(M863)

In November last (1689) a new committee was appointed to prepare a Bill for the reversal of the proceedings upon the Quo Warranto and for the removal of other grievances.(1695) The provisions of the Bill had been scarcely settled before the House, of its own motion, granted (8 April) leave for a Bill to be brought in to reverse the judgment on the Quo Warranto against the City as arbitrary and illegal, and appointed a committee to prepare such a Bill.(1696) A Bill was accordingly prepared, was brought in, and passed the first and second reading on the 14th April.(1697) On the 7th May it passed the committee stage and was ordered to be engrossed, and on the following day it passed and was ordered to be carried up to the House of Lords.(1698) On the 14th the Bill passed the Lords without amendment, after counsel for the City had been heard during its progress through the House.(1699)

(M864)

Pursuant to provisions of the Act (sec. 10) thus passed an election of mayor, sheriffs and city chamberlain took place on the 26th May, and an election of a Common Council on the 10th June following. Such as were then elected were according to the statute to hold office not only for the remainder of the usual term, but to continue in office throughout the year ensuing. On the 26th May Pilkington was again elected mayor, although the majority of votes in Common Hall was in favour of Sir Jonathan Raymond,(1700) whilst Edward Clark, mercer, and Francis Child, goldsmith, were chosen sheriffs.(1701) Sir Peter Rich was re-elected chamberlain by a narrow majority over the head of Leonard Robinson, who had ousted him the previous Midsummer,(1702) but he was not admitted to office, his rival being imposed upon the citizens as chamberlain in spite of his having been in the minority.

(M865)

When the elections for a new Common Council took place on the 10th June there were severe contests in several of the wards between the "Church party" and the Whigs, involving irregularities which led to disputes between the aldermen and the Common Council.(1703) The working of the new Act, as a matter of fact, gave rise to much dissatisfaction, and scarcely was it passed before the Court of Aldermen resolved (27 May) to take counsel's opinion upon some of its clauses.(1704)

(M866) (M867)

The state of affairs was at length brought to the notice of parliament by a petition subscribed by members of the Common Council and presented to the House of Commons on the 3rd December.(1705) The petitioners explained to the House that they had conceived and hoped that the late Act would have restored the city to its ancient rights and privileges. It had, however, done quite the contrary. They then proceeded to relate how, notwithstanding the Act, several aldermen of the city who had been appointed by commissions under the late king continued to act as such by virtue of certain doubtful expressions in the Act; that by their illegally assumed authority Pilkington had been declared and made mayor, although not duly returned by the Common Hall; that by the contrivance of the said mayor and the aldermen Leonard Robinson had been made chamberlain, notwithstanding another having been declared duly elected by the sheriffs, and the Common Hall had been thereupon dissolved. Nor was this all. The petitioners went on to complain that divers members of the Common Council had been illegally excluded, whilst others who had been duly elected had been refused admittance; that the place of town clerk having been vacant for three months and more—an office, they remind the House, of great trust in the city and one to which only the Common Council had the right of appointment—the mayor and aldermen had of their own authority appointed several persons to execute the office against the consent of the Common Council; that the petitioners had not been allowed to meet and consult about the necessary affairs of the city according to their ancient rights and customs; and that a Common Council having met on the 3rd October, and a majority of the members having agreed upon the presentation of a humble address to parliament with the view of explaining the recent Act and settling the rights of the city, the mayor refused to allow the question to be put and immediately dissolved the court. The petitioners therefore, finding all their ancient rights and privileges thus invaded, prayed the House to grant them relief. Having heard the petition read the House ordered a copy of it to be given to the mayor and aldermen,(1706) and appointed Monday, the 8th December, for hearing both parties by themselves or by counsel. Accordingly, on that day the petitioners were heard by their counsel, and divers witnesses were examined, after which the further hearing was postponed until the morrow. On the 9th the case of the mayor and aldermen was opened by counsel and was continued on the 10th and the 11th, when by a majority of thirteen it was decided to adjourn the matter for a week.(1707) It never was taken up again, parliament being probably unwilling to run the risk of losing the favour of those in the city who were in power at a time when interference on its part might be the cause of stopping the flow of money into the coffers of the exchequer.(1708)

(M868)

As early as January, 1690, William had made up his mind to go to Ireland in person for the purpose of reducing the country into subjection, but although every effort was made to push on the necessary preparations nearly six months elapsed before he was ready to set out. On the 30th May the assistance of the City was invoked. The Common Council willingly agreed to raise money to assist the king in his enterprise,(1709) and on the 2nd June the mayor waited on his majesty at Kensington Palace, accompanied by the recorder, the aldermen and the sheriffs, and wished him a prosperous journey, promising at the same time to secure the good government of the city during his absence.(1710) On the 4th William set sail, and ten days later (14 June) landed at Carrickfergus. His arrival was a surprise to James, who flattered himself that the state of affairs in parliament and "the distractions of the city" would not allow of his leaving England.(1711) During the king's absence the queen took an active part in the administration of the kingdom, and by her tact and kindliness won many friends. As soon as it was known that William had safely landed in Ireland the sheriffs were deputed by the Court of Aldermen to attend her majesty and desire when the court might wait upon her to offer its congratulations upon the good fortune that had so far attended the king.(1712)

(M869)

The defeat of a combined English and Dutch fleet off Beachy Head on the last day of June caused a great commotion, although some compensation was found in the news of William's victory at the Boyne. Seeing that a French force might any day be expected in England, the government, as was its wont, turned to the city of London. On the 7th July the mayor, the aldermen and some members of the Court of Lieutenancy(1713) obeyed a summons to attend upon her majesty in council. The state of affairs having been fully explained to them, they were asked as to the numerical strength of the City's militia, and more especially as to the number of horse and dragoons the City could raise on an emergency. The mayor professed himself unable to give a reply off hand to these questions, and desired time to consult the Common Council on the matter.(1714) Whatever political or religious differences existed at the time of the recent city elections, these were now laid aside in the face of a common danger, and "London set the example of concert and of exertion."(1715) No time was lost. Already the mayor had, in pursuance of an order from the Privy Council (3 July) issued precepts to the several aldermen (5 July) for search to be made in private as well as public stables for horses for military service.(1716) On the 10th the Court of Aldermen resolved to apply to the hackney-men plying their trade in and about London, and to learn from them the number of horses they could supply on an emergency like the present, and upon what terms.(1717) The Common Council at the same time resolved to raise a regiment of horse and another of dragoons.(1718) The next day (11 July) the mayor and aldermen and a deputation of the lieutenancy again waited upon her majesty sitting in council and assured her of their loyalty. The city militia, the queen was informed, consisted of about 9,000 men, well equipt and ready for active service, and six regiments of auxiliaries were about to be raised. As to the horse and dragoons, the Common Council had unanimously resolved to raise by voluntary contributions a large regiment of horse and 1,000 dragoons, and to maintain them for a month if need be. We have seen how jealous in former days the city had been in the matter of appointing its own officers over its own forces, but now all signs of jealousy were wanting, and the queen herself was desired to appoint officers over the cavalry that was in course of being raised.(1719) On the 21st her majesty reviewed the city militia in Hyde Park, and expressed herself as much gratified.(1720)

(M870)

The City was ready not only with men but money. On the 22nd July the Common Council was asked to assist her majesty by making a speedy loan of L100,000 "or what more can be advanced" on the security of the hereditary revenue. The court at once gave its consent, and precepts were issued to the aldermen to raise the money in their respective wards without delay.(1721)

(M871)

Fortunately for England the French fleet, which kept hovering for more than a month off the south coast in the hope of being able to effect a landing, at last was seen to be sailing homewards. When all danger was past the queen sent for the lord mayor (15 Aug.) to thank his lordship and the city for their readiness in advancing money and raising forces, and to inform him that there was no immediate necessity for the horse and dragoons which were then being raised.(1722)

(M872)

Hearing of the danger that was threatening England, William had serious thoughts of leaving Ireland and returning home in July.(1723) He did not return, however, before September. Landing in England on Saturday, the 6th, he proceeded by easy stages to London, where he arrived on the 10th, and took up his residence at Kensington Palace. The bells of the city rang out a welcome, bonfires were lighted, and the tower guns fired a salvo.(1724) On the 9th the sheriffs were instructed by the Court of Aldermen to wait upon his majesty to learn when and where he would be pleased to see them.(1725) An appointment having been made for Thursday morning (11 Sept.) the mayor and aldermen proceeded to Whitehall and congratulated his majesty on his safe return, their example being followed by the bishop and the clergy of London in the afternoon of the same day.(1726) The Common Council, not to be outdone in display of loyalty, also craved an audience, and on the 18th were permitted to wait upon his majesty to offer their congratulations.(1727)

(M873)

Early in 1691 William again left England for the purpose of attending a congress at the Hague. Before leaving he gave an audience to the mayor and aldermen, who desired to wish him a prosperous voyage. He took occasion to thank them for the care they had formerly taken of the city during his absence and desired them to do the same again.(1728) A few days later (16 Jan.) he embarked at Gravesend and did not return to England until the following April, when he received the usual welcome from the city.(1729)

(M874) (M875)

His presence was much needed, for the Jacobites were becoming more dangerous every day. One plot, of which Lord Preston was the ruling spirit,(1730) had been discovered before William left for the Hague, and another was on foot. Nevertheless the state of affairs on the continent would not allow of his remaining long in England; so, after a brief stay he again set sail for Holland (2 May), with Marlborough in his train, to open a regular campaign against the King of France.

(M876)

The king had not been gone long before the queen sent to the City (18 June) to borrow L120,000 to be employed in the reduction of Ireland, a business left to the Dutch General Ginkell, afterwards created Earl of Athlone, to carry out. The sum of L75,000 was to be advanced on the security of the parliamentary imposts on wine, vinegar and tobacco, and the remainder of the loan on the security of similar imposts on East India goods and other commodities.(1731) The Common Council readily consented to find the money, notwithstanding its having so recently as February last advanced no less a sum than L200,000 towards fitting out the fleet.(1732) These advances were, however, still insufficient to meet the necessities of the times. Long before the year was out the citizens were called upon to lend another L200,000 to assist in paying off the ships of war that were about to lay up for the winter.(1733) In the following year (1692), when parliament laid the foundation of the National Debt and decided on borrowing a million of money for the support of the war, the City was asked at different periods to advance no less than three sums of L200,000(1734) and one of L100,000.(1735)

(M877)

In view of the elections which were to take place on Midsummer-day, 1691, a motion had been made in the Common Council on the 18th June (immediately after the court had agreed to lend the queen L120,000) for repealing the clause in the Act of Common Council of the 6th June, 1683, touching the confirmation of one of the sheriffs of the city and county of Middlesex chosen by the mayor for the time being. A debate thereupon arising the previous question was put, and was declared by the lord mayor to be carried. A poll, however, was demanded, when the previous question was lost by 35 votes to 30, and the original motion being afterwards put was carried by 30 votes to 29.(1736) Such is the narrative of what took place in the Common Council on the 18th June, 1691, as related in the Journal of the court, according to which the clause in the Act of 1683 would have been repealed. We know however, as a matter of fact, that the clause was not repealed until three years later.(1737) An explanation is afforded us by Luttrell, the diarist, who says that the minority against repealing the clause immediately withdrew from the court "so there were not enough left to make a Common Council, so the Act continues in force."(1738) He adds that the mayor (Pilkington) thereupon went to the Bridge House and drank to Sir William Ashurst as a "recommendatory sheriff" for the ensuing year to hold office only on condition that the choice should be approved by the Common Hall, "otherwise no good sheriff." When Midsummer-day arrived, the common sergeant having asked the Court of Aldermen for instructions as to how to proceed to the elections, was ordered to "pursue such directions as he should receive from the sheriffes, and in his report of the elections, to declare it as the report of the said sheriffes." The court further ordered that the Common Hall should be opened by proclamation in these words: "You good men of the livery of the several companies of the city summoned to appear here this day for the election of sheriffs and other officers usually chosen at this time, draw near and give your attendance, etc."(1739) The claims of the Livery in Common Hall to elect both sheriffs being thus allowed, the electors were satisfied to pay the mayor the compliment of electing Sir William Ashurst, his nominee, to be one of the sheriffs, whilst choosing Richard Levett to be the other. There was another candidate in the person of William Gore. A poll was demanded and allowed, the result of which was declared on the 2nd July, when it appeared that Ashurst had polled 3,631 votes, Levett 2,252 and Gore 1,774. A keen contest again took place between Sir Peter Rich and Leonard Robinson for the office of chamberlain, in which the latter came off victorious.(1740)

(M878) (M879)

In the spring of the next year (5 April, 1692) the Court of Aldermen had before them a Bill, the object of which was to settle the election and confirmation of sheriffs for the future. After due deliberation amongst themselves, and after consulting the attorney-general upon its provisions, the Bill was recommended to the Common Council to be passed as an Act of that court.(1741) Of the particulars of the Bill we are not informed. It was laid for the first time before the Common Council on the 6th May, when it was referred to a committee. On the 26th ult. it was read the first time and on the 31st a second time, but upon the question being put whether the Bill should be then read a third time it passed in the negative,(1742) and nothing more is heard of it.

(M880)

A Bill for regulating the election of members of the Common Council itself met with better success. Of late years divers inhabitants of the city who were not freemen (and among them the doctors and other gentlemen of Doctors' Commons) had been in the habit of exercising the franchise at wardmotes, to the prejudice of freemen, to whom alone belonged the right of voting. Many complaints having been made to the Common Council of the rights of freemen having been thus infringed,(1743) an Act was at length passed (26 Oct., 1692) declaring that the nomination of aldermen and the election of common councilmen for the several wards of the city appertained only to freemen, being householders in the city, and paying scot and bearing lot, a list of whom was thenceforth to be prepared and kept by the beadle of each ward, as well as a separate list of the other householders. A copy of the Act was to be appended to all precepts for wardmotes, and the provisions of the Act were to be publicly read to the assembled electors.(1744) At the next election of a Common Council, which took place in December, the Whigs, we are told, were, after a hard fight, returned by "above 50 more voices than last year."(1745)

(M881)

When William returned from abroad in October, 1691, it was to find Ireland completely subjugated. The mayor and aldermen waited upon his majesty at Whitehall, as usual, to congratulate him upon his safe arrival. The king thanked them for the care they had taken of the city during his absence, and more particularly for supplying the queen with the sum of L200,000 to enable her to carry on the necessary affairs of the kingdom, and bestowed the honour of knighthood on Richard Levett, one of the sheriffs, Sir William Ashurst, the other sheriff, being already knighted. Leaving Whitehall, the mayor and aldermen next proceeded to Kensington to offer their compliments to the queen and to thank her majesty for her good government during the king's absence.(1746) A fortnight later (4 Nov.) the Common Council resolved to pay their respects also to the king and to congratulate him upon the success of his arms in Ireland.(1747)

(M882)

The king did not long remain in England. Early in March of the following year (1692) he returned to the Hague to make preparations for renewing the war against France both by sea and land, leaving the queen to carry on the government in England. On the morning of the 12th March the mayor and aldermen, accompanied by the recorder, proceeded to Whitehall to offer the queen their congratulations upon the receipt of news of the king's safe arrival in Holland, as well as of her majesty's assumption of the reins of government. The recorder assured her of the City's loyalty, and desired her only to put it to the test.(1748)

(M883)

The City had not long to wait. Within a week (18 March) application was made to the Common Council, on behalf of the queen, for a loan of L200,000.(1749) This was the first of the three loans of that amount already mentioned as having been advanced this year. The council readily consented to raise the money, and so successful were their efforts that within four days one-half of the whole loan was already paid into the exchequer. By the king's orders the whole of the L200,000 was kept intact "for some extraordinary occasion."(1750)

(M884)

Such an occasion was at hand. Whilst England and Holland were preparing to make a joint attack on France, France had been getting ready a navy for a descent on England with the view of restoring James to the throne. As soon as intelligence arrived of a threatened invasion great excitement prevailed. This was towards the close of April (1692). The trained bands were called out, not only in the city, but throughout the country, and more especially in those counties bordering on the coast. The Court of Lieutenancy had orders to administer the oaths to every officer and man, and any that refused were to be instantly cashiered and disarmed. The same with Papists and all suspicious persons found in the city. The oaths were to be tendered to them, and if any refused to take them they were to be disarmed and banished ten miles from the city.(1751) The mayor issued instructions for closing coffee-houses in the city on Sundays.(1752) Troops that had been ordered to Flanders were now countermanded, and a camp was formed at Southampton.(1753) The lord mayor was given a commission as general of all the city's forces—trained bands and auxiliaries—during the king's absence abroad, and on the 10th May was complimented by her majesty at the close of a review held in Hyde Park.(1754)

(M885)

At length—on the 19th May—the French fleet, which was to cover the invasion of England, met the combined Dutch and English fleet off La Hogue, and was so signally beaten that all further thought of an invasion had to be abandoned. News of the victory reached London on the 21st, and was received with every demonstration of joy. Medical aid was at once despatched to tend the sick and wounded at Portsmouth, whilst the hospitals were got ready to receive those who should be brought to London.(1755)

(M886)

The formal announcement of the victory to the Common Council of the city (26 May) was thought a fitting opportunity for asking for a further loan of L100,000 to enable her majesty to pay and "gratify" the seamen who had so gallantly warded off invasion and to refit the fleet. It need scarcely be said that the money was readily promised.(1756)

(M887)

This sum, however, proved altogether inadequate for the purpose, so that by the end of August the queen was compelled to send for the mayor and aldermen and ask for L200,000 more. The mayor promised to summon a Common Council at an early date to consider the matter, and to further her majesty's wishes to the best of his power.(1757) A court accordingly met on Tuesday the 6th September and agreed to raise the money, as usual, by subscriptions in the wards and from the livery companies,(1758) and within a very few days the mayor was able to signify to the queen the City's compliance with her wishes, and to inform her that L70,000 had been already subscribed.(1759)

(M888)

On the 18th October William once more set foot in England, and at seven o'clock in the evening of the 20th he passed through the city—the houses of which were illuminated and the bells set ringing—to Kensington. Two days later (22 Oct.) the mayor and aldermen went in state to wait upon his majesty to congratulate him upon his safe return, and to ask him to favour them with his presence on the coming lord mayor's day, when Sir John Fleet entered on his year of office.(1760) The king accepted the City's invitation and conferred the honour of knighthood upon Salathiel Lovell, who in June last had been chosen recorder on the occasion of Sir George Treby being appointed chief justice of the common pleas.(1761)

(M889)

The entertainment, which was given at the expense of the aldermen and not charged in any way to the city's Chamber,(1762) was made the occasion by the king of suggesting another city loan of L200,000, making the third loan of the kind within the year, besides another loan of L100,000. The king's wishes were laid before the next Common Council (2 Nov.) and met with a ready response.(1763) Before leaving the Guildhall his majesty conferred the honour of knighthood upon Alderman Gore, Alderman Houblon, Leonard Robinson, the city chamberlain, and others.(1764)

(M890)

Scarcely had William turned his back on England in the spring of the following year (1693) in order to prosecute the war with France before the Common Council was asked (25 April) to advance another sum of L200,000 upon the credit of a recent Act of Parliament authorising the raising of a million of money for military purposes.(1765) The money, which was wanted for the purpose of paying the wages of seamen and for refitting the fleet, was immediately voted.

(M891) (M892)

The same ill-success followed the arms of the allied forces this year on the continent as in previous years. But the fall of Mons in 1691, of Namur in 1692, and the bloody field of Landen this year were far less disastrous in their effect to the Londoner than the damage inflicted on the Turkey fleet of merchantmen in Lagos Bay. For months the fleet, valued at several millions, had been waiting to be convoyed to the Mediterranean, and so great had been the delay in providing it with a sufficiently strong escort that the city merchant had already lost much of the profit he had looked to derive from the voyage. When at length a convoy was provided it was on the understanding that the greater part of the force should withdraw as soon as the most critical point of the voyage should be passed, leaving but barely twenty sail, under Rooke, to accompany the merchantmen through the Straits of Gibraltar. It was in vain that Rooke protested. The danger was the more hazardous inasmuch as no one could say where the French fleet was lying. Nevertheless, on the 5th June the main fleet parted company and returned to the Channel, leaving Rooke, with only seventeen men-of-war, to look to his charge as best he could. As time went on and no news could be got of the movements of the French fleet the underwriters in the city got more and more nervous.(1766) The end is well known. At Lagos the English admiral found his passage blocked by the French fleet. A sharp fight ensued, during which many merchantmen succeeded in making good their escape, others were burnt or sunk. "Never within the memory of man," wrote Macaulay, "had there been in the city a day of more gloom and agitation than that on which the news of the encounter in the Bay of Lagos arrived. Many traders, an eye-witness said, went away from the Royal Exchange as pale as if they had received sentence of death." The Turkey merchants in their distress sent a deputation to the queen.(1767) The deputation met with a kind reception, and was assured by Somers, on the queen's behalf, of her majesty's deep sympathy. An enquiry, he said, had already been set on foot as to the cause of the recent disaster, and care would be taken to prevent its recurrence.

(M893)

On the 15th August, after voting a loan of L300,000 to her majesty for payment of the forces in Flanders, the Common Council prepared an address to the queen, in which they expressed their deep sense of the infinite goodness of God in preserving the king through all the perils of war, and thanked her for the sympathy she had displayed with the ruined merchants and for the steps she had taken for the better protection of trade in future. To this address a clause was added at the next meeting of the court (17 Aug.) referring to their cheerful readiness to advance a further sum of money for her majesty's necessities, and assuring her of their firm resolution to continue upon all occasions to support her authority and government against all persons to the uttermost of their power.(1768)

(M894)

In October the Court of Aldermen invited her majesty to dinner on lord mayor's day—the day on which Sir William Ashurst entered into office. On this occasion it was agreed that the mayor and sheriffs should bear the whole expense of the entertainment, without the aid of the aldermen.(1769) Ashurst appears to have been unpopular with his brother aldermen. On the feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.), when the usual court was held for swearing in the new lord mayor, no less than ten aldermen absented themselves. Whether this was intended for a studied insult or was the result of mere negligence does not appear. But, however that may be, the court marked its sense of their conduct by fining six of the delinquents 100 marks a-piece, whilst it took time to consider the case of the other four, they being members of parliament.(1770)

(M895)

The 29th October falling on Sunday, the lord mayor's banquet took place on the following Monday at the hall of the Grocers' Company,(1771) but the queen was unable to attend as she had gone to meet the king, who had landed at Harwich on Sunday afternoon.(1772) On the 2nd November the mayor and aldermen attended at Whitehall to offer their congratulations upon his safe return. His success, said the city's Recorder, addressing his majesty, had not answered the expectations and hopes of his subjects, nevertheless they were assured that God, who had protected him in so many dangers, would in His own good time work a deliverance. The king received them very graciously, gave each his hand to kiss, and conferred the honour of knighthood upon Thomas Abney, one of the sheriffs.(1773)



CHAPTER XXXIII.



(M896)

Soon after parliament resumed its sittings (7 Nov., 1693) the attention of the Commons was drawn to a high-handed act done by the wealthy and autocratic company known as the East India Company. For nearly a century that body of merchants had enjoyed a monopoly of trade with the East Indies and had frustrated all attempts of "interlopers" to share their privileges. It had received its first charter at the hands of Queen Elizabeth on the 31st December, 1600, but it was not until after the Restoration, when its privileges were confirmed by another charter, that it began to enter upon a career of such unexampled prosperity as to become at once an object of envy and fear. The management of the company's affairs rested in the hands of a small number of proprietors, the leading spirit for many years being Sir Josiah Child, one of the merchant princes of the city. With him was associated, at least for a time, Thomas Papillon, the zealous Whig. He had become a member of the company as early as 1657, and for many years took an active part in its management. He was one of the directors from 1663 to 1670; was re-appointed in 1675, but lost his seat on the board the following year, as also did Child, through the intervention of Charles the Second, who disliked their Whiggish principles. After a short interval both of them recovered their positions, and in 1680 and 1681 Papillon was deputy governor.(1774) When Child turned courtier and threw over his old colleagues, Papillon and other Whig shareholders sold their stock and severed their connection with the company. Their places on the directorate were filled up by others who were devoted to Child and his policy, and thenceforth Child became the autocrat of the company. "The treasures of the company were absolutely at his disposal.... A present of ten thousand guineas was graciously received from him by Charles. Ten thousand more were accepted by James, who readily consented to become a holder of stock.... Of what the dictator expended no account was asked by his colleagues."(1775) His policy was so far successful as to obtain a decision in favour of the company's privileges from Jeffreys and a renewal of its charter from James. Just at a time when the prospects of the company looked brightest a sudden change of fortune was occasioned by the Revolution and the subsequent accession of the Whigs to power. The outcry raised by the general merchants of the city against the company became louder than ever, not so much on account of the company being in possession of a monopoly as because it was ruled by a single individual, and his rule, while benefiting himself and his creatures, was prejudicial to the public welfare. To this outcry Papillon, who had now returned from exile, added his voice and thereby subjected himself to a charge of inconsistency.

(M897)

There was but one remedy for the existing evil in the opinion of the majority, and that was to form a new company from which Child should be excluded. Without waiting for an Act of Parliament many traders in the city formed themselves into an association which, although unrecognised by law, acquired the designation of the New Company, and commenced to carry on its business at the hall of the Skinners' Company in Dowgate. For years the city was kept in a ferment by the rivalry existing between the Old and the New Company, between Leadenhall Street and Skinners' Hall, the former being supported by the Tories, the latter by the Whigs.

(M898)

The sanction and assistance of parliament was sought for by both companies. The majority of the Commons were in favour of a compromise. They would have retained the Old Company, but wished to remodel it and to incorporate with it the members of the New Company. Such a proceeding, however, Child would not listen to, and his obstinacy so provoked the House that in February, 1692, it presented an address to the king praying him to dissolve the Old Company and to grant a charter to a New Company on such terms as to his majesty's wisdom might seem fit. The king replied that it was a matter of very great importance to the trade of the kingdom; that he could not be expected to give an immediate answer, but he would consider the matter and give an answer shortly.(1776) The company sought to avert the impending danger by offering the king the sum of L200,000 by way of loan for three years without any interest.(1777) A twelvemonth later (Feb., 1693) the Commons again petitioned the king to dissolve the Old Company upon three years' warning;(1778) but in spite of these attacks the company contrived to obtain a confirmation of its monopoly under the Great Seal in the following October.(1779) This was only obtained by a lavish distribution of money.

(M899)

In the meantime the management of the Old Company's affairs had been placed ostensibly in the hands of Sir Thomas Cook,(1780) an alderman of London and member for Colchester, although there is reason for believing that Child still continued to be the actual manager.

(M900)

Within a few days of the order of the Privy Council for sealing the company's charter, and before the king, whose return from the continent was daily expected, could give it his sanction,(1781) the directors, in the moment of victory, committed an act of incredible rashness which led to serious consequences. A number of city merchants had recently chartered a vessel named "Redbridge" and placed on board a valuable cargo. Her papers showed her to be bound for a Spanish port, but suspicion pointed to her being intended for a voyage to the East Indies in contravention of the company's charter. Acting on this surmise, the company procured an order from the Privy Council to have the vessel stopt, and stopt she accordingly was from the 21st October until the following 9th November, each day's delay in sailing inflicting heavy expense on the owners. Such high-handed proceedings of the Company might create little excitement if carried out on the high seas and at a distance from home, but in the port of London they were not to be tolerated. The owners of the "Redbridge" laid their grievance before the Commons (30 Dec.).(1782) They pointed out that the conduct of the East India Company was "greatly prejudicial to all foreign trade and navigation in general, and more particularly to the petitioners, who by the present laws of the kingdom can have no reparation." They prayed, therefore, that the like inconveniences might be prevented for the future. Their petition was referred to a committee of the whole House, together with other petitions against the company, as well as the company's charters. In due course the committee, with Papillon in the chair, reported that the stopping of the "Redbridge" was "a grievance, a discouragement to trade and contrary to the known laws of the kingdom,"(1783) and further that, in the opinion of the Common Hall, "all the subjects of England have equal right to trade to the East Indies unless prohibited by Act of Parliament." This resolution was accepted by the House without a division,(1784) and for some years at least there nominally existed free trade with India.(1785)

(M901)

Between March, 1689, and February, 1691, little appears to have been done towards solving the difficulty of the claims of the City orphans. Another committee was appointed at the expiration of that time to consider the matter, and in November, 1691, the committee reported to the Common Council. They recommended that certain rents of the value of L8,000 per annum should be set aside towards the payment of four per cent. per annum for the immediate relief of the orphans, and that parliament should be asked to authorise the raising of a sum of L24,000 to be vested in the Corporation for the satisfaction of debts to existing orphans, and for security of the money of orphans that should be paid into the Chamber in future. The recommendation of the committee was accepted by the court (20 Nov.), and three days later a draft petition to parliament was read and approved.(1786) The petition set forth that in the troublous times during and after the reign of Charles I the City lost divers large sums of money, and that by reason of this, as well as of the destruction of the greatest part of their estate in the great fire and their losses consequent on the illegal judgment on the Quo Warranto, their debts to the orphans had amounted to a sum far larger than the City was able to pay without the assistance of parliament. It proceeded to lay before the House the scheme proposed by the committee, and prayed the House to assist the petitioners to raise a sufficient sum for an annual payment to be made in lieu of the said debts, or such other provision for the same as the House might think fit. On the 27th November leave was granted to bring in a Bill, and on the 3rd December a Bill was brought in and read the first time, but nothing further appears to have come of it.(1787) On the 6th August, 1692, a committee was appointed to consider the question how best the City's revenues might be improved with the view to the easier discharge of orphans' claims. The committee showed itself very active, meeting at least once and often twice a week. Nevertheless it was not until the 2nd November it was in a position to make a report to the Common Council.(1788) What was thought of the committee's recommendations is not recorded, but a few days later (11 Nov.) we find the court resolving to present a petition to parliament in precisely the same terms as their former petition.(1789)

(M902)

The matter was allowed to drag on until the 17th February of the next year (1693), when a committee was appointed by the House to prepare and bring in another Bill. A Bill was accordingly brought in on the 20th, read the first time on the 21st, read the second time on the 22nd and committed. Before the Bill passed through committee the City desired to be heard by counsel against the Bill on the ground that it divested the City of all its revenues, deprived it of much of its ancient and necessary jurisdiction, and would not answer the ends proposed.(1790) In March progress was reported, but before anything further could be done the House was prorogued.(1791)

(M903)

When the House re-assembled in November (1693) the City again presented a petition in terms similar to their former petitions. The petition having been referred to a committee of the whole House that committee reported (17 Feb., 1694) to the following effect,(1792) viz., that (1) a rent-charge of L8,000 per annum should be set aside out of the City's revenues towards payment of interest due to orphans, (2) that the City should be permitted to raise a sum not exceeding L2,000 per annum upon personal estates in the city to satisfy the orphans' debts, (3) that the patentees of a new kind of glass light known as convex lights(1793) should contribute an annual sum of L600, (4) that an additional duty of 4d. per chaldron should be imposed upon coal entering the port of London and 6d. per chaldron on coals imported into the city for a term of fifty years commencing from the determination of the duty already existing in respect of re-building St. Paul's, (5) that an additional duty of 4s. should be laid on every tun of wine entering the port of London, (6) that the improvements about to be made in the water supply of the city(1794) should also contribute, and lastly (7) that every person bound apprentice in the city should contribute 2s.6d., and every person made free of the city 5s. towards the same object.

(M904)

A Bill(1795) was subsequently introduced embodying these resolutions, but with an additional proviso that when the tax of 6d. per chaldron on coals, to be imposed for a term of fifty years, should cease the City's lands should be charged with an annual sum of L6,000 over and above the rent-charge of L8,000 previously mentioned. The Bill was read the first and second time on the 22nd February, and the third time on the 12th March. A few days later (21 March) it passed the Lords without amendment, and on the 23rd received the royal assent.(1796)

(M905)

On the 6th March (1694) the lord keeper came to the Guildhall, accompanied by the lords of the treasury, to ask the Common Council for a loan of L200,000, upon security of the land tax, for naval and military purposes. The court at once assented, and before the end of the month the whole amount had been paid into the exchequer.(1797) The money was raised in the usual way from the inhabitants of each ward and from the livery companies. The Corporation itself was by no means well off, and encouragement was given to anyone who could suggest a means whereby the City's revenues could be increased.(1798) Recourse was had, among other things, to nominating for sheriff the least suitable men for the office, and such as would prefer paying the fine to serving. In no other way can one reasonably account for the fact that the fines for refusing to undertake the office of sheriff amounted for this year (1694) to over L5,000.(1799)

(M906)

This loan was but as a drop in the ocean compared with the necessities of the times. The estimates for the year 1694 were enormous. The army, which was already the largest standing force that England had ever seen, was to receive a large increase, whilst considerable sums of money were required for payment of arrears, no less than for the future expenses, of the navy. Notwithstanding the renewal of the land tax, the imposition of a poll-tax, the revival of stamp duties, and the raising of a million of money by a lottery loan, there yet remained a large deficit before the estimated revenue of the year balanced the estimated expenditure. At this juncture Charles Montague, poet, politician and savant, took up a scheme propounded to government three years before by William Paterson, an enterprising if not always successful Scotsman, but allowed to drop. This scheme was none other than the formation of a national bank. The idea was not altogether a new one. Before the close of the reign of Charles II several plans of the kind had been suggested, some being in favour of establishing such a bank under the immediate direction of the Crown, whilst others were of opinion that its management should be entrusted to the Corporation of the city. It was now proposed to raise the sum of L1,200,000 for the use of the government by way of loan at eight per cent. interest, the subscribers being incorporated by the name of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The matter was introduced into parliament for the first time on the 28th March, in the shape of a Bill for granting their majesties certain tonnage duties on wine, ale and other liquors.(1800) Although it was not easy to recognise in the terms of the Bill the germ of "the greatest commercial institution that the world had ever seen,"(1801) it met with considerable opposition in the House, and still more outside. With their recent experience of the evils arising from a rich and powerful body like the East India Company, men were cautious in allowing a Corporation to be erected in their midst which, as many feared, would absorb the wealth of the nation,(1802) and might render the Crown independent of parliament and people. This last consideration was not unimportant, and, in order to avert the possibility of such a danger, a clause was inserted in the Bill forbidding under the severest penalties the new Corporation advancing money to the Crown without the authority of parliament.(1803) Subject to this and other conditions the Bill passed the Commons, and on the 24th April was agreed to by the Lords.(1804)

At the head of the Commission, issued under the Great Seal for the establishment of the new bank, stood the name of the lord mayor, Sir William Ashurst; and out of the twenty-four original directors at least four rose to be chief magistrate of the city, whilst others are known to have taken an active part in the affairs of the municipality.(1805) In the city the undertaking met with a success beyond all expectation. The very first day (21 June) that the subscription lists were opened at Mercers' Hall nearly L300,000 was received, and within a week that amount was doubled. Sir John Houblon, who succeeded to the mayoralty the following year, and became the first Governor of the Bank, subscribed L10,000, the largest amount any one individual was allowed by the terms of the charter to subscribe before the first day of July. The same amount was subscribed by the lords of the treasury on behalf of the queen. By mid-day of the 2nd July the whole of the money (L1,200,000) had been subscribed and the books closed.(1806) The Great Seal was put to the bank charter, and business was commenced in the hall of the Grocers' Company.

Hitherto, as we have seen, the city of London had always acted (as indeed it claimed to be) as the king's Chamber, and the occupier of the throne of England for the time being had never hesitated to draw upon this Chamber whenever he was in need of money. The mode of procedure was nearly always the same. The lords of the treasury would appear some morning before the Common Council, and after a few words of explanation as to the necessities of the time, would ask for a loan, offering in most cases (we are bound to confess) undeniable security. Supposing that the Council agreed to raise the required loan, which it nearly always did, the mayor for the time being was usually instructed to issue his precept to the aldermen to collect subscriptions within their several wards, whilst other precepts were (in later times at least) sent to the master or wardens of the livery companies to do the same among the members of their companies. There were times, also, when the companies were called upon to subscribe in proportion to their assessment for supplying the city with corn in times of distress.(1807) Times were now changed. Instead of applying to the City for an advance in case of need, the king thenceforth drew what he required from the Bank of England. During the remainder of his reign William only applied twice to the City for a loan: once, towards the close of 1696, when he required money for the army and navy, and again in 1697, when it was necessary to pay off his continental allies and lay up the navy after the peace of Ryswick (10 Sept.).(1808) The City, in its corporate capacity, was no longer to be the purse of the nation.

(M907)

In December of this year (1694)—soon after his return from an unsuccessful campaign—William suffered an irreparable loss by the death of the queen. The old adage touching an ill wind received a curious exemplification at Queen Mary's death, for although that event sent down the stock of the Bank of England three per cent., it benefited the East India Company by causing a rapid rise in the price of muslin, a commodity of which we are told that company happened to possess a large quantity.(1809) The Court of Aldermen put themselves into mourning,(1810) whilst the Common Council voted an address of condolence to the king and ordered statues ("effigies") of both king and queen to be erected at the Royal Exchange.(1811) The king followed the advice given to him by the city fathers not to suffer too much "resentment" over his recent loss, and diverted himself by practising shooting on horseback in Richmond Park whilst his dead wife was still above ground.(1812)

(M908)

The funeral did not take place until the 6th March (1695). In anticipation of that event the Court of Aldermen had some time since (18 Jan.) appointed a committee to consider of the right and title of the lord mayor, aldermen and sheriffs of the city to their mourning and their places in the funeral procession, as also of the mourning due to the several officers of the city. Four days later (22 Jan.) the committee reported(1813) to the effect that they had found from the records of the city that it had been the custom for the lord mayor, aldermen, recorder, sheriffs and the principal and other officers of the city to have mourning allowed them by the Crown at the public interments of kings and queens, but as to the places and precedency of the lord mayor and aldermen on those occasions the committee had only found one instance of a funeral procession, and that was at the funeral of Henry VII, when it appeared that the aldermen walked "next after the knights and before the great chaplains of dignitys and the knights of the garter being noe lords." The lord mayor (the report went on to say) was not named in the procession, but at the mass and offering at the interment it appeared that the lord mayor, with his mace in hand, offered next after the lord chamberlain, and the aldermen who had been mayors offered next to the knights of the garter and before the knights of the body, after whom came those aldermen who had not been lord mayor.(1814) The committee concluded their report by recommending that a deputation should wait upon the Privy Council and assert the right of the Court of Aldermen to mourning. The representation thereupon made had the desired effect and the usual mourning was allowed by warrant (29 Jan.).(1815) The citizens marked their respect for the late queen by shutting up their shops on the day of the funeral.(1816)

(M909)

The session of 1695 of William's first parliament was signalised by the discovery of a system of wholesale corruption. That every man had his price was scarcely less true in William's day than it was in the later age of Sir Robert Walpole. The discovery of one delinquent guilty of receiving money for services, real or supposed, quickly led to another, until suspicion turned upon the City of London itself. A rumour rapidly gained ground to the effect that the funds of the City as well as those of the East India Company had been largely employed in winning the favour of men in power, and the name of Sir John Trevor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, was mentioned among others.

(M910)

On the 7th March the House appointed a committee to investigate the matter, with power to send for persons and papers.(1817) On the 12th the committee reported to the House that they had discovered an order of a committee appointed by the Corporation for the purpose of seeing the Orphans' Bill through parliament, dated the 12th February, 1694, authorising the payment of 1,000 guineas to the Speaker, Sir John Trevor, as soon as the Bill should pass. This order, they said, was signed by every member of the committee except Sir James Houblon and Mr. Deputy Ayres, and was endorsed to the effect that the money had been delivered and paid to the Hon. Sir John Trevor on the 22nd June, 1694, in the presence of Sir Robert Clayton and Sir James Houblon, brother of Sir John.(1818) When summoned to account for his having refused to sign the order of the committee whilst allowing himself to witness the actual payment of the money to the Speaker, Sir James excused himself by saying that he had accompanied Sir Robert Clayton, at the latter's request, professedly for the purpose of thanking the Speaker for his pains about the Orphans' Bill; that this being done, the Chamberlain, who had gone with them, pulled out a note or bill which he handed to the Speaker, but as to the nature of the note or bill Houblon declared himself to have been ignorant until subsequently informed by the Chamberlain. Other members of the Corporation Committee also gave evidence as to the warrant for payment of the money having been originally made out with a blank space left for the name of the payee. The report further declared that sums of money had been paid to Paul Godrell, clerk of the House of Commons, to the city solicitor, the solicitor-general and the chairman of the Corporation Committee in respect of the Orphans' Bill, whilst the orphans themselves had been prevailed upon to give security for the payment of five per cent. on their whole property to certain other parties who professed to be able to render valuable services in the event of the Bill being passed.(1819)

(M911)

By the time that the reading of the committee's report to the House was finished it was growing dusk, and candles were called for. A resolution was then moved and put to the house by Trevor himself, that the Speaker, by receiving a gratuity of 1,000 guineas from the city of London after passing of the Orphans' Bill, had been guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour. The resolution was passed, and four days later (16 March) Trevor was expelled the House.(1820)

(M912)

A month later (18 April) the House of Lords were busy investigating the conduct of the Marquis of Normanby in accepting, and of the Corporation of the City in granting, a lease of a certain plot of land lying behind Clarendon House, part of the City's estate known as Conduit Mead. It was shown by oral and documentary evidence that a longer lease than usual had recently been granted (Jan., 1695) to the marquis as "a gratification," he being a person of distinction who had shown himself very friendly to the interests of the City and likely to continue so.(1821) Negotiations for a lease had been commenced so far back as January, 1694, "before the Orphans' Bill was on the anvill in the House of Commons."(1822) It was not denied that the City entertained the hope that the marquis would use his interest in expediting the passage of the Bill, and that this hope had been realised. On the other hand it was shown that when the marquis learnt that one of the conditions of the lease was that he should "covenant" to procure an Act of Parliament for settling some doubts of title to the land conveyed, he at once declared that such a thing was not in his power, but lay with the king, the lords and the commons; nevertheless, he consented to use his best endeavours in that direction. The marquis, it was said, had also been indiscreet enough to divulge certain proceedings of the House of Lords in the matter of the Convex Lights, and this formed the subject of an investigation by the House at the same time as the granting of this lease. After careful consideration the House entirely acquitted his lordship of blame in both cases.(1823)

(M913)

In considering the City's action in respect of the Orphans' Bill we must not forget to take into account the condition of the age. It was one in which peculation and venality were predominant. Nearly every official who was worth the buying could be bought, and the world thought none the worse of him provided that these pecuniary transactions were kept decently veiled. The "gifts and rewards" bestowed by the City with the object of expediting the passage of the Orphans' Bill were as nothing compared with the vast sums which the East India Company was reported to have disbursed in order to obtain the confirmation of its charter. It was the practice when Sir Thomas Cook was in power for the directors of the company to sign warrants for any sum that he might require without demanding particulars from him. In seven years (1688-1694) more than L100,000 had been disposed of for the company's "special service," nearly L90,000 of which had been disbursed whilst Cook was governor (1692-1693).(1824)

(M914)

A parliamentary committee endeavoured to obtain some account as to how this large sum of money had been expended, but could learn nothing more than that it had been spent on the "special service" of the company and that a great part of it had been entrusted to Sir Basil Firebrace.(1825) Firebrace denied this, but confessed to having received upwards of L16,000 for which he had accounted to the company. The committee's report proceeded to inform the House that the company had spent considerable sums of money, under the guise of contracts, in buying up the interests of "interlopers" and getting them to join the company. They had found Sir Samuel Dashwood, Sir John Fleet, Sir Thomas Cook (all aldermen of the city), Sir Joseph Herne and John Perry to have been cognisant of these proceedings, but they being members of parliament the committee did not think fit to send for or examine them.(1826) Acting upon the committee's report, the House called upon Sir Thomas Cook (26 March) to give an account of the sum of L87,000 which he had received of the company's money, and upon his refusing committed him to the Tower.(1827) A Bill was within a few days introduced into the House for compelling Cook to make disclosure and rapidly passed (6 April).(1828) In the Upper House the Bill met with the strongest denunciation by the Duke of Leeds (who saw in it considerable danger to himself), as also by Cook himself, who was brought from the Tower for the purpose of allowing him to plead against the passing of such a Bill. At the Bar of the House the latter earnestly implored the Peers not to pass the Bill in its present form. Let them pass a Bill of Indemnity and he would tell them all. The Lords considered his request reasonable, and after a conference with the Lower House it was agreed that the Bill should take the form of an Indemnity Bill, and so it was passed (19 April), a joint committee of both Houses being appointed to examine Cook and others.(1829)

(M915)

His examination, which took place in the Exchequer Chamber on the 23rd April, confirmed the committee's previous suspicions.(1830) The sum of L10,000 had been paid (he said) to Sir Basil Firebrace about November, 1693, when the charter of the East India Company had been confirmed, and he had always been under the apprehension that Firebrace had pocketed the money "to recompense his losses in the interloping trade." A further sum of L30,000 had been paid to Firebrace on various contracts. There had been a contract involving the payment of L60,000 on account of procuring a new charter, and another of the value of L40,000 on account of getting the charter sanctioned by an Act of Parliament, but as no Act was passed this latter contract fell through. There was a further sum of L30,000 which had been lost to the company on account of certain stock it had agreed to purchase from Firebrace at the price of L150 per cent. at a time when the company's stock was standing at par. Firebrace had always refused to give him any account as to how this money was disposed of, and had declared that "if he were further pressed he would have no more to do in it." Such was the sum and substance of Cook's confession so far as it affected Firebrace.

(M916)

The next day (24 April) Firebrace appeared before the committee. As to the L10,000 he had received from Cook, that was (he said) a gratuity which had been given to him before the granting of the charter. The other sum of L30,000 was due on a contract "for favours and services done." He was positive that both sums were intended "directly for himself and for the use of no other person whatsoever"; that he paid nothing thereout towards procuring either charter or Act, nor had promised to do so. He acknowledged himself to have been very active in his endeavours to gain over interlopers, and to improve the stock of the company, but when pressed by the committee for particulars he asked to be excused giving an immediate answer on the score of ill-health; he had not slept for two nights and was much indisposed.(1831) On the 25th and following day he was well enough to volunteer further evidence incriminating the Duke of Leeds. He told the committee of an interview he (Firebrace) had had with Sir Thomas Cook, when the latter expressed his apprehension lest the passing the East India Company's charter should be opposed by the lord president. They had then agreed to endeavour to win his lordship's favour by an offer of 5,000 guineas. That sum had been actually left at the duke's house, and it was only returned on the morning the enquiry opened. After the payment of the money both Cook and himself had enjoyed free access to the duke and found him willing to give them his assistance.(1832)

(M917)

Among others who gave evidence was Child himself, who acknowledged that he had suggested an offer of L50,000 to the king in order to induce his majesty to waive his prerogative and allow the company to be settled by Act of Parliament. William, however, was impervious to a bribe and declined to meddle in the matter.

(M918)

The result of the enquiry was that the Duke of Leeds was ordered to be impeached, whilst Firebrace and Cook were committed to the Tower.(1833) They recovered their liberty in April, 1696, and in July, 1698, Firebrace was created a baronet.(1834)

(M919)

In July, 1702, the rival companies were content to sink their differences, and a union was effected.(1835) Shortly before this took place the Old Company voted the sum of L12,000 as a free gift to Cook for his past services.(1836) Firebrace, who had used his best endeavours to bring about the union, brought an action against the Old Company for compensation for his services, but consented to drop all proceedings on receiving stock in the company to the amount of L10,000.(1837) In 1704 Cook was elected mayor, but the state of his health not allowing him to serve, he was discharged. He died in September, 1709.(1838)

(M920)

On Sunday the 12th May, 1695, William again set out for the continent, and did not return until the 10th October. The great feature of the campaign was the brilliant siege and recovery of the town of Namur, which had been lost to the allied forces three years before. Baulked in a proposed design against the king's person by his unexpected departure, the Jacobites had to content themselves with other measures. On the 10th June, the birthday of the unfortunate Prince of Wales, a number of them met at a tavern in Drury Lane. Excited by wine they sallied forth, with drums beating and colours flying, and insisted on passers by drinking the prince's health. This roused the indignation of the neighbours, who sacked the tavern and put the revellers to flight, one of the ringleaders being seized and afterwards committed to Newgate.(1839) When, in the following August, the whole of London was on the tiptoe of excitement, waiting for news of the fall of Namur, the citizens were suddenly amazed at the sight of a horseman in military uniform riding through the main streets and announcing that William had been killed. That the wish was father to the thought became sufficiently clear to the by-standers when they heard the man declare with pistol in hand and sword drawn that he would kill anyone who denied the truth of his statement. A serious disturbance was avoided by his being incontinently dragged from his horse and carried before the lord mayor, who committed him to prison.(1840)

(M921)

When the king returned in October, with the laurels of victory fresh on his brow, he determined to seize the favourable opportunity for dissolving parliament. The result of the elections for a new parliament—the first triennial parliament under a recent Act—justified the course he had taken. The citizens, who had been among the first to welcome him on his arrival in London, and whose sheriffs—Edward Wills and Owen Buckingham—he had recently knighted,(1841) instead of returning Tory members, as in the late parliament, returned four Whigs, viz., three aldermen, Sir Robert Clayton, Sir John Fleet and Sir William Ashurst, and one commoner, Thomas Papillon. The election was strongly contested, a poll being demanded by three other candidates, viz., Sir William Pritchard, Sir Thomas Vernon and Sir William Russell, against the return of Clayton, Ashurst and Papillon. The result of the poll, however, left matters undisturbed.(1842) The contest in Westminster was more severe than in the city, but, like the latter, ended in a victory for the Whigs. Cook, who was still a prisoner in the Tower, again contested Colchester, but lost his seat.(1843) On the 22nd November the Houses met.

(M922)

The king's return was a signal for fresh action on the part of the Jacobites. It was resolved to assassinate William on his return from hunting in Richmond Park. The management of the conspiracy was entrusted to Sir George Barclay, a Scotch refugee, who succeeded in getting together a small band of men willing to take part in the desperate enterprise. The plot was, however, discovered, and some of the leading conspirators arrested. On the evening of Sunday the 23rd February (1696) the lord mayor (Sir John Houblon) was summoned to the Privy Council and informed of the narrow escape of the king. He was charged to look well to the safety of the city. On Monday morning all the city trained bands were under arms, and on Tuesday the Common Council voted a congratulatory address to the king upon his escape.(1844)

(M923)

By that time parliament had been informed of what had taken place. The Commons immediately suspended the Habeas Corpus Act and agreed to enter into an association for the defence of their king and country. An instrument was forthwith drawn up whereby each individual member of the House pledged himself to uphold King William and William's government against James and his adherents, and in case his majesty should meet with a violent death to unite with one another in inflicting condign vengeance on his murderers, and in supporting the order of succession to the crown as settled by the Bill of Rights. On Tuesday (25 Feb.) the House was called over; the association engrossed on parchment lay on the table, and every member present went up and signed, those who from sickness or other cause were absent being ordered to sign the document on their first appearance in the House, or publicly declare from their seat in the House their refusal to do so.(1845) The next day the Common Council of the city unanimously resolved to enter into the like association, the livery companies of the city being afterwards called upon by the mayor to do the same.(1846)

(M924)

For weeks and months strict search was made in the city for Papists and suspect persons,(1847) and among them for Sir John Fenwick, for whose arrest a proclamation was issued on the 22nd March.(1848) He was eventually captured whilst making his way to the coast for the purpose of escaping to France, and was committed to Newgate. When a motion was made in November for proceeding against him by Bill of Attainder the sheriffs of London surrendered their charge to the sergeant-at-arms of the House of Commons. After his execution on Tower Hill in January of the following year (1697) some officers of Sheriff Blewet, whose duty it had been to keep watch over Fenwick by night and day whilst lying in Newgate, had to apply to the Court of Aldermen before they could get the sheriff to pay them the money (L9 10s.) due to them for that service.(1849)

(M925)

The discovery of the assassination plot had the result of rendering William's seat on the throne more secure than ever, and won for him the unqualified support of parliament. Early in February (1696) a Bill had been brought in to exclude from the House every person who did not possess a certain estate in land. The Bill met with much opposition in commercial circles, and more especially in the city of London,(1850) and the king being unwilling to estrange those merchants and traders who had so often assisted him, exercised his prerogative and declined to give his assent to the Bill. Thereupon some violent Tories moved that whoever advised the king to take this course was an enemy to him and the nation; but the House displayed its loyalty by rejecting the motion by an overwhelming majority and ordering the division list to be published.(1851)

(M926)

The City was not behindhand in renewing its assurances of loyalty. The liverymen of the several companies assembled in the Guildhall for the election of a mayor on Michaelmas-day passed a resolution to stand by the king with their lives and fortunes, and desired the city members of parliament to see that a searching enquiry were made into the late conspiracy as the best means of preserving the king's person, establishing the government, and reviving trade and credit.(1852)

(M927)

At the time when this resolution was passed the king was expected home from the continent, whither he had gone in May last. During his absence there had occurred a monetary crisis—the first since the establishment of the Bank of England—which, after causing for several months a great amount of distress, was destined to be succeeded by a long period of unbroken prosperity. An Act had recently been passed for calling in all clipt money and substituting milled money in its stead,(1853) and the crisis was brought about by the old money being called in before the new money was ready for issue. Saturday, the 2nd May, was practically the last day clipt money was received by the exchequer. Three days later the stock of milled money in the coffers of the Bank of England at Grocers' Hall had run out, and the governor of the Bank, Sir John Houblon, who happened at the time to be also lord mayor, had to propitiate the numerous claimants for the new money by offering them part payment in the old coin and the rest in the new as soon as it was minted.(1854)

(M928)

Towards the end of July matters became worse. In spite of the extraordinary activity displayed by the Mint authorities, at the Tower and in divers parts of the country, the supply had not equalled the demand, yet a large sum of money was now imperatively demanded for payment of the army on the continent. The king himself had written to say that unless the money was forthcoming his troops were ready to mutiny or desert. Nothing less than a million would satisfy the requirements of the army in Flanders, a like sum was wanted for the navy, whilst half that amount was necessary for the army in England.(1855) How was this enormous sum to be raised? It was thought that the City might vote something towards it, but the Chamberlain declared that any proposal for a loan at that time would with difficulty be carried into execution owing to the scarcity of money.(1856) Some private individuals, however, managed to raise L200,000 for the king, whilst others, like Sir Josiah Child, Charles Duncombe and Sir Joseph Herne, were prepared to stand security for L300,000 more, which the Dutch were ready to advance. After long deliberation the Bank of England agreed (15 Aug.) to advance another L200,000.(1857) These sums sufficed for the more immediate wants of the king, and allowed time for the issue of the new currency.

(M929)

The campaign of 1696 had been carried on in a very desultory way. All parties were anxious for a peace. Towards the end of April, 1697, William once more crossed over to Flanders,(1858) and the French king having for the first time shown a disposition to come to terms, it was arranged that a congress should meet near the Hague. The result of the congress was the conclusion (10 Sept.) of the Peace of Ryswick, whereby Louis consented to acknowledge William's title to the throne. The news was received in the city four days later with every demonstration of joy; the Tower guns were discharged, flags hung out, bells set ringing and bonfires lighted.(1859)

(M930)

The Court of Aldermen resolved to give the king a more than ordinary reception on his return. Search was made for precedents as to the manner in which former kings had been received on their return from progresses or from parts beyond the sea, and these precedents, from the time of Edward IV down to that of King Charles II, were duly reported to the court by a committee appointed to make the search.(1860) The committee was next instructed to consider of suitable ways and methods for the reception of his majesty if he should be pleased to pass through the city, and on this also the committee reported with elaborate detail.(1861) These and other preparations were all made under the apprehension that the king was about to return immediately. Weeks went by and no king appeared. The Court of Aldermen availed themselves of the delay to put the finishing touches to the programme of welcome that was to be accorded him, and to commit into custody any suspicious character they found.(1862) At length, after long and impatient expectation, news came that the king had landed at Margate on the 14th November.(1863) By the following night his majesty reached Greenwich and rested in the handsome building which, at the desire of his beloved queen, had been recently converted from a palace into a hospital for disabled seamen.(1864)

(M931)

The lord mayor immediately issued his precept to the several livery companies (they had received a previous warning to prepare for the occasion on the 1st October)(1865) to be ready in their stands by eight o'clock on the morning of Tuesday the 16th November, well apparelled and with all the ornaments of their companies before them.(1866) That morning witnessed one of the finest sights that had ever been seen in the city of London, famous as it always had been for its pageantry. No expense had been spared in providing new gowns for the magistrates and new banners for the companies. The mayor, aldermen and sheriffs rode out "in their formalities" as far as Southwark, where they met the king, and where the usual ceremony took place of surrendering the civic sword into his majesty's hands, to be immediately returned to the lord mayor. This done, the procession was formed, and the king was escorted with trumpets and kettle-drums through the entire length of the city, the streets being guarded by the six regiments of trained bands, and the houses rendered bright with hangings of tapestry.(1867)

(M932)

On Wednesday the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, accompanied by the recorder, waited upon his majesty and congratulated him on the peace and on his safe return. The king in reply thanked them, and conferred the honour of knighthood upon the sheriffs, Bartholomew Gracedieu and James Collett.(1868)

(M933)

The rejoicings terminated with a thanksgiving service at St. Paul's (2 Dec.), the work of Sir Christopher Wren being sufficiently advanced to admit of divine service being held there. The mayor and aldermen attended in state. The king did not attend lest his presence should draw off congregations from other churches; but he attended service in his private chapel at Whitehall. Not only in London but throughout the kingdom the day was solemnly observed, whilst the night was given up to festivity and fireworks.(1869)

(M934)

When, in 1698, the first triennial parliament had run its course and a new election of members for the city took place all the old members retained their seats except Sir Robert Clayton. His place was taken by Sir James Houblon, a Tory. On this occasion the election for the city did not take place until the returns of many constituencies in the country had been made known. As a rule the returns of the metropolitan constituencies were looked forward to as an augury of the political complexion of the coming parliament. This parliament was not allowed to live its full time, but was dissolved in December, 1700, a new parliament being summoned to meet in the following February (1701).(1870) Sir Robert Clayton regained his seat, and with him were returned Sir William Ashurst (who headed the poll), Gilbert Heathcote and Sir William Withers.(1871) Upon Heathcote being declared by parliament disqualified to sit owing to a technical breach of trust his seat was taken by Sir John Fleet.(1872)

(M935) (M936)

After the death of James II at St. Germains (5 Sept., 1701) Louis broke his vow (made at Ryswick) not to do anything to disturb or subvert the government of England, and forthwith proclaimed the late king's son to be heir to his father's throne. The whole English nation was stirred against the French king for having dared to acknowledge as their sovereign the boy who had been held to be supposititious and whose title to the crown had been rejected by parliament. The citizens of London were among the first to express their loyalty to William and their readiness to do their utmost to preserve his person and government against all invasion. The king was on the continent at the time, but an address to this effect, unanimously agreed to by the Common Council (26 Sept.), was forwarded to him by the lords justices, who held the reins of government during his absence, and who in due course were instructed to inform the City of the great satisfaction its address had afforded his majesty. The example thus set was quickly followed by others, and similar addresses began to flow in from all parts of the kingdom,(1873) whilst the City's address was by the king's orders translated into foreign languages for transmission to the several courts of Europe.(1874)

(M937)

A few hours before the City's address reached the hands of the lords justices the citizens had assembled (29 Sept.) in Common Hall to choose a mayor for the ensuing year. Sir Charles Duncombe, who had amassed a large fortune as a goldsmith and banker, and who, although returned by the livery at the head of the poll the previous year, had been set aside by the Court of Aldermen in his contest for the mayoralty probably on account of his Tory principles,(1875) was again put up as a candidate, although in point of seniority he was one of the youngest aldermen. This time he failed to get a majority of votes at the Common Hall, but his popularity was still sufficiently strong to return him second on the poll, and his name was submitted in conjunction with that of William Gore to the Court of Aldermen for them to select one. It was quite within their province to select if they chose the second name submitted to them—they had frequently done so before—but in the face of Louis's recent act of insolence they preferred to call to the mayoralty chair a man whose Tory principles were not too pronounced rather than one who had accepted an alderman's commission from James II, and Sir William Gore was accordingly declared elected.(1876)

(M938)

The parliament which assembled in February, 1701, enjoyed a still shorter existence than its predecessor, for it was dissolved in the following November. Another was summoned to meet in December.(1877) Great excitement prevailed in the city over this election. The Whigs met at the Crown Tavern behind the Exchange and agreed to put up three of the old members, viz., Clayton, Ashurst and Heathcote, and to run a fresh candidate in the person of Sir Thomas Abney. The Tory or "Church party" opposed these candidates with four others, viz., Sir William Gore, the lord mayor, Sir John Fleet, Sir Richard Levett and Sir Charles Duncombe, the recently defeated candidate for the mayoralty. When it came to polling all four Whigs were returned by an overwhelming majority.(1878) This was the last parliament of William's reign. On the 20th February (1702) he was thrown from his horse whilst riding in Richmond Park and broke his collar-bone. His health had previously shown signs of giving way. On the 8th March he died.



CHAPTER XXXIV.



(M939)

On the day that William died the Lords Spiritual and Temporal met together and, "with the assistance" of the Privy Council, a number of other "principall gentlemen of quality" and the lord mayor, aldermen and citizens of London, proceeded to draw up a document proclaiming the Princess Anne successor to the crown. The day happened to be Sunday; nevertheless on that same afternoon public proclamation of the queen's accession was made at Temple Bar and the Royal Exchange in the presence of the mayor and Court of Aldermen, whilst the sheriffs were despatched to learn when her majesty would be pleased to receive the aldermen.(1879)

(M940) (M941)

Two days later (10 March) the Common Council voted an address condoling with the queen on the death of the late king and congratulating her upon her accession.(1880) The Court of Aldermen resolved to put themselves into "close" mourning, each alderman providing himself with a mourning gown at his own expense, whilst the Chamberlain was instructed to provide similar gowns for the chief officers of the Corporation at the City's expense, as had formerly been done on the demise of Charles II.(1881) They further resolved, with her majesty's permission, to cause her portrait to be painted and to be set up in the Guildhall and a statue of her to be set up at the Royal Exchange. It was found on enquiry that the statues of kings and queens already in the Royal Exchange had been set up at the expense of the companies, except those of William and Mary, which (as we have seen) were erected by order of the Common Council. On the other hand, the pictures of Charles II, James II and of William and Mary had all been paid for by the Chamber. Artists were invited to send in sketches or designs for her majesty's picture; and this having been done, the work was entrusted to Closterman.(1882)

(M942)

At the coronation, which took place on the 23rd April, the mayor, aldermen and twelve representatives of the principal livery companies were present, care having been taken by the City Remembrancer that their proper places were assigned them both in the Abbey and at the subsequent banquet in Westminster Hall. The civic dignitaries started from the city as early as seven o'clock in the morning in order to be at Westminster Hall by eight a.m. The mayor was provided at the City's expense with the customary gown of crimson velvet for the occasion, the sword-bearer being only a little less resplendent in a gown of damask.(1883)