CHAPTER XXXII.

[pg 541]CHAPTER XXXII.Order for reversal of judgment on theQuo Warranto, May, 1689.The Convention having been converted by a formal Act into a true parliament (23 Feb.),1654one of the first motions put to the House was that a special committee should be appointed to consider the violations of the liberties and franchises of all the corporations of the kingdom, "and particularly of the city of London." The motion was lost by a majority of 24.1655The House nevertheless resolved to bring in a Bill for repealing the Corporation Act, and ten days later (5 March) the Grand Committee of Grievances reported to the House its opinion (1) that the rights of the city of London in the election of sheriffs in the year 1682 were invaded and that such invasion was illegal and a grievance, and (2) that the judgment given upon theQuo Warrantoagainst the city was illegal and a grievance. The committee's opinion on these two points (among others) was endorsed by the House, and on the 16th March it ordered a Bill to be brought in to restore all corporations to the state and condition they were in on the 29th May, 1660, and to confirm the liberties and franchises which at that time they respectively held and enjoyed.1656Further Report of Committee of Grievances, 29 May, 1689.A special committee appointed (5 March) to investigate the nature of the city's grievances, and to discover who were the authors and advisers of them,[pg 542]presented, on the 29th May, a long report to the House,1657giving the whole story of the election of sheriffs in June, 1682, and of Pritchard's election to the mayoralty in the following September; of the fines that had been imposed on Pilkington, Shute, Bethell, Cornish and others for so-called riots whilst engaged in asserting the rights of the citizens; of Papillon having been cast in damages to the amount of £10,000 at the suit of Pritchard, and of other matters which led up to the proceedings under theQuo Warranto, when, as the committee had discovered, two of the justices of the King's Bench—Pemberton and Dolben—were removed from the court because their opinion was found to be in favour of the city. The committee refer to the City's Records in support of the claim of the lord mayor to elect one of the sheriffs, and say "that from the twenty-first of Edward the IIIdunto the year 1641 the way of making sheriffs was that the lord mayor named one to be sheriff and presented him to the Common Hall, who did confirm him, and chose another to act with him; except in three or four years within that time, when the Common Hall chose both the sheriffs, the persons drank to in those years by the lord mayor having refused to hold and paid their fines." They capitulated to the House the various occasions on which the mayor exercised his prerogative unchallenged, and those when the Common Hall refused to confirm the mayor's nomination, down to 1682, when matters were brought to a crisis by Sir John Moore claiming to haveelectedDudley North by drinking to him according to custom; and in conclusion[pg 543]they reported their opinion to be that Sir John Moore and Dudley North were among the "authors of the invasion made upon the rights of the city of London in the election of sheriffs for the said city in the year 1682."Draft Bill for reversal of judgment submitted to Common Council, 24 May, 1689.In the meantime the civic authorities themselves had not been idle. The Common Council had already (1 March) appointed a committee to take steps for obtaining a reversal of the judgment on theQuo Warrantowith the assistance of the recorder and the city's representatives in parliament. Before the end of May a draft Bill had been prepared for the purpose and been submitted to the court for approval.1658The Court of Orphans.There was another matter pressing very heavily upon the City just now, and one which later on would also claim the attention of parliament, and that was the relationship of the civic authorities to the city orphans. By the custom of London the mayor and aldermen were the recognised guardians of all citizens' orphans, and as such took charge of their property until they came of age or married. A Court of Orphans was established, with the common sergeant as its chief officer, which exercised the same jurisdiction over the bodies and goods of orphans in the city that the Court of Chancery exercised outside. In course of time the fund paid into this court became very considerable, and in order to prevent it lying idle and thus deprive the orphans of interest that might accrue on their estate, the court lent large sums to the Crown on the security of exchequer bills. Could any guardian or trustee have acted more[pg 544]honestly or with greater prudence? They had not reckoned, however, upon a king being on the throne who should be sufficiently dishonest to stop all payments out of the exchequer in discharge of principal and interest of past loans. This is what Charles II did, as we have seen, in 1672; and his action not only ruined many bankers and merchants of the city, but inflicted great hardship upon the city's fatherless children. The City's revenue at the time of William's accession was little more than sufficient to meet the necessary expenses of the municipality, to say nothing of repaying the orphans their confiscated estates. This fact was recognised by the orphans themselves, who saw no other hope but to apply to parliament for assistance with the aid of the Common Council.Orphans' petition to Common Council, 1 March, 1689.To this end "a large number" of orphans of the city presented a petition to the court on the 1st March.1659Their fortunes (they said) had been paid into the Chamber of London according to the custom of the city, and they were now left destitute of support and reduced to great hardships and extremities, very many of them having their whole portions in the Chamber. They prayed the court, therefore, to appoint a committee to consider the whole matter with the view of approaching parliament with some recommendation. To this the court readily gave its consent, and a committee was then and there nominated.Proposals of committee, 8 March, 1689.A week later (8 March) this committee made a report to the council.1660They had found upon[pg 545]investigation that the debt owing by the Chamber was very great, being upwards of £500,000 due on principal money to orphans and nearly £100,000 more due to others, besides "finding money" and interest. The committee were of opinion that before any application was made to parliament the City should first do what it could on its own account for the relief of the orphans. The City's lands of inheritance were estimated as bringing in about £4,000 a year, subject to a charge of £500 or £600 for charitable uses, and the committee recommended that lands to the value of £3,000 a year rental should be sold. By this means it was thought that £70,000 or thereabouts would be raised, and the sum being devoted to the relief of the orphans would be "a good introduction to request a further assistance from the parliament." The charges of municipal government must be met with the residue of the "casual profits" of the Chamber. If parliament (the report went on to say) would be pleased to assist by granting a duty on coals and allowing the City to tax hackney coachmen at 5s.a head, the whole debt, or at least the principal, might be liquidated. A Bill which the committee had prepared for presentation to parliament for this purpose was then read and referred to the town clerk and the city solicitor, as well as to the attorney and the solicitor-general for their opinions.The king's proposal to abolish the Hearth Tax, 1 March, 1689.The king's intimation to the House (1 March) that he was prepared, with its assent, to abolish the odious Hearth Tax was received with universal joy. The Commons immediately voted an address of thanks, and passed a formal resolution to stand by[pg 546]the king with their lives and fortunes in supporting his alliances abroad, in the reduction of Ireland, and the defence of the Protestant religion,1661whilst the Common Council of the city resolved to present a humble address of thanks to his majesty for the welcome relief from a tax that had been from its commencement obnoxious. The court at the same time resolved to return its thanks to both Houses of Parliament for their resolution to stand by the king.1662The Commons, in acknowledging the address, represented to the deputation by the mouth of the Speaker that they had taken notice of the courage and constancy displayed by the City in the late revolution, and more especially its action in advancing so large a sum of money to his majesty at so critical a time. The City's care for the public would never fail to receive the like return from the Commons.1663Death of Lord Mayor Chapman, 17 March, 1689.On Sunday the 17th March a special Court of Aldermen sat. The lord mayor, Sir John Chapman, had died at ten o'clock that morning, and it became necessary to take steps for the election of a mayor to serve for the remainder of the mayoralty year, and to secure, in the meantime, the peace of the city. Three aldermen were despatched, accompanied by the town clerk, to inform the king of the state of affairs, and to assure him that care would be taken to prevent disorder until a new mayor should be elected. To secure this latter object a precept was at once issued by the court for a double watch to be kept until further orders, whilst another precept was issued for[pg 547]a Common Hall to meet on the following Wednesday (20 March) for the election of a new mayor.1664Pilkington elected Mayor, 20 March, 1689.When the Common Hall met the choice of the citizens fell upon their old friend and champion, Pilkington, and Thomas Stampe; but a poll was demanded by the supporters of two other candidates, viz., Sir John Moore—who had already served (1681-2) and in whose mayoralty there had been such a fight over the election of sheriffs—and Jonathan Raymond. It is said that the Tory party in the city put up Moore for re-election by way of showing their disgust at a recent resolution passed by the House of Commons to the effect that Moore had been a betrayer of the liberties of the City during his mayoralty.1665But however that may be (and no record of such a resolution appears in the Journal of the House), the result of the poll placed Stampe and Pilkington—with 1975 and 1973 votes respectively—far ahead of either of the other candidates. Moore, indeed, was at the bottom of the poll with only 780 votes, whilst Raymond only polled 930. Stampe and Pilkington having been returned to the Court of Aldermen for them to select one, according to the custom, they chose Pilkington, and he was accordingly admitted and sworn mayor for the remainder of the year, being presented to the Governor of the Tower by order of the king instead of before the barons of the exchequer.1666A few weeks later (10 April) he received the honour of knighthood.1667Lethieullier and Houblon, sheriffs, 24 June, 1689.At Midsummer (1689) a difficulty again arose with the election of sheriffs for the ensuing year. The[pg 548]Common Hall elected Christopher Lethieullier, alderman and dyer, and John Houblon, grocer,1668but these preferring to pay a fine to serving, the Common Hall refused to elect others in their place. The Court of Aldermen, finding themselves in a fix, sent for the attorney-general to peruse the City's Records and to give his advice in the matter. Lethieullier had determined to cut all connection with the Corporation, and had paid another fine to be relieved of the aldermanry of the ward of Coleman Street. Nevertheless, by the 10th September both he and Houblon had been persuaded to change their minds, and professed themselves ready, if the Court of Aldermen so willed, to take upon themselves the office of sheriffs.1669The attainder of Cornish reversed, June, 1689.The wheel of fortune had taken a sudden turn. Those who had suffered during the last two reigns for vindicating their liberties and upholding the reformed religion, found themselves again in favour. Papillon and Bethell, who had sought safety in Holland, returned to England, and the former was appointed a commissioner for victualling the navy.1670In June the attainder of Cornish was reversed by Act of Parliament,1671and in October, Ralph Box, who had refused to allow himself to be forced into the shrievalty in 1682 against the wish of the citizens, had the honour, as master of the Grocers' Company, of conferring the freedom of the company upon the king, who, in his turn, created Box a knight.1672Proceedings against North, Nov., 1689.North, on the other hand, was subjected to a severe cross-examination before a committee popularly called[pg 549]the "murder committee," and narrowly escaped a criminal trial for having systematically packed juries during his shrievalty. His statement that he had never troubled himself about the political opinions of those he had placed on the panel, but had only taken care to have good and substantial citizens, was with difficulty accepted.1673Broom, who had been deprived of his coronership for arresting North and Pritchard, the royalist mayor, was re-instated in January, 1690.1674The siege of Londonderry, April-July, 1689.William had achieved the crown of England without bloodshed. In Ireland, as well as in Scotland, he had to fight for his crown. The news that James had landed in Ireland (12 March) created no small excitement in the city. Volunteers were called for, and were readily found. The trained bands were augmented and new officers appointed.1675When it was found that James was marching to the north of Ireland, where the citizens of London held a large interest, the excitement was increased. On the 18th April he appeared before the walls of Londonderry, expecting the city to immediately surrender. Thanks to the strength of those walls, repaired and fortified by the care and at the charges of the citizens of London,1676[pg 550]and still more to the stout hearts behind them, the town was able to stand a long and dreary siege, with all its attendant horrors of slaughter and starvation, and at last, after heroic resistance and patient suffering for 105 days, to come off victorious. There is one name more especially honoured in connection with the famous siege, that of George Walker, who, although a clergyman and advanced in years, inspired the besieged with so much energy and courage that from first to last there was no thought of surrender. Attempts were made to win over the garrison by intrigue, and among the devices set on foot for establishing communication between besiegers and the besieged was that of placing a letter in an empty shell and firing the latter into the town.1677When Walker made his appearance in England he was graciously received by the king, who made him a present of £5,000 and promised to have a care for the rest of the garrison.1678The king afterwards desired Walker to furnish a list of the officers who had displayed such determined courage during the siege and blockade.1679Intercepted letters laid before the Common Council, 19 June, 1689.Whilst Londonderry was thus besieged a discovery had been made by means of intercepted letters of further designs which James hoped to carry out with the assistance of the French king. On the 19th June Sir George Treby, who was both the city's recorder and the king's attorney-general, laid before[pg 551]the Common Council at his majesty's request certain letters which had been seized on board a ship at Liverpool and forwarded by special messenger to the government. The letters, which had already been submitted to both houses, were now read to the Common Council, and this having been done the council resolved to present an address to the king thanking him for his favour and condescension, and assuring him that they would stand by him with their lives and estates.1680The king and queen entertained at the Guildhall, 29 Oct., 1689.Michaelmas-day this year (1689) happening to fall on Sunday, the election of a mayor for the year ensuing took place on the previous Saturday, when Pilkington was re-elected.1681Tuesday, the 29th October, was lord mayor's day, but why the ceremony of swearing in the lord mayor should have been observed on that day instead of on the feast of SS. Simon and Jude—the 28th October—as was the custom, is not clear. The lord mayor's show was (we are told) "very splendid," and was witnessed by the king and queen and the Prince of Denmark from a balcony in Cheapside. After the show they were entertained, together with the members of both Houses and high officers of state, at a banquet in the Guildhall. The cost of the entertainment was defrayed by voluntary subscriptions among the aldermen and members of the Common Council.1682In order to prevent unpleasant crowding the Commons were invited to make their way into the Guildhall through the church of St. Lawrence, Jewry.1683The king took[pg 552]occasion to knight the two sheriffs (Lethieullier and Houblon), and also Edward Clark and Francis Child, two aldermen who were chosen sheriffs the next year.1684The king's picture in the Guildhall mutilated, Nov., 1689.Within a few weeks of this entertainment it was found that the portrait of William set up in the Guildhall had been maliciously mutilated. The crown and sceptre had been cut out of the picture by some Jacobite, and the reward of £500 offered (21 Nov.) by the Court of Aldermen failed to discover the perpetrator.1685Bill for restoring corporations passed. 6 Jan., 1690.On the 30th October (1689) a parliamentary committee was appointed to prepare a Bill for "restoring and confirming of corporations." A Bill was accordingly brought in, read for the second time and committed.1686The Bill was mainly concerned with those corporations that hadsurrenderedtheir charters, and a great struggle took place upon the committee's report (2 Jan., 1690) over an attempt to introduce a clause providing that every municipal officer who had in any way been a party to the surrender of a borough's franchises should be incapable of holding any office in that borough for a period of seven years.1687The city of London had not surrendered its charters. It preferred, as we have seen, on the advice of its Recorder, to let judgment be entered up against it, and allow its privileges and franchises to be confiscated by process of law rather than voluntarily surrender them. London was therefore excepted out of this Bill, saving a clause touching the not taking or subscribing the oath and declaration.1688[pg 553]The Convention Parliament dissolved, 6 Feb., 1690.On the 6th February, 1690, the Convention Parliament was dissolved. Its greatest achievement had been the passing of the Bill of Rights, the third Great Charter (as it has been called) of English liberties. The Bill of Rights embodied the provisions of the Declaration of Rights, and strictly regulated the succession to the crown. It constituted the title-deed by which the king was thenceforth to hold his throne, and the people to enjoy their liberties. The late parliament had been none too liberal to William in the matter of supply. Money was much needed for carrying on war with France and for reducing Ireland. Extraordinary aids were voted from time to time, but the money came in so slowly that the king was fain to seek advances from the City.1689A new parliament was summoned to meet on the 20th March.1690Parliamentary elections, Feb., 1690.The election of members to serve the City in the coming parliament took place on the 19th February, and was hotly contested. There appears to be no record extant among the City's archives of what took place, but from a petition laid before the new House (2 April) by Pilkington (the lord mayor) and three others, viz., Sir Robert Clayton, Sir Patience Ward and Sir William Ashurst1691—all professing more or less Whig principles—we learn that they claimed to have been elected by the Common Hall. A poll had been granted, and a scrutiny was in course of being held when (as they complained) the sheriffs declared the election to have gone against them. The petitioners had afterwards learnt that upon the[pg 554]completion of the scrutiny the majority of those that had a right to vote had proved to be in their favour. They prayed therefore for relief. Their petition was referred to the Committee of Privileges and Elections for them to consider and report thereon to the House; but nothing came of it. It was in vain that Pilkington issued precepts to the livery companies for returns to be made: (1) of the names of those who were on the livery at Midsummer, 1683; (2) of those who had been admitted since; (3) of those that had died since 1683, or who were absent; and (4) of those who had omitted to take the prescribed oaths for a freeman or liveryman—in order to affect the scrutiny.1692The result was declared to be in favour of two aldermen and two commoners of distinct Tory proclivities. These were Sir William Pritchard, Sir Samuel Dashwood, Sir William Turner (once an alderman and soon to become one again) and Sir Thomas Vernon. Upon Turner's death in February, 1693, Sir John Fleet, then lord mayor, was elected in his place.1693In the country the elections were carried on with the same heat as in the City,1694and with like result. The majority of the members of the new parliament were Tory.The reversal of judgment on theQuo Warranto, 14 May, 1690.In November last (1689) a new committee was appointed to prepare a Bill for the reversal of the proceedings upon theQuo Warrantoand for the removal of other grievances.1695The provisions of the Bill had[pg 555]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 theQuo Warrantoagainst the City as arbitrary and illegal, and appointed a committee to prepare such a Bill.1696A Bill was accordingly prepared, was brought in, and passed the first and second reading on the 14th April.1697On 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.1698On the 14th the Bill passed the Lords without amendment, after counsel for the City had been heard during its progress through the House.1699Election of City officers, pursuant to the Act, 26 May, 1690.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,1700whilst Edward Clark, mercer, and Francis Child, goldsmith, were chosen sheriffs.1701Sir Peter Rich was re-elected chamberlain by a narrow majority over the head of Leonard Robinson, who had ousted[pg 556]him the previous Midsummer,1702but he was not admitted to office, his rival being imposed upon the citizens as chamberlain in spite of his having been in the minority.Election of Common Council, 10 June, 1690.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.1703The 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.1704Complaint made to parliament, 3 Dec., 1690.The matter allowed to drop, 11 Dec., 1690.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.1705The 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[pg 557]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,1706and 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[pg 558]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.1707It 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.1708The king sets out for Ireland, 4 June, 1690.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,1709and 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.1710On 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[pg 559]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.1712The aid of the City called in against France, 7 July, 1690.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 Lieutenancy1713obeyed 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.1714Whatever 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."1715No time was lost. Already the mayor had, in pursuance of an order[pg 560]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.1716On 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.1717The Common Council at the same time resolved to raise a regiment of horse and another of dragoons.1718The 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.1719On the 21st her majesty reviewed the city militia in Hyde Park, and expressed herself as much gratified.1720A city loan of £100,000, 22 July, 1690.The City was ready not only with men but money. On the 22nd July the Common Council was asked to[pg 561]assist her majesty by making a speedy loan of £100,000 "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.1721The queen returns thanks to the city, 15 August, 1690.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.1722The king's return from Ireland, Sept.Hearing of the danger that was threatening England, William had serious thoughts of leaving Ireland and returning home in July.1723He 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.1724On 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.1725An appointment having been made for Thursday morning (11 Sept.) the mayor and aldermen proceeded to Whitehall and congratulated his majesty[pg 562]on his safe return, their example being followed by the bishop and the clergy of London in the afternoon of the same day.1726The 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.1727The king attends a congress at the Hague, 1691.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.1728A 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.1729Jacobite plots in England.The king again leaves for the continent, 2 May.His presence was much needed, for the Jacobites were becoming more dangerous every day. One plot, of which Lord Preston was the ruling spirit,1730had 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.[pg 563]City loans, 1691-1692.The king had not been gone long before the queen sent to the City (18 June) to borrow £120,000 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 £75,000 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.1731The Common Council readily consented to find the money, notwithstanding its having so recently as February last advanced no less a sum than £200,000 towards fitting out the fleet.1732These 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 £200,000 to assist in paying off the ships of war that were about to lay up for the winter.1733In 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 £200,0001734and one of £100,000.1735Elections in Common Hall, 24 June, 1691.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 £120,000) for repealing the clause in the Act of Common Council of the 6th June, 1683, touching the[pg 564]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 29.1736Such 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.1737An 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."1738He 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[pg 565]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."1739The 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.1740A Bill to settle elections of sheriffs prepared by Court of Aldermen, April, 1692.The Bill rejected by Common Council.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.1741Of 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[pg 566]whether the Bill should be then read a third time it passed in the negative,1742and nothing more is heard of it.Act of Common Council for regulating elections at wardmotes, 26 Oct., 1692.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,1743an 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.1744At 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."1745The king's return, Oct., 1691.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[pg 567]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 £200,000 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.1746A 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.1747Again sets out for Holland, March, 1692.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.1748City loan of £200,000 to the queen, 18 March, 1692.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[pg 568]£200,000.1749This 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 £200,000 was kept intact "for some extraordinary occasion."1750Preparations to meet a threatened invasion by France, April, 1692.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.1751The mayor issued instructions for closing coffee-houses in the city on Sundays.1752Troops that had been ordered to Flanders were now countermanded, and a camp was formed at Southampton.1753The lord mayor was given a commission as general of all the city's forces—trained[pg 569]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.1754Battle of La Hogue, 19 May, 1692.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.1755City loan of £100,000 voted, 26 May.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 £100,000 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.1756A further loan of £200,000 granted, 6 Sept., 1692.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 £200,000 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.1757A 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,1758and[pg 570]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 £70,000 had been already subscribed.1759The king entertained on lord mayor's day, 29 Oct., 1692On 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.1760The 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.1761The City desired to advance another loan of £200,000, Oct., 1692The entertainment, which was given at the expense of the aldermen and not charged in any way to the city's Chamber,1762was made the occasion by the king of suggesting another city loan of £200,000, making the third loan of the kind within the year, besides another loan of £100,000. The king's wishes were laid before the next Common Council (2 Nov.) and met with a ready response.1763Before leaving the Guildhall his majesty conferred the honour of[pg 571]knighthood upon Alderman Gore, Alderman Houblon, Leonard Robinson, the city chamberlain, and others.1764Another City loan of £200,000, 25 April, 1693.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 £200,000 upon the credit of a recent Act of Parliament authorising the raising of a million of money for military purposes.1765The money, which was wanted for the purpose of paying the wages of seamen and for refitting the fleet, was immediately voted.The Turkey fleet intercepted at Lagos Bay, June, 1693.Excitement in the city.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[pg 572]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.1766The 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.1767The 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.[pg 573]City address to the queen and another loan of £300,000, 15 Aug., 1693.On the 15th August, after voting a loan of £300,000 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.1768The queen invited to lord mayor's banquet, 30 Oct., 1693.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.1769Ashurst 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[pg 574]time to consider the case of the other four, they being members of parliament.1770The king's return to England, 29 Oct., 1693.The 29th October falling on Sunday, the lord mayor's banquet took place on the following Monday at the hall of the Grocers' Company,1771but the queen was unable to attend as she had gone to meet the king, who had landed at Harwich on Sunday afternoon.1772On 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

[pg 541]CHAPTER XXXII.Order for reversal of judgment on theQuo Warranto, May, 1689.The Convention having been converted by a formal Act into a true parliament (23 Feb.),1654one of the first motions put to the House was that a special committee should be appointed to consider the violations of the liberties and franchises of all the corporations of the kingdom, "and particularly of the city of London." The motion was lost by a majority of 24.1655The House nevertheless resolved to bring in a Bill for repealing the Corporation Act, and ten days later (5 March) the Grand Committee of Grievances reported to the House its opinion (1) that the rights of the city of London in the election of sheriffs in the year 1682 were invaded and that such invasion was illegal and a grievance, and (2) that the judgment given upon theQuo Warrantoagainst the city was illegal and a grievance. The committee's opinion on these two points (among others) was endorsed by the House, and on the 16th March it ordered a Bill to be brought in to restore all corporations to the state and condition they were in on the 29th May, 1660, and to confirm the liberties and franchises which at that time they respectively held and enjoyed.1656Further Report of Committee of Grievances, 29 May, 1689.A special committee appointed (5 March) to investigate the nature of the city's grievances, and to discover who were the authors and advisers of them,[pg 542]presented, on the 29th May, a long report to the House,1657giving the whole story of the election of sheriffs in June, 1682, and of Pritchard's election to the mayoralty in the following September; of the fines that had been imposed on Pilkington, Shute, Bethell, Cornish and others for so-called riots whilst engaged in asserting the rights of the citizens; of Papillon having been cast in damages to the amount of £10,000 at the suit of Pritchard, and of other matters which led up to the proceedings under theQuo Warranto, when, as the committee had discovered, two of the justices of the King's Bench—Pemberton and Dolben—were removed from the court because their opinion was found to be in favour of the city. The committee refer to the City's Records in support of the claim of the lord mayor to elect one of the sheriffs, and say "that from the twenty-first of Edward the IIIdunto the year 1641 the way of making sheriffs was that the lord mayor named one to be sheriff and presented him to the Common Hall, who did confirm him, and chose another to act with him; except in three or four years within that time, when the Common Hall chose both the sheriffs, the persons drank to in those years by the lord mayor having refused to hold and paid their fines." They capitulated to the House the various occasions on which the mayor exercised his prerogative unchallenged, and those when the Common Hall refused to confirm the mayor's nomination, down to 1682, when matters were brought to a crisis by Sir John Moore claiming to haveelectedDudley North by drinking to him according to custom; and in conclusion[pg 543]they reported their opinion to be that Sir John Moore and Dudley North were among the "authors of the invasion made upon the rights of the city of London in the election of sheriffs for the said city in the year 1682."Draft Bill for reversal of judgment submitted to Common Council, 24 May, 1689.In the meantime the civic authorities themselves had not been idle. The Common Council had already (1 March) appointed a committee to take steps for obtaining a reversal of the judgment on theQuo Warrantowith the assistance of the recorder and the city's representatives in parliament. Before the end of May a draft Bill had been prepared for the purpose and been submitted to the court for approval.1658The Court of Orphans.There was another matter pressing very heavily upon the City just now, and one which later on would also claim the attention of parliament, and that was the relationship of the civic authorities to the city orphans. By the custom of London the mayor and aldermen were the recognised guardians of all citizens' orphans, and as such took charge of their property until they came of age or married. A Court of Orphans was established, with the common sergeant as its chief officer, which exercised the same jurisdiction over the bodies and goods of orphans in the city that the Court of Chancery exercised outside. In course of time the fund paid into this court became very considerable, and in order to prevent it lying idle and thus deprive the orphans of interest that might accrue on their estate, the court lent large sums to the Crown on the security of exchequer bills. Could any guardian or trustee have acted more[pg 544]honestly or with greater prudence? They had not reckoned, however, upon a king being on the throne who should be sufficiently dishonest to stop all payments out of the exchequer in discharge of principal and interest of past loans. This is what Charles II did, as we have seen, in 1672; and his action not only ruined many bankers and merchants of the city, but inflicted great hardship upon the city's fatherless children. The City's revenue at the time of William's accession was little more than sufficient to meet the necessary expenses of the municipality, to say nothing of repaying the orphans their confiscated estates. This fact was recognised by the orphans themselves, who saw no other hope but to apply to parliament for assistance with the aid of the Common Council.Orphans' petition to Common Council, 1 March, 1689.To this end "a large number" of orphans of the city presented a petition to the court on the 1st March.1659Their fortunes (they said) had been paid into the Chamber of London according to the custom of the city, and they were now left destitute of support and reduced to great hardships and extremities, very many of them having their whole portions in the Chamber. They prayed the court, therefore, to appoint a committee to consider the whole matter with the view of approaching parliament with some recommendation. To this the court readily gave its consent, and a committee was then and there nominated.Proposals of committee, 8 March, 1689.A week later (8 March) this committee made a report to the council.1660They had found upon[pg 545]investigation that the debt owing by the Chamber was very great, being upwards of £500,000 due on principal money to orphans and nearly £100,000 more due to others, besides "finding money" and interest. The committee were of opinion that before any application was made to parliament the City should first do what it could on its own account for the relief of the orphans. The City's lands of inheritance were estimated as bringing in about £4,000 a year, subject to a charge of £500 or £600 for charitable uses, and the committee recommended that lands to the value of £3,000 a year rental should be sold. By this means it was thought that £70,000 or thereabouts would be raised, and the sum being devoted to the relief of the orphans would be "a good introduction to request a further assistance from the parliament." The charges of municipal government must be met with the residue of the "casual profits" of the Chamber. If parliament (the report went on to say) would be pleased to assist by granting a duty on coals and allowing the City to tax hackney coachmen at 5s.a head, the whole debt, or at least the principal, might be liquidated. A Bill which the committee had prepared for presentation to parliament for this purpose was then read and referred to the town clerk and the city solicitor, as well as to the attorney and the solicitor-general for their opinions.The king's proposal to abolish the Hearth Tax, 1 March, 1689.The king's intimation to the House (1 March) that he was prepared, with its assent, to abolish the odious Hearth Tax was received with universal joy. The Commons immediately voted an address of thanks, and passed a formal resolution to stand by[pg 546]the king with their lives and fortunes in supporting his alliances abroad, in the reduction of Ireland, and the defence of the Protestant religion,1661whilst the Common Council of the city resolved to present a humble address of thanks to his majesty for the welcome relief from a tax that had been from its commencement obnoxious. The court at the same time resolved to return its thanks to both Houses of Parliament for their resolution to stand by the king.1662The Commons, in acknowledging the address, represented to the deputation by the mouth of the Speaker that they had taken notice of the courage and constancy displayed by the City in the late revolution, and more especially its action in advancing so large a sum of money to his majesty at so critical a time. The City's care for the public would never fail to receive the like return from the Commons.1663Death of Lord Mayor Chapman, 17 March, 1689.On Sunday the 17th March a special Court of Aldermen sat. The lord mayor, Sir John Chapman, had died at ten o'clock that morning, and it became necessary to take steps for the election of a mayor to serve for the remainder of the mayoralty year, and to secure, in the meantime, the peace of the city. Three aldermen were despatched, accompanied by the town clerk, to inform the king of the state of affairs, and to assure him that care would be taken to prevent disorder until a new mayor should be elected. To secure this latter object a precept was at once issued by the court for a double watch to be kept until further orders, whilst another precept was issued for[pg 547]a Common Hall to meet on the following Wednesday (20 March) for the election of a new mayor.1664Pilkington elected Mayor, 20 March, 1689.When the Common Hall met the choice of the citizens fell upon their old friend and champion, Pilkington, and Thomas Stampe; but a poll was demanded by the supporters of two other candidates, viz., Sir John Moore—who had already served (1681-2) and in whose mayoralty there had been such a fight over the election of sheriffs—and Jonathan Raymond. It is said that the Tory party in the city put up Moore for re-election by way of showing their disgust at a recent resolution passed by the House of Commons to the effect that Moore had been a betrayer of the liberties of the City during his mayoralty.1665But however that may be (and no record of such a resolution appears in the Journal of the House), the result of the poll placed Stampe and Pilkington—with 1975 and 1973 votes respectively—far ahead of either of the other candidates. Moore, indeed, was at the bottom of the poll with only 780 votes, whilst Raymond only polled 930. Stampe and Pilkington having been returned to the Court of Aldermen for them to select one, according to the custom, they chose Pilkington, and he was accordingly admitted and sworn mayor for the remainder of the year, being presented to the Governor of the Tower by order of the king instead of before the barons of the exchequer.1666A few weeks later (10 April) he received the honour of knighthood.1667Lethieullier and Houblon, sheriffs, 24 June, 1689.At Midsummer (1689) a difficulty again arose with the election of sheriffs for the ensuing year. The[pg 548]Common Hall elected Christopher Lethieullier, alderman and dyer, and John Houblon, grocer,1668but these preferring to pay a fine to serving, the Common Hall refused to elect others in their place. The Court of Aldermen, finding themselves in a fix, sent for the attorney-general to peruse the City's Records and to give his advice in the matter. Lethieullier had determined to cut all connection with the Corporation, and had paid another fine to be relieved of the aldermanry of the ward of Coleman Street. Nevertheless, by the 10th September both he and Houblon had been persuaded to change their minds, and professed themselves ready, if the Court of Aldermen so willed, to take upon themselves the office of sheriffs.1669The attainder of Cornish reversed, June, 1689.The wheel of fortune had taken a sudden turn. Those who had suffered during the last two reigns for vindicating their liberties and upholding the reformed religion, found themselves again in favour. Papillon and Bethell, who had sought safety in Holland, returned to England, and the former was appointed a commissioner for victualling the navy.1670In June the attainder of Cornish was reversed by Act of Parliament,1671and in October, Ralph Box, who had refused to allow himself to be forced into the shrievalty in 1682 against the wish of the citizens, had the honour, as master of the Grocers' Company, of conferring the freedom of the company upon the king, who, in his turn, created Box a knight.1672Proceedings against North, Nov., 1689.North, on the other hand, was subjected to a severe cross-examination before a committee popularly called[pg 549]the "murder committee," and narrowly escaped a criminal trial for having systematically packed juries during his shrievalty. His statement that he had never troubled himself about the political opinions of those he had placed on the panel, but had only taken care to have good and substantial citizens, was with difficulty accepted.1673Broom, who had been deprived of his coronership for arresting North and Pritchard, the royalist mayor, was re-instated in January, 1690.1674The siege of Londonderry, April-July, 1689.William had achieved the crown of England without bloodshed. In Ireland, as well as in Scotland, he had to fight for his crown. The news that James had landed in Ireland (12 March) created no small excitement in the city. Volunteers were called for, and were readily found. The trained bands were augmented and new officers appointed.1675When it was found that James was marching to the north of Ireland, where the citizens of London held a large interest, the excitement was increased. On the 18th April he appeared before the walls of Londonderry, expecting the city to immediately surrender. Thanks to the strength of those walls, repaired and fortified by the care and at the charges of the citizens of London,1676[pg 550]and still more to the stout hearts behind them, the town was able to stand a long and dreary siege, with all its attendant horrors of slaughter and starvation, and at last, after heroic resistance and patient suffering for 105 days, to come off victorious. There is one name more especially honoured in connection with the famous siege, that of George Walker, who, although a clergyman and advanced in years, inspired the besieged with so much energy and courage that from first to last there was no thought of surrender. Attempts were made to win over the garrison by intrigue, and among the devices set on foot for establishing communication between besiegers and the besieged was that of placing a letter in an empty shell and firing the latter into the town.1677When Walker made his appearance in England he was graciously received by the king, who made him a present of £5,000 and promised to have a care for the rest of the garrison.1678The king afterwards desired Walker to furnish a list of the officers who had displayed such determined courage during the siege and blockade.1679Intercepted letters laid before the Common Council, 19 June, 1689.Whilst Londonderry was thus besieged a discovery had been made by means of intercepted letters of further designs which James hoped to carry out with the assistance of the French king. On the 19th June Sir George Treby, who was both the city's recorder and the king's attorney-general, laid before[pg 551]the Common Council at his majesty's request certain letters which had been seized on board a ship at Liverpool and forwarded by special messenger to the government. The letters, which had already been submitted to both houses, were now read to the Common Council, and this having been done the council resolved to present an address to the king thanking him for his favour and condescension, and assuring him that they would stand by him with their lives and estates.1680The king and queen entertained at the Guildhall, 29 Oct., 1689.Michaelmas-day this year (1689) happening to fall on Sunday, the election of a mayor for the year ensuing took place on the previous Saturday, when Pilkington was re-elected.1681Tuesday, the 29th October, was lord mayor's day, but why the ceremony of swearing in the lord mayor should have been observed on that day instead of on the feast of SS. Simon and Jude—the 28th October—as was the custom, is not clear. The lord mayor's show was (we are told) "very splendid," and was witnessed by the king and queen and the Prince of Denmark from a balcony in Cheapside. After the show they were entertained, together with the members of both Houses and high officers of state, at a banquet in the Guildhall. The cost of the entertainment was defrayed by voluntary subscriptions among the aldermen and members of the Common Council.1682In order to prevent unpleasant crowding the Commons were invited to make their way into the Guildhall through the church of St. Lawrence, Jewry.1683The king took[pg 552]occasion to knight the two sheriffs (Lethieullier and Houblon), and also Edward Clark and Francis Child, two aldermen who were chosen sheriffs the next year.1684The king's picture in the Guildhall mutilated, Nov., 1689.Within a few weeks of this entertainment it was found that the portrait of William set up in the Guildhall had been maliciously mutilated. The crown and sceptre had been cut out of the picture by some Jacobite, and the reward of £500 offered (21 Nov.) by the Court of Aldermen failed to discover the perpetrator.1685Bill for restoring corporations passed. 6 Jan., 1690.On the 30th October (1689) a parliamentary committee was appointed to prepare a Bill for "restoring and confirming of corporations." A Bill was accordingly brought in, read for the second time and committed.1686The Bill was mainly concerned with those corporations that hadsurrenderedtheir charters, and a great struggle took place upon the committee's report (2 Jan., 1690) over an attempt to introduce a clause providing that every municipal officer who had in any way been a party to the surrender of a borough's franchises should be incapable of holding any office in that borough for a period of seven years.1687The city of London had not surrendered its charters. It preferred, as we have seen, on the advice of its Recorder, to let judgment be entered up against it, and allow its privileges and franchises to be confiscated by process of law rather than voluntarily surrender them. London was therefore excepted out of this Bill, saving a clause touching the not taking or subscribing the oath and declaration.1688[pg 553]The Convention Parliament dissolved, 6 Feb., 1690.On the 6th February, 1690, the Convention Parliament was dissolved. Its greatest achievement had been the passing of the Bill of Rights, the third Great Charter (as it has been called) of English liberties. The Bill of Rights embodied the provisions of the Declaration of Rights, and strictly regulated the succession to the crown. It constituted the title-deed by which the king was thenceforth to hold his throne, and the people to enjoy their liberties. The late parliament had been none too liberal to William in the matter of supply. Money was much needed for carrying on war with France and for reducing Ireland. Extraordinary aids were voted from time to time, but the money came in so slowly that the king was fain to seek advances from the City.1689A new parliament was summoned to meet on the 20th March.1690Parliamentary elections, Feb., 1690.The election of members to serve the City in the coming parliament took place on the 19th February, and was hotly contested. There appears to be no record extant among the City's archives of what took place, but from a petition laid before the new House (2 April) by Pilkington (the lord mayor) and three others, viz., Sir Robert Clayton, Sir Patience Ward and Sir William Ashurst1691—all professing more or less Whig principles—we learn that they claimed to have been elected by the Common Hall. A poll had been granted, and a scrutiny was in course of being held when (as they complained) the sheriffs declared the election to have gone against them. The petitioners had afterwards learnt that upon the[pg 554]completion of the scrutiny the majority of those that had a right to vote had proved to be in their favour. They prayed therefore for relief. Their petition was referred to the Committee of Privileges and Elections for them to consider and report thereon to the House; but nothing came of it. It was in vain that Pilkington issued precepts to the livery companies for returns to be made: (1) of the names of those who were on the livery at Midsummer, 1683; (2) of those who had been admitted since; (3) of those that had died since 1683, or who were absent; and (4) of those who had omitted to take the prescribed oaths for a freeman or liveryman—in order to affect the scrutiny.1692The result was declared to be in favour of two aldermen and two commoners of distinct Tory proclivities. These were Sir William Pritchard, Sir Samuel Dashwood, Sir William Turner (once an alderman and soon to become one again) and Sir Thomas Vernon. Upon Turner's death in February, 1693, Sir John Fleet, then lord mayor, was elected in his place.1693In the country the elections were carried on with the same heat as in the City,1694and with like result. The majority of the members of the new parliament were Tory.The reversal of judgment on theQuo Warranto, 14 May, 1690.In November last (1689) a new committee was appointed to prepare a Bill for the reversal of the proceedings upon theQuo Warrantoand for the removal of other grievances.1695The provisions of the Bill had[pg 555]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 theQuo Warrantoagainst the City as arbitrary and illegal, and appointed a committee to prepare such a Bill.1696A Bill was accordingly prepared, was brought in, and passed the first and second reading on the 14th April.1697On 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.1698On the 14th the Bill passed the Lords without amendment, after counsel for the City had been heard during its progress through the House.1699Election of City officers, pursuant to the Act, 26 May, 1690.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,1700whilst Edward Clark, mercer, and Francis Child, goldsmith, were chosen sheriffs.1701Sir Peter Rich was re-elected chamberlain by a narrow majority over the head of Leonard Robinson, who had ousted[pg 556]him the previous Midsummer,1702but he was not admitted to office, his rival being imposed upon the citizens as chamberlain in spite of his having been in the minority.Election of Common Council, 10 June, 1690.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.1703The 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.1704Complaint made to parliament, 3 Dec., 1690.The matter allowed to drop, 11 Dec., 1690.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.1705The 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[pg 557]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,1706and 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[pg 558]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.1707It 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.1708The king sets out for Ireland, 4 June, 1690.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,1709and 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.1710On 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[pg 559]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.1712The aid of the City called in against France, 7 July, 1690.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 Lieutenancy1713obeyed 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.1714Whatever 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."1715No time was lost. Already the mayor had, in pursuance of an order[pg 560]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.1716On 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.1717The Common Council at the same time resolved to raise a regiment of horse and another of dragoons.1718The 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.1719On the 21st her majesty reviewed the city militia in Hyde Park, and expressed herself as much gratified.1720A city loan of £100,000, 22 July, 1690.The City was ready not only with men but money. On the 22nd July the Common Council was asked to[pg 561]assist her majesty by making a speedy loan of £100,000 "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.1721The queen returns thanks to the city, 15 August, 1690.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.1722The king's return from Ireland, Sept.Hearing of the danger that was threatening England, William had serious thoughts of leaving Ireland and returning home in July.1723He 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.1724On 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.1725An appointment having been made for Thursday morning (11 Sept.) the mayor and aldermen proceeded to Whitehall and congratulated his majesty[pg 562]on his safe return, their example being followed by the bishop and the clergy of London in the afternoon of the same day.1726The 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.1727The king attends a congress at the Hague, 1691.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.1728A 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.1729Jacobite plots in England.The king again leaves for the continent, 2 May.His presence was much needed, for the Jacobites were becoming more dangerous every day. One plot, of which Lord Preston was the ruling spirit,1730had 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.[pg 563]City loans, 1691-1692.The king had not been gone long before the queen sent to the City (18 June) to borrow £120,000 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 £75,000 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.1731The Common Council readily consented to find the money, notwithstanding its having so recently as February last advanced no less a sum than £200,000 towards fitting out the fleet.1732These 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 £200,000 to assist in paying off the ships of war that were about to lay up for the winter.1733In 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 £200,0001734and one of £100,000.1735Elections in Common Hall, 24 June, 1691.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 £120,000) for repealing the clause in the Act of Common Council of the 6th June, 1683, touching the[pg 564]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 29.1736Such 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.1737An 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."1738He 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[pg 565]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."1739The 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.1740A Bill to settle elections of sheriffs prepared by Court of Aldermen, April, 1692.The Bill rejected by Common Council.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.1741Of 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[pg 566]whether the Bill should be then read a third time it passed in the negative,1742and nothing more is heard of it.Act of Common Council for regulating elections at wardmotes, 26 Oct., 1692.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,1743an 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.1744At 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."1745The king's return, Oct., 1691.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[pg 567]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 £200,000 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.1746A 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.1747Again sets out for Holland, March, 1692.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.1748City loan of £200,000 to the queen, 18 March, 1692.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[pg 568]£200,000.1749This 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 £200,000 was kept intact "for some extraordinary occasion."1750Preparations to meet a threatened invasion by France, April, 1692.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.1751The mayor issued instructions for closing coffee-houses in the city on Sundays.1752Troops that had been ordered to Flanders were now countermanded, and a camp was formed at Southampton.1753The lord mayor was given a commission as general of all the city's forces—trained[pg 569]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.1754Battle of La Hogue, 19 May, 1692.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.1755City loan of £100,000 voted, 26 May.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 £100,000 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.1756A further loan of £200,000 granted, 6 Sept., 1692.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 £200,000 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.1757A 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,1758and[pg 570]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 £70,000 had been already subscribed.1759The king entertained on lord mayor's day, 29 Oct., 1692On 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.1760The 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.1761The City desired to advance another loan of £200,000, Oct., 1692The entertainment, which was given at the expense of the aldermen and not charged in any way to the city's Chamber,1762was made the occasion by the king of suggesting another city loan of £200,000, making the third loan of the kind within the year, besides another loan of £100,000. The king's wishes were laid before the next Common Council (2 Nov.) and met with a ready response.1763Before leaving the Guildhall his majesty conferred the honour of[pg 571]knighthood upon Alderman Gore, Alderman Houblon, Leonard Robinson, the city chamberlain, and others.1764Another City loan of £200,000, 25 April, 1693.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 £200,000 upon the credit of a recent Act of Parliament authorising the raising of a million of money for military purposes.1765The money, which was wanted for the purpose of paying the wages of seamen and for refitting the fleet, was immediately voted.The Turkey fleet intercepted at Lagos Bay, June, 1693.Excitement in the city.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[pg 572]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.1766The 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.1767The 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.[pg 573]City address to the queen and another loan of £300,000, 15 Aug., 1693.On the 15th August, after voting a loan of £300,000 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.1768The queen invited to lord mayor's banquet, 30 Oct., 1693.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.1769Ashurst 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[pg 574]time to consider the case of the other four, they being members of parliament.1770The king's return to England, 29 Oct., 1693.The 29th October falling on Sunday, the lord mayor's banquet took place on the following Monday at the hall of the Grocers' Company,1771but the queen was unable to attend as she had gone to meet the king, who had landed at Harwich on Sunday afternoon.1772On 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

[pg 541]CHAPTER XXXII.Order for reversal of judgment on theQuo Warranto, May, 1689.The Convention having been converted by a formal Act into a true parliament (23 Feb.),1654one of the first motions put to the House was that a special committee should be appointed to consider the violations of the liberties and franchises of all the corporations of the kingdom, "and particularly of the city of London." The motion was lost by a majority of 24.1655The House nevertheless resolved to bring in a Bill for repealing the Corporation Act, and ten days later (5 March) the Grand Committee of Grievances reported to the House its opinion (1) that the rights of the city of London in the election of sheriffs in the year 1682 were invaded and that such invasion was illegal and a grievance, and (2) that the judgment given upon theQuo Warrantoagainst the city was illegal and a grievance. The committee's opinion on these two points (among others) was endorsed by the House, and on the 16th March it ordered a Bill to be brought in to restore all corporations to the state and condition they were in on the 29th May, 1660, and to confirm the liberties and franchises which at that time they respectively held and enjoyed.1656Further Report of Committee of Grievances, 29 May, 1689.A special committee appointed (5 March) to investigate the nature of the city's grievances, and to discover who were the authors and advisers of them,[pg 542]presented, on the 29th May, a long report to the House,1657giving the whole story of the election of sheriffs in June, 1682, and of Pritchard's election to the mayoralty in the following September; of the fines that had been imposed on Pilkington, Shute, Bethell, Cornish and others for so-called riots whilst engaged in asserting the rights of the citizens; of Papillon having been cast in damages to the amount of £10,000 at the suit of Pritchard, and of other matters which led up to the proceedings under theQuo Warranto, when, as the committee had discovered, two of the justices of the King's Bench—Pemberton and Dolben—were removed from the court because their opinion was found to be in favour of the city. The committee refer to the City's Records in support of the claim of the lord mayor to elect one of the sheriffs, and say "that from the twenty-first of Edward the IIIdunto the year 1641 the way of making sheriffs was that the lord mayor named one to be sheriff and presented him to the Common Hall, who did confirm him, and chose another to act with him; except in three or four years within that time, when the Common Hall chose both the sheriffs, the persons drank to in those years by the lord mayor having refused to hold and paid their fines." They capitulated to the House the various occasions on which the mayor exercised his prerogative unchallenged, and those when the Common Hall refused to confirm the mayor's nomination, down to 1682, when matters were brought to a crisis by Sir John Moore claiming to haveelectedDudley North by drinking to him according to custom; and in conclusion[pg 543]they reported their opinion to be that Sir John Moore and Dudley North were among the "authors of the invasion made upon the rights of the city of London in the election of sheriffs for the said city in the year 1682."Draft Bill for reversal of judgment submitted to Common Council, 24 May, 1689.In the meantime the civic authorities themselves had not been idle. The Common Council had already (1 March) appointed a committee to take steps for obtaining a reversal of the judgment on theQuo Warrantowith the assistance of the recorder and the city's representatives in parliament. Before the end of May a draft Bill had been prepared for the purpose and been submitted to the court for approval.1658The Court of Orphans.There was another matter pressing very heavily upon the City just now, and one which later on would also claim the attention of parliament, and that was the relationship of the civic authorities to the city orphans. By the custom of London the mayor and aldermen were the recognised guardians of all citizens' orphans, and as such took charge of their property until they came of age or married. A Court of Orphans was established, with the common sergeant as its chief officer, which exercised the same jurisdiction over the bodies and goods of orphans in the city that the Court of Chancery exercised outside. In course of time the fund paid into this court became very considerable, and in order to prevent it lying idle and thus deprive the orphans of interest that might accrue on their estate, the court lent large sums to the Crown on the security of exchequer bills. Could any guardian or trustee have acted more[pg 544]honestly or with greater prudence? They had not reckoned, however, upon a king being on the throne who should be sufficiently dishonest to stop all payments out of the exchequer in discharge of principal and interest of past loans. This is what Charles II did, as we have seen, in 1672; and his action not only ruined many bankers and merchants of the city, but inflicted great hardship upon the city's fatherless children. The City's revenue at the time of William's accession was little more than sufficient to meet the necessary expenses of the municipality, to say nothing of repaying the orphans their confiscated estates. This fact was recognised by the orphans themselves, who saw no other hope but to apply to parliament for assistance with the aid of the Common Council.Orphans' petition to Common Council, 1 March, 1689.To this end "a large number" of orphans of the city presented a petition to the court on the 1st March.1659Their fortunes (they said) had been paid into the Chamber of London according to the custom of the city, and they were now left destitute of support and reduced to great hardships and extremities, very many of them having their whole portions in the Chamber. They prayed the court, therefore, to appoint a committee to consider the whole matter with the view of approaching parliament with some recommendation. To this the court readily gave its consent, and a committee was then and there nominated.Proposals of committee, 8 March, 1689.A week later (8 March) this committee made a report to the council.1660They had found upon[pg 545]investigation that the debt owing by the Chamber was very great, being upwards of £500,000 due on principal money to orphans and nearly £100,000 more due to others, besides "finding money" and interest. The committee were of opinion that before any application was made to parliament the City should first do what it could on its own account for the relief of the orphans. The City's lands of inheritance were estimated as bringing in about £4,000 a year, subject to a charge of £500 or £600 for charitable uses, and the committee recommended that lands to the value of £3,000 a year rental should be sold. By this means it was thought that £70,000 or thereabouts would be raised, and the sum being devoted to the relief of the orphans would be "a good introduction to request a further assistance from the parliament." The charges of municipal government must be met with the residue of the "casual profits" of the Chamber. If parliament (the report went on to say) would be pleased to assist by granting a duty on coals and allowing the City to tax hackney coachmen at 5s.a head, the whole debt, or at least the principal, might be liquidated. A Bill which the committee had prepared for presentation to parliament for this purpose was then read and referred to the town clerk and the city solicitor, as well as to the attorney and the solicitor-general for their opinions.The king's proposal to abolish the Hearth Tax, 1 March, 1689.The king's intimation to the House (1 March) that he was prepared, with its assent, to abolish the odious Hearth Tax was received with universal joy. The Commons immediately voted an address of thanks, and passed a formal resolution to stand by[pg 546]the king with their lives and fortunes in supporting his alliances abroad, in the reduction of Ireland, and the defence of the Protestant religion,1661whilst the Common Council of the city resolved to present a humble address of thanks to his majesty for the welcome relief from a tax that had been from its commencement obnoxious. The court at the same time resolved to return its thanks to both Houses of Parliament for their resolution to stand by the king.1662The Commons, in acknowledging the address, represented to the deputation by the mouth of the Speaker that they had taken notice of the courage and constancy displayed by the City in the late revolution, and more especially its action in advancing so large a sum of money to his majesty at so critical a time. The City's care for the public would never fail to receive the like return from the Commons.1663Death of Lord Mayor Chapman, 17 March, 1689.On Sunday the 17th March a special Court of Aldermen sat. The lord mayor, Sir John Chapman, had died at ten o'clock that morning, and it became necessary to take steps for the election of a mayor to serve for the remainder of the mayoralty year, and to secure, in the meantime, the peace of the city. Three aldermen were despatched, accompanied by the town clerk, to inform the king of the state of affairs, and to assure him that care would be taken to prevent disorder until a new mayor should be elected. To secure this latter object a precept was at once issued by the court for a double watch to be kept until further orders, whilst another precept was issued for[pg 547]a Common Hall to meet on the following Wednesday (20 March) for the election of a new mayor.1664Pilkington elected Mayor, 20 March, 1689.When the Common Hall met the choice of the citizens fell upon their old friend and champion, Pilkington, and Thomas Stampe; but a poll was demanded by the supporters of two other candidates, viz., Sir John Moore—who had already served (1681-2) and in whose mayoralty there had been such a fight over the election of sheriffs—and Jonathan Raymond. It is said that the Tory party in the city put up Moore for re-election by way of showing their disgust at a recent resolution passed by the House of Commons to the effect that Moore had been a betrayer of the liberties of the City during his mayoralty.1665But however that may be (and no record of such a resolution appears in the Journal of the House), the result of the poll placed Stampe and Pilkington—with 1975 and 1973 votes respectively—far ahead of either of the other candidates. Moore, indeed, was at the bottom of the poll with only 780 votes, whilst Raymond only polled 930. Stampe and Pilkington having been returned to the Court of Aldermen for them to select one, according to the custom, they chose Pilkington, and he was accordingly admitted and sworn mayor for the remainder of the year, being presented to the Governor of the Tower by order of the king instead of before the barons of the exchequer.1666A few weeks later (10 April) he received the honour of knighthood.1667Lethieullier and Houblon, sheriffs, 24 June, 1689.At Midsummer (1689) a difficulty again arose with the election of sheriffs for the ensuing year. The[pg 548]Common Hall elected Christopher Lethieullier, alderman and dyer, and John Houblon, grocer,1668but these preferring to pay a fine to serving, the Common Hall refused to elect others in their place. The Court of Aldermen, finding themselves in a fix, sent for the attorney-general to peruse the City's Records and to give his advice in the matter. Lethieullier had determined to cut all connection with the Corporation, and had paid another fine to be relieved of the aldermanry of the ward of Coleman Street. Nevertheless, by the 10th September both he and Houblon had been persuaded to change their minds, and professed themselves ready, if the Court of Aldermen so willed, to take upon themselves the office of sheriffs.1669The attainder of Cornish reversed, June, 1689.The wheel of fortune had taken a sudden turn. Those who had suffered during the last two reigns for vindicating their liberties and upholding the reformed religion, found themselves again in favour. Papillon and Bethell, who had sought safety in Holland, returned to England, and the former was appointed a commissioner for victualling the navy.1670In June the attainder of Cornish was reversed by Act of Parliament,1671and in October, Ralph Box, who had refused to allow himself to be forced into the shrievalty in 1682 against the wish of the citizens, had the honour, as master of the Grocers' Company, of conferring the freedom of the company upon the king, who, in his turn, created Box a knight.1672Proceedings against North, Nov., 1689.North, on the other hand, was subjected to a severe cross-examination before a committee popularly called[pg 549]the "murder committee," and narrowly escaped a criminal trial for having systematically packed juries during his shrievalty. His statement that he had never troubled himself about the political opinions of those he had placed on the panel, but had only taken care to have good and substantial citizens, was with difficulty accepted.1673Broom, who had been deprived of his coronership for arresting North and Pritchard, the royalist mayor, was re-instated in January, 1690.1674The siege of Londonderry, April-July, 1689.William had achieved the crown of England without bloodshed. In Ireland, as well as in Scotland, he had to fight for his crown. The news that James had landed in Ireland (12 March) created no small excitement in the city. Volunteers were called for, and were readily found. The trained bands were augmented and new officers appointed.1675When it was found that James was marching to the north of Ireland, where the citizens of London held a large interest, the excitement was increased. On the 18th April he appeared before the walls of Londonderry, expecting the city to immediately surrender. Thanks to the strength of those walls, repaired and fortified by the care and at the charges of the citizens of London,1676[pg 550]and still more to the stout hearts behind them, the town was able to stand a long and dreary siege, with all its attendant horrors of slaughter and starvation, and at last, after heroic resistance and patient suffering for 105 days, to come off victorious. There is one name more especially honoured in connection with the famous siege, that of George Walker, who, although a clergyman and advanced in years, inspired the besieged with so much energy and courage that from first to last there was no thought of surrender. Attempts were made to win over the garrison by intrigue, and among the devices set on foot for establishing communication between besiegers and the besieged was that of placing a letter in an empty shell and firing the latter into the town.1677When Walker made his appearance in England he was graciously received by the king, who made him a present of £5,000 and promised to have a care for the rest of the garrison.1678The king afterwards desired Walker to furnish a list of the officers who had displayed such determined courage during the siege and blockade.1679Intercepted letters laid before the Common Council, 19 June, 1689.Whilst Londonderry was thus besieged a discovery had been made by means of intercepted letters of further designs which James hoped to carry out with the assistance of the French king. On the 19th June Sir George Treby, who was both the city's recorder and the king's attorney-general, laid before[pg 551]the Common Council at his majesty's request certain letters which had been seized on board a ship at Liverpool and forwarded by special messenger to the government. The letters, which had already been submitted to both houses, were now read to the Common Council, and this having been done the council resolved to present an address to the king thanking him for his favour and condescension, and assuring him that they would stand by him with their lives and estates.1680The king and queen entertained at the Guildhall, 29 Oct., 1689.Michaelmas-day this year (1689) happening to fall on Sunday, the election of a mayor for the year ensuing took place on the previous Saturday, when Pilkington was re-elected.1681Tuesday, the 29th October, was lord mayor's day, but why the ceremony of swearing in the lord mayor should have been observed on that day instead of on the feast of SS. Simon and Jude—the 28th October—as was the custom, is not clear. The lord mayor's show was (we are told) "very splendid," and was witnessed by the king and queen and the Prince of Denmark from a balcony in Cheapside. After the show they were entertained, together with the members of both Houses and high officers of state, at a banquet in the Guildhall. The cost of the entertainment was defrayed by voluntary subscriptions among the aldermen and members of the Common Council.1682In order to prevent unpleasant crowding the Commons were invited to make their way into the Guildhall through the church of St. Lawrence, Jewry.1683The king took[pg 552]occasion to knight the two sheriffs (Lethieullier and Houblon), and also Edward Clark and Francis Child, two aldermen who were chosen sheriffs the next year.1684The king's picture in the Guildhall mutilated, Nov., 1689.Within a few weeks of this entertainment it was found that the portrait of William set up in the Guildhall had been maliciously mutilated. The crown and sceptre had been cut out of the picture by some Jacobite, and the reward of £500 offered (21 Nov.) by the Court of Aldermen failed to discover the perpetrator.1685Bill for restoring corporations passed. 6 Jan., 1690.On the 30th October (1689) a parliamentary committee was appointed to prepare a Bill for "restoring and confirming of corporations." A Bill was accordingly brought in, read for the second time and committed.1686The Bill was mainly concerned with those corporations that hadsurrenderedtheir charters, and a great struggle took place upon the committee's report (2 Jan., 1690) over an attempt to introduce a clause providing that every municipal officer who had in any way been a party to the surrender of a borough's franchises should be incapable of holding any office in that borough for a period of seven years.1687The city of London had not surrendered its charters. It preferred, as we have seen, on the advice of its Recorder, to let judgment be entered up against it, and allow its privileges and franchises to be confiscated by process of law rather than voluntarily surrender them. London was therefore excepted out of this Bill, saving a clause touching the not taking or subscribing the oath and declaration.1688[pg 553]The Convention Parliament dissolved, 6 Feb., 1690.On the 6th February, 1690, the Convention Parliament was dissolved. Its greatest achievement had been the passing of the Bill of Rights, the third Great Charter (as it has been called) of English liberties. The Bill of Rights embodied the provisions of the Declaration of Rights, and strictly regulated the succession to the crown. It constituted the title-deed by which the king was thenceforth to hold his throne, and the people to enjoy their liberties. The late parliament had been none too liberal to William in the matter of supply. Money was much needed for carrying on war with France and for reducing Ireland. Extraordinary aids were voted from time to time, but the money came in so slowly that the king was fain to seek advances from the City.1689A new parliament was summoned to meet on the 20th March.1690Parliamentary elections, Feb., 1690.The election of members to serve the City in the coming parliament took place on the 19th February, and was hotly contested. There appears to be no record extant among the City's archives of what took place, but from a petition laid before the new House (2 April) by Pilkington (the lord mayor) and three others, viz., Sir Robert Clayton, Sir Patience Ward and Sir William Ashurst1691—all professing more or less Whig principles—we learn that they claimed to have been elected by the Common Hall. A poll had been granted, and a scrutiny was in course of being held when (as they complained) the sheriffs declared the election to have gone against them. The petitioners had afterwards learnt that upon the[pg 554]completion of the scrutiny the majority of those that had a right to vote had proved to be in their favour. They prayed therefore for relief. Their petition was referred to the Committee of Privileges and Elections for them to consider and report thereon to the House; but nothing came of it. It was in vain that Pilkington issued precepts to the livery companies for returns to be made: (1) of the names of those who were on the livery at Midsummer, 1683; (2) of those who had been admitted since; (3) of those that had died since 1683, or who were absent; and (4) of those who had omitted to take the prescribed oaths for a freeman or liveryman—in order to affect the scrutiny.1692The result was declared to be in favour of two aldermen and two commoners of distinct Tory proclivities. These were Sir William Pritchard, Sir Samuel Dashwood, Sir William Turner (once an alderman and soon to become one again) and Sir Thomas Vernon. Upon Turner's death in February, 1693, Sir John Fleet, then lord mayor, was elected in his place.1693In the country the elections were carried on with the same heat as in the City,1694and with like result. The majority of the members of the new parliament were Tory.The reversal of judgment on theQuo Warranto, 14 May, 1690.In November last (1689) a new committee was appointed to prepare a Bill for the reversal of the proceedings upon theQuo Warrantoand for the removal of other grievances.1695The provisions of the Bill had[pg 555]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 theQuo Warrantoagainst the City as arbitrary and illegal, and appointed a committee to prepare such a Bill.1696A Bill was accordingly prepared, was brought in, and passed the first and second reading on the 14th April.1697On 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.1698On the 14th the Bill passed the Lords without amendment, after counsel for the City had been heard during its progress through the House.1699Election of City officers, pursuant to the Act, 26 May, 1690.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,1700whilst Edward Clark, mercer, and Francis Child, goldsmith, were chosen sheriffs.1701Sir Peter Rich was re-elected chamberlain by a narrow majority over the head of Leonard Robinson, who had ousted[pg 556]him the previous Midsummer,1702but he was not admitted to office, his rival being imposed upon the citizens as chamberlain in spite of his having been in the minority.Election of Common Council, 10 June, 1690.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.1703The 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.1704Complaint made to parliament, 3 Dec., 1690.The matter allowed to drop, 11 Dec., 1690.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.1705The 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[pg 557]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,1706and 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[pg 558]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.1707It 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.1708The king sets out for Ireland, 4 June, 1690.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,1709and 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.1710On 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[pg 559]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.1712The aid of the City called in against France, 7 July, 1690.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 Lieutenancy1713obeyed 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.1714Whatever 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."1715No time was lost. Already the mayor had, in pursuance of an order[pg 560]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.1716On 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.1717The Common Council at the same time resolved to raise a regiment of horse and another of dragoons.1718The 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.1719On the 21st her majesty reviewed the city militia in Hyde Park, and expressed herself as much gratified.1720A city loan of £100,000, 22 July, 1690.The City was ready not only with men but money. On the 22nd July the Common Council was asked to[pg 561]assist her majesty by making a speedy loan of £100,000 "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.1721The queen returns thanks to the city, 15 August, 1690.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.1722The king's return from Ireland, Sept.Hearing of the danger that was threatening England, William had serious thoughts of leaving Ireland and returning home in July.1723He 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.1724On 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.1725An appointment having been made for Thursday morning (11 Sept.) the mayor and aldermen proceeded to Whitehall and congratulated his majesty[pg 562]on his safe return, their example being followed by the bishop and the clergy of London in the afternoon of the same day.1726The 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.1727The king attends a congress at the Hague, 1691.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.1728A 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.1729Jacobite plots in England.The king again leaves for the continent, 2 May.His presence was much needed, for the Jacobites were becoming more dangerous every day. One plot, of which Lord Preston was the ruling spirit,1730had 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.[pg 563]City loans, 1691-1692.The king had not been gone long before the queen sent to the City (18 June) to borrow £120,000 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 £75,000 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.1731The Common Council readily consented to find the money, notwithstanding its having so recently as February last advanced no less a sum than £200,000 towards fitting out the fleet.1732These 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 £200,000 to assist in paying off the ships of war that were about to lay up for the winter.1733In 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 £200,0001734and one of £100,000.1735Elections in Common Hall, 24 June, 1691.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 £120,000) for repealing the clause in the Act of Common Council of the 6th June, 1683, touching the[pg 564]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 29.1736Such 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.1737An 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."1738He 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[pg 565]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."1739The 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.1740A Bill to settle elections of sheriffs prepared by Court of Aldermen, April, 1692.The Bill rejected by Common Council.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.1741Of 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[pg 566]whether the Bill should be then read a third time it passed in the negative,1742and nothing more is heard of it.Act of Common Council for regulating elections at wardmotes, 26 Oct., 1692.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,1743an 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.1744At 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."1745The king's return, Oct., 1691.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[pg 567]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 £200,000 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.1746A 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.1747Again sets out for Holland, March, 1692.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.1748City loan of £200,000 to the queen, 18 March, 1692.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[pg 568]£200,000.1749This 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 £200,000 was kept intact "for some extraordinary occasion."1750Preparations to meet a threatened invasion by France, April, 1692.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.1751The mayor issued instructions for closing coffee-houses in the city on Sundays.1752Troops that had been ordered to Flanders were now countermanded, and a camp was formed at Southampton.1753The lord mayor was given a commission as general of all the city's forces—trained[pg 569]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.1754Battle of La Hogue, 19 May, 1692.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.1755City loan of £100,000 voted, 26 May.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 £100,000 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.1756A further loan of £200,000 granted, 6 Sept., 1692.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 £200,000 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.1757A 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,1758and[pg 570]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 £70,000 had been already subscribed.1759The king entertained on lord mayor's day, 29 Oct., 1692On 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.1760The 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.1761The City desired to advance another loan of £200,000, Oct., 1692The entertainment, which was given at the expense of the aldermen and not charged in any way to the city's Chamber,1762was made the occasion by the king of suggesting another city loan of £200,000, making the third loan of the kind within the year, besides another loan of £100,000. The king's wishes were laid before the next Common Council (2 Nov.) and met with a ready response.1763Before leaving the Guildhall his majesty conferred the honour of[pg 571]knighthood upon Alderman Gore, Alderman Houblon, Leonard Robinson, the city chamberlain, and others.1764Another City loan of £200,000, 25 April, 1693.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 £200,000 upon the credit of a recent Act of Parliament authorising the raising of a million of money for military purposes.1765The money, which was wanted for the purpose of paying the wages of seamen and for refitting the fleet, was immediately voted.The Turkey fleet intercepted at Lagos Bay, June, 1693.Excitement in the city.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[pg 572]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.1766The 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.1767The 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.[pg 573]City address to the queen and another loan of £300,000, 15 Aug., 1693.On the 15th August, after voting a loan of £300,000 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.1768The queen invited to lord mayor's banquet, 30 Oct., 1693.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.1769Ashurst 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[pg 574]time to consider the case of the other four, they being members of parliament.1770The king's return to England, 29 Oct., 1693.The 29th October falling on Sunday, the lord mayor's banquet took place on the following Monday at the hall of the Grocers' Company,1771but the queen was unable to attend as she had gone to meet the king, who had landed at Harwich on Sunday afternoon.1772On 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

Order for reversal of judgment on theQuo Warranto, May, 1689.The Convention having been converted by a formal Act into a true parliament (23 Feb.),1654one of the first motions put to the House was that a special committee should be appointed to consider the violations of the liberties and franchises of all the corporations of the kingdom, "and particularly of the city of London." The motion was lost by a majority of 24.1655The House nevertheless resolved to bring in a Bill for repealing the Corporation Act, and ten days later (5 March) the Grand Committee of Grievances reported to the House its opinion (1) that the rights of the city of London in the election of sheriffs in the year 1682 were invaded and that such invasion was illegal and a grievance, and (2) that the judgment given upon theQuo Warrantoagainst the city was illegal and a grievance. The committee's opinion on these two points (among others) was endorsed by the House, and on the 16th March it ordered a Bill to be brought in to restore all corporations to the state and condition they were in on the 29th May, 1660, and to confirm the liberties and franchises which at that time they respectively held and enjoyed.1656Further Report of Committee of Grievances, 29 May, 1689.A special committee appointed (5 March) to investigate the nature of the city's grievances, and to discover who were the authors and advisers of them,[pg 542]presented, on the 29th May, a long report to the House,1657giving the whole story of the election of sheriffs in June, 1682, and of Pritchard's election to the mayoralty in the following September; of the fines that had been imposed on Pilkington, Shute, Bethell, Cornish and others for so-called riots whilst engaged in asserting the rights of the citizens; of Papillon having been cast in damages to the amount of £10,000 at the suit of Pritchard, and of other matters which led up to the proceedings under theQuo Warranto, when, as the committee had discovered, two of the justices of the King's Bench—Pemberton and Dolben—were removed from the court because their opinion was found to be in favour of the city. The committee refer to the City's Records in support of the claim of the lord mayor to elect one of the sheriffs, and say "that from the twenty-first of Edward the IIIdunto the year 1641 the way of making sheriffs was that the lord mayor named one to be sheriff and presented him to the Common Hall, who did confirm him, and chose another to act with him; except in three or four years within that time, when the Common Hall chose both the sheriffs, the persons drank to in those years by the lord mayor having refused to hold and paid their fines." They capitulated to the House the various occasions on which the mayor exercised his prerogative unchallenged, and those when the Common Hall refused to confirm the mayor's nomination, down to 1682, when matters were brought to a crisis by Sir John Moore claiming to haveelectedDudley North by drinking to him according to custom; and in conclusion[pg 543]they reported their opinion to be that Sir John Moore and Dudley North were among the "authors of the invasion made upon the rights of the city of London in the election of sheriffs for the said city in the year 1682."Draft Bill for reversal of judgment submitted to Common Council, 24 May, 1689.In the meantime the civic authorities themselves had not been idle. The Common Council had already (1 March) appointed a committee to take steps for obtaining a reversal of the judgment on theQuo Warrantowith the assistance of the recorder and the city's representatives in parliament. Before the end of May a draft Bill had been prepared for the purpose and been submitted to the court for approval.1658The Court of Orphans.There was another matter pressing very heavily upon the City just now, and one which later on would also claim the attention of parliament, and that was the relationship of the civic authorities to the city orphans. By the custom of London the mayor and aldermen were the recognised guardians of all citizens' orphans, and as such took charge of their property until they came of age or married. A Court of Orphans was established, with the common sergeant as its chief officer, which exercised the same jurisdiction over the bodies and goods of orphans in the city that the Court of Chancery exercised outside. In course of time the fund paid into this court became very considerable, and in order to prevent it lying idle and thus deprive the orphans of interest that might accrue on their estate, the court lent large sums to the Crown on the security of exchequer bills. Could any guardian or trustee have acted more[pg 544]honestly or with greater prudence? They had not reckoned, however, upon a king being on the throne who should be sufficiently dishonest to stop all payments out of the exchequer in discharge of principal and interest of past loans. This is what Charles II did, as we have seen, in 1672; and his action not only ruined many bankers and merchants of the city, but inflicted great hardship upon the city's fatherless children. The City's revenue at the time of William's accession was little more than sufficient to meet the necessary expenses of the municipality, to say nothing of repaying the orphans their confiscated estates. This fact was recognised by the orphans themselves, who saw no other hope but to apply to parliament for assistance with the aid of the Common Council.Orphans' petition to Common Council, 1 March, 1689.To this end "a large number" of orphans of the city presented a petition to the court on the 1st March.1659Their fortunes (they said) had been paid into the Chamber of London according to the custom of the city, and they were now left destitute of support and reduced to great hardships and extremities, very many of them having their whole portions in the Chamber. They prayed the court, therefore, to appoint a committee to consider the whole matter with the view of approaching parliament with some recommendation. To this the court readily gave its consent, and a committee was then and there nominated.Proposals of committee, 8 March, 1689.A week later (8 March) this committee made a report to the council.1660They had found upon[pg 545]investigation that the debt owing by the Chamber was very great, being upwards of £500,000 due on principal money to orphans and nearly £100,000 more due to others, besides "finding money" and interest. The committee were of opinion that before any application was made to parliament the City should first do what it could on its own account for the relief of the orphans. The City's lands of inheritance were estimated as bringing in about £4,000 a year, subject to a charge of £500 or £600 for charitable uses, and the committee recommended that lands to the value of £3,000 a year rental should be sold. By this means it was thought that £70,000 or thereabouts would be raised, and the sum being devoted to the relief of the orphans would be "a good introduction to request a further assistance from the parliament." The charges of municipal government must be met with the residue of the "casual profits" of the Chamber. If parliament (the report went on to say) would be pleased to assist by granting a duty on coals and allowing the City to tax hackney coachmen at 5s.a head, the whole debt, or at least the principal, might be liquidated. A Bill which the committee had prepared for presentation to parliament for this purpose was then read and referred to the town clerk and the city solicitor, as well as to the attorney and the solicitor-general for their opinions.The king's proposal to abolish the Hearth Tax, 1 March, 1689.The king's intimation to the House (1 March) that he was prepared, with its assent, to abolish the odious Hearth Tax was received with universal joy. The Commons immediately voted an address of thanks, and passed a formal resolution to stand by[pg 546]the king with their lives and fortunes in supporting his alliances abroad, in the reduction of Ireland, and the defence of the Protestant religion,1661whilst the Common Council of the city resolved to present a humble address of thanks to his majesty for the welcome relief from a tax that had been from its commencement obnoxious. The court at the same time resolved to return its thanks to both Houses of Parliament for their resolution to stand by the king.1662The Commons, in acknowledging the address, represented to the deputation by the mouth of the Speaker that they had taken notice of the courage and constancy displayed by the City in the late revolution, and more especially its action in advancing so large a sum of money to his majesty at so critical a time. The City's care for the public would never fail to receive the like return from the Commons.1663Death of Lord Mayor Chapman, 17 March, 1689.On Sunday the 17th March a special Court of Aldermen sat. The lord mayor, Sir John Chapman, had died at ten o'clock that morning, and it became necessary to take steps for the election of a mayor to serve for the remainder of the mayoralty year, and to secure, in the meantime, the peace of the city. Three aldermen were despatched, accompanied by the town clerk, to inform the king of the state of affairs, and to assure him that care would be taken to prevent disorder until a new mayor should be elected. To secure this latter object a precept was at once issued by the court for a double watch to be kept until further orders, whilst another precept was issued for[pg 547]a Common Hall to meet on the following Wednesday (20 March) for the election of a new mayor.1664Pilkington elected Mayor, 20 March, 1689.When the Common Hall met the choice of the citizens fell upon their old friend and champion, Pilkington, and Thomas Stampe; but a poll was demanded by the supporters of two other candidates, viz., Sir John Moore—who had already served (1681-2) and in whose mayoralty there had been such a fight over the election of sheriffs—and Jonathan Raymond. It is said that the Tory party in the city put up Moore for re-election by way of showing their disgust at a recent resolution passed by the House of Commons to the effect that Moore had been a betrayer of the liberties of the City during his mayoralty.1665But however that may be (and no record of such a resolution appears in the Journal of the House), the result of the poll placed Stampe and Pilkington—with 1975 and 1973 votes respectively—far ahead of either of the other candidates. Moore, indeed, was at the bottom of the poll with only 780 votes, whilst Raymond only polled 930. Stampe and Pilkington having been returned to the Court of Aldermen for them to select one, according to the custom, they chose Pilkington, and he was accordingly admitted and sworn mayor for the remainder of the year, being presented to the Governor of the Tower by order of the king instead of before the barons of the exchequer.1666A few weeks later (10 April) he received the honour of knighthood.1667Lethieullier and Houblon, sheriffs, 24 June, 1689.At Midsummer (1689) a difficulty again arose with the election of sheriffs for the ensuing year. The[pg 548]Common Hall elected Christopher Lethieullier, alderman and dyer, and John Houblon, grocer,1668but these preferring to pay a fine to serving, the Common Hall refused to elect others in their place. The Court of Aldermen, finding themselves in a fix, sent for the attorney-general to peruse the City's Records and to give his advice in the matter. Lethieullier had determined to cut all connection with the Corporation, and had paid another fine to be relieved of the aldermanry of the ward of Coleman Street. Nevertheless, by the 10th September both he and Houblon had been persuaded to change their minds, and professed themselves ready, if the Court of Aldermen so willed, to take upon themselves the office of sheriffs.1669The attainder of Cornish reversed, June, 1689.The wheel of fortune had taken a sudden turn. Those who had suffered during the last two reigns for vindicating their liberties and upholding the reformed religion, found themselves again in favour. Papillon and Bethell, who had sought safety in Holland, returned to England, and the former was appointed a commissioner for victualling the navy.1670In June the attainder of Cornish was reversed by Act of Parliament,1671and in October, Ralph Box, who had refused to allow himself to be forced into the shrievalty in 1682 against the wish of the citizens, had the honour, as master of the Grocers' Company, of conferring the freedom of the company upon the king, who, in his turn, created Box a knight.1672Proceedings against North, Nov., 1689.North, on the other hand, was subjected to a severe cross-examination before a committee popularly called[pg 549]the "murder committee," and narrowly escaped a criminal trial for having systematically packed juries during his shrievalty. His statement that he had never troubled himself about the political opinions of those he had placed on the panel, but had only taken care to have good and substantial citizens, was with difficulty accepted.1673Broom, who had been deprived of his coronership for arresting North and Pritchard, the royalist mayor, was re-instated in January, 1690.1674The siege of Londonderry, April-July, 1689.William had achieved the crown of England without bloodshed. In Ireland, as well as in Scotland, he had to fight for his crown. The news that James had landed in Ireland (12 March) created no small excitement in the city. Volunteers were called for, and were readily found. The trained bands were augmented and new officers appointed.1675When it was found that James was marching to the north of Ireland, where the citizens of London held a large interest, the excitement was increased. On the 18th April he appeared before the walls of Londonderry, expecting the city to immediately surrender. Thanks to the strength of those walls, repaired and fortified by the care and at the charges of the citizens of London,1676[pg 550]and still more to the stout hearts behind them, the town was able to stand a long and dreary siege, with all its attendant horrors of slaughter and starvation, and at last, after heroic resistance and patient suffering for 105 days, to come off victorious. There is one name more especially honoured in connection with the famous siege, that of George Walker, who, although a clergyman and advanced in years, inspired the besieged with so much energy and courage that from first to last there was no thought of surrender. Attempts were made to win over the garrison by intrigue, and among the devices set on foot for establishing communication between besiegers and the besieged was that of placing a letter in an empty shell and firing the latter into the town.1677When Walker made his appearance in England he was graciously received by the king, who made him a present of £5,000 and promised to have a care for the rest of the garrison.1678The king afterwards desired Walker to furnish a list of the officers who had displayed such determined courage during the siege and blockade.1679Intercepted letters laid before the Common Council, 19 June, 1689.Whilst Londonderry was thus besieged a discovery had been made by means of intercepted letters of further designs which James hoped to carry out with the assistance of the French king. On the 19th June Sir George Treby, who was both the city's recorder and the king's attorney-general, laid before[pg 551]the Common Council at his majesty's request certain letters which had been seized on board a ship at Liverpool and forwarded by special messenger to the government. The letters, which had already been submitted to both houses, were now read to the Common Council, and this having been done the council resolved to present an address to the king thanking him for his favour and condescension, and assuring him that they would stand by him with their lives and estates.1680The king and queen entertained at the Guildhall, 29 Oct., 1689.Michaelmas-day this year (1689) happening to fall on Sunday, the election of a mayor for the year ensuing took place on the previous Saturday, when Pilkington was re-elected.1681Tuesday, the 29th October, was lord mayor's day, but why the ceremony of swearing in the lord mayor should have been observed on that day instead of on the feast of SS. Simon and Jude—the 28th October—as was the custom, is not clear. The lord mayor's show was (we are told) "very splendid," and was witnessed by the king and queen and the Prince of Denmark from a balcony in Cheapside. After the show they were entertained, together with the members of both Houses and high officers of state, at a banquet in the Guildhall. The cost of the entertainment was defrayed by voluntary subscriptions among the aldermen and members of the Common Council.1682In order to prevent unpleasant crowding the Commons were invited to make their way into the Guildhall through the church of St. Lawrence, Jewry.1683The king took[pg 552]occasion to knight the two sheriffs (Lethieullier and Houblon), and also Edward Clark and Francis Child, two aldermen who were chosen sheriffs the next year.1684The king's picture in the Guildhall mutilated, Nov., 1689.Within a few weeks of this entertainment it was found that the portrait of William set up in the Guildhall had been maliciously mutilated. The crown and sceptre had been cut out of the picture by some Jacobite, and the reward of £500 offered (21 Nov.) by the Court of Aldermen failed to discover the perpetrator.1685Bill for restoring corporations passed. 6 Jan., 1690.On the 30th October (1689) a parliamentary committee was appointed to prepare a Bill for "restoring and confirming of corporations." A Bill was accordingly brought in, read for the second time and committed.1686The Bill was mainly concerned with those corporations that hadsurrenderedtheir charters, and a great struggle took place upon the committee's report (2 Jan., 1690) over an attempt to introduce a clause providing that every municipal officer who had in any way been a party to the surrender of a borough's franchises should be incapable of holding any office in that borough for a period of seven years.1687The city of London had not surrendered its charters. It preferred, as we have seen, on the advice of its Recorder, to let judgment be entered up against it, and allow its privileges and franchises to be confiscated by process of law rather than voluntarily surrender them. London was therefore excepted out of this Bill, saving a clause touching the not taking or subscribing the oath and declaration.1688[pg 553]The Convention Parliament dissolved, 6 Feb., 1690.On the 6th February, 1690, the Convention Parliament was dissolved. Its greatest achievement had been the passing of the Bill of Rights, the third Great Charter (as it has been called) of English liberties. The Bill of Rights embodied the provisions of the Declaration of Rights, and strictly regulated the succession to the crown. It constituted the title-deed by which the king was thenceforth to hold his throne, and the people to enjoy their liberties. The late parliament had been none too liberal to William in the matter of supply. Money was much needed for carrying on war with France and for reducing Ireland. Extraordinary aids were voted from time to time, but the money came in so slowly that the king was fain to seek advances from the City.1689A new parliament was summoned to meet on the 20th March.1690Parliamentary elections, Feb., 1690.The election of members to serve the City in the coming parliament took place on the 19th February, and was hotly contested. There appears to be no record extant among the City's archives of what took place, but from a petition laid before the new House (2 April) by Pilkington (the lord mayor) and three others, viz., Sir Robert Clayton, Sir Patience Ward and Sir William Ashurst1691—all professing more or less Whig principles—we learn that they claimed to have been elected by the Common Hall. A poll had been granted, and a scrutiny was in course of being held when (as they complained) the sheriffs declared the election to have gone against them. The petitioners had afterwards learnt that upon the[pg 554]completion of the scrutiny the majority of those that had a right to vote had proved to be in their favour. They prayed therefore for relief. Their petition was referred to the Committee of Privileges and Elections for them to consider and report thereon to the House; but nothing came of it. It was in vain that Pilkington issued precepts to the livery companies for returns to be made: (1) of the names of those who were on the livery at Midsummer, 1683; (2) of those who had been admitted since; (3) of those that had died since 1683, or who were absent; and (4) of those who had omitted to take the prescribed oaths for a freeman or liveryman—in order to affect the scrutiny.1692The result was declared to be in favour of two aldermen and two commoners of distinct Tory proclivities. These were Sir William Pritchard, Sir Samuel Dashwood, Sir William Turner (once an alderman and soon to become one again) and Sir Thomas Vernon. Upon Turner's death in February, 1693, Sir John Fleet, then lord mayor, was elected in his place.1693In the country the elections were carried on with the same heat as in the City,1694and with like result. The majority of the members of the new parliament were Tory.The reversal of judgment on theQuo Warranto, 14 May, 1690.In November last (1689) a new committee was appointed to prepare a Bill for the reversal of the proceedings upon theQuo Warrantoand for the removal of other grievances.1695The provisions of the Bill had[pg 555]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 theQuo Warrantoagainst the City as arbitrary and illegal, and appointed a committee to prepare such a Bill.1696A Bill was accordingly prepared, was brought in, and passed the first and second reading on the 14th April.1697On 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.1698On the 14th the Bill passed the Lords without amendment, after counsel for the City had been heard during its progress through the House.1699Election of City officers, pursuant to the Act, 26 May, 1690.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,1700whilst Edward Clark, mercer, and Francis Child, goldsmith, were chosen sheriffs.1701Sir Peter Rich was re-elected chamberlain by a narrow majority over the head of Leonard Robinson, who had ousted[pg 556]him the previous Midsummer,1702but he was not admitted to office, his rival being imposed upon the citizens as chamberlain in spite of his having been in the minority.Election of Common Council, 10 June, 1690.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.1703The 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.1704Complaint made to parliament, 3 Dec., 1690.The matter allowed to drop, 11 Dec., 1690.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.1705The 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[pg 557]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,1706and 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[pg 558]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.1707It 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.1708The king sets out for Ireland, 4 June, 1690.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,1709and 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.1710On 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[pg 559]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.1712The aid of the City called in against France, 7 July, 1690.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 Lieutenancy1713obeyed 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.1714Whatever 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."1715No time was lost. Already the mayor had, in pursuance of an order[pg 560]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.1716On 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.1717The Common Council at the same time resolved to raise a regiment of horse and another of dragoons.1718The 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.1719On the 21st her majesty reviewed the city militia in Hyde Park, and expressed herself as much gratified.1720A city loan of £100,000, 22 July, 1690.The City was ready not only with men but money. On the 22nd July the Common Council was asked to[pg 561]assist her majesty by making a speedy loan of £100,000 "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.1721The queen returns thanks to the city, 15 August, 1690.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.1722The king's return from Ireland, Sept.Hearing of the danger that was threatening England, William had serious thoughts of leaving Ireland and returning home in July.1723He 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.1724On 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.1725An appointment having been made for Thursday morning (11 Sept.) the mayor and aldermen proceeded to Whitehall and congratulated his majesty[pg 562]on his safe return, their example being followed by the bishop and the clergy of London in the afternoon of the same day.1726The 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.1727The king attends a congress at the Hague, 1691.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.1728A 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.1729Jacobite plots in England.The king again leaves for the continent, 2 May.His presence was much needed, for the Jacobites were becoming more dangerous every day. One plot, of which Lord Preston was the ruling spirit,1730had 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.[pg 563]City loans, 1691-1692.The king had not been gone long before the queen sent to the City (18 June) to borrow £120,000 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 £75,000 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.1731The Common Council readily consented to find the money, notwithstanding its having so recently as February last advanced no less a sum than £200,000 towards fitting out the fleet.1732These 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 £200,000 to assist in paying off the ships of war that were about to lay up for the winter.1733In 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 £200,0001734and one of £100,000.1735Elections in Common Hall, 24 June, 1691.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 £120,000) for repealing the clause in the Act of Common Council of the 6th June, 1683, touching the[pg 564]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 29.1736Such 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.1737An 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."1738He 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[pg 565]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."1739The 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.1740A Bill to settle elections of sheriffs prepared by Court of Aldermen, April, 1692.The Bill rejected by Common Council.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.1741Of 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[pg 566]whether the Bill should be then read a third time it passed in the negative,1742and nothing more is heard of it.Act of Common Council for regulating elections at wardmotes, 26 Oct., 1692.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,1743an 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.1744At 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."1745The king's return, Oct., 1691.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[pg 567]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 £200,000 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.1746A 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.1747Again sets out for Holland, March, 1692.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.1748City loan of £200,000 to the queen, 18 March, 1692.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[pg 568]£200,000.1749This 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 £200,000 was kept intact "for some extraordinary occasion."1750Preparations to meet a threatened invasion by France, April, 1692.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.1751The mayor issued instructions for closing coffee-houses in the city on Sundays.1752Troops that had been ordered to Flanders were now countermanded, and a camp was formed at Southampton.1753The lord mayor was given a commission as general of all the city's forces—trained[pg 569]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.1754Battle of La Hogue, 19 May, 1692.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.1755City loan of £100,000 voted, 26 May.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 £100,000 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.1756A further loan of £200,000 granted, 6 Sept., 1692.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 £200,000 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.1757A 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,1758and[pg 570]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 £70,000 had been already subscribed.1759The king entertained on lord mayor's day, 29 Oct., 1692On 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.1760The 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.1761The City desired to advance another loan of £200,000, Oct., 1692The entertainment, which was given at the expense of the aldermen and not charged in any way to the city's Chamber,1762was made the occasion by the king of suggesting another city loan of £200,000, making the third loan of the kind within the year, besides another loan of £100,000. The king's wishes were laid before the next Common Council (2 Nov.) and met with a ready response.1763Before leaving the Guildhall his majesty conferred the honour of[pg 571]knighthood upon Alderman Gore, Alderman Houblon, Leonard Robinson, the city chamberlain, and others.1764Another City loan of £200,000, 25 April, 1693.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 £200,000 upon the credit of a recent Act of Parliament authorising the raising of a million of money for military purposes.1765The money, which was wanted for the purpose of paying the wages of seamen and for refitting the fleet, was immediately voted.The Turkey fleet intercepted at Lagos Bay, June, 1693.Excitement in the city.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[pg 572]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.1766The 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.1767The 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.[pg 573]City address to the queen and another loan of £300,000, 15 Aug., 1693.On the 15th August, after voting a loan of £300,000 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.1768The queen invited to lord mayor's banquet, 30 Oct., 1693.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.1769Ashurst 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[pg 574]time to consider the case of the other four, they being members of parliament.1770The king's return to England, 29 Oct., 1693.The 29th October falling on Sunday, the lord mayor's banquet took place on the following Monday at the hall of the Grocers' Company,1771but the queen was unable to attend as she had gone to meet the king, who had landed at Harwich on Sunday afternoon.1772On 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

Order for reversal of judgment on theQuo Warranto, May, 1689.

Order for reversal of judgment on theQuo Warranto, May, 1689.

Order for reversal of judgment on theQuo Warranto, May, 1689.

The Convention having been converted by a formal Act into a true parliament (23 Feb.),1654one of the first motions put to the House was that a special committee should be appointed to consider the violations of the liberties and franchises of all the corporations of the kingdom, "and particularly of the city of London." The motion was lost by a majority of 24.1655The House nevertheless resolved to bring in a Bill for repealing the Corporation Act, and ten days later (5 March) the Grand Committee of Grievances reported to the House its opinion (1) that the rights of the city of London in the election of sheriffs in the year 1682 were invaded and that such invasion was illegal and a grievance, and (2) that the judgment given upon theQuo Warrantoagainst the city was illegal and a grievance. The committee's opinion on these two points (among others) was endorsed by the House, and on the 16th March it ordered a Bill to be brought in to restore all corporations to the state and condition they were in on the 29th May, 1660, and to confirm the liberties and franchises which at that time they respectively held and enjoyed.1656

Further Report of Committee of Grievances, 29 May, 1689.

Further Report of Committee of Grievances, 29 May, 1689.

Further Report of Committee of Grievances, 29 May, 1689.

A special committee appointed (5 March) to investigate the nature of the city's grievances, and to discover who were the authors and advisers of them,[pg 542]presented, on the 29th May, a long report to the House,1657giving the whole story of the election of sheriffs in June, 1682, and of Pritchard's election to the mayoralty in the following September; of the fines that had been imposed on Pilkington, Shute, Bethell, Cornish and others for so-called riots whilst engaged in asserting the rights of the citizens; of Papillon having been cast in damages to the amount of £10,000 at the suit of Pritchard, and of other matters which led up to the proceedings under theQuo Warranto, when, as the committee had discovered, two of the justices of the King's Bench—Pemberton and Dolben—were removed from the court because their opinion was found to be in favour of the city. The committee refer to the City's Records in support of the claim of the lord mayor to elect one of the sheriffs, and say "that from the twenty-first of Edward the IIIdunto the year 1641 the way of making sheriffs was that the lord mayor named one to be sheriff and presented him to the Common Hall, who did confirm him, and chose another to act with him; except in three or four years within that time, when the Common Hall chose both the sheriffs, the persons drank to in those years by the lord mayor having refused to hold and paid their fines." They capitulated to the House the various occasions on which the mayor exercised his prerogative unchallenged, and those when the Common Hall refused to confirm the mayor's nomination, down to 1682, when matters were brought to a crisis by Sir John Moore claiming to haveelectedDudley North by drinking to him according to custom; and in conclusion[pg 543]they reported their opinion to be that Sir John Moore and Dudley North were among the "authors of the invasion made upon the rights of the city of London in the election of sheriffs for the said city in the year 1682."

Draft Bill for reversal of judgment submitted to Common Council, 24 May, 1689.

Draft Bill for reversal of judgment submitted to Common Council, 24 May, 1689.

Draft Bill for reversal of judgment submitted to Common Council, 24 May, 1689.

In the meantime the civic authorities themselves had not been idle. The Common Council had already (1 March) appointed a committee to take steps for obtaining a reversal of the judgment on theQuo Warrantowith the assistance of the recorder and the city's representatives in parliament. Before the end of May a draft Bill had been prepared for the purpose and been submitted to the court for approval.1658

The Court of Orphans.

The Court of Orphans.

The Court of Orphans.

There was another matter pressing very heavily upon the City just now, and one which later on would also claim the attention of parliament, and that was the relationship of the civic authorities to the city orphans. By the custom of London the mayor and aldermen were the recognised guardians of all citizens' orphans, and as such took charge of their property until they came of age or married. A Court of Orphans was established, with the common sergeant as its chief officer, which exercised the same jurisdiction over the bodies and goods of orphans in the city that the Court of Chancery exercised outside. In course of time the fund paid into this court became very considerable, and in order to prevent it lying idle and thus deprive the orphans of interest that might accrue on their estate, the court lent large sums to the Crown on the security of exchequer bills. Could any guardian or trustee have acted more[pg 544]honestly or with greater prudence? They had not reckoned, however, upon a king being on the throne who should be sufficiently dishonest to stop all payments out of the exchequer in discharge of principal and interest of past loans. This is what Charles II did, as we have seen, in 1672; and his action not only ruined many bankers and merchants of the city, but inflicted great hardship upon the city's fatherless children. The City's revenue at the time of William's accession was little more than sufficient to meet the necessary expenses of the municipality, to say nothing of repaying the orphans their confiscated estates. This fact was recognised by the orphans themselves, who saw no other hope but to apply to parliament for assistance with the aid of the Common Council.

Orphans' petition to Common Council, 1 March, 1689.

Orphans' petition to Common Council, 1 March, 1689.

Orphans' petition to Common Council, 1 March, 1689.

To this end "a large number" of orphans of the city presented a petition to the court on the 1st March.1659Their fortunes (they said) had been paid into the Chamber of London according to the custom of the city, and they were now left destitute of support and reduced to great hardships and extremities, very many of them having their whole portions in the Chamber. They prayed the court, therefore, to appoint a committee to consider the whole matter with the view of approaching parliament with some recommendation. To this the court readily gave its consent, and a committee was then and there nominated.

Proposals of committee, 8 March, 1689.

Proposals of committee, 8 March, 1689.

Proposals of committee, 8 March, 1689.

A week later (8 March) this committee made a report to the council.1660They had found upon[pg 545]investigation that the debt owing by the Chamber was very great, being upwards of £500,000 due on principal money to orphans and nearly £100,000 more due to others, besides "finding money" and interest. The committee were of opinion that before any application was made to parliament the City should first do what it could on its own account for the relief of the orphans. The City's lands of inheritance were estimated as bringing in about £4,000 a year, subject to a charge of £500 or £600 for charitable uses, and the committee recommended that lands to the value of £3,000 a year rental should be sold. By this means it was thought that £70,000 or thereabouts would be raised, and the sum being devoted to the relief of the orphans would be "a good introduction to request a further assistance from the parliament." The charges of municipal government must be met with the residue of the "casual profits" of the Chamber. If parliament (the report went on to say) would be pleased to assist by granting a duty on coals and allowing the City to tax hackney coachmen at 5s.a head, the whole debt, or at least the principal, might be liquidated. A Bill which the committee had prepared for presentation to parliament for this purpose was then read and referred to the town clerk and the city solicitor, as well as to the attorney and the solicitor-general for their opinions.

The king's proposal to abolish the Hearth Tax, 1 March, 1689.

The king's proposal to abolish the Hearth Tax, 1 March, 1689.

The king's proposal to abolish the Hearth Tax, 1 March, 1689.

The king's intimation to the House (1 March) that he was prepared, with its assent, to abolish the odious Hearth Tax was received with universal joy. The Commons immediately voted an address of thanks, and passed a formal resolution to stand by[pg 546]the king with their lives and fortunes in supporting his alliances abroad, in the reduction of Ireland, and the defence of the Protestant religion,1661whilst the Common Council of the city resolved to present a humble address of thanks to his majesty for the welcome relief from a tax that had been from its commencement obnoxious. The court at the same time resolved to return its thanks to both Houses of Parliament for their resolution to stand by the king.1662The Commons, in acknowledging the address, represented to the deputation by the mouth of the Speaker that they had taken notice of the courage and constancy displayed by the City in the late revolution, and more especially its action in advancing so large a sum of money to his majesty at so critical a time. The City's care for the public would never fail to receive the like return from the Commons.1663

Death of Lord Mayor Chapman, 17 March, 1689.

Death of Lord Mayor Chapman, 17 March, 1689.

Death of Lord Mayor Chapman, 17 March, 1689.

On Sunday the 17th March a special Court of Aldermen sat. The lord mayor, Sir John Chapman, had died at ten o'clock that morning, and it became necessary to take steps for the election of a mayor to serve for the remainder of the mayoralty year, and to secure, in the meantime, the peace of the city. Three aldermen were despatched, accompanied by the town clerk, to inform the king of the state of affairs, and to assure him that care would be taken to prevent disorder until a new mayor should be elected. To secure this latter object a precept was at once issued by the court for a double watch to be kept until further orders, whilst another precept was issued for[pg 547]a Common Hall to meet on the following Wednesday (20 March) for the election of a new mayor.1664

Pilkington elected Mayor, 20 March, 1689.

Pilkington elected Mayor, 20 March, 1689.

Pilkington elected Mayor, 20 March, 1689.

When the Common Hall met the choice of the citizens fell upon their old friend and champion, Pilkington, and Thomas Stampe; but a poll was demanded by the supporters of two other candidates, viz., Sir John Moore—who had already served (1681-2) and in whose mayoralty there had been such a fight over the election of sheriffs—and Jonathan Raymond. It is said that the Tory party in the city put up Moore for re-election by way of showing their disgust at a recent resolution passed by the House of Commons to the effect that Moore had been a betrayer of the liberties of the City during his mayoralty.1665But however that may be (and no record of such a resolution appears in the Journal of the House), the result of the poll placed Stampe and Pilkington—with 1975 and 1973 votes respectively—far ahead of either of the other candidates. Moore, indeed, was at the bottom of the poll with only 780 votes, whilst Raymond only polled 930. Stampe and Pilkington having been returned to the Court of Aldermen for them to select one, according to the custom, they chose Pilkington, and he was accordingly admitted and sworn mayor for the remainder of the year, being presented to the Governor of the Tower by order of the king instead of before the barons of the exchequer.1666A few weeks later (10 April) he received the honour of knighthood.1667

Lethieullier and Houblon, sheriffs, 24 June, 1689.

Lethieullier and Houblon, sheriffs, 24 June, 1689.

Lethieullier and Houblon, sheriffs, 24 June, 1689.

At Midsummer (1689) a difficulty again arose with the election of sheriffs for the ensuing year. The[pg 548]Common Hall elected Christopher Lethieullier, alderman and dyer, and John Houblon, grocer,1668but these preferring to pay a fine to serving, the Common Hall refused to elect others in their place. The Court of Aldermen, finding themselves in a fix, sent for the attorney-general to peruse the City's Records and to give his advice in the matter. Lethieullier had determined to cut all connection with the Corporation, and had paid another fine to be relieved of the aldermanry of the ward of Coleman Street. Nevertheless, by the 10th September both he and Houblon had been persuaded to change their minds, and professed themselves ready, if the Court of Aldermen so willed, to take upon themselves the office of sheriffs.1669

The attainder of Cornish reversed, June, 1689.

The attainder of Cornish reversed, June, 1689.

The attainder of Cornish reversed, June, 1689.

The wheel of fortune had taken a sudden turn. Those who had suffered during the last two reigns for vindicating their liberties and upholding the reformed religion, found themselves again in favour. Papillon and Bethell, who had sought safety in Holland, returned to England, and the former was appointed a commissioner for victualling the navy.1670In June the attainder of Cornish was reversed by Act of Parliament,1671and in October, Ralph Box, who had refused to allow himself to be forced into the shrievalty in 1682 against the wish of the citizens, had the honour, as master of the Grocers' Company, of conferring the freedom of the company upon the king, who, in his turn, created Box a knight.1672

Proceedings against North, Nov., 1689.

Proceedings against North, Nov., 1689.

Proceedings against North, Nov., 1689.

North, on the other hand, was subjected to a severe cross-examination before a committee popularly called[pg 549]the "murder committee," and narrowly escaped a criminal trial for having systematically packed juries during his shrievalty. His statement that he had never troubled himself about the political opinions of those he had placed on the panel, but had only taken care to have good and substantial citizens, was with difficulty accepted.1673Broom, who had been deprived of his coronership for arresting North and Pritchard, the royalist mayor, was re-instated in January, 1690.1674

The siege of Londonderry, April-July, 1689.

The siege of Londonderry, April-July, 1689.

The siege of Londonderry, April-July, 1689.

William had achieved the crown of England without bloodshed. In Ireland, as well as in Scotland, he had to fight for his crown. The news that James had landed in Ireland (12 March) created no small excitement in the city. Volunteers were called for, and were readily found. The trained bands were augmented and new officers appointed.1675When it was found that James was marching to the north of Ireland, where the citizens of London held a large interest, the excitement was increased. On the 18th April he appeared before the walls of Londonderry, expecting the city to immediately surrender. Thanks to the strength of those walls, repaired and fortified by the care and at the charges of the citizens of London,1676[pg 550]and still more to the stout hearts behind them, the town was able to stand a long and dreary siege, with all its attendant horrors of slaughter and starvation, and at last, after heroic resistance and patient suffering for 105 days, to come off victorious. There is one name more especially honoured in connection with the famous siege, that of George Walker, who, although a clergyman and advanced in years, inspired the besieged with so much energy and courage that from first to last there was no thought of surrender. Attempts were made to win over the garrison by intrigue, and among the devices set on foot for establishing communication between besiegers and the besieged was that of placing a letter in an empty shell and firing the latter into the town.1677When Walker made his appearance in England he was graciously received by the king, who made him a present of £5,000 and promised to have a care for the rest of the garrison.1678The king afterwards desired Walker to furnish a list of the officers who had displayed such determined courage during the siege and blockade.1679

Intercepted letters laid before the Common Council, 19 June, 1689.

Intercepted letters laid before the Common Council, 19 June, 1689.

Intercepted letters laid before the Common Council, 19 June, 1689.

Whilst Londonderry was thus besieged a discovery had been made by means of intercepted letters of further designs which James hoped to carry out with the assistance of the French king. On the 19th June Sir George Treby, who was both the city's recorder and the king's attorney-general, laid before[pg 551]the Common Council at his majesty's request certain letters which had been seized on board a ship at Liverpool and forwarded by special messenger to the government. The letters, which had already been submitted to both houses, were now read to the Common Council, and this having been done the council resolved to present an address to the king thanking him for his favour and condescension, and assuring him that they would stand by him with their lives and estates.1680

The king and queen entertained at the Guildhall, 29 Oct., 1689.

The king and queen entertained at the Guildhall, 29 Oct., 1689.

The king and queen entertained at the Guildhall, 29 Oct., 1689.

Michaelmas-day this year (1689) happening to fall on Sunday, the election of a mayor for the year ensuing took place on the previous Saturday, when Pilkington was re-elected.1681Tuesday, the 29th October, was lord mayor's day, but why the ceremony of swearing in the lord mayor should have been observed on that day instead of on the feast of SS. Simon and Jude—the 28th October—as was the custom, is not clear. The lord mayor's show was (we are told) "very splendid," and was witnessed by the king and queen and the Prince of Denmark from a balcony in Cheapside. After the show they were entertained, together with the members of both Houses and high officers of state, at a banquet in the Guildhall. The cost of the entertainment was defrayed by voluntary subscriptions among the aldermen and members of the Common Council.1682In order to prevent unpleasant crowding the Commons were invited to make their way into the Guildhall through the church of St. Lawrence, Jewry.1683The king took[pg 552]occasion to knight the two sheriffs (Lethieullier and Houblon), and also Edward Clark and Francis Child, two aldermen who were chosen sheriffs the next year.1684

The king's picture in the Guildhall mutilated, Nov., 1689.

The king's picture in the Guildhall mutilated, Nov., 1689.

The king's picture in the Guildhall mutilated, Nov., 1689.

Within a few weeks of this entertainment it was found that the portrait of William set up in the Guildhall had been maliciously mutilated. The crown and sceptre had been cut out of the picture by some Jacobite, and the reward of £500 offered (21 Nov.) by the Court of Aldermen failed to discover the perpetrator.1685

Bill for restoring corporations passed. 6 Jan., 1690.

Bill for restoring corporations passed. 6 Jan., 1690.

Bill for restoring corporations passed. 6 Jan., 1690.

On the 30th October (1689) a parliamentary committee was appointed to prepare a Bill for "restoring and confirming of corporations." A Bill was accordingly brought in, read for the second time and committed.1686The Bill was mainly concerned with those corporations that hadsurrenderedtheir charters, and a great struggle took place upon the committee's report (2 Jan., 1690) over an attempt to introduce a clause providing that every municipal officer who had in any way been a party to the surrender of a borough's franchises should be incapable of holding any office in that borough for a period of seven years.1687The city of London had not surrendered its charters. It preferred, as we have seen, on the advice of its Recorder, to let judgment be entered up against it, and allow its privileges and franchises to be confiscated by process of law rather than voluntarily surrender them. London was therefore excepted out of this Bill, saving a clause touching the not taking or subscribing the oath and declaration.1688

The Convention Parliament dissolved, 6 Feb., 1690.

The Convention Parliament dissolved, 6 Feb., 1690.

The Convention Parliament dissolved, 6 Feb., 1690.

On the 6th February, 1690, the Convention Parliament was dissolved. Its greatest achievement had been the passing of the Bill of Rights, the third Great Charter (as it has been called) of English liberties. The Bill of Rights embodied the provisions of the Declaration of Rights, and strictly regulated the succession to the crown. It constituted the title-deed by which the king was thenceforth to hold his throne, and the people to enjoy their liberties. The late parliament had been none too liberal to William in the matter of supply. Money was much needed for carrying on war with France and for reducing Ireland. Extraordinary aids were voted from time to time, but the money came in so slowly that the king was fain to seek advances from the City.1689A new parliament was summoned to meet on the 20th March.1690

Parliamentary elections, Feb., 1690.

Parliamentary elections, Feb., 1690.

Parliamentary elections, Feb., 1690.

The election of members to serve the City in the coming parliament took place on the 19th February, and was hotly contested. There appears to be no record extant among the City's archives of what took place, but from a petition laid before the new House (2 April) by Pilkington (the lord mayor) and three others, viz., Sir Robert Clayton, Sir Patience Ward and Sir William Ashurst1691—all professing more or less Whig principles—we learn that they claimed to have been elected by the Common Hall. A poll had been granted, and a scrutiny was in course of being held when (as they complained) the sheriffs declared the election to have gone against them. The petitioners had afterwards learnt that upon the[pg 554]completion of the scrutiny the majority of those that had a right to vote had proved to be in their favour. They prayed therefore for relief. Their petition was referred to the Committee of Privileges and Elections for them to consider and report thereon to the House; but nothing came of it. It was in vain that Pilkington issued precepts to the livery companies for returns to be made: (1) of the names of those who were on the livery at Midsummer, 1683; (2) of those who had been admitted since; (3) of those that had died since 1683, or who were absent; and (4) of those who had omitted to take the prescribed oaths for a freeman or liveryman—in order to affect the scrutiny.1692The result was declared to be in favour of two aldermen and two commoners of distinct Tory proclivities. These were Sir William Pritchard, Sir Samuel Dashwood, Sir William Turner (once an alderman and soon to become one again) and Sir Thomas Vernon. Upon Turner's death in February, 1693, Sir John Fleet, then lord mayor, was elected in his place.1693In the country the elections were carried on with the same heat as in the City,1694and with like result. The majority of the members of the new parliament were Tory.

The reversal of judgment on theQuo Warranto, 14 May, 1690.

The reversal of judgment on theQuo Warranto, 14 May, 1690.

The reversal of judgment on theQuo Warranto, 14 May, 1690.

In November last (1689) a new committee was appointed to prepare a Bill for the reversal of the proceedings upon theQuo Warrantoand for the removal of other grievances.1695The provisions of the Bill had[pg 555]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 theQuo Warrantoagainst the City as arbitrary and illegal, and appointed a committee to prepare such a Bill.1696A Bill was accordingly prepared, was brought in, and passed the first and second reading on the 14th April.1697On 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.1698On the 14th the Bill passed the Lords without amendment, after counsel for the City had been heard during its progress through the House.1699

Election of City officers, pursuant to the Act, 26 May, 1690.

Election of City officers, pursuant to the Act, 26 May, 1690.

Election of City officers, pursuant to the Act, 26 May, 1690.

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,1700whilst Edward Clark, mercer, and Francis Child, goldsmith, were chosen sheriffs.1701Sir Peter Rich was re-elected chamberlain by a narrow majority over the head of Leonard Robinson, who had ousted[pg 556]him the previous Midsummer,1702but he was not admitted to office, his rival being imposed upon the citizens as chamberlain in spite of his having been in the minority.

Election of Common Council, 10 June, 1690.

Election of Common Council, 10 June, 1690.

Election of Common Council, 10 June, 1690.

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.1703The 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

Complaint made to parliament, 3 Dec., 1690.

Complaint made to parliament, 3 Dec., 1690.

Complaint made to parliament, 3 Dec., 1690.

The matter allowed to drop, 11 Dec., 1690.

The matter allowed to drop, 11 Dec., 1690.

The matter allowed to drop, 11 Dec., 1690.

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.1705The 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[pg 557]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,1706and 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[pg 558]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.1707It 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

The king sets out for Ireland, 4 June, 1690.

The king sets out for Ireland, 4 June, 1690.

The king sets out for Ireland, 4 June, 1690.

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,1709and 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.1710On 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[pg 559]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

The aid of the City called in against France, 7 July, 1690.

The aid of the City called in against France, 7 July, 1690.

The aid of the City called in against France, 7 July, 1690.

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 Lieutenancy1713obeyed 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.1714Whatever 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."1715No time was lost. Already the mayor had, in pursuance of an order[pg 560]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.1716On 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.1717The Common Council at the same time resolved to raise a regiment of horse and another of dragoons.1718The 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.1719On the 21st her majesty reviewed the city militia in Hyde Park, and expressed herself as much gratified.1720

A city loan of £100,000, 22 July, 1690.

A city loan of £100,000, 22 July, 1690.

A city loan of £100,000, 22 July, 1690.

The City was ready not only with men but money. On the 22nd July the Common Council was asked to[pg 561]assist her majesty by making a speedy loan of £100,000 "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

The queen returns thanks to the city, 15 August, 1690.

The queen returns thanks to the city, 15 August, 1690.

The queen returns thanks to the city, 15 August, 1690.

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

The king's return from Ireland, Sept.

The king's return from Ireland, Sept.

The king's return from Ireland, Sept.

Hearing of the danger that was threatening England, William had serious thoughts of leaving Ireland and returning home in July.1723He 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.1724On 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.1725An appointment having been made for Thursday morning (11 Sept.) the mayor and aldermen proceeded to Whitehall and congratulated his majesty[pg 562]on his safe return, their example being followed by the bishop and the clergy of London in the afternoon of the same day.1726The 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

The king attends a congress at the Hague, 1691.

The king attends a congress at the Hague, 1691.

The king attends a congress at the Hague, 1691.

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.1728A 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

Jacobite plots in England.

Jacobite plots in England.

Jacobite plots in England.

The king again leaves for the continent, 2 May.

The king again leaves for the continent, 2 May.

The king again leaves for the continent, 2 May.

His presence was much needed, for the Jacobites were becoming more dangerous every day. One plot, of which Lord Preston was the ruling spirit,1730had 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.

City loans, 1691-1692.

City loans, 1691-1692.

City loans, 1691-1692.

The king had not been gone long before the queen sent to the City (18 June) to borrow £120,000 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 £75,000 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.1731The Common Council readily consented to find the money, notwithstanding its having so recently as February last advanced no less a sum than £200,000 towards fitting out the fleet.1732These 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 £200,000 to assist in paying off the ships of war that were about to lay up for the winter.1733In 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 £200,0001734and one of £100,000.1735

Elections in Common Hall, 24 June, 1691.

Elections in Common Hall, 24 June, 1691.

Elections in Common Hall, 24 June, 1691.

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 £120,000) for repealing the clause in the Act of Common Council of the 6th June, 1683, touching the[pg 564]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 29.1736Such 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.1737An 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."1738He 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[pg 565]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."1739The 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

A Bill to settle elections of sheriffs prepared by Court of Aldermen, April, 1692.

A Bill to settle elections of sheriffs prepared by Court of Aldermen, April, 1692.

A Bill to settle elections of sheriffs prepared by Court of Aldermen, April, 1692.

The Bill rejected by Common Council.

The Bill rejected by Common Council.

The Bill rejected by Common Council.

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.1741Of 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[pg 566]whether the Bill should be then read a third time it passed in the negative,1742and nothing more is heard of it.

Act of Common Council for regulating elections at wardmotes, 26 Oct., 1692.

Act of Common Council for regulating elections at wardmotes, 26 Oct., 1692.

Act of Common Council for regulating elections at wardmotes, 26 Oct., 1692.

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,1743an 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.1744At 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

The king's return, Oct., 1691.

The king's return, Oct., 1691.

The king's return, Oct., 1691.

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[pg 567]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 £200,000 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.1746A 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

Again sets out for Holland, March, 1692.

Again sets out for Holland, March, 1692.

Again sets out for Holland, March, 1692.

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

City loan of £200,000 to the queen, 18 March, 1692.

City loan of £200,000 to the queen, 18 March, 1692.

City loan of £200,000 to the queen, 18 March, 1692.

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[pg 568]£200,000.1749This 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 £200,000 was kept intact "for some extraordinary occasion."1750

Preparations to meet a threatened invasion by France, April, 1692.

Preparations to meet a threatened invasion by France, April, 1692.

Preparations to meet a threatened invasion by France, April, 1692.

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.1751The mayor issued instructions for closing coffee-houses in the city on Sundays.1752Troops that had been ordered to Flanders were now countermanded, and a camp was formed at Southampton.1753The lord mayor was given a commission as general of all the city's forces—trained[pg 569]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

Battle of La Hogue, 19 May, 1692.

Battle of La Hogue, 19 May, 1692.

Battle of La Hogue, 19 May, 1692.

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

City loan of £100,000 voted, 26 May.

City loan of £100,000 voted, 26 May.

City loan of £100,000 voted, 26 May.

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 £100,000 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

A further loan of £200,000 granted, 6 Sept., 1692.

A further loan of £200,000 granted, 6 Sept., 1692.

A further loan of £200,000 granted, 6 Sept., 1692.

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 £200,000 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.1757A 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,1758and[pg 570]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 £70,000 had been already subscribed.1759

The king entertained on lord mayor's day, 29 Oct., 1692

The king entertained on lord mayor's day, 29 Oct., 1692

The king entertained on lord mayor's day, 29 Oct., 1692

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.1760The 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

The City desired to advance another loan of £200,000, Oct., 1692

The City desired to advance another loan of £200,000, Oct., 1692

The City desired to advance another loan of £200,000, Oct., 1692

The entertainment, which was given at the expense of the aldermen and not charged in any way to the city's Chamber,1762was made the occasion by the king of suggesting another city loan of £200,000, making the third loan of the kind within the year, besides another loan of £100,000. The king's wishes were laid before the next Common Council (2 Nov.) and met with a ready response.1763Before leaving the Guildhall his majesty conferred the honour of[pg 571]knighthood upon Alderman Gore, Alderman Houblon, Leonard Robinson, the city chamberlain, and others.1764

Another City loan of £200,000, 25 April, 1693.

Another City loan of £200,000, 25 April, 1693.

Another City loan of £200,000, 25 April, 1693.

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 £200,000 upon the credit of a recent Act of Parliament authorising the raising of a million of money for military purposes.1765The money, which was wanted for the purpose of paying the wages of seamen and for refitting the fleet, was immediately voted.

The Turkey fleet intercepted at Lagos Bay, June, 1693.

The Turkey fleet intercepted at Lagos Bay, June, 1693.

The Turkey fleet intercepted at Lagos Bay, June, 1693.

Excitement in the city.

Excitement in the city.

Excitement in the city.

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[pg 572]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.1766The 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.1767The 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.

City address to the queen and another loan of £300,000, 15 Aug., 1693.

City address to the queen and another loan of £300,000, 15 Aug., 1693.

City address to the queen and another loan of £300,000, 15 Aug., 1693.

On the 15th August, after voting a loan of £300,000 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

The queen invited to lord mayor's banquet, 30 Oct., 1693.

The queen invited to lord mayor's banquet, 30 Oct., 1693.

The queen invited to lord mayor's banquet, 30 Oct., 1693.

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.1769Ashurst 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[pg 574]time to consider the case of the other four, they being members of parliament.1770

The king's return to England, 29 Oct., 1693.

The king's return to England, 29 Oct., 1693.

The king's return to England, 29 Oct., 1693.

The 29th October falling on Sunday, the lord mayor's banquet took place on the following Monday at the hall of the Grocers' Company,1771but the queen was unable to attend as she had gone to meet the king, who had landed at Harwich on Sunday afternoon.1772On 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

Back to IndexNext