Common Council, but also with disputes over different municipal elections, until in 1725 matters were to a certain extent accommodated by the passing of the Election Act, 11 George I, c. 18. It had been the custom of the City, whenever the ruling of an alderman at a wardmote had been disputed, to defend the alderman's action when brought before a court of law at the City's expense. The legality of this proceeding was now questioned. In December, 1717, when the annual elections for the Common Council came on, there had been a disputed election in Tower Ward, and the ruling of Alderman Sir Charles Peers had been called in question by Peter Bolton and Edward Bridgen, two unsuccessful candidates. The dispute engaged the attention of the Common Council and the law courts for a whole twelvemonth, the expenses of the aldermen being [Pg 10] [Pg 11] [Pg 12] [Pg 13] Resolution of the House thereon. A protest entered. What is "paying Scot?" An insult offered to an alderman on Lord Mayor's Day, 29 Oct., 1720. defrayed by the City. In February, 1719, it reached the House of Lords, but before the matter came on for hearing a compromise was effected, the City agreeing to pay taxed costs. The reason for this sudden change of attitude on the part of the City is doubtless to be found in a resolution of the House of Lords (17 Feb., 1719) to appoint a committee to examine and report what sums of money the City had expended out of its own chamber on this and similar causes, and what jurisdiction the Common Council exercised over elections of its members. The committee was authorized to carry its investigations as far back as they deemed proper, and to send for persons, papers and records. On the 17th April the committee made its report to the House. The Town Clerk and the City Chamberlain had attended the committee with the necessary warrants and minutes of proceedings, and it had been found that a sum of £2,827 10s. had been paid out of the City's cash for carrying on causes and suits at law relating to the elections of Aldermen and Common Councilmen since the 8th November, 1711.[39] As regards the claim of the Common Council to hear and determine matters in connection with elections of its own members, the committee found that it was based upon a resolution of the Court of the 9th January, 1641,[40] which resolution had been disclaimed (with many others) by Act of Common Council of 1683.[41] The report having been read, the House passed a resolution to the effect that in maintaining suits at law between citizen and citizen in cases of disputed elections, the Common Council had "abused their trust, and been guilty of great partiality, and of a gross mismanagement of the city treasure, and a violation of the freedom of elections in the city." So scathing an indictment against the City was not allowed to pass unchallenged. Sixteen peers entered a vigorous protest on the several grounds: (1) that no evidence had been taken on oath, and that without such evidence they conceived that so heavy a censure ought not to be passed on any individual, much less on so important a body as the Common Council of the city, which had done good service on pressing occasions; (2) that the Common Council had not had due notice given them; (3) that the resolution of the House might be construed as prejudging matters which might come before the House judicially; and lastly (4) that had the Common Council been heard they might have shown that the money had been expended in defence of their ancient rights and privileges, and in order to prevent any encroachment thereon.[42] That the dissentient Lords had reason on their side there can be little doubt. Nevertheless, some writers[43] whilst setting out in full the committee's report, as well as the returns made by the Chamberlain of money expended by the City on election suits, and the resolution of the House thereon, have entirely ignored the fact that a solemn protest was made against such resolution, and the reasons which urged the dissentients to make such protest. In the meantime another disputed election had taken place. This time it concerned an alderman. The mayor had reported the case to the Court of Aldermen the day that the Lords appointed their committee to investigate the City's law costs. The case was shortly this. On the 9th January a wardmote had been held at Cordwainers' Hall, for the purpose of electing an alderman for the ward of Bread Street, in the place of Sir Richard Hoare, deceased. The show of hands for the respective candidates—Robert Baylis and Richard Brocas, both of them members of the Grocers' Company—had been so equal that the mayor had been unable to declare which had the majority. A poll had therefore been demanded, the result being declared by the mayor to be in favour of Brocas, and thereupon a scrutiny had taken place, with the same result.[44] The whole question turned upon the qualification of certain voters. Did they or did they not pay Scot, and in what did "paying Scot" consist? The matter having been argued before the Court of Aldermen by counsel on behalf of each candidate, the Court came to the conclusion that paying Scot was "a general contribution to all public taxes," and at the same time declared Baylis to be duly elected.[45] The Common Council then attempted to interfere, but the Court of Aldermen would brook no invasion of their rights,[46] and although litigation continued well into the next year (1720) Baylis retained his seat in the Court. On Lord Mayor's day (29 Oct.) 1720, an incident occurred worthy of a passing notice. From particulars laid before the Court of Aldermen (10 Jan., 1721) by a committee appointed to investigate the matter,[47] it appears that when the members of the Court of Aldermen were riding in their coaches towards the Three Cranes on the banks of the river, thence to attend the new lord mayor (Sir John Fryer) in his barge to Westminster, a certain ensign in the Second Regiment of the Guards—Thomas Hockenhull or Hocknell by name—who was in charge of a detachment of soldiers on their way to the Tower, thought fit to break through the aldermen's procession, and to bring Sir John Ward's coach to a sudden standstill, his horses being struck over the head by the soldiers' muskets. The affront was too serious to be passed over, and Sir John reported the matter to Secretary Craggs, who forwarded the alderman's letter to the Secretary at War, and at the same time expressed regret that such an incident should have happened.[48] Later on the officer himself appeared before the Court of Aldermen bearing a letter from Sir George Treby to Alderman Ward to the effect that the officer had already received a reprimand, and would (he hoped) make a suitable apology. A written apology was read to the Court of Aldermen in which Hockenhull pleaded ignorance as to whose coach it was that had been stopped, and endeavoured to throw the blame on two of his soldiers, who he declared to be "a little in liquor." The officer being called in offered to make submission and to beg pardon, but the Court was not in the humour to accept his apology, and so the matter rested until the following January (1721), when upon Sir George Treby's intercession and Hockenhull's submission the Court agreed to pass the matter over. The Secretary at War was at the same time desired "that for the future the route for the Guards marching to and from the Tower may be as usual through Watling Street, [Pg 14] [Pg 15] [Pg 16] [Pg 17] The South Sea Company, 1711-1720. Thomas Guy and his hospital. Parliamentary enquiry, Jan., 1721. The Sword-blade Company. and not through the high streets of this city." Sir John Fryer had been elected mayor at one of the most critical times in the history either of London or the kingdom, for his election took place just at the time of the bursting of the great South Sea bubble. The South Sea Company had been formed in 1711 by Harley, with the view of carrying on such trade with Spanish America as Spain might be willing to allow in the treaty which was then expected. When the Treaty of Utrecht was concluded Spain was found to have conceded the right of trading with America, but only to a limited extent. Nevertheless the idea got abroad that the company was possessed of a very valuable monopoly, and that the trade with Spanish America would enrich all who took part in it. Accordingly the shares of the company were eagerly bought, and in a few years the institution began to rival the Bank of England itself. Early in 1720, when a scheme was propounded for lessening the National Debt, the company was in a position to outbid the Bank in buying up government annuities, and holders of such annuities were found only too ready to exchange them for shares in the company. The company next invited the public to subscribe new capital, and upwards of £5,000,000 were subscribed in an incredibly short space of time. The wildest speculation prevailed. Bogus companies sprang up in all directions, and no matter how ridiculous the purpose might be for which they were avowedly started, they always found subscribers. Men of all ranks, ages, and professions, nay! women also flocked to Threadneedle Street (where stood the South Sea House) or to Change Alley, and the very streets were blocked with desks and clerks, and converted into counting-houses. The whole nation suddenly became stock-jobbers. Swift, writing of the ruin worked by the mad speculation of the day, thus characterises Change Alley, the centre of all the mischief: "There is a gulf where thousands fell Here all the bold adventurers came, A narrow sound, though deep as hell; 'Change Alley is the dreadful name." The South Sea Company continued to maintain its pre-eminent position, and the value of its shares continued to rise until, in August, a £100 share was worth £1,000. At last it brought about its own ruin in a way little anticipated. In an evil hour the directors commenced proceedings against the unlicensed, and therefore illegal, companies which had interfered with the great company's more legitimate business. The result was disastrous. One fraud after another was exposed. The nation suddenly recovered its senses. A panic arose as bubble after bubble burst. By the end of September, South Sea stock had fallen from £1,000 to £150, and at last, after an abortive effort to obtain assistance from the Bank of England, this biggest bubble of all collapsed, bringing thousands to beggary. Even the Bank of England itself experienced difficulty in maintaining its credit during the panic, and was compelled once more to resort to stratagem. Payments were made in silver, and chiefly to persons who were in league with the bank, and who no sooner received their money than they brought it back. The money had of course to be re-counted, and by this means time was gained, and time at such a crisis, and to such an institution, meant literally money. On Michaelmas-day the Bank according to the custom prevailing was closed, and when it opened again, the public alarm had subsided.[49] A few—a very few—of those who had speculated in South Sea stock kept their heads, and got out before the bubble burst. Among these was Thomas Guy, the founder of Guy's Hospital, at that time carrying on business as a bookseller at the corner of Lombard Street and Cornhill—the "lucky corner." He made a large fortune by buying stock at a low price and selling before the crash came, and right good use did he make of his money, for at his death he endowed the hospital called by his name with a sum exceeding £200,000. As is not unusual in such cases, there was a universal endeavour to fasten the guilt upon others than the rash speculators themselves. An outcry was raised, not only against the directors of the company, but also against the ministry. Nothing would suffice but a Parliamentary enquiry into the affairs of the company. This was granted, and early in the following year the Lords commenced an open investigation, whilst the Commons appointed a committee of secrecy. The Lords had scarcely entered upon their investigation before it was discovered that the secretary of the company had made his escape to the continent. Thereupon the Commons gave orders for all ports to be watched in order to prevent the directors of the company following his example. Any director holding office under Government was dismissed. Two members of the House, who were also directors, were expelled the House and taken into custody. These were Jacob Sawbridge, the grandfather of Alderman John Sawbridge, of whom we shall hear more later on, and Sir Theodore Janssen, the father of Stephen Theodore Janssen who, after serving the City in Parliament and in the Mayoralty chair, became the City's Chamberlain. Other directors were also taken into custody and their papers seized. Jacob Sawbridge was a member of the firm of Turner, Caswall and Company, commonly known as the Sword-blade Company, carrying on business as goldsmiths in Birchin Lane. Sir George Caswall, one of the partners, was member for Leominster, and was serving as Sheriff the year of the South Sea Bubble. His firm had acted as cashiers of the South Sea Company, and like many similar firms of goldsmiths, had advanced large sums upon the company's stock. The committee of secrecy appointed by the House of Commons soon discovered that Sir George had been guilty of tampering with the firm's books in order to shield Charles Stanhope. For this he was expelled the House and committed to the Tower, whilst his firm was made to surrender its illgotten gains to the extent of a quarter of a million sterling.[50] [Pg 18] [Pg 19] [Pg 20] [Pg 21] Parliament and the South Sea Company. The action of Parliament upheld by the City. Supremacy of Walpole. Jacobite Conspiracy, 1722. City address to the king, 9 All the directors were forced to send in inventories of their respective estates to the Parliamentary Committee. These were confiscated for the benefit of their dupes, their owners being allowed some small portion of their former wealth to keep them from starvation. Peculation and dishonesty were not confined to the city. Peers of the realm and cabinet ministers were charged with receiving large bribes either in money or stock. The Earl of Sunderland, first commissioner of the Treasury, was reported by the committee of investigation to have received £50,000 stock without any consideration whatsoever, and although the House of Commons refused to find him guilty,[51] the Earl felt compelled to give up his post. Craggs, who was Secretary of State, and Aislabie, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to mention others, were convicted by the House of receiving similar bribes.[52] Craggs died of an attack of small-pox, pending the enquiry, but he left a large estate, and this was confiscated for the relief of sufferers. Aislabie was expelled the House, and committed to the Tower. Among the directors who were thus made to feel the heavy hand of Parliament was Edward Gibbon, grandfather of the great historian of the "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." Out of an estate of £60,000, Parliament allowed him to retain no more than £10,000. That the action of Parliament towards the directors was afterwards condemned by the historian as arbitrary and unjust, and only to be excused by the most imperious necessity, need not therefore cause surprise.[53] The city fathers, on the other hand, upheld the action of Parliament, and urged it to take further measures to alleviate the prevalent distress by presenting to the House the following petition (3 April)[54]:— "Your peticoners think it their duty most humbly to represent to this Honoble House the present state of the City of London (so considerable a part of the kingdom) now filled with numberless objects of grief and compassion (the sad effects of the mismanagemts avarice and fatal contrivances of the late Directors of the South Sea Company, their aiders, abettors and confederates in the destruccõn of their country.) "Nor is it the case of this great city alone your peticoners lament, but the general decay of trade manufactures and of public creditt, whereof this Honoble House have been alwaies so extreamly tender, as also of the honour of the British name and nacõn. "Your peticoners beg leave to return their most humble thanks to this Honoble House for the great pains they have taken to releive the unhappy sufferers by compelling the offenders to make restitucõn as likewise for their continued applicacõn to lay open this whole scene of guilt, notwithstanding the industrious artificers of such sharers in the common plunder as have endeavoured to obstruct the deteccõn of fraud and corrupcõn, and your peticoners doubt not but the same fortitude, impartiality and public spirit wherewith this Honoble House have hitherto acted will still animate them in pursuit of those truly great and noble ends. "We are too sensible"—the petitioners went on to say—"of the load of public debts not to wish that all proper methods may be taken to lessen them, and it is an infinite concern to us that the paiment of a great summe towards them (which was expected from the success of the late scheme) is now rendered extreamly difficult, if not impracticable, and yet is a cloud hanging over the heads of the present unfortunate Proprietors of the South Sea Company, and a great damp to public credit. "We will not presume," they said in conclusion, "to mention in what manner releif may be given in this arduous affair, but humbly submit it to the serious consideracõn of this Honoble House." This petition was followed by others in the same strain from different parts of the country, and conduced to the passing of a Bill which, besides appropriating the sum of £2,000,000 out of the private property of the directors for the relief of sufferers, remitted a sum of £7,000,000 due by the Company to the Government, and made an equitable division of the remainder of the Company's capital among the proprietors.[55] These measures were greatly, if not exclusively, due to Walpole, the great financier of the day, and one of the few who had not allowed themselves to become involved in the affairs of the South Sea Company. The recent disclosures led to his becoming first lord of the treasury, and chancellor of the exchequer, with his brother-in-law Townshend as secretary of state. In March, 1722, the first septennial Parliament came to an end, and again the Whigs were returned by an overwhelming majority.[56] Walpole thus found himself absolute master of the field, and this position he continued to maintain for twenty years. In the meanwhile the birth of an heir[57] to the Pretender (1721) had raised the hopes of the Jacobites, who were only waiting for a fitting opportunity to renew their attack upon the House of Hanover. The confusion which followed the bursting of the South Sea Bubble seemed to afford them the opportunity they desired. Again the aid of France was invoked. Not only did the Regent refuse assistance, however, but he informed the English minister in Paris of the conspiracy that was on foot. Thus it was that on the 8th May (1722) Townshend informed the Lord Mayor (Sir William Stewart) by letter[58] that the king had the best of grounds for believing that another plot was being prepared in favour of the Pretender, but that as the plot was unsupported by any foreign power, and the king had been forewarned, there would be little to fear. At the same time the king looked to the mayor and his fellow magistrates to secure the city. The letter being the next day brought to the notice of the Court of Aldermen, that body prepared a loyal address to the king and presented it to him the same evening.[59] In [Pg 22] [Pg 23] [Pg 24] [Pg 25] May, 1722. Bill for regulating elections in the city, Jan., 1725. Bill supported by majority of Aldermen. Bill opposed by Common Council. Election Act, 11 Geo. i. c, 18, 1725. Death of George I, 11 June, 1727. acknowledging the address the king assured the deputation that his interests and the interests of the City were inseparable, that he would do all in his power to maintain public credit and protect the City's privileges and estate as well as uphold the religion, laws and liberties of the kingdom. An order was issued the same day by the Privy Council for putting into execution the laws against papists, reputed papists and non-jurors, as well as against riots and tumults.[60] In addition to this the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended for a whole year, the longest time on record, and throughout the summer troops were kept encamped ready for any emergency. Some of the chief conspirators in England, among them being Atterbury, Bishop of Rochester, were placed under arrest. Had not the conspiracy been timely discovered and precautions taken the whole kingdom "and particularly the City of London"—as George told the new parliament when, after frequent prorogations, it met in October—might...