CHAPTER XXXIII.

[pg 575]CHAPTER XXXIII.The rise of the East India Company, 1600-1689.Soon after parliament resumed its sittings (7 Nov., 1693) the attention of the Commons was drawn to a high-handed act done by the wealthy and autocratic company known as the East India Company. For nearly a century that body of merchants had enjoyed a monopoly of trade with the East Indies and had frustrated all attempts of "interlopers" to share their privileges. It had received its first charter at the hands of Queen Elizabeth on the 31st December, 1600, but it was not until after the Restoration, when its privileges were confirmed by another charter, that it began to enter upon a career of such unexampled prosperity as to become at once an object of envy and fear. The management of the company's affairs rested in the hands of a small number of proprietors, the leading spirit for many years being Sir Josiah Child, one of the merchant princes of the city. With him was associated, at least for a time, Thomas Papillon, the zealous Whig. He had become a member of the company as early as 1657, and for many years took an active part in its management. He was one of the directors from 1663 to 1670; was re-appointed in 1675, but lost his seat on the board the following year, as also did Child, through the intervention of Charles the Second, who disliked their Whiggish principles. After a short interval both of them recovered their positions, and in 1680 and 1681 Papillon was deputy governor.1774[pg 576]When Child turned courtier and threw over his old colleagues, Papillon and other Whig shareholders sold their stock and severed their connection with the company. Their places on the directorate were filled up by others who were devoted to Child and his policy, and thenceforth Child became the autocrat of the company. "The treasures of the company were absolutely at his disposal.... A present of ten thousand guineas was graciously received from him by Charles. Ten thousand more were accepted by James, who readily consented to become a holder of stock.... Of what the dictator expended no account was asked by his colleagues."1775His policy was so far successful as to obtain a decision in favour of the company's privileges from Jeffreys and a renewal of its charter from James. Just at a time when the prospects of the company looked brightest a sudden change of fortune was occasioned by the Revolution and the subsequent accession of the Whigs to power. The outcry raised by the general merchants of the city against the company became louder than ever, not so much on account of the company being in possession of a monopoly as because it was ruled by a single individual, and his rule, while benefiting himself and his creatures, was prejudicial to the public welfare. To this outcry Papillon, who had now returned from exile, added his voice and thereby subjected himself to a charge of inconsistency.A New Company formed, 1689.There was but one remedy for the existing evil in the opinion of the majority, and that was to form a new company from which Child should be excluded.[pg 577]Without waiting for an Act of Parliament many traders in the city formed themselves into an association which, although unrecognised by law, acquired the designation of the New Company, and commenced to carry on its business at the hall of the Skinners' Company in Dowgate. For years the city was kept in a ferment by the rivalry existing between the Old and the New Company, between Leadenhall Street and Skinners' Hall, the former being supported by the Tories, the latter by the Whigs.Rivalry between the Old and the New Company.The sanction and assistance of parliament was sought for by both companies. The majority of the Commons were in favour of a compromise. They would have retained the Old Company, but wished to remodel it and to incorporate with it the members of the New Company. Such a proceeding, however, Child would not listen to, and his obstinacy so provoked the House that in February, 1692, it presented an address to the king praying him to dissolve the Old Company and to grant a charter to a New Company on such terms as to his majesty's wisdom might seem fit. The king replied that it was a matter of very great importance to the trade of the kingdom; that he could not be expected to give an immediate answer, but he would consider the matter and give an answer shortly.1776The company sought to avert the impending danger by offering the king the sum of £200,000 by way of loan for three years without any interest.1777A twelvemonth later (Feb., 1693) the Commons again petitioned the king to dissolve the Old Company upon[pg 578]three years' warning;1778but in spite of these attacks the company contrived to obtain a confirmation of its monopoly under the Great Seal in the following October.1779This was only obtained by a lavish distribution of money.Alderman Sir Thomas Cook governor of the Old Company in place of Child.In the meantime the management of the Old Company's affairs had been placed ostensibly in the hands of Sir Thomas Cook,1780an alderman of London and member for Colchester, although there is reason for believing that Child still continued to be the actual manager.The stoppage of the ship "Redbridge," 21 Oct., 1693.Within a few days of the order of the Privy Council for sealing the company's charter, and before the king, whose return from the continent was daily expected, could give it his sanction,1781the directors, in the moment of victory, committed an act of incredible rashness which led to serious consequences. A number of city merchants had recently chartered a vessel named "Redbridge" and placed on board a valuable cargo. Her papers showed her to be bound for a Spanish port, but suspicion pointed to her being intended for a voyage to the East Indies in contravention of the company's charter. Acting on this surmise, the company procured an order from the Privy Council to have the vessel stopt, and stopt[pg 579]she accordingly was from the 21st October until the following 9th November, each day's delay in sailing inflicting heavy expense on the owners. Such high-handed proceedings of the Company might create little excitement if carried out on the high seas and at a distance from home, but in the port of London they were not to be tolerated. The owners of the "Redbridge" laid their grievance before the Commons (30 Dec.).1782They pointed out that the conduct of the East India Company was "greatly prejudicial to all foreign trade and navigation in general, and more particularly to the petitioners, who by the present laws of the kingdom can have no reparation." They prayed, therefore, that the like inconveniences might be prevented for the future. Their petition was referred to a committee of the whole House, together with other petitions against the company, as well as the company's charters. In due course the committee, with Papillon in the chair, reported that the stopping of the "Redbridge" was "a grievance, a discouragement to trade and contrary to the known laws of the kingdom,"1783and further that, in the opinion of the Common Hall, "all the subjects of England have equal right to trade to the East Indies unless prohibited by Act of Parliament." This resolution was accepted by the House without a division,1784and for some years at least there nominally existed free trade with India.1785The City's petitionredebts to orphans, 1691.Between March, 1689, and February, 1691, little appears to have been done towards solving the[pg 580]difficulty of the claims of the City orphans. Another committee was appointed at the expiration of that time to consider the matter, and in November, 1691, the committee reported to the Common Council. They recommended that certain rents of the value of £8,000 per annum should be set aside towards the payment of four per cent. per annum for the immediate relief of the orphans, and that parliament should be asked to authorise the raising of a sum of £24,000 to be vested in the Corporation for the satisfaction of debts to existing orphans, and for security of the money of orphans that should be paid into the Chamber in future. The recommendation of the committee was accepted by the court (20 Nov.), and three days later a draft petition to parliament was read and approved.1786The petition set forth that in the troublous times during and after the reign of Charles I the City lost divers large sums of money, and that by reason of this, as well as of the destruction of the greatest part of their estate in the great fire and their losses consequent on the illegal judgment on theQuo Warranto, their debts to the orphans had amounted to a sum far larger than the City was able to pay without the assistance of parliament. It proceeded to lay before the House the scheme proposed by the committee, and prayed the House to assist the petitioners to raise a sufficient sum for an annual payment to be made in lieu of the said debts, or such other provision for the same as the House might think fit. On the 27th November leave was granted to bring in a Bill, and on the 3rd December a Bill was brought in and read the first time, but nothing further[pg 581]appears to have come of it.1787On the 6th August, 1692, a committee was appointed to consider the question how best the City's revenues might be improved with the view to the easier discharge of orphans' claims. The committee showed itself very active, meeting at least once and often twice a week. Nevertheless it was not until the 2nd November it was in a position to make a report to the Common Council.1788What was thought of the committee's recommendations is not recorded, but a few days later (11 Nov.) we find the court resolving to present a petition to parliament in precisely the same terms as their former petition.1789The Orphans' Bill of 1693.The matter was allowed to drag on until the 17th February of the next year (1693), when a committee was appointed by the House to prepare and bring in another Bill. A Bill was accordingly brought in on the 20th, read the first time on the 21st, read the second time on the 22nd and committed. Before the Bill passed through committee the City desired to be heard by counsel against the Bill on the ground that it divested the City of all its revenues, deprived it of much of its ancient and necessary jurisdiction, and would not answer the ends proposed.1790In March progress was reported, but before anything further could be done the House was prorogued.1791A fresh scheme, Feb., 1694.When the House re-assembled in November (1693) the City again presented a petition in terms[pg 582]similar to their former petitions. The petition having been referred to a committee of the whole House that committee reported (17 Feb., 1694) to the following effect,1792viz., that (1) a rent-charge of £8,000 per annum should be set aside out of the City's revenues towards payment of interest due to orphans, (2) that the City should be permitted to raise a sum not exceeding £2,000 per annum upon personal estates in the city to satisfy the orphans' debts, (3) that the patentees of a new kind of glass light known as convex lights1793should contribute an annual sum of £600, (4) that an additional duty of 4d.per chaldron should be imposed upon coal entering the port of London and 6d.per chaldron on coals imported into the city for a term of fifty years commencing from the determination of the duty already existing in respect of re-building St. Paul's, (5) that an additional duty of 4s.should be laid on every tun of wine entering the port of London, (6) that the improvements about to be made in the water supply of the city1794should also contribute, and lastly (7) that every person bound apprentice in the city should contribute 2s.6d., and every person made free of the city 5s.towards the same object.City Orphans' Act passed, March, 1694.A Bill1795was subsequently introduced embodying these resolutions, but with an additional proviso that[pg 583]when the tax of 6d.per chaldron on coals, to be imposed for a term of fifty years, should cease the City's lands should be charged with an annual sum of £6,000 over and above the rent-charge of £8,000 previously mentioned. The Bill was read the first and second time on the 22nd February, and the third time on the 12th March. A few days later (21 March) it passed the Lords without amendment, and on the 23rd received the royal assent.1796City loan of £200,000, 6 March, 1694.On the 6th March (1694) the lord keeper came to the Guildhall, accompanied by the lords of the treasury, to ask the Common Council for a loan of £200,000, upon security of the land tax, for naval and military purposes. The court at once assented, and before the end of the month the whole amount had been paid into the exchequer.1797The money was raised in the usual way from the inhabitants of each ward and from the livery companies. The Corporation itself was by no means well off, and encouragement was given to anyone who could suggest a means whereby the City's revenues could be increased.1798Recourse was had, among other things, to nominating for sheriff the least suitable men for the office, and such as would prefer paying the fine to serving. In no other way can one reasonably account for the fact that the fines for refusing to undertake the office of sheriff amounted for this year (1694) to over £5,000.1799[pg 584]The foundation of the Bank of England, April, 1694.This loan was but as a drop in the ocean compared with the necessities of the times. The estimates for the year 1694 were enormous. The army, which was already the largest standing force that England had ever seen, was to receive a large increase, whilst considerable sums of money were required for payment of arrears, no less than for the future expenses, of the navy. Notwithstanding the renewal of the land tax, the imposition of a poll-tax, the revival of stamp duties, and the raising of a million of money by a lottery loan, there yet remained a large deficit before the estimated revenue of the year balanced the estimated expenditure. At this juncture Charles Montague, poet, politician andsavant, took up a scheme propounded to government three years before by William Paterson, an enterprising if not always successful Scotsman, but allowed to drop. This scheme was none other than the formation of a national bank. The idea was not altogether a new one. Before the close of the reign of Charles II several plans of the kind had been suggested, some being in favour of establishing such a bank under the immediate direction of the Crown, whilst others were of opinion that its management should be entrusted to the Corporation of the city. It was now proposed to raise the sum of £1,200,000 for the use of the government by way of loan at eight per cent. interest, the subscribers being incorporated by the name of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The matter was introduced into parliament for the first time on the 28th March, in the shape of a Bill for granting their majesties certain tonnage duties on wine, ale and other liquors.1800[pg 585]Although it was not easy to recognise in the terms of the Bill the germ of "the greatest commercial institution that the world had ever seen,"1801it met with considerable opposition in the House, and still more outside. With their recent experience of the evils arising from a rich and powerful body like the East India Company, men were cautious in allowing a Corporation to be erected in their midst which, as many feared, would absorb the wealth of the nation,1802and might render the Crown independent of parliament and people. This last consideration was not unimportant, and, in order to avert the possibility of such a danger, a clause was inserted in the Bill forbidding under the severest penalties the new Corporation advancing money to the Crown without the authority of parliament.1803Subject to this and other conditions the Bill passed the Commons, and on the 24th April was agreed to by the Lords.1804At the head of the Commission, issued under the Great Seal for the establishment of the new bank, stood the name of the lord mayor, Sir William Ashurst; and out of the twenty-four original directors at least four rose to be chief magistrate of the city, whilst others are known to have taken an active part in the affairs of the municipality.1805In the city the undertaking met with a success beyond all expectation. The very first day (21 June) that the subscription lists were opened at Mercers' Hall nearly £300,000 was received, and[pg 586]within a week that amount was doubled. Sir John Houblon, who succeeded to the mayoralty the following year, and became the first Governor of the Bank, subscribed £10,000, the largest amount any one individual was allowed by the terms of the charter to subscribe before the first day of July. The same amount was subscribed by the lords of the treasury on behalf of the queen. By mid-day of the 2nd July the whole of the money (£1,200,000) had been subscribed and the books closed.1806The Great Seal was put to the bank charter, and business was commenced in the hall of the Grocers' Company.Hitherto, as we have seen, the city of London had always acted (as indeed it claimed to be) as the king's Chamber, and the occupier of the throne of England for the time being had never hesitated to draw upon this Chamber whenever he was in need of money. The mode of procedure was nearly always the same. The lords of the treasury would appear some morning before the Common Council, and after a few words of explanation as to the necessities of the time, would ask for a loan, offering in most cases (we are bound to confess) undeniable security. Supposing that the Council agreed to raise the required loan, which it nearly always did, the mayor for the time being was usually instructed to issue his precept to the aldermen to collect subscriptions within their several wards, whilst other precepts were (in later times at least) sent to the master or wardens of the livery companies to do the same among the members of their companies. There were times, also, when the[pg 587]companies were called upon to subscribe in proportion to their assessment for supplying the city with corn in times of distress.1807Times were now changed. Instead of applying to the City for an advance in case of need, the king thenceforth drew what he required from the Bank of England. During the remainder of his reign William only applied twice to the City for a loan: once, towards the close of 1696, when he required money for the army and navy, and again in 1697, when it was necessary to pay off his continental allies and lay up the navy after the peace of Ryswick (10 Sept.).1808The City, in its corporate capacity, was no longer to be the purse of the nation.The death of Queen Mary, 28 Dec, 1694.In December of this year (1694)—soon after his return from an unsuccessful campaign—William suffered an irreparable loss by the death of the queen. The old adage touching an ill wind received a curious exemplification at Queen Mary's death, for although that event sent down the stock of the Bank of England three per cent., it benefited the East India Company by causing a rapid rise in the price of muslin, a commodity of which we are told that company happened to possess a large quantity.1809The Court of Aldermen put themselves into mourning,1810whilst the Common Council voted an address of condolence to the king and ordered statues ("effigies") of both king and queen to be erected at the Royal[pg 588]Exchange.1811The king followed the advice given to him by the city fathers not to suffer too much "resentment" over his recent loss, and diverted himself by practising shooting on horseback in Richmond Park whilst his dead wife was still above ground.1812The queen's funeral, 5 March, 1695.The funeral did not take place until the 6th March (1695). In anticipation of that event the Court of Aldermen had some time since (18 Jan.) appointed a committee to consider of the right and title of the lord mayor, aldermen and sheriffs of the city to their mourning and their places in the funeral procession, as also of the mourning due to the several officers of the city. Four days later (22 Jan.) the committee reported1813to the effect that they had found from the records of the city that it had been the custom for the lord mayor, aldermen, recorder, sheriffs and the principal and other officers of the city to have mourning allowed them by the Crown at the public interments of kings and queens, but as to the places and precedency of the lord mayor and aldermen on those occasions the committee had only found one instance of a funeral procession, and that was at the funeral of Henry VII, when it appeared that the aldermen walked "next after the knights and before the great chaplains of dignitys and the knights of the garter being noe lords." The lord mayor (the report went on to say) was not named in the procession, but at the mass and offering at the interment it appeared that the lord mayor, with his[pg 589]mace in hand, offered next after the lord chamberlain, and the aldermen who had been mayors offered next to the knights of the garter and before the knights of the body, after whom came those aldermen who had not been lord mayor.1814The committee concluded their report by recommending that a deputation should wait upon the Privy Council and assert the right of the Court of Aldermen to mourning. The representation thereupon made had the desired effect and the usual mourning was allowed by warrant (29 Jan.).1815The citizens marked their respect for the late queen by shutting up their shops on the day of the funeral.1816Discovery of corrupt practices, 1695.The session of 1695 of William's first parliament was signalised by the discovery of a system of wholesale corruption. That every man had his price was scarcely less true in William's day than it was in the later age of Sir Robert Walpole. The discovery of one delinquent guilty of receiving money for services, real or supposed, quickly led to another, until suspicion turned upon the City of London itself. A rumour rapidly gained ground to the effect that the funds of the City as well as those of the East India Company had been largely employed in winning the favour of men in power, and the name of Sir John Trevor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, was mentioned among others.The Speaker convicted of bribery.On the 7th March the House appointed a committee to investigate the matter, with power to send for persons and papers.1817On the 12th the committee reported to the House that they had discovered an[pg 590]order of a committee appointed by the Corporation for the purpose of seeing the Orphans' Bill through parliament, dated the 12th February, 1694, authorising the payment of 1,000 guineas to the Speaker, Sir John Trevor, as soon as the Bill should pass. This order, they said, was signed by every member of the committee except Sir James Houblon and Mr. Deputy Ayres, and was endorsed to the effect that the money had been delivered and paid to the Hon. Sir John Trevor on the 22nd June, 1694, in the presence of Sir Robert Clayton and Sir James Houblon, brother of Sir John.1818When summoned to account for his having refused to sign the order of the committee whilst allowing himself to witness the actual payment of the money to the Speaker, Sir James excused himself by saying that he had accompanied Sir Robert Clayton, at the latter's request, professedly for the purpose of thanking the Speaker for his pains about the Orphans' Bill; that this being done, the Chamberlain, who had gone with them, pulled out a note or bill which he handed to the Speaker, but as to the nature of the note or bill Houblon declared himself to have been ignorant until subsequently informed by the Chamberlain. Other[pg 591]members of the Corporation Committee also gave evidence as to the warrant for payment of the money having been originally made out with a blank space left for the name of the payee. The report further declared that sums of money had been paid to Paul Godrell, clerk of the House of Commons, to the city solicitor, the solicitor-general and the chairman of the Corporation Committee in respect of the Orphans' Bill, whilst the orphans themselves had been prevailed upon to give security for the payment of five per cent. on their whole property to certain other parties who professed to be able to render valuable services in the event of the Bill being passed.1819The Speaker expelled the House, 16 March, 1695.By the time that the reading of the committee's report to the House was finished it was growing dusk, and candles were called for. A resolution was then moved and put to the house by Trevor himself, that the Speaker, by receiving a gratuity of 1,000 guineas from the city of London after passing of the Orphans' Bill, had been guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour. The resolution was passed, and four days later (16 March) Trevor was expelled the House.1820Transactions between the City and the Marquis of Normanby.A month later (18 April) the House of Lords were busy investigating the conduct of the Marquis of Normanby in accepting, and of the Corporation of the City in granting, a lease of a certain plot of land lying behind Clarendon House, part of the City's estate known as Conduit Mead. It was shown by oral and documentary evidence that a longer lease than usual had recently been granted (Jan., 1695) to the marquis as "a gratification," he being a person of distinction[pg 592]who had shown himself very friendly to the interests of the City and likely to continue so.1821Negotiations for a lease had been commenced so far back as January, 1694, "before the Orphans' Bill was on the anvill in the House of Commons."1822It was not denied that the City entertained the hope that the marquis would use his interest in expediting the passage of the Bill, and that this hope had been realised. On the other hand it was shown that when the marquis learnt that one of the conditions of the lease was that he should "covenant" to procure an Act of Parliament for settling some doubts of title to the land conveyed, he at once declared that such a thing was not in his power, but lay with the king, the lords and the commons; nevertheless, he consented to use his best endeavours in that direction. The marquis, it was said, had also been indiscreet enough to divulge certain proceedings of the House of Lords in the matter of the Convex Lights, and this formed the subject of an investigation by the House at the same time as the granting of this lease. After careful consideration the House entirely acquitted his lordship of blame in both cases.1823Corrupt practices of East India Company in connection with its charter.In considering the City's action in respect of the Orphans' Bill we must not forget to take into account the condition of the age. It was one in which peculation and venality were predominant. Nearly every official who was worth the buying could be bought, and the world thought none the worse of him provided that these pecuniary transactions were[pg 593]kept decently veiled. The "gifts and rewards" bestowed by the City with the object of expediting the passage of the Orphans' Bill were as nothing compared with the vast sums which the East India Company was reported to have disbursed in order to obtain the confirmation of its charter. It was the practice when Sir Thomas Cook was in power for the directors of the company to sign warrants for any sum that he might require without demanding particulars from him. In seven years (1688-1694) more than £100,000 had been disposed of for the company's "special service," nearly £90,000 of which had been disbursed whilst Cook was governor (1692-1693).1824Sir Thomas Cook and Sir Basil Firebrace.A parliamentary committee endeavoured to obtain some account as to how this large sum of money had been expended, but could learn nothing more than that it had been spent on the "special service" of the company and that a great part of it had been entrusted to Sir Basil Firebrace.1825Firebrace denied this, but confessed to having received upwards of £16,000 for which he had accounted to the company. The committee's report proceeded to inform the House that the company had spent considerable sums of money, under the guise of contracts, in buying up the interests of "interlopers" and getting them to join the company. They had found Sir Samuel Dashwood, Sir John Fleet, Sir Thomas Cook (all aldermen of the city), Sir Joseph Herne and John Perry to have been cognisant of[pg 594]these proceedings, but they being members of parliament the committee did not think fit to send for or examine them.1826Acting upon the committee's report, the House called upon Sir Thomas Cook (26 March) to give an account of the sum of £87,000 which he had received of the company's money, and upon his refusing committed him to the Tower.1827A Bill was within a few days introduced into the House for compelling Cook to make disclosure and rapidly passed (6 April).1828In the Upper House the Bill met with the strongest denunciation by the Duke of Leeds (who saw in it considerable danger to himself), as also by Cook himself, who was brought from the Tower for the purpose of allowing him to plead against the passing of such a Bill. At the Bar of the House the latter earnestly implored the Peers not to pass the Bill in its present form. Let them pass a Bill of Indemnity and he would tell them all. The Lords considered his request reasonable, and after a conference with the Lower House it was agreed that the Bill should take the form of an Indemnity Bill, and so it was passed (19 April), a joint committee of both Houses being appointed to examine Cook and others.1829Examination of Cook, 23 April, 1695.His examination, which took place in the Exchequer Chamber on the 23rd April, confirmed the committee's previous suspicions.1830The sum of £10,000[pg 595]had been paid (he said) to Sir Basil Firebrace about November, 1693, when the charter of the East India Company had been confirmed, and he had always been under the apprehension that Firebrace had pocketed the money "to recompense his losses in the interloping trade." A further sum of £30,000 had been paid to Firebrace on various contracts. There had been a contract involving the payment of £60,000 on account of procuring a new charter, and another of the value of £40,000 on account of getting the charter sanctioned by an Act of Parliament, but as no Act was passed this latter contract fell through. There was a further sum of £30,000 which had been lost to the company on account of certain stock it had agreed to purchase from Firebrace at the price of £150 per cent. at a time when the company's stock was standing at par. Firebrace had always refused to give him any account as to how this money was disposed of, and had declared that "if he were further pressed he would have no more to do in it." Such was the sum and substance of Cook's confession so far as it affected Firebrace.Examination of Firebrace, 24-26 April, 1695.The next day (24 April) Firebrace appeared before the committee. As to the £10,000 he had received from Cook, that was (he said) a gratuity which had been given to him before the granting of the charter. The other sum of £30,000 was due on a contract "for favours and services done." He was positive that both sums were intended "directly for himself and for the use of no other person whatsoever"; that he paid nothing thereout towards procuring either charter or Act, nor had promised to do so. He acknowledged himself to have been very[pg 596]active in his endeavours to gain over interlopers, and to improve the stock of the company, but when pressed by the committee for particulars he asked to be excused giving an immediate answer on the score of ill-health; he had not slept for two nights and was much indisposed.1831On the 25th and following day he was well enough to volunteer further evidence incriminating the Duke of Leeds. He told the committee of an interview he (Firebrace) had had with Sir Thomas Cook, when the latter expressed his apprehension lest the passing the East India Company's charter should be opposed by the lord president. They had then agreed to endeavour to win his lordship's favour by an offer of 5,000 guineas. That sum had been actually left at the duke's house, and it was only returned on the morning the enquiry opened. After the payment of the money both Cook and himself had enjoyed free access to the duke and found him willing to give them his assistance.1832Evidence of Josiah Child, 26 April, 1695.Among others who gave evidence was Child himself, who acknowledged that he had suggested an offer of £50,000 to the king in order to induce his majesty to waive his prerogative and allow the company to be settled by Act of Parliament. William, however, was impervious to a bribe and declined to meddle in the matter.Cook and Firebrace committed to the Tower.The result of the enquiry was that the Duke of Leeds was ordered to be impeached, whilst Firebrace and Cook were committed to the Tower.1833They[pg 597]recovered their liberty in April, 1696, and in July, 1698, Firebrace was created a baronet.1834The Old and the New Company agree to unite, 22 July, 1702.In July, 1702, the rival companies were content to sink their differences, and a union was effected.1835Shortly before this took place the Old Company voted the sum of £12,000 as a free gift to Cook for his past services.1836Firebrace, who had used his best endeavours to bring about the union, brought an action against the Old Company for compensation for his services, but consented to drop all proceedings on receiving stock in the company to the amount of £10,000.1837In 1704 Cook was elected mayor, but the state of his health not allowing him to serve, he was discharged. He died in September, 1709.1838Jacobite tumults during the king's absence abroad, May-Oct., 1695.On Sunday the 12th May, 1695, William again set out for the continent, and did not return until the 10th October. The great feature of the campaign was the brilliant siege and recovery of the town of Namur, which had been lost to the allied forces three years before. Baulked in a proposed design against the king's person by his unexpected departure, the Jacobites had to content themselves with other measures. On the 10th June, the birthday of the unfortunate Prince of Wales, a number of them met at a tavern in Drury Lane. Excited by wine they sallied forth, with drums beating and colours flying, and insisted on passers by drinking the prince's health.[pg 598]This roused the indignation of the neighbours, who sacked the tavern and put the revellers to flight, one of the ringleaders being seized and afterwards committed to Newgate.1839When, in the following August, the whole of London was on the tiptoe of excitement, waiting for news of the fall of Namur, the citizens were suddenly amazed at the sight of a horseman in military uniform riding through the main streets and announcing that William had been killed. That the wish was father to the thought became sufficiently clear to the by-standers when they heard the man declare with pistol in hand and sword drawn that he would kill anyone who denied the truth of his statement. A serious disturbance was avoided by his being incontinently dragged from his horse and carried before the lord mayor, who committed him to prison.1840Elections for a triennial parliament, Oct., 1695.When the king returned in October, with the laurels of victory fresh on his brow, he determined to seize the favourable opportunity for dissolving parliament. The result of the elections for a new parliament—the first triennial parliament under a recent Act—justified the course he had taken. The citizens, who had been among the first to welcome him on his arrival in London, and whose sheriffs—Edward Wills and Owen Buckingham—he had recently knighted,1841instead of returning Tory members, as in the late parliament, returned four Whigs, viz., three aldermen, Sir Robert Clayton, Sir John Fleet and Sir William Ashurst, and one commoner, Thomas Papillon. The election was strongly contested, a poll being demanded by three other candidates, viz., Sir[pg 599]William Pritchard, Sir Thomas Vernon and Sir William Russell, against the return of Clayton, Ashurst and Papillon. The result of the poll, however, left matters undisturbed.1842The contest in Westminster was more severe than in the city, but, like the latter, ended in a victory for the Whigs. Cook, who was still a prisoner in the Tower, again contested Colchester, but lost his seat.1843On the 22nd November the Houses met.The Barclay conspiracy, 1696.The king's return was a signal for fresh action on the part of the Jacobites. It was resolved to assassinate William on his return from hunting in Richmond Park. The management of the conspiracy was entrusted to Sir George Barclay, a Scotch refugee, who succeeded in getting together a small band of men willing to take part in the desperate enterprise. The plot was, however, discovered, and some of the leading conspirators arrested. On the evening of Sunday the 23rd February (1696) the lord mayor (Sir John Houblon) was summoned to the Privy Council and informed of the narrow escape of the king. He was charged to look well to the safety of the city. On Monday morning all the city trained bands were under arms, and on Tuesday the Common Council voted a congratulatory address to the king upon his escape.1844The signing of associations.By that time parliament had been informed of what had taken place. The Commons immediately suspended the Habeas Corpus Act and agreed to enter into an association for the defence of their king and country. An instrument was forthwith drawn up[pg 600]whereby each individual member of the House pledged himself to uphold King William and William's government against James and his adherents, and in case his majesty should meet with a violent death to unite with one another in inflicting condign vengeance on his murderers, and in supporting the order of succession to the crown as settled by the Bill of Rights. On Tuesday (25 Feb.) the House was called over; the association engrossed on parchment lay on the table, and every member present went up and signed, those who from sickness or other cause were absent being ordered to sign the document on their first appearance in the House, or publicly declare from their seat in the House their refusal to do so.1845The next day the Common Council of the city unanimously resolved to enter into the like association, the livery companies of the city being afterwards called upon by the mayor to do the same.1846Bill of Attainder against Sir John Fenwick.For weeks and months strict search was made in the city for Papists and suspect persons,1847and among them for Sir John Fenwick, for whose arrest a proclamation was issued on the 22nd March.1848He was eventually captured whilst making his way to the coast for the purpose of escaping to France, and was committed to Newgate. When a motion was made in November for proceeding against him by Bill of Attainder the sheriffs of London surrendered their charge to the sergeant-at-arms of the House of Commons. After his execution on Tower Hill in January[pg 601]of the following year (1697) some officers of Sheriff Blewet, whose duty it had been to keep watch over Fenwick by night and day whilst lying in Newgate, had to apply to the Court of Aldermen before they could get the sheriff to pay them the money (£9 10s.) due to them for that service.1849The City and the Election Bill, April, 1696.The discovery of the assassination plot had the result of rendering William's seat on the throne more secure than ever, and won for him the unqualified support of parliament. Early in February (1696) a Bill had been brought in to exclude from the House every person who did not possess a certain estate in land. The Bill met with much opposition in commercial circles, and more especially in the city of London,1850and the king being unwilling to estrange those merchants and traders who had so often assisted him, exercised his prerogative and declined to give his assent to the Bill. Thereupon some violent Tories moved that whoever advised the king to take this course was an enemy to him and the nation; but the House displayed its loyalty by rejecting the motion by an overwhelming majority and ordering the division list to be published.1851Resolution of the Common Hall, 29 Sept., 1696.The City was not behindhand in renewing its assurances of loyalty. The liverymen of the several companies assembled in the Guildhall for the election of a mayor on Michaelmas-day passed a resolution to stand by the king with their lives and fortunes, and desired the city members of parliament to see that a searching enquiry were made into the late conspiracy[pg 602]as the best means of preserving the king's person, establishing the government, and reviving trade and credit.1852The new currency, May-Aug., 1696.At the time when this resolution was passed the king was expected home from the continent, whither he had gone in May last. During his absence there had occurred a monetary crisis—the first since the establishment of the Bank of England—which, after causing for several months a great amount of distress, was destined to be succeeded by a long period of unbroken prosperity. An Act had recently been passed for calling in all clipt money and substituting milled money in its stead,1853and the crisis was brought about by the old money being called in before the new money was ready for issue. Saturday, the 2nd May, was practically the last day clipt money was received by the exchequer. Three days later the stock of milled money in the coffers of the Bank of England at Grocers' Hall had run out, and the governor of the Bank, Sir John Houblon, who happened at the time to be also lord mayor, had to propitiate the numerous claimants for the new money by offering them part payment in the old coin and the rest in the new as soon as it was minted.1854[pg 603]City loans, July-Nov., 1696.Towards the end of July matters became worse. In spite of the extraordinary activity displayed by the Mint authorities, at the Tower and in divers parts of the country, the supply had not equalled the demand, yet a large sum of money was now imperatively demanded for payment of the army on the continent. The king himself had written to say that unless the money was forthcoming his troops were ready to mutiny or desert. Nothing less than a million would satisfy the requirements of the army in Flanders, a like sum was wanted for the navy, whilst half that amount was necessary for the army in England.1855How was this enormous sum to be raised? It was thought that the City might vote something towards it, but the Chamberlain declared that any proposal for a loan at that time would with difficulty be carried into execution owing to the scarcity of money.1856Some private individuals, however, managed to raise £200,000 for the king, whilst others, like Sir Josiah Child, Charles Duncombe and Sir Joseph Herne, were prepared to stand security for £300,000 more, which the Dutch were ready to advance. After long deliberation the Bank of England agreed (15 Aug.) to advance another £200,000.1857These sums sufficed for the more immediate wants of the king, and allowed time for the issue of the new currency.The Peace of Ryswick, 10 Sept., 1697.The campaign of 1696 had been carried on in a very desultory way. All parties were anxious for a peace. Towards the end of April, 1697, William once more crossed over to Flanders,1858and the French king having for the first time shown a disposition to come[pg 604]to terms, it was arranged that a congress should meet near the Hague. The result of the congress was the conclusion (10 Sept.) of the Peace of Ryswick, whereby Louis consented to acknowledge William's title to the throne. The news was received in the city four days later with every demonstration of joy; the Tower guns were discharged, flags hung out, bells set ringing and bonfires lighted.1859Preparations to welcome the king on his return.The Court of Aldermen resolved to give the king a more than ordinary reception on his return. Search was made for precedents as to the manner in which former kings had been received on their return from progresses or from parts beyond the sea, and these precedents, from the time of Edward IV down to that of King Charles II, were duly reported to the court by a committee appointed to make the search.1860The committee was next instructed to consider of suitable ways and methods for the reception of his majesty if he should be pleased to pass through the city, and on this also the committee reported with elaborate detail.1861These and other preparations were all made under the apprehension that the king was about to return immediately. Weeks went by and no king appeared. The Court of Aldermen availed themselves of the delay to put the finishing touches to the programme of welcome that was to be accorded him, and to commit into custody any suspicious character they found.1862At length, after long and impatient expectation, news came that the king had[pg 605]landed at Margate on the 14th November.1863By the following night his majesty reached Greenwich and rested in the handsome building which, at the desire of his beloved queen, had been recently converted from a palace into a hospital for disabled seamen.1864The king met at Southwark by the mayor, aldermen, etc., 16 Nov., 1697.The lord mayor immediately issued his precept to the several livery companies (they had received a previous warning to prepare for the occasion on the 1st October)1865to be ready in their stands by eight o'clock on the morning of Tuesday the 16th November, well apparelled and with all the ornaments of their companies before them.1866That morning witnessed one of the finest sights that had ever been seen in the city of London, famous as it always had been for its pageantry. No expense had been spared in providing new gowns for the magistrates and new banners for the companies. The mayor, aldermen and sheriffs rode out "in their formalities" as far as Southwark, where they met the king, and where the usual ceremony took place of surrendering the civic sword into his majesty's hands, to be immediately returned to the lord mayor. This done, the procession was formed, and the king was escorted with trumpets and kettle-drums through the entire length of the city, the streets being guarded by the six regiments of trained bands, and the houses rendered bright with hangings of tapestry.1867[pg 606]Congratulations offered by the city, 17 Nov., 1697.On Wednesday the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, accompanied by the recorder, waited upon his majesty and congratulated him on the peace and on his safe return. The king in reply thanked them, and conferred the honour of knighthood upon the sheriffs, Bartholomew Gracedieu and James Collett.1868A day of public thanksgiving, 2 Dec.The rejoicings terminated with a thanksgiving service at St. Paul's (2 Dec.), the work of Sir Christopher Wren being sufficiently advanced to admit of divine service being held there. The mayor and aldermen attended in state. The king did not attend lest his presence should draw off congregations from other churches; but he attended service in his private chapel at Whitehall. Not only in London but throughout the kingdom the day was solemnly observed, whilst the night was given up to festivity and fireworks.1869Parliamentary elections for the city, 1698-1701.When, in 1698, the first triennial parliament had run its course and a new election of members for the city took place all the old members retained their seats except Sir Robert Clayton. His place was taken by Sir James Houblon, a Tory. On this occasion the election for the city did not take place until the returns of many constituencies in the country had been made known. As a rule the returns of the metropolitan constituencies were looked forward to as an augury of the political complexion of the coming parliament. This parliament was not allowed to live its full time, but was dissolved in December, 1700, a new parliament being summoned to meet in[pg 607]the following February (1701).1870Sir Robert Clayton regained his seat, and with him were returned Sir William Ashurst (who headed the poll), Gilbert Heathcote and Sir William Withers.1871Upon Heathcote being declared by parliament disqualified to sit owing to a technical breach of trust his seat was taken by Sir John Fleet.1872Death of James II, 5 Sept., 1701.The City's address of loyalty to William.After the death of James II at St. Germains (5 Sept., 1701) Louis broke his vow (made at Ryswick) not to do anything to disturb or subvert the government of England, and forthwith proclaimed the late king's son to be heir to his father's throne. The whole English nation was stirred against the French king for having dared to acknowledge as their sovereign the boy who had been held to be supposititious and whose title to the crown had been rejected by parliament. The citizens of London were among the first to express their loyalty to William and their readiness to do their utmost to preserve his person and government against all invasion. The king was on the continent at the time, but an address to this effect, unanimously agreed to by the Common Council (26 Sept.), was forwarded to him by the lords justices, who held the reins of government during his absence, and who in due course were instructed to inform the City of the great satisfaction its address had afforded his majesty. The example thus set was quickly followed by others, and similar addresses began to flow in from all parts of the kingdom,1873[pg 608]whilst the City's address was by the king's orders translated into foreign languages for transmission to the several courts of Europe.1874Sir William Gore elected mayor, Sept., 1701.A few hours before the City's address reached the hands of the lords justices the citizens had assembled (29 Sept.) in Common Hall to choose a mayor for the ensuing year. Sir Charles Duncombe, who had amassed a large fortune as a goldsmith and banker, and who, although returned by the livery at the head of the poll the previous year, had been set aside by the Court of Aldermen in his contest for the mayoralty probably on account of his Tory principles,1875was again put up as a candidate, although in point of seniority he was one of the youngest aldermen. This time he failed to get a majority of votes at the Common Hall, but his popularity was still sufficiently strong to return him second on the poll, and his name was submitted in conjunction with that of William Gore to the Court of Aldermen for them to select one. It was quite within their province to select if they chose the second name submitted to them—they[pg 609]had frequently done so before—but in the face of Louis's recent act of insolence they preferred to call to the mayoralty chair a man whose Tory principles were not too pronounced rather than one who had accepted an alderman's commission from James II, and Sir William Gore was accordingly declared elected.1876Election of William's last parliament, Nov.-Dec., 1701.The parliament which assembled in February, 1701, enjoyed a still shorter existence than its predecessor, for it was dissolved in the following November. Another was summoned to meet in December.1877Great excitement prevailed in the city over this election. The Whigs met at the Crown Tavern behind the Exchange and agreed to put up three of the old members, viz., Clayton, Ashurst and Heathcote, and to run a fresh candidate in the person of Sir Thomas Abney. The Tory or "Church party" opposed these candidates with four others, viz., Sir William Gore, the lord mayor, Sir John Fleet, Sir Richard Levett and Sir Charles Duncombe, the recently defeated candidate for the mayoralty. When it came to polling all four Whigs were returned by an overwhelming majority.1878This was the last parliament of William's reign. On the 20th February (1702) he was thrown from his horse whilst riding in Richmond Park and broke his collar-bone. His health had previously shown signs of giving way. On the 8th March he died.

[pg 575]CHAPTER XXXIII.The rise of the East India Company, 1600-1689.Soon after parliament resumed its sittings (7 Nov., 1693) the attention of the Commons was drawn to a high-handed act done by the wealthy and autocratic company known as the East India Company. For nearly a century that body of merchants had enjoyed a monopoly of trade with the East Indies and had frustrated all attempts of "interlopers" to share their privileges. It had received its first charter at the hands of Queen Elizabeth on the 31st December, 1600, but it was not until after the Restoration, when its privileges were confirmed by another charter, that it began to enter upon a career of such unexampled prosperity as to become at once an object of envy and fear. The management of the company's affairs rested in the hands of a small number of proprietors, the leading spirit for many years being Sir Josiah Child, one of the merchant princes of the city. With him was associated, at least for a time, Thomas Papillon, the zealous Whig. He had become a member of the company as early as 1657, and for many years took an active part in its management. He was one of the directors from 1663 to 1670; was re-appointed in 1675, but lost his seat on the board the following year, as also did Child, through the intervention of Charles the Second, who disliked their Whiggish principles. After a short interval both of them recovered their positions, and in 1680 and 1681 Papillon was deputy governor.1774[pg 576]When Child turned courtier and threw over his old colleagues, Papillon and other Whig shareholders sold their stock and severed their connection with the company. Their places on the directorate were filled up by others who were devoted to Child and his policy, and thenceforth Child became the autocrat of the company. "The treasures of the company were absolutely at his disposal.... A present of ten thousand guineas was graciously received from him by Charles. Ten thousand more were accepted by James, who readily consented to become a holder of stock.... Of what the dictator expended no account was asked by his colleagues."1775His policy was so far successful as to obtain a decision in favour of the company's privileges from Jeffreys and a renewal of its charter from James. Just at a time when the prospects of the company looked brightest a sudden change of fortune was occasioned by the Revolution and the subsequent accession of the Whigs to power. The outcry raised by the general merchants of the city against the company became louder than ever, not so much on account of the company being in possession of a monopoly as because it was ruled by a single individual, and his rule, while benefiting himself and his creatures, was prejudicial to the public welfare. To this outcry Papillon, who had now returned from exile, added his voice and thereby subjected himself to a charge of inconsistency.A New Company formed, 1689.There was but one remedy for the existing evil in the opinion of the majority, and that was to form a new company from which Child should be excluded.[pg 577]Without waiting for an Act of Parliament many traders in the city formed themselves into an association which, although unrecognised by law, acquired the designation of the New Company, and commenced to carry on its business at the hall of the Skinners' Company in Dowgate. For years the city was kept in a ferment by the rivalry existing between the Old and the New Company, between Leadenhall Street and Skinners' Hall, the former being supported by the Tories, the latter by the Whigs.Rivalry between the Old and the New Company.The sanction and assistance of parliament was sought for by both companies. The majority of the Commons were in favour of a compromise. They would have retained the Old Company, but wished to remodel it and to incorporate with it the members of the New Company. Such a proceeding, however, Child would not listen to, and his obstinacy so provoked the House that in February, 1692, it presented an address to the king praying him to dissolve the Old Company and to grant a charter to a New Company on such terms as to his majesty's wisdom might seem fit. The king replied that it was a matter of very great importance to the trade of the kingdom; that he could not be expected to give an immediate answer, but he would consider the matter and give an answer shortly.1776The company sought to avert the impending danger by offering the king the sum of £200,000 by way of loan for three years without any interest.1777A twelvemonth later (Feb., 1693) the Commons again petitioned the king to dissolve the Old Company upon[pg 578]three years' warning;1778but in spite of these attacks the company contrived to obtain a confirmation of its monopoly under the Great Seal in the following October.1779This was only obtained by a lavish distribution of money.Alderman Sir Thomas Cook governor of the Old Company in place of Child.In the meantime the management of the Old Company's affairs had been placed ostensibly in the hands of Sir Thomas Cook,1780an alderman of London and member for Colchester, although there is reason for believing that Child still continued to be the actual manager.The stoppage of the ship "Redbridge," 21 Oct., 1693.Within a few days of the order of the Privy Council for sealing the company's charter, and before the king, whose return from the continent was daily expected, could give it his sanction,1781the directors, in the moment of victory, committed an act of incredible rashness which led to serious consequences. A number of city merchants had recently chartered a vessel named "Redbridge" and placed on board a valuable cargo. Her papers showed her to be bound for a Spanish port, but suspicion pointed to her being intended for a voyage to the East Indies in contravention of the company's charter. Acting on this surmise, the company procured an order from the Privy Council to have the vessel stopt, and stopt[pg 579]she accordingly was from the 21st October until the following 9th November, each day's delay in sailing inflicting heavy expense on the owners. Such high-handed proceedings of the Company might create little excitement if carried out on the high seas and at a distance from home, but in the port of London they were not to be tolerated. The owners of the "Redbridge" laid their grievance before the Commons (30 Dec.).1782They pointed out that the conduct of the East India Company was "greatly prejudicial to all foreign trade and navigation in general, and more particularly to the petitioners, who by the present laws of the kingdom can have no reparation." They prayed, therefore, that the like inconveniences might be prevented for the future. Their petition was referred to a committee of the whole House, together with other petitions against the company, as well as the company's charters. In due course the committee, with Papillon in the chair, reported that the stopping of the "Redbridge" was "a grievance, a discouragement to trade and contrary to the known laws of the kingdom,"1783and further that, in the opinion of the Common Hall, "all the subjects of England have equal right to trade to the East Indies unless prohibited by Act of Parliament." This resolution was accepted by the House without a division,1784and for some years at least there nominally existed free trade with India.1785The City's petitionredebts to orphans, 1691.Between March, 1689, and February, 1691, little appears to have been done towards solving the[pg 580]difficulty of the claims of the City orphans. Another committee was appointed at the expiration of that time to consider the matter, and in November, 1691, the committee reported to the Common Council. They recommended that certain rents of the value of £8,000 per annum should be set aside towards the payment of four per cent. per annum for the immediate relief of the orphans, and that parliament should be asked to authorise the raising of a sum of £24,000 to be vested in the Corporation for the satisfaction of debts to existing orphans, and for security of the money of orphans that should be paid into the Chamber in future. The recommendation of the committee was accepted by the court (20 Nov.), and three days later a draft petition to parliament was read and approved.1786The petition set forth that in the troublous times during and after the reign of Charles I the City lost divers large sums of money, and that by reason of this, as well as of the destruction of the greatest part of their estate in the great fire and their losses consequent on the illegal judgment on theQuo Warranto, their debts to the orphans had amounted to a sum far larger than the City was able to pay without the assistance of parliament. It proceeded to lay before the House the scheme proposed by the committee, and prayed the House to assist the petitioners to raise a sufficient sum for an annual payment to be made in lieu of the said debts, or such other provision for the same as the House might think fit. On the 27th November leave was granted to bring in a Bill, and on the 3rd December a Bill was brought in and read the first time, but nothing further[pg 581]appears to have come of it.1787On the 6th August, 1692, a committee was appointed to consider the question how best the City's revenues might be improved with the view to the easier discharge of orphans' claims. The committee showed itself very active, meeting at least once and often twice a week. Nevertheless it was not until the 2nd November it was in a position to make a report to the Common Council.1788What was thought of the committee's recommendations is not recorded, but a few days later (11 Nov.) we find the court resolving to present a petition to parliament in precisely the same terms as their former petition.1789The Orphans' Bill of 1693.The matter was allowed to drag on until the 17th February of the next year (1693), when a committee was appointed by the House to prepare and bring in another Bill. A Bill was accordingly brought in on the 20th, read the first time on the 21st, read the second time on the 22nd and committed. Before the Bill passed through committee the City desired to be heard by counsel against the Bill on the ground that it divested the City of all its revenues, deprived it of much of its ancient and necessary jurisdiction, and would not answer the ends proposed.1790In March progress was reported, but before anything further could be done the House was prorogued.1791A fresh scheme, Feb., 1694.When the House re-assembled in November (1693) the City again presented a petition in terms[pg 582]similar to their former petitions. The petition having been referred to a committee of the whole House that committee reported (17 Feb., 1694) to the following effect,1792viz., that (1) a rent-charge of £8,000 per annum should be set aside out of the City's revenues towards payment of interest due to orphans, (2) that the City should be permitted to raise a sum not exceeding £2,000 per annum upon personal estates in the city to satisfy the orphans' debts, (3) that the patentees of a new kind of glass light known as convex lights1793should contribute an annual sum of £600, (4) that an additional duty of 4d.per chaldron should be imposed upon coal entering the port of London and 6d.per chaldron on coals imported into the city for a term of fifty years commencing from the determination of the duty already existing in respect of re-building St. Paul's, (5) that an additional duty of 4s.should be laid on every tun of wine entering the port of London, (6) that the improvements about to be made in the water supply of the city1794should also contribute, and lastly (7) that every person bound apprentice in the city should contribute 2s.6d., and every person made free of the city 5s.towards the same object.City Orphans' Act passed, March, 1694.A Bill1795was subsequently introduced embodying these resolutions, but with an additional proviso that[pg 583]when the tax of 6d.per chaldron on coals, to be imposed for a term of fifty years, should cease the City's lands should be charged with an annual sum of £6,000 over and above the rent-charge of £8,000 previously mentioned. The Bill was read the first and second time on the 22nd February, and the third time on the 12th March. A few days later (21 March) it passed the Lords without amendment, and on the 23rd received the royal assent.1796City loan of £200,000, 6 March, 1694.On the 6th March (1694) the lord keeper came to the Guildhall, accompanied by the lords of the treasury, to ask the Common Council for a loan of £200,000, upon security of the land tax, for naval and military purposes. The court at once assented, and before the end of the month the whole amount had been paid into the exchequer.1797The money was raised in the usual way from the inhabitants of each ward and from the livery companies. The Corporation itself was by no means well off, and encouragement was given to anyone who could suggest a means whereby the City's revenues could be increased.1798Recourse was had, among other things, to nominating for sheriff the least suitable men for the office, and such as would prefer paying the fine to serving. In no other way can one reasonably account for the fact that the fines for refusing to undertake the office of sheriff amounted for this year (1694) to over £5,000.1799[pg 584]The foundation of the Bank of England, April, 1694.This loan was but as a drop in the ocean compared with the necessities of the times. The estimates for the year 1694 were enormous. The army, which was already the largest standing force that England had ever seen, was to receive a large increase, whilst considerable sums of money were required for payment of arrears, no less than for the future expenses, of the navy. Notwithstanding the renewal of the land tax, the imposition of a poll-tax, the revival of stamp duties, and the raising of a million of money by a lottery loan, there yet remained a large deficit before the estimated revenue of the year balanced the estimated expenditure. At this juncture Charles Montague, poet, politician andsavant, took up a scheme propounded to government three years before by William Paterson, an enterprising if not always successful Scotsman, but allowed to drop. This scheme was none other than the formation of a national bank. The idea was not altogether a new one. Before the close of the reign of Charles II several plans of the kind had been suggested, some being in favour of establishing such a bank under the immediate direction of the Crown, whilst others were of opinion that its management should be entrusted to the Corporation of the city. It was now proposed to raise the sum of £1,200,000 for the use of the government by way of loan at eight per cent. interest, the subscribers being incorporated by the name of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The matter was introduced into parliament for the first time on the 28th March, in the shape of a Bill for granting their majesties certain tonnage duties on wine, ale and other liquors.1800[pg 585]Although it was not easy to recognise in the terms of the Bill the germ of "the greatest commercial institution that the world had ever seen,"1801it met with considerable opposition in the House, and still more outside. With their recent experience of the evils arising from a rich and powerful body like the East India Company, men were cautious in allowing a Corporation to be erected in their midst which, as many feared, would absorb the wealth of the nation,1802and might render the Crown independent of parliament and people. This last consideration was not unimportant, and, in order to avert the possibility of such a danger, a clause was inserted in the Bill forbidding under the severest penalties the new Corporation advancing money to the Crown without the authority of parliament.1803Subject to this and other conditions the Bill passed the Commons, and on the 24th April was agreed to by the Lords.1804At the head of the Commission, issued under the Great Seal for the establishment of the new bank, stood the name of the lord mayor, Sir William Ashurst; and out of the twenty-four original directors at least four rose to be chief magistrate of the city, whilst others are known to have taken an active part in the affairs of the municipality.1805In the city the undertaking met with a success beyond all expectation. The very first day (21 June) that the subscription lists were opened at Mercers' Hall nearly £300,000 was received, and[pg 586]within a week that amount was doubled. Sir John Houblon, who succeeded to the mayoralty the following year, and became the first Governor of the Bank, subscribed £10,000, the largest amount any one individual was allowed by the terms of the charter to subscribe before the first day of July. The same amount was subscribed by the lords of the treasury on behalf of the queen. By mid-day of the 2nd July the whole of the money (£1,200,000) had been subscribed and the books closed.1806The Great Seal was put to the bank charter, and business was commenced in the hall of the Grocers' Company.Hitherto, as we have seen, the city of London had always acted (as indeed it claimed to be) as the king's Chamber, and the occupier of the throne of England for the time being had never hesitated to draw upon this Chamber whenever he was in need of money. The mode of procedure was nearly always the same. The lords of the treasury would appear some morning before the Common Council, and after a few words of explanation as to the necessities of the time, would ask for a loan, offering in most cases (we are bound to confess) undeniable security. Supposing that the Council agreed to raise the required loan, which it nearly always did, the mayor for the time being was usually instructed to issue his precept to the aldermen to collect subscriptions within their several wards, whilst other precepts were (in later times at least) sent to the master or wardens of the livery companies to do the same among the members of their companies. There were times, also, when the[pg 587]companies were called upon to subscribe in proportion to their assessment for supplying the city with corn in times of distress.1807Times were now changed. Instead of applying to the City for an advance in case of need, the king thenceforth drew what he required from the Bank of England. During the remainder of his reign William only applied twice to the City for a loan: once, towards the close of 1696, when he required money for the army and navy, and again in 1697, when it was necessary to pay off his continental allies and lay up the navy after the peace of Ryswick (10 Sept.).1808The City, in its corporate capacity, was no longer to be the purse of the nation.The death of Queen Mary, 28 Dec, 1694.In December of this year (1694)—soon after his return from an unsuccessful campaign—William suffered an irreparable loss by the death of the queen. The old adage touching an ill wind received a curious exemplification at Queen Mary's death, for although that event sent down the stock of the Bank of England three per cent., it benefited the East India Company by causing a rapid rise in the price of muslin, a commodity of which we are told that company happened to possess a large quantity.1809The Court of Aldermen put themselves into mourning,1810whilst the Common Council voted an address of condolence to the king and ordered statues ("effigies") of both king and queen to be erected at the Royal[pg 588]Exchange.1811The king followed the advice given to him by the city fathers not to suffer too much "resentment" over his recent loss, and diverted himself by practising shooting on horseback in Richmond Park whilst his dead wife was still above ground.1812The queen's funeral, 5 March, 1695.The funeral did not take place until the 6th March (1695). In anticipation of that event the Court of Aldermen had some time since (18 Jan.) appointed a committee to consider of the right and title of the lord mayor, aldermen and sheriffs of the city to their mourning and their places in the funeral procession, as also of the mourning due to the several officers of the city. Four days later (22 Jan.) the committee reported1813to the effect that they had found from the records of the city that it had been the custom for the lord mayor, aldermen, recorder, sheriffs and the principal and other officers of the city to have mourning allowed them by the Crown at the public interments of kings and queens, but as to the places and precedency of the lord mayor and aldermen on those occasions the committee had only found one instance of a funeral procession, and that was at the funeral of Henry VII, when it appeared that the aldermen walked "next after the knights and before the great chaplains of dignitys and the knights of the garter being noe lords." The lord mayor (the report went on to say) was not named in the procession, but at the mass and offering at the interment it appeared that the lord mayor, with his[pg 589]mace in hand, offered next after the lord chamberlain, and the aldermen who had been mayors offered next to the knights of the garter and before the knights of the body, after whom came those aldermen who had not been lord mayor.1814The committee concluded their report by recommending that a deputation should wait upon the Privy Council and assert the right of the Court of Aldermen to mourning. The representation thereupon made had the desired effect and the usual mourning was allowed by warrant (29 Jan.).1815The citizens marked their respect for the late queen by shutting up their shops on the day of the funeral.1816Discovery of corrupt practices, 1695.The session of 1695 of William's first parliament was signalised by the discovery of a system of wholesale corruption. That every man had his price was scarcely less true in William's day than it was in the later age of Sir Robert Walpole. The discovery of one delinquent guilty of receiving money for services, real or supposed, quickly led to another, until suspicion turned upon the City of London itself. A rumour rapidly gained ground to the effect that the funds of the City as well as those of the East India Company had been largely employed in winning the favour of men in power, and the name of Sir John Trevor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, was mentioned among others.The Speaker convicted of bribery.On the 7th March the House appointed a committee to investigate the matter, with power to send for persons and papers.1817On the 12th the committee reported to the House that they had discovered an[pg 590]order of a committee appointed by the Corporation for the purpose of seeing the Orphans' Bill through parliament, dated the 12th February, 1694, authorising the payment of 1,000 guineas to the Speaker, Sir John Trevor, as soon as the Bill should pass. This order, they said, was signed by every member of the committee except Sir James Houblon and Mr. Deputy Ayres, and was endorsed to the effect that the money had been delivered and paid to the Hon. Sir John Trevor on the 22nd June, 1694, in the presence of Sir Robert Clayton and Sir James Houblon, brother of Sir John.1818When summoned to account for his having refused to sign the order of the committee whilst allowing himself to witness the actual payment of the money to the Speaker, Sir James excused himself by saying that he had accompanied Sir Robert Clayton, at the latter's request, professedly for the purpose of thanking the Speaker for his pains about the Orphans' Bill; that this being done, the Chamberlain, who had gone with them, pulled out a note or bill which he handed to the Speaker, but as to the nature of the note or bill Houblon declared himself to have been ignorant until subsequently informed by the Chamberlain. Other[pg 591]members of the Corporation Committee also gave evidence as to the warrant for payment of the money having been originally made out with a blank space left for the name of the payee. The report further declared that sums of money had been paid to Paul Godrell, clerk of the House of Commons, to the city solicitor, the solicitor-general and the chairman of the Corporation Committee in respect of the Orphans' Bill, whilst the orphans themselves had been prevailed upon to give security for the payment of five per cent. on their whole property to certain other parties who professed to be able to render valuable services in the event of the Bill being passed.1819The Speaker expelled the House, 16 March, 1695.By the time that the reading of the committee's report to the House was finished it was growing dusk, and candles were called for. A resolution was then moved and put to the house by Trevor himself, that the Speaker, by receiving a gratuity of 1,000 guineas from the city of London after passing of the Orphans' Bill, had been guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour. The resolution was passed, and four days later (16 March) Trevor was expelled the House.1820Transactions between the City and the Marquis of Normanby.A month later (18 April) the House of Lords were busy investigating the conduct of the Marquis of Normanby in accepting, and of the Corporation of the City in granting, a lease of a certain plot of land lying behind Clarendon House, part of the City's estate known as Conduit Mead. It was shown by oral and documentary evidence that a longer lease than usual had recently been granted (Jan., 1695) to the marquis as "a gratification," he being a person of distinction[pg 592]who had shown himself very friendly to the interests of the City and likely to continue so.1821Negotiations for a lease had been commenced so far back as January, 1694, "before the Orphans' Bill was on the anvill in the House of Commons."1822It was not denied that the City entertained the hope that the marquis would use his interest in expediting the passage of the Bill, and that this hope had been realised. On the other hand it was shown that when the marquis learnt that one of the conditions of the lease was that he should "covenant" to procure an Act of Parliament for settling some doubts of title to the land conveyed, he at once declared that such a thing was not in his power, but lay with the king, the lords and the commons; nevertheless, he consented to use his best endeavours in that direction. The marquis, it was said, had also been indiscreet enough to divulge certain proceedings of the House of Lords in the matter of the Convex Lights, and this formed the subject of an investigation by the House at the same time as the granting of this lease. After careful consideration the House entirely acquitted his lordship of blame in both cases.1823Corrupt practices of East India Company in connection with its charter.In considering the City's action in respect of the Orphans' Bill we must not forget to take into account the condition of the age. It was one in which peculation and venality were predominant. Nearly every official who was worth the buying could be bought, and the world thought none the worse of him provided that these pecuniary transactions were[pg 593]kept decently veiled. The "gifts and rewards" bestowed by the City with the object of expediting the passage of the Orphans' Bill were as nothing compared with the vast sums which the East India Company was reported to have disbursed in order to obtain the confirmation of its charter. It was the practice when Sir Thomas Cook was in power for the directors of the company to sign warrants for any sum that he might require without demanding particulars from him. In seven years (1688-1694) more than £100,000 had been disposed of for the company's "special service," nearly £90,000 of which had been disbursed whilst Cook was governor (1692-1693).1824Sir Thomas Cook and Sir Basil Firebrace.A parliamentary committee endeavoured to obtain some account as to how this large sum of money had been expended, but could learn nothing more than that it had been spent on the "special service" of the company and that a great part of it had been entrusted to Sir Basil Firebrace.1825Firebrace denied this, but confessed to having received upwards of £16,000 for which he had accounted to the company. The committee's report proceeded to inform the House that the company had spent considerable sums of money, under the guise of contracts, in buying up the interests of "interlopers" and getting them to join the company. They had found Sir Samuel Dashwood, Sir John Fleet, Sir Thomas Cook (all aldermen of the city), Sir Joseph Herne and John Perry to have been cognisant of[pg 594]these proceedings, but they being members of parliament the committee did not think fit to send for or examine them.1826Acting upon the committee's report, the House called upon Sir Thomas Cook (26 March) to give an account of the sum of £87,000 which he had received of the company's money, and upon his refusing committed him to the Tower.1827A Bill was within a few days introduced into the House for compelling Cook to make disclosure and rapidly passed (6 April).1828In the Upper House the Bill met with the strongest denunciation by the Duke of Leeds (who saw in it considerable danger to himself), as also by Cook himself, who was brought from the Tower for the purpose of allowing him to plead against the passing of such a Bill. At the Bar of the House the latter earnestly implored the Peers not to pass the Bill in its present form. Let them pass a Bill of Indemnity and he would tell them all. The Lords considered his request reasonable, and after a conference with the Lower House it was agreed that the Bill should take the form of an Indemnity Bill, and so it was passed (19 April), a joint committee of both Houses being appointed to examine Cook and others.1829Examination of Cook, 23 April, 1695.His examination, which took place in the Exchequer Chamber on the 23rd April, confirmed the committee's previous suspicions.1830The sum of £10,000[pg 595]had been paid (he said) to Sir Basil Firebrace about November, 1693, when the charter of the East India Company had been confirmed, and he had always been under the apprehension that Firebrace had pocketed the money "to recompense his losses in the interloping trade." A further sum of £30,000 had been paid to Firebrace on various contracts. There had been a contract involving the payment of £60,000 on account of procuring a new charter, and another of the value of £40,000 on account of getting the charter sanctioned by an Act of Parliament, but as no Act was passed this latter contract fell through. There was a further sum of £30,000 which had been lost to the company on account of certain stock it had agreed to purchase from Firebrace at the price of £150 per cent. at a time when the company's stock was standing at par. Firebrace had always refused to give him any account as to how this money was disposed of, and had declared that "if he were further pressed he would have no more to do in it." Such was the sum and substance of Cook's confession so far as it affected Firebrace.Examination of Firebrace, 24-26 April, 1695.The next day (24 April) Firebrace appeared before the committee. As to the £10,000 he had received from Cook, that was (he said) a gratuity which had been given to him before the granting of the charter. The other sum of £30,000 was due on a contract "for favours and services done." He was positive that both sums were intended "directly for himself and for the use of no other person whatsoever"; that he paid nothing thereout towards procuring either charter or Act, nor had promised to do so. He acknowledged himself to have been very[pg 596]active in his endeavours to gain over interlopers, and to improve the stock of the company, but when pressed by the committee for particulars he asked to be excused giving an immediate answer on the score of ill-health; he had not slept for two nights and was much indisposed.1831On the 25th and following day he was well enough to volunteer further evidence incriminating the Duke of Leeds. He told the committee of an interview he (Firebrace) had had with Sir Thomas Cook, when the latter expressed his apprehension lest the passing the East India Company's charter should be opposed by the lord president. They had then agreed to endeavour to win his lordship's favour by an offer of 5,000 guineas. That sum had been actually left at the duke's house, and it was only returned on the morning the enquiry opened. After the payment of the money both Cook and himself had enjoyed free access to the duke and found him willing to give them his assistance.1832Evidence of Josiah Child, 26 April, 1695.Among others who gave evidence was Child himself, who acknowledged that he had suggested an offer of £50,000 to the king in order to induce his majesty to waive his prerogative and allow the company to be settled by Act of Parliament. William, however, was impervious to a bribe and declined to meddle in the matter.Cook and Firebrace committed to the Tower.The result of the enquiry was that the Duke of Leeds was ordered to be impeached, whilst Firebrace and Cook were committed to the Tower.1833They[pg 597]recovered their liberty in April, 1696, and in July, 1698, Firebrace was created a baronet.1834The Old and the New Company agree to unite, 22 July, 1702.In July, 1702, the rival companies were content to sink their differences, and a union was effected.1835Shortly before this took place the Old Company voted the sum of £12,000 as a free gift to Cook for his past services.1836Firebrace, who had used his best endeavours to bring about the union, brought an action against the Old Company for compensation for his services, but consented to drop all proceedings on receiving stock in the company to the amount of £10,000.1837In 1704 Cook was elected mayor, but the state of his health not allowing him to serve, he was discharged. He died in September, 1709.1838Jacobite tumults during the king's absence abroad, May-Oct., 1695.On Sunday the 12th May, 1695, William again set out for the continent, and did not return until the 10th October. The great feature of the campaign was the brilliant siege and recovery of the town of Namur, which had been lost to the allied forces three years before. Baulked in a proposed design against the king's person by his unexpected departure, the Jacobites had to content themselves with other measures. On the 10th June, the birthday of the unfortunate Prince of Wales, a number of them met at a tavern in Drury Lane. Excited by wine they sallied forth, with drums beating and colours flying, and insisted on passers by drinking the prince's health.[pg 598]This roused the indignation of the neighbours, who sacked the tavern and put the revellers to flight, one of the ringleaders being seized and afterwards committed to Newgate.1839When, in the following August, the whole of London was on the tiptoe of excitement, waiting for news of the fall of Namur, the citizens were suddenly amazed at the sight of a horseman in military uniform riding through the main streets and announcing that William had been killed. That the wish was father to the thought became sufficiently clear to the by-standers when they heard the man declare with pistol in hand and sword drawn that he would kill anyone who denied the truth of his statement. A serious disturbance was avoided by his being incontinently dragged from his horse and carried before the lord mayor, who committed him to prison.1840Elections for a triennial parliament, Oct., 1695.When the king returned in October, with the laurels of victory fresh on his brow, he determined to seize the favourable opportunity for dissolving parliament. The result of the elections for a new parliament—the first triennial parliament under a recent Act—justified the course he had taken. The citizens, who had been among the first to welcome him on his arrival in London, and whose sheriffs—Edward Wills and Owen Buckingham—he had recently knighted,1841instead of returning Tory members, as in the late parliament, returned four Whigs, viz., three aldermen, Sir Robert Clayton, Sir John Fleet and Sir William Ashurst, and one commoner, Thomas Papillon. The election was strongly contested, a poll being demanded by three other candidates, viz., Sir[pg 599]William Pritchard, Sir Thomas Vernon and Sir William Russell, against the return of Clayton, Ashurst and Papillon. The result of the poll, however, left matters undisturbed.1842The contest in Westminster was more severe than in the city, but, like the latter, ended in a victory for the Whigs. Cook, who was still a prisoner in the Tower, again contested Colchester, but lost his seat.1843On the 22nd November the Houses met.The Barclay conspiracy, 1696.The king's return was a signal for fresh action on the part of the Jacobites. It was resolved to assassinate William on his return from hunting in Richmond Park. The management of the conspiracy was entrusted to Sir George Barclay, a Scotch refugee, who succeeded in getting together a small band of men willing to take part in the desperate enterprise. The plot was, however, discovered, and some of the leading conspirators arrested. On the evening of Sunday the 23rd February (1696) the lord mayor (Sir John Houblon) was summoned to the Privy Council and informed of the narrow escape of the king. He was charged to look well to the safety of the city. On Monday morning all the city trained bands were under arms, and on Tuesday the Common Council voted a congratulatory address to the king upon his escape.1844The signing of associations.By that time parliament had been informed of what had taken place. The Commons immediately suspended the Habeas Corpus Act and agreed to enter into an association for the defence of their king and country. An instrument was forthwith drawn up[pg 600]whereby each individual member of the House pledged himself to uphold King William and William's government against James and his adherents, and in case his majesty should meet with a violent death to unite with one another in inflicting condign vengeance on his murderers, and in supporting the order of succession to the crown as settled by the Bill of Rights. On Tuesday (25 Feb.) the House was called over; the association engrossed on parchment lay on the table, and every member present went up and signed, those who from sickness or other cause were absent being ordered to sign the document on their first appearance in the House, or publicly declare from their seat in the House their refusal to do so.1845The next day the Common Council of the city unanimously resolved to enter into the like association, the livery companies of the city being afterwards called upon by the mayor to do the same.1846Bill of Attainder against Sir John Fenwick.For weeks and months strict search was made in the city for Papists and suspect persons,1847and among them for Sir John Fenwick, for whose arrest a proclamation was issued on the 22nd March.1848He was eventually captured whilst making his way to the coast for the purpose of escaping to France, and was committed to Newgate. When a motion was made in November for proceeding against him by Bill of Attainder the sheriffs of London surrendered their charge to the sergeant-at-arms of the House of Commons. After his execution on Tower Hill in January[pg 601]of the following year (1697) some officers of Sheriff Blewet, whose duty it had been to keep watch over Fenwick by night and day whilst lying in Newgate, had to apply to the Court of Aldermen before they could get the sheriff to pay them the money (£9 10s.) due to them for that service.1849The City and the Election Bill, April, 1696.The discovery of the assassination plot had the result of rendering William's seat on the throne more secure than ever, and won for him the unqualified support of parliament. Early in February (1696) a Bill had been brought in to exclude from the House every person who did not possess a certain estate in land. The Bill met with much opposition in commercial circles, and more especially in the city of London,1850and the king being unwilling to estrange those merchants and traders who had so often assisted him, exercised his prerogative and declined to give his assent to the Bill. Thereupon some violent Tories moved that whoever advised the king to take this course was an enemy to him and the nation; but the House displayed its loyalty by rejecting the motion by an overwhelming majority and ordering the division list to be published.1851Resolution of the Common Hall, 29 Sept., 1696.The City was not behindhand in renewing its assurances of loyalty. The liverymen of the several companies assembled in the Guildhall for the election of a mayor on Michaelmas-day passed a resolution to stand by the king with their lives and fortunes, and desired the city members of parliament to see that a searching enquiry were made into the late conspiracy[pg 602]as the best means of preserving the king's person, establishing the government, and reviving trade and credit.1852The new currency, May-Aug., 1696.At the time when this resolution was passed the king was expected home from the continent, whither he had gone in May last. During his absence there had occurred a monetary crisis—the first since the establishment of the Bank of England—which, after causing for several months a great amount of distress, was destined to be succeeded by a long period of unbroken prosperity. An Act had recently been passed for calling in all clipt money and substituting milled money in its stead,1853and the crisis was brought about by the old money being called in before the new money was ready for issue. Saturday, the 2nd May, was practically the last day clipt money was received by the exchequer. Three days later the stock of milled money in the coffers of the Bank of England at Grocers' Hall had run out, and the governor of the Bank, Sir John Houblon, who happened at the time to be also lord mayor, had to propitiate the numerous claimants for the new money by offering them part payment in the old coin and the rest in the new as soon as it was minted.1854[pg 603]City loans, July-Nov., 1696.Towards the end of July matters became worse. In spite of the extraordinary activity displayed by the Mint authorities, at the Tower and in divers parts of the country, the supply had not equalled the demand, yet a large sum of money was now imperatively demanded for payment of the army on the continent. The king himself had written to say that unless the money was forthcoming his troops were ready to mutiny or desert. Nothing less than a million would satisfy the requirements of the army in Flanders, a like sum was wanted for the navy, whilst half that amount was necessary for the army in England.1855How was this enormous sum to be raised? It was thought that the City might vote something towards it, but the Chamberlain declared that any proposal for a loan at that time would with difficulty be carried into execution owing to the scarcity of money.1856Some private individuals, however, managed to raise £200,000 for the king, whilst others, like Sir Josiah Child, Charles Duncombe and Sir Joseph Herne, were prepared to stand security for £300,000 more, which the Dutch were ready to advance. After long deliberation the Bank of England agreed (15 Aug.) to advance another £200,000.1857These sums sufficed for the more immediate wants of the king, and allowed time for the issue of the new currency.The Peace of Ryswick, 10 Sept., 1697.The campaign of 1696 had been carried on in a very desultory way. All parties were anxious for a peace. Towards the end of April, 1697, William once more crossed over to Flanders,1858and the French king having for the first time shown a disposition to come[pg 604]to terms, it was arranged that a congress should meet near the Hague. The result of the congress was the conclusion (10 Sept.) of the Peace of Ryswick, whereby Louis consented to acknowledge William's title to the throne. The news was received in the city four days later with every demonstration of joy; the Tower guns were discharged, flags hung out, bells set ringing and bonfires lighted.1859Preparations to welcome the king on his return.The Court of Aldermen resolved to give the king a more than ordinary reception on his return. Search was made for precedents as to the manner in which former kings had been received on their return from progresses or from parts beyond the sea, and these precedents, from the time of Edward IV down to that of King Charles II, were duly reported to the court by a committee appointed to make the search.1860The committee was next instructed to consider of suitable ways and methods for the reception of his majesty if he should be pleased to pass through the city, and on this also the committee reported with elaborate detail.1861These and other preparations were all made under the apprehension that the king was about to return immediately. Weeks went by and no king appeared. The Court of Aldermen availed themselves of the delay to put the finishing touches to the programme of welcome that was to be accorded him, and to commit into custody any suspicious character they found.1862At length, after long and impatient expectation, news came that the king had[pg 605]landed at Margate on the 14th November.1863By the following night his majesty reached Greenwich and rested in the handsome building which, at the desire of his beloved queen, had been recently converted from a palace into a hospital for disabled seamen.1864The king met at Southwark by the mayor, aldermen, etc., 16 Nov., 1697.The lord mayor immediately issued his precept to the several livery companies (they had received a previous warning to prepare for the occasion on the 1st October)1865to be ready in their stands by eight o'clock on the morning of Tuesday the 16th November, well apparelled and with all the ornaments of their companies before them.1866That morning witnessed one of the finest sights that had ever been seen in the city of London, famous as it always had been for its pageantry. No expense had been spared in providing new gowns for the magistrates and new banners for the companies. The mayor, aldermen and sheriffs rode out "in their formalities" as far as Southwark, where they met the king, and where the usual ceremony took place of surrendering the civic sword into his majesty's hands, to be immediately returned to the lord mayor. This done, the procession was formed, and the king was escorted with trumpets and kettle-drums through the entire length of the city, the streets being guarded by the six regiments of trained bands, and the houses rendered bright with hangings of tapestry.1867[pg 606]Congratulations offered by the city, 17 Nov., 1697.On Wednesday the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, accompanied by the recorder, waited upon his majesty and congratulated him on the peace and on his safe return. The king in reply thanked them, and conferred the honour of knighthood upon the sheriffs, Bartholomew Gracedieu and James Collett.1868A day of public thanksgiving, 2 Dec.The rejoicings terminated with a thanksgiving service at St. Paul's (2 Dec.), the work of Sir Christopher Wren being sufficiently advanced to admit of divine service being held there. The mayor and aldermen attended in state. The king did not attend lest his presence should draw off congregations from other churches; but he attended service in his private chapel at Whitehall. Not only in London but throughout the kingdom the day was solemnly observed, whilst the night was given up to festivity and fireworks.1869Parliamentary elections for the city, 1698-1701.When, in 1698, the first triennial parliament had run its course and a new election of members for the city took place all the old members retained their seats except Sir Robert Clayton. His place was taken by Sir James Houblon, a Tory. On this occasion the election for the city did not take place until the returns of many constituencies in the country had been made known. As a rule the returns of the metropolitan constituencies were looked forward to as an augury of the political complexion of the coming parliament. This parliament was not allowed to live its full time, but was dissolved in December, 1700, a new parliament being summoned to meet in[pg 607]the following February (1701).1870Sir Robert Clayton regained his seat, and with him were returned Sir William Ashurst (who headed the poll), Gilbert Heathcote and Sir William Withers.1871Upon Heathcote being declared by parliament disqualified to sit owing to a technical breach of trust his seat was taken by Sir John Fleet.1872Death of James II, 5 Sept., 1701.The City's address of loyalty to William.After the death of James II at St. Germains (5 Sept., 1701) Louis broke his vow (made at Ryswick) not to do anything to disturb or subvert the government of England, and forthwith proclaimed the late king's son to be heir to his father's throne. The whole English nation was stirred against the French king for having dared to acknowledge as their sovereign the boy who had been held to be supposititious and whose title to the crown had been rejected by parliament. The citizens of London were among the first to express their loyalty to William and their readiness to do their utmost to preserve his person and government against all invasion. The king was on the continent at the time, but an address to this effect, unanimously agreed to by the Common Council (26 Sept.), was forwarded to him by the lords justices, who held the reins of government during his absence, and who in due course were instructed to inform the City of the great satisfaction its address had afforded his majesty. The example thus set was quickly followed by others, and similar addresses began to flow in from all parts of the kingdom,1873[pg 608]whilst the City's address was by the king's orders translated into foreign languages for transmission to the several courts of Europe.1874Sir William Gore elected mayor, Sept., 1701.A few hours before the City's address reached the hands of the lords justices the citizens had assembled (29 Sept.) in Common Hall to choose a mayor for the ensuing year. Sir Charles Duncombe, who had amassed a large fortune as a goldsmith and banker, and who, although returned by the livery at the head of the poll the previous year, had been set aside by the Court of Aldermen in his contest for the mayoralty probably on account of his Tory principles,1875was again put up as a candidate, although in point of seniority he was one of the youngest aldermen. This time he failed to get a majority of votes at the Common Hall, but his popularity was still sufficiently strong to return him second on the poll, and his name was submitted in conjunction with that of William Gore to the Court of Aldermen for them to select one. It was quite within their province to select if they chose the second name submitted to them—they[pg 609]had frequently done so before—but in the face of Louis's recent act of insolence they preferred to call to the mayoralty chair a man whose Tory principles were not too pronounced rather than one who had accepted an alderman's commission from James II, and Sir William Gore was accordingly declared elected.1876Election of William's last parliament, Nov.-Dec., 1701.The parliament which assembled in February, 1701, enjoyed a still shorter existence than its predecessor, for it was dissolved in the following November. Another was summoned to meet in December.1877Great excitement prevailed in the city over this election. The Whigs met at the Crown Tavern behind the Exchange and agreed to put up three of the old members, viz., Clayton, Ashurst and Heathcote, and to run a fresh candidate in the person of Sir Thomas Abney. The Tory or "Church party" opposed these candidates with four others, viz., Sir William Gore, the lord mayor, Sir John Fleet, Sir Richard Levett and Sir Charles Duncombe, the recently defeated candidate for the mayoralty. When it came to polling all four Whigs were returned by an overwhelming majority.1878This was the last parliament of William's reign. On the 20th February (1702) he was thrown from his horse whilst riding in Richmond Park and broke his collar-bone. His health had previously shown signs of giving way. On the 8th March he died.

[pg 575]CHAPTER XXXIII.The rise of the East India Company, 1600-1689.Soon after parliament resumed its sittings (7 Nov., 1693) the attention of the Commons was drawn to a high-handed act done by the wealthy and autocratic company known as the East India Company. For nearly a century that body of merchants had enjoyed a monopoly of trade with the East Indies and had frustrated all attempts of "interlopers" to share their privileges. It had received its first charter at the hands of Queen Elizabeth on the 31st December, 1600, but it was not until after the Restoration, when its privileges were confirmed by another charter, that it began to enter upon a career of such unexampled prosperity as to become at once an object of envy and fear. The management of the company's affairs rested in the hands of a small number of proprietors, the leading spirit for many years being Sir Josiah Child, one of the merchant princes of the city. With him was associated, at least for a time, Thomas Papillon, the zealous Whig. He had become a member of the company as early as 1657, and for many years took an active part in its management. He was one of the directors from 1663 to 1670; was re-appointed in 1675, but lost his seat on the board the following year, as also did Child, through the intervention of Charles the Second, who disliked their Whiggish principles. After a short interval both of them recovered their positions, and in 1680 and 1681 Papillon was deputy governor.1774[pg 576]When Child turned courtier and threw over his old colleagues, Papillon and other Whig shareholders sold their stock and severed their connection with the company. Their places on the directorate were filled up by others who were devoted to Child and his policy, and thenceforth Child became the autocrat of the company. "The treasures of the company were absolutely at his disposal.... A present of ten thousand guineas was graciously received from him by Charles. Ten thousand more were accepted by James, who readily consented to become a holder of stock.... Of what the dictator expended no account was asked by his colleagues."1775His policy was so far successful as to obtain a decision in favour of the company's privileges from Jeffreys and a renewal of its charter from James. Just at a time when the prospects of the company looked brightest a sudden change of fortune was occasioned by the Revolution and the subsequent accession of the Whigs to power. The outcry raised by the general merchants of the city against the company became louder than ever, not so much on account of the company being in possession of a monopoly as because it was ruled by a single individual, and his rule, while benefiting himself and his creatures, was prejudicial to the public welfare. To this outcry Papillon, who had now returned from exile, added his voice and thereby subjected himself to a charge of inconsistency.A New Company formed, 1689.There was but one remedy for the existing evil in the opinion of the majority, and that was to form a new company from which Child should be excluded.[pg 577]Without waiting for an Act of Parliament many traders in the city formed themselves into an association which, although unrecognised by law, acquired the designation of the New Company, and commenced to carry on its business at the hall of the Skinners' Company in Dowgate. For years the city was kept in a ferment by the rivalry existing between the Old and the New Company, between Leadenhall Street and Skinners' Hall, the former being supported by the Tories, the latter by the Whigs.Rivalry between the Old and the New Company.The sanction and assistance of parliament was sought for by both companies. The majority of the Commons were in favour of a compromise. They would have retained the Old Company, but wished to remodel it and to incorporate with it the members of the New Company. Such a proceeding, however, Child would not listen to, and his obstinacy so provoked the House that in February, 1692, it presented an address to the king praying him to dissolve the Old Company and to grant a charter to a New Company on such terms as to his majesty's wisdom might seem fit. The king replied that it was a matter of very great importance to the trade of the kingdom; that he could not be expected to give an immediate answer, but he would consider the matter and give an answer shortly.1776The company sought to avert the impending danger by offering the king the sum of £200,000 by way of loan for three years without any interest.1777A twelvemonth later (Feb., 1693) the Commons again petitioned the king to dissolve the Old Company upon[pg 578]three years' warning;1778but in spite of these attacks the company contrived to obtain a confirmation of its monopoly under the Great Seal in the following October.1779This was only obtained by a lavish distribution of money.Alderman Sir Thomas Cook governor of the Old Company in place of Child.In the meantime the management of the Old Company's affairs had been placed ostensibly in the hands of Sir Thomas Cook,1780an alderman of London and member for Colchester, although there is reason for believing that Child still continued to be the actual manager.The stoppage of the ship "Redbridge," 21 Oct., 1693.Within a few days of the order of the Privy Council for sealing the company's charter, and before the king, whose return from the continent was daily expected, could give it his sanction,1781the directors, in the moment of victory, committed an act of incredible rashness which led to serious consequences. A number of city merchants had recently chartered a vessel named "Redbridge" and placed on board a valuable cargo. Her papers showed her to be bound for a Spanish port, but suspicion pointed to her being intended for a voyage to the East Indies in contravention of the company's charter. Acting on this surmise, the company procured an order from the Privy Council to have the vessel stopt, and stopt[pg 579]she accordingly was from the 21st October until the following 9th November, each day's delay in sailing inflicting heavy expense on the owners. Such high-handed proceedings of the Company might create little excitement if carried out on the high seas and at a distance from home, but in the port of London they were not to be tolerated. The owners of the "Redbridge" laid their grievance before the Commons (30 Dec.).1782They pointed out that the conduct of the East India Company was "greatly prejudicial to all foreign trade and navigation in general, and more particularly to the petitioners, who by the present laws of the kingdom can have no reparation." They prayed, therefore, that the like inconveniences might be prevented for the future. Their petition was referred to a committee of the whole House, together with other petitions against the company, as well as the company's charters. In due course the committee, with Papillon in the chair, reported that the stopping of the "Redbridge" was "a grievance, a discouragement to trade and contrary to the known laws of the kingdom,"1783and further that, in the opinion of the Common Hall, "all the subjects of England have equal right to trade to the East Indies unless prohibited by Act of Parliament." This resolution was accepted by the House without a division,1784and for some years at least there nominally existed free trade with India.1785The City's petitionredebts to orphans, 1691.Between March, 1689, and February, 1691, little appears to have been done towards solving the[pg 580]difficulty of the claims of the City orphans. Another committee was appointed at the expiration of that time to consider the matter, and in November, 1691, the committee reported to the Common Council. They recommended that certain rents of the value of £8,000 per annum should be set aside towards the payment of four per cent. per annum for the immediate relief of the orphans, and that parliament should be asked to authorise the raising of a sum of £24,000 to be vested in the Corporation for the satisfaction of debts to existing orphans, and for security of the money of orphans that should be paid into the Chamber in future. The recommendation of the committee was accepted by the court (20 Nov.), and three days later a draft petition to parliament was read and approved.1786The petition set forth that in the troublous times during and after the reign of Charles I the City lost divers large sums of money, and that by reason of this, as well as of the destruction of the greatest part of their estate in the great fire and their losses consequent on the illegal judgment on theQuo Warranto, their debts to the orphans had amounted to a sum far larger than the City was able to pay without the assistance of parliament. It proceeded to lay before the House the scheme proposed by the committee, and prayed the House to assist the petitioners to raise a sufficient sum for an annual payment to be made in lieu of the said debts, or such other provision for the same as the House might think fit. On the 27th November leave was granted to bring in a Bill, and on the 3rd December a Bill was brought in and read the first time, but nothing further[pg 581]appears to have come of it.1787On the 6th August, 1692, a committee was appointed to consider the question how best the City's revenues might be improved with the view to the easier discharge of orphans' claims. The committee showed itself very active, meeting at least once and often twice a week. Nevertheless it was not until the 2nd November it was in a position to make a report to the Common Council.1788What was thought of the committee's recommendations is not recorded, but a few days later (11 Nov.) we find the court resolving to present a petition to parliament in precisely the same terms as their former petition.1789The Orphans' Bill of 1693.The matter was allowed to drag on until the 17th February of the next year (1693), when a committee was appointed by the House to prepare and bring in another Bill. A Bill was accordingly brought in on the 20th, read the first time on the 21st, read the second time on the 22nd and committed. Before the Bill passed through committee the City desired to be heard by counsel against the Bill on the ground that it divested the City of all its revenues, deprived it of much of its ancient and necessary jurisdiction, and would not answer the ends proposed.1790In March progress was reported, but before anything further could be done the House was prorogued.1791A fresh scheme, Feb., 1694.When the House re-assembled in November (1693) the City again presented a petition in terms[pg 582]similar to their former petitions. The petition having been referred to a committee of the whole House that committee reported (17 Feb., 1694) to the following effect,1792viz., that (1) a rent-charge of £8,000 per annum should be set aside out of the City's revenues towards payment of interest due to orphans, (2) that the City should be permitted to raise a sum not exceeding £2,000 per annum upon personal estates in the city to satisfy the orphans' debts, (3) that the patentees of a new kind of glass light known as convex lights1793should contribute an annual sum of £600, (4) that an additional duty of 4d.per chaldron should be imposed upon coal entering the port of London and 6d.per chaldron on coals imported into the city for a term of fifty years commencing from the determination of the duty already existing in respect of re-building St. Paul's, (5) that an additional duty of 4s.should be laid on every tun of wine entering the port of London, (6) that the improvements about to be made in the water supply of the city1794should also contribute, and lastly (7) that every person bound apprentice in the city should contribute 2s.6d., and every person made free of the city 5s.towards the same object.City Orphans' Act passed, March, 1694.A Bill1795was subsequently introduced embodying these resolutions, but with an additional proviso that[pg 583]when the tax of 6d.per chaldron on coals, to be imposed for a term of fifty years, should cease the City's lands should be charged with an annual sum of £6,000 over and above the rent-charge of £8,000 previously mentioned. The Bill was read the first and second time on the 22nd February, and the third time on the 12th March. A few days later (21 March) it passed the Lords without amendment, and on the 23rd received the royal assent.1796City loan of £200,000, 6 March, 1694.On the 6th March (1694) the lord keeper came to the Guildhall, accompanied by the lords of the treasury, to ask the Common Council for a loan of £200,000, upon security of the land tax, for naval and military purposes. The court at once assented, and before the end of the month the whole amount had been paid into the exchequer.1797The money was raised in the usual way from the inhabitants of each ward and from the livery companies. The Corporation itself was by no means well off, and encouragement was given to anyone who could suggest a means whereby the City's revenues could be increased.1798Recourse was had, among other things, to nominating for sheriff the least suitable men for the office, and such as would prefer paying the fine to serving. In no other way can one reasonably account for the fact that the fines for refusing to undertake the office of sheriff amounted for this year (1694) to over £5,000.1799[pg 584]The foundation of the Bank of England, April, 1694.This loan was but as a drop in the ocean compared with the necessities of the times. The estimates for the year 1694 were enormous. The army, which was already the largest standing force that England had ever seen, was to receive a large increase, whilst considerable sums of money were required for payment of arrears, no less than for the future expenses, of the navy. Notwithstanding the renewal of the land tax, the imposition of a poll-tax, the revival of stamp duties, and the raising of a million of money by a lottery loan, there yet remained a large deficit before the estimated revenue of the year balanced the estimated expenditure. At this juncture Charles Montague, poet, politician andsavant, took up a scheme propounded to government three years before by William Paterson, an enterprising if not always successful Scotsman, but allowed to drop. This scheme was none other than the formation of a national bank. The idea was not altogether a new one. Before the close of the reign of Charles II several plans of the kind had been suggested, some being in favour of establishing such a bank under the immediate direction of the Crown, whilst others were of opinion that its management should be entrusted to the Corporation of the city. It was now proposed to raise the sum of £1,200,000 for the use of the government by way of loan at eight per cent. interest, the subscribers being incorporated by the name of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The matter was introduced into parliament for the first time on the 28th March, in the shape of a Bill for granting their majesties certain tonnage duties on wine, ale and other liquors.1800[pg 585]Although it was not easy to recognise in the terms of the Bill the germ of "the greatest commercial institution that the world had ever seen,"1801it met with considerable opposition in the House, and still more outside. With their recent experience of the evils arising from a rich and powerful body like the East India Company, men were cautious in allowing a Corporation to be erected in their midst which, as many feared, would absorb the wealth of the nation,1802and might render the Crown independent of parliament and people. This last consideration was not unimportant, and, in order to avert the possibility of such a danger, a clause was inserted in the Bill forbidding under the severest penalties the new Corporation advancing money to the Crown without the authority of parliament.1803Subject to this and other conditions the Bill passed the Commons, and on the 24th April was agreed to by the Lords.1804At the head of the Commission, issued under the Great Seal for the establishment of the new bank, stood the name of the lord mayor, Sir William Ashurst; and out of the twenty-four original directors at least four rose to be chief magistrate of the city, whilst others are known to have taken an active part in the affairs of the municipality.1805In the city the undertaking met with a success beyond all expectation. The very first day (21 June) that the subscription lists were opened at Mercers' Hall nearly £300,000 was received, and[pg 586]within a week that amount was doubled. Sir John Houblon, who succeeded to the mayoralty the following year, and became the first Governor of the Bank, subscribed £10,000, the largest amount any one individual was allowed by the terms of the charter to subscribe before the first day of July. The same amount was subscribed by the lords of the treasury on behalf of the queen. By mid-day of the 2nd July the whole of the money (£1,200,000) had been subscribed and the books closed.1806The Great Seal was put to the bank charter, and business was commenced in the hall of the Grocers' Company.Hitherto, as we have seen, the city of London had always acted (as indeed it claimed to be) as the king's Chamber, and the occupier of the throne of England for the time being had never hesitated to draw upon this Chamber whenever he was in need of money. The mode of procedure was nearly always the same. The lords of the treasury would appear some morning before the Common Council, and after a few words of explanation as to the necessities of the time, would ask for a loan, offering in most cases (we are bound to confess) undeniable security. Supposing that the Council agreed to raise the required loan, which it nearly always did, the mayor for the time being was usually instructed to issue his precept to the aldermen to collect subscriptions within their several wards, whilst other precepts were (in later times at least) sent to the master or wardens of the livery companies to do the same among the members of their companies. There were times, also, when the[pg 587]companies were called upon to subscribe in proportion to their assessment for supplying the city with corn in times of distress.1807Times were now changed. Instead of applying to the City for an advance in case of need, the king thenceforth drew what he required from the Bank of England. During the remainder of his reign William only applied twice to the City for a loan: once, towards the close of 1696, when he required money for the army and navy, and again in 1697, when it was necessary to pay off his continental allies and lay up the navy after the peace of Ryswick (10 Sept.).1808The City, in its corporate capacity, was no longer to be the purse of the nation.The death of Queen Mary, 28 Dec, 1694.In December of this year (1694)—soon after his return from an unsuccessful campaign—William suffered an irreparable loss by the death of the queen. The old adage touching an ill wind received a curious exemplification at Queen Mary's death, for although that event sent down the stock of the Bank of England three per cent., it benefited the East India Company by causing a rapid rise in the price of muslin, a commodity of which we are told that company happened to possess a large quantity.1809The Court of Aldermen put themselves into mourning,1810whilst the Common Council voted an address of condolence to the king and ordered statues ("effigies") of both king and queen to be erected at the Royal[pg 588]Exchange.1811The king followed the advice given to him by the city fathers not to suffer too much "resentment" over his recent loss, and diverted himself by practising shooting on horseback in Richmond Park whilst his dead wife was still above ground.1812The queen's funeral, 5 March, 1695.The funeral did not take place until the 6th March (1695). In anticipation of that event the Court of Aldermen had some time since (18 Jan.) appointed a committee to consider of the right and title of the lord mayor, aldermen and sheriffs of the city to their mourning and their places in the funeral procession, as also of the mourning due to the several officers of the city. Four days later (22 Jan.) the committee reported1813to the effect that they had found from the records of the city that it had been the custom for the lord mayor, aldermen, recorder, sheriffs and the principal and other officers of the city to have mourning allowed them by the Crown at the public interments of kings and queens, but as to the places and precedency of the lord mayor and aldermen on those occasions the committee had only found one instance of a funeral procession, and that was at the funeral of Henry VII, when it appeared that the aldermen walked "next after the knights and before the great chaplains of dignitys and the knights of the garter being noe lords." The lord mayor (the report went on to say) was not named in the procession, but at the mass and offering at the interment it appeared that the lord mayor, with his[pg 589]mace in hand, offered next after the lord chamberlain, and the aldermen who had been mayors offered next to the knights of the garter and before the knights of the body, after whom came those aldermen who had not been lord mayor.1814The committee concluded their report by recommending that a deputation should wait upon the Privy Council and assert the right of the Court of Aldermen to mourning. The representation thereupon made had the desired effect and the usual mourning was allowed by warrant (29 Jan.).1815The citizens marked their respect for the late queen by shutting up their shops on the day of the funeral.1816Discovery of corrupt practices, 1695.The session of 1695 of William's first parliament was signalised by the discovery of a system of wholesale corruption. That every man had his price was scarcely less true in William's day than it was in the later age of Sir Robert Walpole. The discovery of one delinquent guilty of receiving money for services, real or supposed, quickly led to another, until suspicion turned upon the City of London itself. A rumour rapidly gained ground to the effect that the funds of the City as well as those of the East India Company had been largely employed in winning the favour of men in power, and the name of Sir John Trevor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, was mentioned among others.The Speaker convicted of bribery.On the 7th March the House appointed a committee to investigate the matter, with power to send for persons and papers.1817On the 12th the committee reported to the House that they had discovered an[pg 590]order of a committee appointed by the Corporation for the purpose of seeing the Orphans' Bill through parliament, dated the 12th February, 1694, authorising the payment of 1,000 guineas to the Speaker, Sir John Trevor, as soon as the Bill should pass. This order, they said, was signed by every member of the committee except Sir James Houblon and Mr. Deputy Ayres, and was endorsed to the effect that the money had been delivered and paid to the Hon. Sir John Trevor on the 22nd June, 1694, in the presence of Sir Robert Clayton and Sir James Houblon, brother of Sir John.1818When summoned to account for his having refused to sign the order of the committee whilst allowing himself to witness the actual payment of the money to the Speaker, Sir James excused himself by saying that he had accompanied Sir Robert Clayton, at the latter's request, professedly for the purpose of thanking the Speaker for his pains about the Orphans' Bill; that this being done, the Chamberlain, who had gone with them, pulled out a note or bill which he handed to the Speaker, but as to the nature of the note or bill Houblon declared himself to have been ignorant until subsequently informed by the Chamberlain. Other[pg 591]members of the Corporation Committee also gave evidence as to the warrant for payment of the money having been originally made out with a blank space left for the name of the payee. The report further declared that sums of money had been paid to Paul Godrell, clerk of the House of Commons, to the city solicitor, the solicitor-general and the chairman of the Corporation Committee in respect of the Orphans' Bill, whilst the orphans themselves had been prevailed upon to give security for the payment of five per cent. on their whole property to certain other parties who professed to be able to render valuable services in the event of the Bill being passed.1819The Speaker expelled the House, 16 March, 1695.By the time that the reading of the committee's report to the House was finished it was growing dusk, and candles were called for. A resolution was then moved and put to the house by Trevor himself, that the Speaker, by receiving a gratuity of 1,000 guineas from the city of London after passing of the Orphans' Bill, had been guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour. The resolution was passed, and four days later (16 March) Trevor was expelled the House.1820Transactions between the City and the Marquis of Normanby.A month later (18 April) the House of Lords were busy investigating the conduct of the Marquis of Normanby in accepting, and of the Corporation of the City in granting, a lease of a certain plot of land lying behind Clarendon House, part of the City's estate known as Conduit Mead. It was shown by oral and documentary evidence that a longer lease than usual had recently been granted (Jan., 1695) to the marquis as "a gratification," he being a person of distinction[pg 592]who had shown himself very friendly to the interests of the City and likely to continue so.1821Negotiations for a lease had been commenced so far back as January, 1694, "before the Orphans' Bill was on the anvill in the House of Commons."1822It was not denied that the City entertained the hope that the marquis would use his interest in expediting the passage of the Bill, and that this hope had been realised. On the other hand it was shown that when the marquis learnt that one of the conditions of the lease was that he should "covenant" to procure an Act of Parliament for settling some doubts of title to the land conveyed, he at once declared that such a thing was not in his power, but lay with the king, the lords and the commons; nevertheless, he consented to use his best endeavours in that direction. The marquis, it was said, had also been indiscreet enough to divulge certain proceedings of the House of Lords in the matter of the Convex Lights, and this formed the subject of an investigation by the House at the same time as the granting of this lease. After careful consideration the House entirely acquitted his lordship of blame in both cases.1823Corrupt practices of East India Company in connection with its charter.In considering the City's action in respect of the Orphans' Bill we must not forget to take into account the condition of the age. It was one in which peculation and venality were predominant. Nearly every official who was worth the buying could be bought, and the world thought none the worse of him provided that these pecuniary transactions were[pg 593]kept decently veiled. The "gifts and rewards" bestowed by the City with the object of expediting the passage of the Orphans' Bill were as nothing compared with the vast sums which the East India Company was reported to have disbursed in order to obtain the confirmation of its charter. It was the practice when Sir Thomas Cook was in power for the directors of the company to sign warrants for any sum that he might require without demanding particulars from him. In seven years (1688-1694) more than £100,000 had been disposed of for the company's "special service," nearly £90,000 of which had been disbursed whilst Cook was governor (1692-1693).1824Sir Thomas Cook and Sir Basil Firebrace.A parliamentary committee endeavoured to obtain some account as to how this large sum of money had been expended, but could learn nothing more than that it had been spent on the "special service" of the company and that a great part of it had been entrusted to Sir Basil Firebrace.1825Firebrace denied this, but confessed to having received upwards of £16,000 for which he had accounted to the company. The committee's report proceeded to inform the House that the company had spent considerable sums of money, under the guise of contracts, in buying up the interests of "interlopers" and getting them to join the company. They had found Sir Samuel Dashwood, Sir John Fleet, Sir Thomas Cook (all aldermen of the city), Sir Joseph Herne and John Perry to have been cognisant of[pg 594]these proceedings, but they being members of parliament the committee did not think fit to send for or examine them.1826Acting upon the committee's report, the House called upon Sir Thomas Cook (26 March) to give an account of the sum of £87,000 which he had received of the company's money, and upon his refusing committed him to the Tower.1827A Bill was within a few days introduced into the House for compelling Cook to make disclosure and rapidly passed (6 April).1828In the Upper House the Bill met with the strongest denunciation by the Duke of Leeds (who saw in it considerable danger to himself), as also by Cook himself, who was brought from the Tower for the purpose of allowing him to plead against the passing of such a Bill. At the Bar of the House the latter earnestly implored the Peers not to pass the Bill in its present form. Let them pass a Bill of Indemnity and he would tell them all. The Lords considered his request reasonable, and after a conference with the Lower House it was agreed that the Bill should take the form of an Indemnity Bill, and so it was passed (19 April), a joint committee of both Houses being appointed to examine Cook and others.1829Examination of Cook, 23 April, 1695.His examination, which took place in the Exchequer Chamber on the 23rd April, confirmed the committee's previous suspicions.1830The sum of £10,000[pg 595]had been paid (he said) to Sir Basil Firebrace about November, 1693, when the charter of the East India Company had been confirmed, and he had always been under the apprehension that Firebrace had pocketed the money "to recompense his losses in the interloping trade." A further sum of £30,000 had been paid to Firebrace on various contracts. There had been a contract involving the payment of £60,000 on account of procuring a new charter, and another of the value of £40,000 on account of getting the charter sanctioned by an Act of Parliament, but as no Act was passed this latter contract fell through. There was a further sum of £30,000 which had been lost to the company on account of certain stock it had agreed to purchase from Firebrace at the price of £150 per cent. at a time when the company's stock was standing at par. Firebrace had always refused to give him any account as to how this money was disposed of, and had declared that "if he were further pressed he would have no more to do in it." Such was the sum and substance of Cook's confession so far as it affected Firebrace.Examination of Firebrace, 24-26 April, 1695.The next day (24 April) Firebrace appeared before the committee. As to the £10,000 he had received from Cook, that was (he said) a gratuity which had been given to him before the granting of the charter. The other sum of £30,000 was due on a contract "for favours and services done." He was positive that both sums were intended "directly for himself and for the use of no other person whatsoever"; that he paid nothing thereout towards procuring either charter or Act, nor had promised to do so. He acknowledged himself to have been very[pg 596]active in his endeavours to gain over interlopers, and to improve the stock of the company, but when pressed by the committee for particulars he asked to be excused giving an immediate answer on the score of ill-health; he had not slept for two nights and was much indisposed.1831On the 25th and following day he was well enough to volunteer further evidence incriminating the Duke of Leeds. He told the committee of an interview he (Firebrace) had had with Sir Thomas Cook, when the latter expressed his apprehension lest the passing the East India Company's charter should be opposed by the lord president. They had then agreed to endeavour to win his lordship's favour by an offer of 5,000 guineas. That sum had been actually left at the duke's house, and it was only returned on the morning the enquiry opened. After the payment of the money both Cook and himself had enjoyed free access to the duke and found him willing to give them his assistance.1832Evidence of Josiah Child, 26 April, 1695.Among others who gave evidence was Child himself, who acknowledged that he had suggested an offer of £50,000 to the king in order to induce his majesty to waive his prerogative and allow the company to be settled by Act of Parliament. William, however, was impervious to a bribe and declined to meddle in the matter.Cook and Firebrace committed to the Tower.The result of the enquiry was that the Duke of Leeds was ordered to be impeached, whilst Firebrace and Cook were committed to the Tower.1833They[pg 597]recovered their liberty in April, 1696, and in July, 1698, Firebrace was created a baronet.1834The Old and the New Company agree to unite, 22 July, 1702.In July, 1702, the rival companies were content to sink their differences, and a union was effected.1835Shortly before this took place the Old Company voted the sum of £12,000 as a free gift to Cook for his past services.1836Firebrace, who had used his best endeavours to bring about the union, brought an action against the Old Company for compensation for his services, but consented to drop all proceedings on receiving stock in the company to the amount of £10,000.1837In 1704 Cook was elected mayor, but the state of his health not allowing him to serve, he was discharged. He died in September, 1709.1838Jacobite tumults during the king's absence abroad, May-Oct., 1695.On Sunday the 12th May, 1695, William again set out for the continent, and did not return until the 10th October. The great feature of the campaign was the brilliant siege and recovery of the town of Namur, which had been lost to the allied forces three years before. Baulked in a proposed design against the king's person by his unexpected departure, the Jacobites had to content themselves with other measures. On the 10th June, the birthday of the unfortunate Prince of Wales, a number of them met at a tavern in Drury Lane. Excited by wine they sallied forth, with drums beating and colours flying, and insisted on passers by drinking the prince's health.[pg 598]This roused the indignation of the neighbours, who sacked the tavern and put the revellers to flight, one of the ringleaders being seized and afterwards committed to Newgate.1839When, in the following August, the whole of London was on the tiptoe of excitement, waiting for news of the fall of Namur, the citizens were suddenly amazed at the sight of a horseman in military uniform riding through the main streets and announcing that William had been killed. That the wish was father to the thought became sufficiently clear to the by-standers when they heard the man declare with pistol in hand and sword drawn that he would kill anyone who denied the truth of his statement. A serious disturbance was avoided by his being incontinently dragged from his horse and carried before the lord mayor, who committed him to prison.1840Elections for a triennial parliament, Oct., 1695.When the king returned in October, with the laurels of victory fresh on his brow, he determined to seize the favourable opportunity for dissolving parliament. The result of the elections for a new parliament—the first triennial parliament under a recent Act—justified the course he had taken. The citizens, who had been among the first to welcome him on his arrival in London, and whose sheriffs—Edward Wills and Owen Buckingham—he had recently knighted,1841instead of returning Tory members, as in the late parliament, returned four Whigs, viz., three aldermen, Sir Robert Clayton, Sir John Fleet and Sir William Ashurst, and one commoner, Thomas Papillon. The election was strongly contested, a poll being demanded by three other candidates, viz., Sir[pg 599]William Pritchard, Sir Thomas Vernon and Sir William Russell, against the return of Clayton, Ashurst and Papillon. The result of the poll, however, left matters undisturbed.1842The contest in Westminster was more severe than in the city, but, like the latter, ended in a victory for the Whigs. Cook, who was still a prisoner in the Tower, again contested Colchester, but lost his seat.1843On the 22nd November the Houses met.The Barclay conspiracy, 1696.The king's return was a signal for fresh action on the part of the Jacobites. It was resolved to assassinate William on his return from hunting in Richmond Park. The management of the conspiracy was entrusted to Sir George Barclay, a Scotch refugee, who succeeded in getting together a small band of men willing to take part in the desperate enterprise. The plot was, however, discovered, and some of the leading conspirators arrested. On the evening of Sunday the 23rd February (1696) the lord mayor (Sir John Houblon) was summoned to the Privy Council and informed of the narrow escape of the king. He was charged to look well to the safety of the city. On Monday morning all the city trained bands were under arms, and on Tuesday the Common Council voted a congratulatory address to the king upon his escape.1844The signing of associations.By that time parliament had been informed of what had taken place. The Commons immediately suspended the Habeas Corpus Act and agreed to enter into an association for the defence of their king and country. An instrument was forthwith drawn up[pg 600]whereby each individual member of the House pledged himself to uphold King William and William's government against James and his adherents, and in case his majesty should meet with a violent death to unite with one another in inflicting condign vengeance on his murderers, and in supporting the order of succession to the crown as settled by the Bill of Rights. On Tuesday (25 Feb.) the House was called over; the association engrossed on parchment lay on the table, and every member present went up and signed, those who from sickness or other cause were absent being ordered to sign the document on their first appearance in the House, or publicly declare from their seat in the House their refusal to do so.1845The next day the Common Council of the city unanimously resolved to enter into the like association, the livery companies of the city being afterwards called upon by the mayor to do the same.1846Bill of Attainder against Sir John Fenwick.For weeks and months strict search was made in the city for Papists and suspect persons,1847and among them for Sir John Fenwick, for whose arrest a proclamation was issued on the 22nd March.1848He was eventually captured whilst making his way to the coast for the purpose of escaping to France, and was committed to Newgate. When a motion was made in November for proceeding against him by Bill of Attainder the sheriffs of London surrendered their charge to the sergeant-at-arms of the House of Commons. After his execution on Tower Hill in January[pg 601]of the following year (1697) some officers of Sheriff Blewet, whose duty it had been to keep watch over Fenwick by night and day whilst lying in Newgate, had to apply to the Court of Aldermen before they could get the sheriff to pay them the money (£9 10s.) due to them for that service.1849The City and the Election Bill, April, 1696.The discovery of the assassination plot had the result of rendering William's seat on the throne more secure than ever, and won for him the unqualified support of parliament. Early in February (1696) a Bill had been brought in to exclude from the House every person who did not possess a certain estate in land. The Bill met with much opposition in commercial circles, and more especially in the city of London,1850and the king being unwilling to estrange those merchants and traders who had so often assisted him, exercised his prerogative and declined to give his assent to the Bill. Thereupon some violent Tories moved that whoever advised the king to take this course was an enemy to him and the nation; but the House displayed its loyalty by rejecting the motion by an overwhelming majority and ordering the division list to be published.1851Resolution of the Common Hall, 29 Sept., 1696.The City was not behindhand in renewing its assurances of loyalty. The liverymen of the several companies assembled in the Guildhall for the election of a mayor on Michaelmas-day passed a resolution to stand by the king with their lives and fortunes, and desired the city members of parliament to see that a searching enquiry were made into the late conspiracy[pg 602]as the best means of preserving the king's person, establishing the government, and reviving trade and credit.1852The new currency, May-Aug., 1696.At the time when this resolution was passed the king was expected home from the continent, whither he had gone in May last. During his absence there had occurred a monetary crisis—the first since the establishment of the Bank of England—which, after causing for several months a great amount of distress, was destined to be succeeded by a long period of unbroken prosperity. An Act had recently been passed for calling in all clipt money and substituting milled money in its stead,1853and the crisis was brought about by the old money being called in before the new money was ready for issue. Saturday, the 2nd May, was practically the last day clipt money was received by the exchequer. Three days later the stock of milled money in the coffers of the Bank of England at Grocers' Hall had run out, and the governor of the Bank, Sir John Houblon, who happened at the time to be also lord mayor, had to propitiate the numerous claimants for the new money by offering them part payment in the old coin and the rest in the new as soon as it was minted.1854[pg 603]City loans, July-Nov., 1696.Towards the end of July matters became worse. In spite of the extraordinary activity displayed by the Mint authorities, at the Tower and in divers parts of the country, the supply had not equalled the demand, yet a large sum of money was now imperatively demanded for payment of the army on the continent. The king himself had written to say that unless the money was forthcoming his troops were ready to mutiny or desert. Nothing less than a million would satisfy the requirements of the army in Flanders, a like sum was wanted for the navy, whilst half that amount was necessary for the army in England.1855How was this enormous sum to be raised? It was thought that the City might vote something towards it, but the Chamberlain declared that any proposal for a loan at that time would with difficulty be carried into execution owing to the scarcity of money.1856Some private individuals, however, managed to raise £200,000 for the king, whilst others, like Sir Josiah Child, Charles Duncombe and Sir Joseph Herne, were prepared to stand security for £300,000 more, which the Dutch were ready to advance. After long deliberation the Bank of England agreed (15 Aug.) to advance another £200,000.1857These sums sufficed for the more immediate wants of the king, and allowed time for the issue of the new currency.The Peace of Ryswick, 10 Sept., 1697.The campaign of 1696 had been carried on in a very desultory way. All parties were anxious for a peace. Towards the end of April, 1697, William once more crossed over to Flanders,1858and the French king having for the first time shown a disposition to come[pg 604]to terms, it was arranged that a congress should meet near the Hague. The result of the congress was the conclusion (10 Sept.) of the Peace of Ryswick, whereby Louis consented to acknowledge William's title to the throne. The news was received in the city four days later with every demonstration of joy; the Tower guns were discharged, flags hung out, bells set ringing and bonfires lighted.1859Preparations to welcome the king on his return.The Court of Aldermen resolved to give the king a more than ordinary reception on his return. Search was made for precedents as to the manner in which former kings had been received on their return from progresses or from parts beyond the sea, and these precedents, from the time of Edward IV down to that of King Charles II, were duly reported to the court by a committee appointed to make the search.1860The committee was next instructed to consider of suitable ways and methods for the reception of his majesty if he should be pleased to pass through the city, and on this also the committee reported with elaborate detail.1861These and other preparations were all made under the apprehension that the king was about to return immediately. Weeks went by and no king appeared. The Court of Aldermen availed themselves of the delay to put the finishing touches to the programme of welcome that was to be accorded him, and to commit into custody any suspicious character they found.1862At length, after long and impatient expectation, news came that the king had[pg 605]landed at Margate on the 14th November.1863By the following night his majesty reached Greenwich and rested in the handsome building which, at the desire of his beloved queen, had been recently converted from a palace into a hospital for disabled seamen.1864The king met at Southwark by the mayor, aldermen, etc., 16 Nov., 1697.The lord mayor immediately issued his precept to the several livery companies (they had received a previous warning to prepare for the occasion on the 1st October)1865to be ready in their stands by eight o'clock on the morning of Tuesday the 16th November, well apparelled and with all the ornaments of their companies before them.1866That morning witnessed one of the finest sights that had ever been seen in the city of London, famous as it always had been for its pageantry. No expense had been spared in providing new gowns for the magistrates and new banners for the companies. The mayor, aldermen and sheriffs rode out "in their formalities" as far as Southwark, where they met the king, and where the usual ceremony took place of surrendering the civic sword into his majesty's hands, to be immediately returned to the lord mayor. This done, the procession was formed, and the king was escorted with trumpets and kettle-drums through the entire length of the city, the streets being guarded by the six regiments of trained bands, and the houses rendered bright with hangings of tapestry.1867[pg 606]Congratulations offered by the city, 17 Nov., 1697.On Wednesday the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, accompanied by the recorder, waited upon his majesty and congratulated him on the peace and on his safe return. The king in reply thanked them, and conferred the honour of knighthood upon the sheriffs, Bartholomew Gracedieu and James Collett.1868A day of public thanksgiving, 2 Dec.The rejoicings terminated with a thanksgiving service at St. Paul's (2 Dec.), the work of Sir Christopher Wren being sufficiently advanced to admit of divine service being held there. The mayor and aldermen attended in state. The king did not attend lest his presence should draw off congregations from other churches; but he attended service in his private chapel at Whitehall. Not only in London but throughout the kingdom the day was solemnly observed, whilst the night was given up to festivity and fireworks.1869Parliamentary elections for the city, 1698-1701.When, in 1698, the first triennial parliament had run its course and a new election of members for the city took place all the old members retained their seats except Sir Robert Clayton. His place was taken by Sir James Houblon, a Tory. On this occasion the election for the city did not take place until the returns of many constituencies in the country had been made known. As a rule the returns of the metropolitan constituencies were looked forward to as an augury of the political complexion of the coming parliament. This parliament was not allowed to live its full time, but was dissolved in December, 1700, a new parliament being summoned to meet in[pg 607]the following February (1701).1870Sir Robert Clayton regained his seat, and with him were returned Sir William Ashurst (who headed the poll), Gilbert Heathcote and Sir William Withers.1871Upon Heathcote being declared by parliament disqualified to sit owing to a technical breach of trust his seat was taken by Sir John Fleet.1872Death of James II, 5 Sept., 1701.The City's address of loyalty to William.After the death of James II at St. Germains (5 Sept., 1701) Louis broke his vow (made at Ryswick) not to do anything to disturb or subvert the government of England, and forthwith proclaimed the late king's son to be heir to his father's throne. The whole English nation was stirred against the French king for having dared to acknowledge as their sovereign the boy who had been held to be supposititious and whose title to the crown had been rejected by parliament. The citizens of London were among the first to express their loyalty to William and their readiness to do their utmost to preserve his person and government against all invasion. The king was on the continent at the time, but an address to this effect, unanimously agreed to by the Common Council (26 Sept.), was forwarded to him by the lords justices, who held the reins of government during his absence, and who in due course were instructed to inform the City of the great satisfaction its address had afforded his majesty. The example thus set was quickly followed by others, and similar addresses began to flow in from all parts of the kingdom,1873[pg 608]whilst the City's address was by the king's orders translated into foreign languages for transmission to the several courts of Europe.1874Sir William Gore elected mayor, Sept., 1701.A few hours before the City's address reached the hands of the lords justices the citizens had assembled (29 Sept.) in Common Hall to choose a mayor for the ensuing year. Sir Charles Duncombe, who had amassed a large fortune as a goldsmith and banker, and who, although returned by the livery at the head of the poll the previous year, had been set aside by the Court of Aldermen in his contest for the mayoralty probably on account of his Tory principles,1875was again put up as a candidate, although in point of seniority he was one of the youngest aldermen. This time he failed to get a majority of votes at the Common Hall, but his popularity was still sufficiently strong to return him second on the poll, and his name was submitted in conjunction with that of William Gore to the Court of Aldermen for them to select one. It was quite within their province to select if they chose the second name submitted to them—they[pg 609]had frequently done so before—but in the face of Louis's recent act of insolence they preferred to call to the mayoralty chair a man whose Tory principles were not too pronounced rather than one who had accepted an alderman's commission from James II, and Sir William Gore was accordingly declared elected.1876Election of William's last parliament, Nov.-Dec., 1701.The parliament which assembled in February, 1701, enjoyed a still shorter existence than its predecessor, for it was dissolved in the following November. Another was summoned to meet in December.1877Great excitement prevailed in the city over this election. The Whigs met at the Crown Tavern behind the Exchange and agreed to put up three of the old members, viz., Clayton, Ashurst and Heathcote, and to run a fresh candidate in the person of Sir Thomas Abney. The Tory or "Church party" opposed these candidates with four others, viz., Sir William Gore, the lord mayor, Sir John Fleet, Sir Richard Levett and Sir Charles Duncombe, the recently defeated candidate for the mayoralty. When it came to polling all four Whigs were returned by an overwhelming majority.1878This was the last parliament of William's reign. On the 20th February (1702) he was thrown from his horse whilst riding in Richmond Park and broke his collar-bone. His health had previously shown signs of giving way. On the 8th March he died.

The rise of the East India Company, 1600-1689.Soon after parliament resumed its sittings (7 Nov., 1693) the attention of the Commons was drawn to a high-handed act done by the wealthy and autocratic company known as the East India Company. For nearly a century that body of merchants had enjoyed a monopoly of trade with the East Indies and had frustrated all attempts of "interlopers" to share their privileges. It had received its first charter at the hands of Queen Elizabeth on the 31st December, 1600, but it was not until after the Restoration, when its privileges were confirmed by another charter, that it began to enter upon a career of such unexampled prosperity as to become at once an object of envy and fear. The management of the company's affairs rested in the hands of a small number of proprietors, the leading spirit for many years being Sir Josiah Child, one of the merchant princes of the city. With him was associated, at least for a time, Thomas Papillon, the zealous Whig. He had become a member of the company as early as 1657, and for many years took an active part in its management. He was one of the directors from 1663 to 1670; was re-appointed in 1675, but lost his seat on the board the following year, as also did Child, through the intervention of Charles the Second, who disliked their Whiggish principles. After a short interval both of them recovered their positions, and in 1680 and 1681 Papillon was deputy governor.1774[pg 576]When Child turned courtier and threw over his old colleagues, Papillon and other Whig shareholders sold their stock and severed their connection with the company. Their places on the directorate were filled up by others who were devoted to Child and his policy, and thenceforth Child became the autocrat of the company. "The treasures of the company were absolutely at his disposal.... A present of ten thousand guineas was graciously received from him by Charles. Ten thousand more were accepted by James, who readily consented to become a holder of stock.... Of what the dictator expended no account was asked by his colleagues."1775His policy was so far successful as to obtain a decision in favour of the company's privileges from Jeffreys and a renewal of its charter from James. Just at a time when the prospects of the company looked brightest a sudden change of fortune was occasioned by the Revolution and the subsequent accession of the Whigs to power. The outcry raised by the general merchants of the city against the company became louder than ever, not so much on account of the company being in possession of a monopoly as because it was ruled by a single individual, and his rule, while benefiting himself and his creatures, was prejudicial to the public welfare. To this outcry Papillon, who had now returned from exile, added his voice and thereby subjected himself to a charge of inconsistency.A New Company formed, 1689.There was but one remedy for the existing evil in the opinion of the majority, and that was to form a new company from which Child should be excluded.[pg 577]Without waiting for an Act of Parliament many traders in the city formed themselves into an association which, although unrecognised by law, acquired the designation of the New Company, and commenced to carry on its business at the hall of the Skinners' Company in Dowgate. For years the city was kept in a ferment by the rivalry existing between the Old and the New Company, between Leadenhall Street and Skinners' Hall, the former being supported by the Tories, the latter by the Whigs.Rivalry between the Old and the New Company.The sanction and assistance of parliament was sought for by both companies. The majority of the Commons were in favour of a compromise. They would have retained the Old Company, but wished to remodel it and to incorporate with it the members of the New Company. Such a proceeding, however, Child would not listen to, and his obstinacy so provoked the House that in February, 1692, it presented an address to the king praying him to dissolve the Old Company and to grant a charter to a New Company on such terms as to his majesty's wisdom might seem fit. The king replied that it was a matter of very great importance to the trade of the kingdom; that he could not be expected to give an immediate answer, but he would consider the matter and give an answer shortly.1776The company sought to avert the impending danger by offering the king the sum of £200,000 by way of loan for three years without any interest.1777A twelvemonth later (Feb., 1693) the Commons again petitioned the king to dissolve the Old Company upon[pg 578]three years' warning;1778but in spite of these attacks the company contrived to obtain a confirmation of its monopoly under the Great Seal in the following October.1779This was only obtained by a lavish distribution of money.Alderman Sir Thomas Cook governor of the Old Company in place of Child.In the meantime the management of the Old Company's affairs had been placed ostensibly in the hands of Sir Thomas Cook,1780an alderman of London and member for Colchester, although there is reason for believing that Child still continued to be the actual manager.The stoppage of the ship "Redbridge," 21 Oct., 1693.Within a few days of the order of the Privy Council for sealing the company's charter, and before the king, whose return from the continent was daily expected, could give it his sanction,1781the directors, in the moment of victory, committed an act of incredible rashness which led to serious consequences. A number of city merchants had recently chartered a vessel named "Redbridge" and placed on board a valuable cargo. Her papers showed her to be bound for a Spanish port, but suspicion pointed to her being intended for a voyage to the East Indies in contravention of the company's charter. Acting on this surmise, the company procured an order from the Privy Council to have the vessel stopt, and stopt[pg 579]she accordingly was from the 21st October until the following 9th November, each day's delay in sailing inflicting heavy expense on the owners. Such high-handed proceedings of the Company might create little excitement if carried out on the high seas and at a distance from home, but in the port of London they were not to be tolerated. The owners of the "Redbridge" laid their grievance before the Commons (30 Dec.).1782They pointed out that the conduct of the East India Company was "greatly prejudicial to all foreign trade and navigation in general, and more particularly to the petitioners, who by the present laws of the kingdom can have no reparation." They prayed, therefore, that the like inconveniences might be prevented for the future. Their petition was referred to a committee of the whole House, together with other petitions against the company, as well as the company's charters. In due course the committee, with Papillon in the chair, reported that the stopping of the "Redbridge" was "a grievance, a discouragement to trade and contrary to the known laws of the kingdom,"1783and further that, in the opinion of the Common Hall, "all the subjects of England have equal right to trade to the East Indies unless prohibited by Act of Parliament." This resolution was accepted by the House without a division,1784and for some years at least there nominally existed free trade with India.1785The City's petitionredebts to orphans, 1691.Between March, 1689, and February, 1691, little appears to have been done towards solving the[pg 580]difficulty of the claims of the City orphans. Another committee was appointed at the expiration of that time to consider the matter, and in November, 1691, the committee reported to the Common Council. They recommended that certain rents of the value of £8,000 per annum should be set aside towards the payment of four per cent. per annum for the immediate relief of the orphans, and that parliament should be asked to authorise the raising of a sum of £24,000 to be vested in the Corporation for the satisfaction of debts to existing orphans, and for security of the money of orphans that should be paid into the Chamber in future. The recommendation of the committee was accepted by the court (20 Nov.), and three days later a draft petition to parliament was read and approved.1786The petition set forth that in the troublous times during and after the reign of Charles I the City lost divers large sums of money, and that by reason of this, as well as of the destruction of the greatest part of their estate in the great fire and their losses consequent on the illegal judgment on theQuo Warranto, their debts to the orphans had amounted to a sum far larger than the City was able to pay without the assistance of parliament. It proceeded to lay before the House the scheme proposed by the committee, and prayed the House to assist the petitioners to raise a sufficient sum for an annual payment to be made in lieu of the said debts, or such other provision for the same as the House might think fit. On the 27th November leave was granted to bring in a Bill, and on the 3rd December a Bill was brought in and read the first time, but nothing further[pg 581]appears to have come of it.1787On the 6th August, 1692, a committee was appointed to consider the question how best the City's revenues might be improved with the view to the easier discharge of orphans' claims. The committee showed itself very active, meeting at least once and often twice a week. Nevertheless it was not until the 2nd November it was in a position to make a report to the Common Council.1788What was thought of the committee's recommendations is not recorded, but a few days later (11 Nov.) we find the court resolving to present a petition to parliament in precisely the same terms as their former petition.1789The Orphans' Bill of 1693.The matter was allowed to drag on until the 17th February of the next year (1693), when a committee was appointed by the House to prepare and bring in another Bill. A Bill was accordingly brought in on the 20th, read the first time on the 21st, read the second time on the 22nd and committed. Before the Bill passed through committee the City desired to be heard by counsel against the Bill on the ground that it divested the City of all its revenues, deprived it of much of its ancient and necessary jurisdiction, and would not answer the ends proposed.1790In March progress was reported, but before anything further could be done the House was prorogued.1791A fresh scheme, Feb., 1694.When the House re-assembled in November (1693) the City again presented a petition in terms[pg 582]similar to their former petitions. The petition having been referred to a committee of the whole House that committee reported (17 Feb., 1694) to the following effect,1792viz., that (1) a rent-charge of £8,000 per annum should be set aside out of the City's revenues towards payment of interest due to orphans, (2) that the City should be permitted to raise a sum not exceeding £2,000 per annum upon personal estates in the city to satisfy the orphans' debts, (3) that the patentees of a new kind of glass light known as convex lights1793should contribute an annual sum of £600, (4) that an additional duty of 4d.per chaldron should be imposed upon coal entering the port of London and 6d.per chaldron on coals imported into the city for a term of fifty years commencing from the determination of the duty already existing in respect of re-building St. Paul's, (5) that an additional duty of 4s.should be laid on every tun of wine entering the port of London, (6) that the improvements about to be made in the water supply of the city1794should also contribute, and lastly (7) that every person bound apprentice in the city should contribute 2s.6d., and every person made free of the city 5s.towards the same object.City Orphans' Act passed, March, 1694.A Bill1795was subsequently introduced embodying these resolutions, but with an additional proviso that[pg 583]when the tax of 6d.per chaldron on coals, to be imposed for a term of fifty years, should cease the City's lands should be charged with an annual sum of £6,000 over and above the rent-charge of £8,000 previously mentioned. The Bill was read the first and second time on the 22nd February, and the third time on the 12th March. A few days later (21 March) it passed the Lords without amendment, and on the 23rd received the royal assent.1796City loan of £200,000, 6 March, 1694.On the 6th March (1694) the lord keeper came to the Guildhall, accompanied by the lords of the treasury, to ask the Common Council for a loan of £200,000, upon security of the land tax, for naval and military purposes. The court at once assented, and before the end of the month the whole amount had been paid into the exchequer.1797The money was raised in the usual way from the inhabitants of each ward and from the livery companies. The Corporation itself was by no means well off, and encouragement was given to anyone who could suggest a means whereby the City's revenues could be increased.1798Recourse was had, among other things, to nominating for sheriff the least suitable men for the office, and such as would prefer paying the fine to serving. In no other way can one reasonably account for the fact that the fines for refusing to undertake the office of sheriff amounted for this year (1694) to over £5,000.1799[pg 584]The foundation of the Bank of England, April, 1694.This loan was but as a drop in the ocean compared with the necessities of the times. The estimates for the year 1694 were enormous. The army, which was already the largest standing force that England had ever seen, was to receive a large increase, whilst considerable sums of money were required for payment of arrears, no less than for the future expenses, of the navy. Notwithstanding the renewal of the land tax, the imposition of a poll-tax, the revival of stamp duties, and the raising of a million of money by a lottery loan, there yet remained a large deficit before the estimated revenue of the year balanced the estimated expenditure. At this juncture Charles Montague, poet, politician andsavant, took up a scheme propounded to government three years before by William Paterson, an enterprising if not always successful Scotsman, but allowed to drop. This scheme was none other than the formation of a national bank. The idea was not altogether a new one. Before the close of the reign of Charles II several plans of the kind had been suggested, some being in favour of establishing such a bank under the immediate direction of the Crown, whilst others were of opinion that its management should be entrusted to the Corporation of the city. It was now proposed to raise the sum of £1,200,000 for the use of the government by way of loan at eight per cent. interest, the subscribers being incorporated by the name of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The matter was introduced into parliament for the first time on the 28th March, in the shape of a Bill for granting their majesties certain tonnage duties on wine, ale and other liquors.1800[pg 585]Although it was not easy to recognise in the terms of the Bill the germ of "the greatest commercial institution that the world had ever seen,"1801it met with considerable opposition in the House, and still more outside. With their recent experience of the evils arising from a rich and powerful body like the East India Company, men were cautious in allowing a Corporation to be erected in their midst which, as many feared, would absorb the wealth of the nation,1802and might render the Crown independent of parliament and people. This last consideration was not unimportant, and, in order to avert the possibility of such a danger, a clause was inserted in the Bill forbidding under the severest penalties the new Corporation advancing money to the Crown without the authority of parliament.1803Subject to this and other conditions the Bill passed the Commons, and on the 24th April was agreed to by the Lords.1804At the head of the Commission, issued under the Great Seal for the establishment of the new bank, stood the name of the lord mayor, Sir William Ashurst; and out of the twenty-four original directors at least four rose to be chief magistrate of the city, whilst others are known to have taken an active part in the affairs of the municipality.1805In the city the undertaking met with a success beyond all expectation. The very first day (21 June) that the subscription lists were opened at Mercers' Hall nearly £300,000 was received, and[pg 586]within a week that amount was doubled. Sir John Houblon, who succeeded to the mayoralty the following year, and became the first Governor of the Bank, subscribed £10,000, the largest amount any one individual was allowed by the terms of the charter to subscribe before the first day of July. The same amount was subscribed by the lords of the treasury on behalf of the queen. By mid-day of the 2nd July the whole of the money (£1,200,000) had been subscribed and the books closed.1806The Great Seal was put to the bank charter, and business was commenced in the hall of the Grocers' Company.Hitherto, as we have seen, the city of London had always acted (as indeed it claimed to be) as the king's Chamber, and the occupier of the throne of England for the time being had never hesitated to draw upon this Chamber whenever he was in need of money. The mode of procedure was nearly always the same. The lords of the treasury would appear some morning before the Common Council, and after a few words of explanation as to the necessities of the time, would ask for a loan, offering in most cases (we are bound to confess) undeniable security. Supposing that the Council agreed to raise the required loan, which it nearly always did, the mayor for the time being was usually instructed to issue his precept to the aldermen to collect subscriptions within their several wards, whilst other precepts were (in later times at least) sent to the master or wardens of the livery companies to do the same among the members of their companies. There were times, also, when the[pg 587]companies were called upon to subscribe in proportion to their assessment for supplying the city with corn in times of distress.1807Times were now changed. Instead of applying to the City for an advance in case of need, the king thenceforth drew what he required from the Bank of England. During the remainder of his reign William only applied twice to the City for a loan: once, towards the close of 1696, when he required money for the army and navy, and again in 1697, when it was necessary to pay off his continental allies and lay up the navy after the peace of Ryswick (10 Sept.).1808The City, in its corporate capacity, was no longer to be the purse of the nation.The death of Queen Mary, 28 Dec, 1694.In December of this year (1694)—soon after his return from an unsuccessful campaign—William suffered an irreparable loss by the death of the queen. The old adage touching an ill wind received a curious exemplification at Queen Mary's death, for although that event sent down the stock of the Bank of England three per cent., it benefited the East India Company by causing a rapid rise in the price of muslin, a commodity of which we are told that company happened to possess a large quantity.1809The Court of Aldermen put themselves into mourning,1810whilst the Common Council voted an address of condolence to the king and ordered statues ("effigies") of both king and queen to be erected at the Royal[pg 588]Exchange.1811The king followed the advice given to him by the city fathers not to suffer too much "resentment" over his recent loss, and diverted himself by practising shooting on horseback in Richmond Park whilst his dead wife was still above ground.1812The queen's funeral, 5 March, 1695.The funeral did not take place until the 6th March (1695). In anticipation of that event the Court of Aldermen had some time since (18 Jan.) appointed a committee to consider of the right and title of the lord mayor, aldermen and sheriffs of the city to their mourning and their places in the funeral procession, as also of the mourning due to the several officers of the city. Four days later (22 Jan.) the committee reported1813to the effect that they had found from the records of the city that it had been the custom for the lord mayor, aldermen, recorder, sheriffs and the principal and other officers of the city to have mourning allowed them by the Crown at the public interments of kings and queens, but as to the places and precedency of the lord mayor and aldermen on those occasions the committee had only found one instance of a funeral procession, and that was at the funeral of Henry VII, when it appeared that the aldermen walked "next after the knights and before the great chaplains of dignitys and the knights of the garter being noe lords." The lord mayor (the report went on to say) was not named in the procession, but at the mass and offering at the interment it appeared that the lord mayor, with his[pg 589]mace in hand, offered next after the lord chamberlain, and the aldermen who had been mayors offered next to the knights of the garter and before the knights of the body, after whom came those aldermen who had not been lord mayor.1814The committee concluded their report by recommending that a deputation should wait upon the Privy Council and assert the right of the Court of Aldermen to mourning. The representation thereupon made had the desired effect and the usual mourning was allowed by warrant (29 Jan.).1815The citizens marked their respect for the late queen by shutting up their shops on the day of the funeral.1816Discovery of corrupt practices, 1695.The session of 1695 of William's first parliament was signalised by the discovery of a system of wholesale corruption. That every man had his price was scarcely less true in William's day than it was in the later age of Sir Robert Walpole. The discovery of one delinquent guilty of receiving money for services, real or supposed, quickly led to another, until suspicion turned upon the City of London itself. A rumour rapidly gained ground to the effect that the funds of the City as well as those of the East India Company had been largely employed in winning the favour of men in power, and the name of Sir John Trevor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, was mentioned among others.The Speaker convicted of bribery.On the 7th March the House appointed a committee to investigate the matter, with power to send for persons and papers.1817On the 12th the committee reported to the House that they had discovered an[pg 590]order of a committee appointed by the Corporation for the purpose of seeing the Orphans' Bill through parliament, dated the 12th February, 1694, authorising the payment of 1,000 guineas to the Speaker, Sir John Trevor, as soon as the Bill should pass. This order, they said, was signed by every member of the committee except Sir James Houblon and Mr. Deputy Ayres, and was endorsed to the effect that the money had been delivered and paid to the Hon. Sir John Trevor on the 22nd June, 1694, in the presence of Sir Robert Clayton and Sir James Houblon, brother of Sir John.1818When summoned to account for his having refused to sign the order of the committee whilst allowing himself to witness the actual payment of the money to the Speaker, Sir James excused himself by saying that he had accompanied Sir Robert Clayton, at the latter's request, professedly for the purpose of thanking the Speaker for his pains about the Orphans' Bill; that this being done, the Chamberlain, who had gone with them, pulled out a note or bill which he handed to the Speaker, but as to the nature of the note or bill Houblon declared himself to have been ignorant until subsequently informed by the Chamberlain. Other[pg 591]members of the Corporation Committee also gave evidence as to the warrant for payment of the money having been originally made out with a blank space left for the name of the payee. The report further declared that sums of money had been paid to Paul Godrell, clerk of the House of Commons, to the city solicitor, the solicitor-general and the chairman of the Corporation Committee in respect of the Orphans' Bill, whilst the orphans themselves had been prevailed upon to give security for the payment of five per cent. on their whole property to certain other parties who professed to be able to render valuable services in the event of the Bill being passed.1819The Speaker expelled the House, 16 March, 1695.By the time that the reading of the committee's report to the House was finished it was growing dusk, and candles were called for. A resolution was then moved and put to the house by Trevor himself, that the Speaker, by receiving a gratuity of 1,000 guineas from the city of London after passing of the Orphans' Bill, had been guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour. The resolution was passed, and four days later (16 March) Trevor was expelled the House.1820Transactions between the City and the Marquis of Normanby.A month later (18 April) the House of Lords were busy investigating the conduct of the Marquis of Normanby in accepting, and of the Corporation of the City in granting, a lease of a certain plot of land lying behind Clarendon House, part of the City's estate known as Conduit Mead. It was shown by oral and documentary evidence that a longer lease than usual had recently been granted (Jan., 1695) to the marquis as "a gratification," he being a person of distinction[pg 592]who had shown himself very friendly to the interests of the City and likely to continue so.1821Negotiations for a lease had been commenced so far back as January, 1694, "before the Orphans' Bill was on the anvill in the House of Commons."1822It was not denied that the City entertained the hope that the marquis would use his interest in expediting the passage of the Bill, and that this hope had been realised. On the other hand it was shown that when the marquis learnt that one of the conditions of the lease was that he should "covenant" to procure an Act of Parliament for settling some doubts of title to the land conveyed, he at once declared that such a thing was not in his power, but lay with the king, the lords and the commons; nevertheless, he consented to use his best endeavours in that direction. The marquis, it was said, had also been indiscreet enough to divulge certain proceedings of the House of Lords in the matter of the Convex Lights, and this formed the subject of an investigation by the House at the same time as the granting of this lease. After careful consideration the House entirely acquitted his lordship of blame in both cases.1823Corrupt practices of East India Company in connection with its charter.In considering the City's action in respect of the Orphans' Bill we must not forget to take into account the condition of the age. It was one in which peculation and venality were predominant. Nearly every official who was worth the buying could be bought, and the world thought none the worse of him provided that these pecuniary transactions were[pg 593]kept decently veiled. The "gifts and rewards" bestowed by the City with the object of expediting the passage of the Orphans' Bill were as nothing compared with the vast sums which the East India Company was reported to have disbursed in order to obtain the confirmation of its charter. It was the practice when Sir Thomas Cook was in power for the directors of the company to sign warrants for any sum that he might require without demanding particulars from him. In seven years (1688-1694) more than £100,000 had been disposed of for the company's "special service," nearly £90,000 of which had been disbursed whilst Cook was governor (1692-1693).1824Sir Thomas Cook and Sir Basil Firebrace.A parliamentary committee endeavoured to obtain some account as to how this large sum of money had been expended, but could learn nothing more than that it had been spent on the "special service" of the company and that a great part of it had been entrusted to Sir Basil Firebrace.1825Firebrace denied this, but confessed to having received upwards of £16,000 for which he had accounted to the company. The committee's report proceeded to inform the House that the company had spent considerable sums of money, under the guise of contracts, in buying up the interests of "interlopers" and getting them to join the company. They had found Sir Samuel Dashwood, Sir John Fleet, Sir Thomas Cook (all aldermen of the city), Sir Joseph Herne and John Perry to have been cognisant of[pg 594]these proceedings, but they being members of parliament the committee did not think fit to send for or examine them.1826Acting upon the committee's report, the House called upon Sir Thomas Cook (26 March) to give an account of the sum of £87,000 which he had received of the company's money, and upon his refusing committed him to the Tower.1827A Bill was within a few days introduced into the House for compelling Cook to make disclosure and rapidly passed (6 April).1828In the Upper House the Bill met with the strongest denunciation by the Duke of Leeds (who saw in it considerable danger to himself), as also by Cook himself, who was brought from the Tower for the purpose of allowing him to plead against the passing of such a Bill. At the Bar of the House the latter earnestly implored the Peers not to pass the Bill in its present form. Let them pass a Bill of Indemnity and he would tell them all. The Lords considered his request reasonable, and after a conference with the Lower House it was agreed that the Bill should take the form of an Indemnity Bill, and so it was passed (19 April), a joint committee of both Houses being appointed to examine Cook and others.1829Examination of Cook, 23 April, 1695.His examination, which took place in the Exchequer Chamber on the 23rd April, confirmed the committee's previous suspicions.1830The sum of £10,000[pg 595]had been paid (he said) to Sir Basil Firebrace about November, 1693, when the charter of the East India Company had been confirmed, and he had always been under the apprehension that Firebrace had pocketed the money "to recompense his losses in the interloping trade." A further sum of £30,000 had been paid to Firebrace on various contracts. There had been a contract involving the payment of £60,000 on account of procuring a new charter, and another of the value of £40,000 on account of getting the charter sanctioned by an Act of Parliament, but as no Act was passed this latter contract fell through. There was a further sum of £30,000 which had been lost to the company on account of certain stock it had agreed to purchase from Firebrace at the price of £150 per cent. at a time when the company's stock was standing at par. Firebrace had always refused to give him any account as to how this money was disposed of, and had declared that "if he were further pressed he would have no more to do in it." Such was the sum and substance of Cook's confession so far as it affected Firebrace.Examination of Firebrace, 24-26 April, 1695.The next day (24 April) Firebrace appeared before the committee. As to the £10,000 he had received from Cook, that was (he said) a gratuity which had been given to him before the granting of the charter. The other sum of £30,000 was due on a contract "for favours and services done." He was positive that both sums were intended "directly for himself and for the use of no other person whatsoever"; that he paid nothing thereout towards procuring either charter or Act, nor had promised to do so. He acknowledged himself to have been very[pg 596]active in his endeavours to gain over interlopers, and to improve the stock of the company, but when pressed by the committee for particulars he asked to be excused giving an immediate answer on the score of ill-health; he had not slept for two nights and was much indisposed.1831On the 25th and following day he was well enough to volunteer further evidence incriminating the Duke of Leeds. He told the committee of an interview he (Firebrace) had had with Sir Thomas Cook, when the latter expressed his apprehension lest the passing the East India Company's charter should be opposed by the lord president. They had then agreed to endeavour to win his lordship's favour by an offer of 5,000 guineas. That sum had been actually left at the duke's house, and it was only returned on the morning the enquiry opened. After the payment of the money both Cook and himself had enjoyed free access to the duke and found him willing to give them his assistance.1832Evidence of Josiah Child, 26 April, 1695.Among others who gave evidence was Child himself, who acknowledged that he had suggested an offer of £50,000 to the king in order to induce his majesty to waive his prerogative and allow the company to be settled by Act of Parliament. William, however, was impervious to a bribe and declined to meddle in the matter.Cook and Firebrace committed to the Tower.The result of the enquiry was that the Duke of Leeds was ordered to be impeached, whilst Firebrace and Cook were committed to the Tower.1833They[pg 597]recovered their liberty in April, 1696, and in July, 1698, Firebrace was created a baronet.1834The Old and the New Company agree to unite, 22 July, 1702.In July, 1702, the rival companies were content to sink their differences, and a union was effected.1835Shortly before this took place the Old Company voted the sum of £12,000 as a free gift to Cook for his past services.1836Firebrace, who had used his best endeavours to bring about the union, brought an action against the Old Company for compensation for his services, but consented to drop all proceedings on receiving stock in the company to the amount of £10,000.1837In 1704 Cook was elected mayor, but the state of his health not allowing him to serve, he was discharged. He died in September, 1709.1838Jacobite tumults during the king's absence abroad, May-Oct., 1695.On Sunday the 12th May, 1695, William again set out for the continent, and did not return until the 10th October. The great feature of the campaign was the brilliant siege and recovery of the town of Namur, which had been lost to the allied forces three years before. Baulked in a proposed design against the king's person by his unexpected departure, the Jacobites had to content themselves with other measures. On the 10th June, the birthday of the unfortunate Prince of Wales, a number of them met at a tavern in Drury Lane. Excited by wine they sallied forth, with drums beating and colours flying, and insisted on passers by drinking the prince's health.[pg 598]This roused the indignation of the neighbours, who sacked the tavern and put the revellers to flight, one of the ringleaders being seized and afterwards committed to Newgate.1839When, in the following August, the whole of London was on the tiptoe of excitement, waiting for news of the fall of Namur, the citizens were suddenly amazed at the sight of a horseman in military uniform riding through the main streets and announcing that William had been killed. That the wish was father to the thought became sufficiently clear to the by-standers when they heard the man declare with pistol in hand and sword drawn that he would kill anyone who denied the truth of his statement. A serious disturbance was avoided by his being incontinently dragged from his horse and carried before the lord mayor, who committed him to prison.1840Elections for a triennial parliament, Oct., 1695.When the king returned in October, with the laurels of victory fresh on his brow, he determined to seize the favourable opportunity for dissolving parliament. The result of the elections for a new parliament—the first triennial parliament under a recent Act—justified the course he had taken. The citizens, who had been among the first to welcome him on his arrival in London, and whose sheriffs—Edward Wills and Owen Buckingham—he had recently knighted,1841instead of returning Tory members, as in the late parliament, returned four Whigs, viz., three aldermen, Sir Robert Clayton, Sir John Fleet and Sir William Ashurst, and one commoner, Thomas Papillon. The election was strongly contested, a poll being demanded by three other candidates, viz., Sir[pg 599]William Pritchard, Sir Thomas Vernon and Sir William Russell, against the return of Clayton, Ashurst and Papillon. The result of the poll, however, left matters undisturbed.1842The contest in Westminster was more severe than in the city, but, like the latter, ended in a victory for the Whigs. Cook, who was still a prisoner in the Tower, again contested Colchester, but lost his seat.1843On the 22nd November the Houses met.The Barclay conspiracy, 1696.The king's return was a signal for fresh action on the part of the Jacobites. It was resolved to assassinate William on his return from hunting in Richmond Park. The management of the conspiracy was entrusted to Sir George Barclay, a Scotch refugee, who succeeded in getting together a small band of men willing to take part in the desperate enterprise. The plot was, however, discovered, and some of the leading conspirators arrested. On the evening of Sunday the 23rd February (1696) the lord mayor (Sir John Houblon) was summoned to the Privy Council and informed of the narrow escape of the king. He was charged to look well to the safety of the city. On Monday morning all the city trained bands were under arms, and on Tuesday the Common Council voted a congratulatory address to the king upon his escape.1844The signing of associations.By that time parliament had been informed of what had taken place. The Commons immediately suspended the Habeas Corpus Act and agreed to enter into an association for the defence of their king and country. An instrument was forthwith drawn up[pg 600]whereby each individual member of the House pledged himself to uphold King William and William's government against James and his adherents, and in case his majesty should meet with a violent death to unite with one another in inflicting condign vengeance on his murderers, and in supporting the order of succession to the crown as settled by the Bill of Rights. On Tuesday (25 Feb.) the House was called over; the association engrossed on parchment lay on the table, and every member present went up and signed, those who from sickness or other cause were absent being ordered to sign the document on their first appearance in the House, or publicly declare from their seat in the House their refusal to do so.1845The next day the Common Council of the city unanimously resolved to enter into the like association, the livery companies of the city being afterwards called upon by the mayor to do the same.1846Bill of Attainder against Sir John Fenwick.For weeks and months strict search was made in the city for Papists and suspect persons,1847and among them for Sir John Fenwick, for whose arrest a proclamation was issued on the 22nd March.1848He was eventually captured whilst making his way to the coast for the purpose of escaping to France, and was committed to Newgate. When a motion was made in November for proceeding against him by Bill of Attainder the sheriffs of London surrendered their charge to the sergeant-at-arms of the House of Commons. After his execution on Tower Hill in January[pg 601]of the following year (1697) some officers of Sheriff Blewet, whose duty it had been to keep watch over Fenwick by night and day whilst lying in Newgate, had to apply to the Court of Aldermen before they could get the sheriff to pay them the money (£9 10s.) due to them for that service.1849The City and the Election Bill, April, 1696.The discovery of the assassination plot had the result of rendering William's seat on the throne more secure than ever, and won for him the unqualified support of parliament. Early in February (1696) a Bill had been brought in to exclude from the House every person who did not possess a certain estate in land. The Bill met with much opposition in commercial circles, and more especially in the city of London,1850and the king being unwilling to estrange those merchants and traders who had so often assisted him, exercised his prerogative and declined to give his assent to the Bill. Thereupon some violent Tories moved that whoever advised the king to take this course was an enemy to him and the nation; but the House displayed its loyalty by rejecting the motion by an overwhelming majority and ordering the division list to be published.1851Resolution of the Common Hall, 29 Sept., 1696.The City was not behindhand in renewing its assurances of loyalty. The liverymen of the several companies assembled in the Guildhall for the election of a mayor on Michaelmas-day passed a resolution to stand by the king with their lives and fortunes, and desired the city members of parliament to see that a searching enquiry were made into the late conspiracy[pg 602]as the best means of preserving the king's person, establishing the government, and reviving trade and credit.1852The new currency, May-Aug., 1696.At the time when this resolution was passed the king was expected home from the continent, whither he had gone in May last. During his absence there had occurred a monetary crisis—the first since the establishment of the Bank of England—which, after causing for several months a great amount of distress, was destined to be succeeded by a long period of unbroken prosperity. An Act had recently been passed for calling in all clipt money and substituting milled money in its stead,1853and the crisis was brought about by the old money being called in before the new money was ready for issue. Saturday, the 2nd May, was practically the last day clipt money was received by the exchequer. Three days later the stock of milled money in the coffers of the Bank of England at Grocers' Hall had run out, and the governor of the Bank, Sir John Houblon, who happened at the time to be also lord mayor, had to propitiate the numerous claimants for the new money by offering them part payment in the old coin and the rest in the new as soon as it was minted.1854[pg 603]City loans, July-Nov., 1696.Towards the end of July matters became worse. In spite of the extraordinary activity displayed by the Mint authorities, at the Tower and in divers parts of the country, the supply had not equalled the demand, yet a large sum of money was now imperatively demanded for payment of the army on the continent. The king himself had written to say that unless the money was forthcoming his troops were ready to mutiny or desert. Nothing less than a million would satisfy the requirements of the army in Flanders, a like sum was wanted for the navy, whilst half that amount was necessary for the army in England.1855How was this enormous sum to be raised? It was thought that the City might vote something towards it, but the Chamberlain declared that any proposal for a loan at that time would with difficulty be carried into execution owing to the scarcity of money.1856Some private individuals, however, managed to raise £200,000 for the king, whilst others, like Sir Josiah Child, Charles Duncombe and Sir Joseph Herne, were prepared to stand security for £300,000 more, which the Dutch were ready to advance. After long deliberation the Bank of England agreed (15 Aug.) to advance another £200,000.1857These sums sufficed for the more immediate wants of the king, and allowed time for the issue of the new currency.The Peace of Ryswick, 10 Sept., 1697.The campaign of 1696 had been carried on in a very desultory way. All parties were anxious for a peace. Towards the end of April, 1697, William once more crossed over to Flanders,1858and the French king having for the first time shown a disposition to come[pg 604]to terms, it was arranged that a congress should meet near the Hague. The result of the congress was the conclusion (10 Sept.) of the Peace of Ryswick, whereby Louis consented to acknowledge William's title to the throne. The news was received in the city four days later with every demonstration of joy; the Tower guns were discharged, flags hung out, bells set ringing and bonfires lighted.1859Preparations to welcome the king on his return.The Court of Aldermen resolved to give the king a more than ordinary reception on his return. Search was made for precedents as to the manner in which former kings had been received on their return from progresses or from parts beyond the sea, and these precedents, from the time of Edward IV down to that of King Charles II, were duly reported to the court by a committee appointed to make the search.1860The committee was next instructed to consider of suitable ways and methods for the reception of his majesty if he should be pleased to pass through the city, and on this also the committee reported with elaborate detail.1861These and other preparations were all made under the apprehension that the king was about to return immediately. Weeks went by and no king appeared. The Court of Aldermen availed themselves of the delay to put the finishing touches to the programme of welcome that was to be accorded him, and to commit into custody any suspicious character they found.1862At length, after long and impatient expectation, news came that the king had[pg 605]landed at Margate on the 14th November.1863By the following night his majesty reached Greenwich and rested in the handsome building which, at the desire of his beloved queen, had been recently converted from a palace into a hospital for disabled seamen.1864The king met at Southwark by the mayor, aldermen, etc., 16 Nov., 1697.The lord mayor immediately issued his precept to the several livery companies (they had received a previous warning to prepare for the occasion on the 1st October)1865to be ready in their stands by eight o'clock on the morning of Tuesday the 16th November, well apparelled and with all the ornaments of their companies before them.1866That morning witnessed one of the finest sights that had ever been seen in the city of London, famous as it always had been for its pageantry. No expense had been spared in providing new gowns for the magistrates and new banners for the companies. The mayor, aldermen and sheriffs rode out "in their formalities" as far as Southwark, where they met the king, and where the usual ceremony took place of surrendering the civic sword into his majesty's hands, to be immediately returned to the lord mayor. This done, the procession was formed, and the king was escorted with trumpets and kettle-drums through the entire length of the city, the streets being guarded by the six regiments of trained bands, and the houses rendered bright with hangings of tapestry.1867[pg 606]Congratulations offered by the city, 17 Nov., 1697.On Wednesday the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, accompanied by the recorder, waited upon his majesty and congratulated him on the peace and on his safe return. The king in reply thanked them, and conferred the honour of knighthood upon the sheriffs, Bartholomew Gracedieu and James Collett.1868A day of public thanksgiving, 2 Dec.The rejoicings terminated with a thanksgiving service at St. Paul's (2 Dec.), the work of Sir Christopher Wren being sufficiently advanced to admit of divine service being held there. The mayor and aldermen attended in state. The king did not attend lest his presence should draw off congregations from other churches; but he attended service in his private chapel at Whitehall. Not only in London but throughout the kingdom the day was solemnly observed, whilst the night was given up to festivity and fireworks.1869Parliamentary elections for the city, 1698-1701.When, in 1698, the first triennial parliament had run its course and a new election of members for the city took place all the old members retained their seats except Sir Robert Clayton. His place was taken by Sir James Houblon, a Tory. On this occasion the election for the city did not take place until the returns of many constituencies in the country had been made known. As a rule the returns of the metropolitan constituencies were looked forward to as an augury of the political complexion of the coming parliament. This parliament was not allowed to live its full time, but was dissolved in December, 1700, a new parliament being summoned to meet in[pg 607]the following February (1701).1870Sir Robert Clayton regained his seat, and with him were returned Sir William Ashurst (who headed the poll), Gilbert Heathcote and Sir William Withers.1871Upon Heathcote being declared by parliament disqualified to sit owing to a technical breach of trust his seat was taken by Sir John Fleet.1872Death of James II, 5 Sept., 1701.The City's address of loyalty to William.After the death of James II at St. Germains (5 Sept., 1701) Louis broke his vow (made at Ryswick) not to do anything to disturb or subvert the government of England, and forthwith proclaimed the late king's son to be heir to his father's throne. The whole English nation was stirred against the French king for having dared to acknowledge as their sovereign the boy who had been held to be supposititious and whose title to the crown had been rejected by parliament. The citizens of London were among the first to express their loyalty to William and their readiness to do their utmost to preserve his person and government against all invasion. The king was on the continent at the time, but an address to this effect, unanimously agreed to by the Common Council (26 Sept.), was forwarded to him by the lords justices, who held the reins of government during his absence, and who in due course were instructed to inform the City of the great satisfaction its address had afforded his majesty. The example thus set was quickly followed by others, and similar addresses began to flow in from all parts of the kingdom,1873[pg 608]whilst the City's address was by the king's orders translated into foreign languages for transmission to the several courts of Europe.1874Sir William Gore elected mayor, Sept., 1701.A few hours before the City's address reached the hands of the lords justices the citizens had assembled (29 Sept.) in Common Hall to choose a mayor for the ensuing year. Sir Charles Duncombe, who had amassed a large fortune as a goldsmith and banker, and who, although returned by the livery at the head of the poll the previous year, had been set aside by the Court of Aldermen in his contest for the mayoralty probably on account of his Tory principles,1875was again put up as a candidate, although in point of seniority he was one of the youngest aldermen. This time he failed to get a majority of votes at the Common Hall, but his popularity was still sufficiently strong to return him second on the poll, and his name was submitted in conjunction with that of William Gore to the Court of Aldermen for them to select one. It was quite within their province to select if they chose the second name submitted to them—they[pg 609]had frequently done so before—but in the face of Louis's recent act of insolence they preferred to call to the mayoralty chair a man whose Tory principles were not too pronounced rather than one who had accepted an alderman's commission from James II, and Sir William Gore was accordingly declared elected.1876Election of William's last parliament, Nov.-Dec., 1701.The parliament which assembled in February, 1701, enjoyed a still shorter existence than its predecessor, for it was dissolved in the following November. Another was summoned to meet in December.1877Great excitement prevailed in the city over this election. The Whigs met at the Crown Tavern behind the Exchange and agreed to put up three of the old members, viz., Clayton, Ashurst and Heathcote, and to run a fresh candidate in the person of Sir Thomas Abney. The Tory or "Church party" opposed these candidates with four others, viz., Sir William Gore, the lord mayor, Sir John Fleet, Sir Richard Levett and Sir Charles Duncombe, the recently defeated candidate for the mayoralty. When it came to polling all four Whigs were returned by an overwhelming majority.1878This was the last parliament of William's reign. On the 20th February (1702) he was thrown from his horse whilst riding in Richmond Park and broke his collar-bone. His health had previously shown signs of giving way. On the 8th March he died.

The rise of the East India Company, 1600-1689.

The rise of the East India Company, 1600-1689.

The rise of the East India Company, 1600-1689.

Soon after parliament resumed its sittings (7 Nov., 1693) the attention of the Commons was drawn to a high-handed act done by the wealthy and autocratic company known as the East India Company. For nearly a century that body of merchants had enjoyed a monopoly of trade with the East Indies and had frustrated all attempts of "interlopers" to share their privileges. It had received its first charter at the hands of Queen Elizabeth on the 31st December, 1600, but it was not until after the Restoration, when its privileges were confirmed by another charter, that it began to enter upon a career of such unexampled prosperity as to become at once an object of envy and fear. The management of the company's affairs rested in the hands of a small number of proprietors, the leading spirit for many years being Sir Josiah Child, one of the merchant princes of the city. With him was associated, at least for a time, Thomas Papillon, the zealous Whig. He had become a member of the company as early as 1657, and for many years took an active part in its management. He was one of the directors from 1663 to 1670; was re-appointed in 1675, but lost his seat on the board the following year, as also did Child, through the intervention of Charles the Second, who disliked their Whiggish principles. After a short interval both of them recovered their positions, and in 1680 and 1681 Papillon was deputy governor.1774[pg 576]When Child turned courtier and threw over his old colleagues, Papillon and other Whig shareholders sold their stock and severed their connection with the company. Their places on the directorate were filled up by others who were devoted to Child and his policy, and thenceforth Child became the autocrat of the company. "The treasures of the company were absolutely at his disposal.... A present of ten thousand guineas was graciously received from him by Charles. Ten thousand more were accepted by James, who readily consented to become a holder of stock.... Of what the dictator expended no account was asked by his colleagues."1775His policy was so far successful as to obtain a decision in favour of the company's privileges from Jeffreys and a renewal of its charter from James. Just at a time when the prospects of the company looked brightest a sudden change of fortune was occasioned by the Revolution and the subsequent accession of the Whigs to power. The outcry raised by the general merchants of the city against the company became louder than ever, not so much on account of the company being in possession of a monopoly as because it was ruled by a single individual, and his rule, while benefiting himself and his creatures, was prejudicial to the public welfare. To this outcry Papillon, who had now returned from exile, added his voice and thereby subjected himself to a charge of inconsistency.

A New Company formed, 1689.

A New Company formed, 1689.

A New Company formed, 1689.

There was but one remedy for the existing evil in the opinion of the majority, and that was to form a new company from which Child should be excluded.[pg 577]Without waiting for an Act of Parliament many traders in the city formed themselves into an association which, although unrecognised by law, acquired the designation of the New Company, and commenced to carry on its business at the hall of the Skinners' Company in Dowgate. For years the city was kept in a ferment by the rivalry existing between the Old and the New Company, between Leadenhall Street and Skinners' Hall, the former being supported by the Tories, the latter by the Whigs.

Rivalry between the Old and the New Company.

Rivalry between the Old and the New Company.

Rivalry between the Old and the New Company.

The sanction and assistance of parliament was sought for by both companies. The majority of the Commons were in favour of a compromise. They would have retained the Old Company, but wished to remodel it and to incorporate with it the members of the New Company. Such a proceeding, however, Child would not listen to, and his obstinacy so provoked the House that in February, 1692, it presented an address to the king praying him to dissolve the Old Company and to grant a charter to a New Company on such terms as to his majesty's wisdom might seem fit. The king replied that it was a matter of very great importance to the trade of the kingdom; that he could not be expected to give an immediate answer, but he would consider the matter and give an answer shortly.1776The company sought to avert the impending danger by offering the king the sum of £200,000 by way of loan for three years without any interest.1777A twelvemonth later (Feb., 1693) the Commons again petitioned the king to dissolve the Old Company upon[pg 578]three years' warning;1778but in spite of these attacks the company contrived to obtain a confirmation of its monopoly under the Great Seal in the following October.1779This was only obtained by a lavish distribution of money.

Alderman Sir Thomas Cook governor of the Old Company in place of Child.

Alderman Sir Thomas Cook governor of the Old Company in place of Child.

Alderman Sir Thomas Cook governor of the Old Company in place of Child.

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

The stoppage of the ship "Redbridge," 21 Oct., 1693.

The stoppage of the ship "Redbridge," 21 Oct., 1693.

The stoppage of the ship "Redbridge," 21 Oct., 1693.

Within a few days of the order of the Privy Council for sealing the company's charter, and before the king, whose return from the continent was daily expected, could give it his sanction,1781the directors, in the moment of victory, committed an act of incredible rashness which led to serious consequences. A number of city merchants had recently chartered a vessel named "Redbridge" and placed on board a valuable cargo. Her papers showed her to be bound for a Spanish port, but suspicion pointed to her being intended for a voyage to the East Indies in contravention of the company's charter. Acting on this surmise, the company procured an order from the Privy Council to have the vessel stopt, and stopt[pg 579]she accordingly was from the 21st October until the following 9th November, each day's delay in sailing inflicting heavy expense on the owners. Such high-handed proceedings of the Company might create little excitement if carried out on the high seas and at a distance from home, but in the port of London they were not to be tolerated. The owners of the "Redbridge" laid their grievance before the Commons (30 Dec.).1782They pointed out that the conduct of the East India Company was "greatly prejudicial to all foreign trade and navigation in general, and more particularly to the petitioners, who by the present laws of the kingdom can have no reparation." They prayed, therefore, that the like inconveniences might be prevented for the future. Their petition was referred to a committee of the whole House, together with other petitions against the company, as well as the company's charters. In due course the committee, with Papillon in the chair, reported that the stopping of the "Redbridge" was "a grievance, a discouragement to trade and contrary to the known laws of the kingdom,"1783and further that, in the opinion of the Common Hall, "all the subjects of England have equal right to trade to the East Indies unless prohibited by Act of Parliament." This resolution was accepted by the House without a division,1784and for some years at least there nominally existed free trade with India.1785

The City's petitionredebts to orphans, 1691.

The City's petitionredebts to orphans, 1691.

The City's petitionredebts to orphans, 1691.

Between March, 1689, and February, 1691, little appears to have been done towards solving the[pg 580]difficulty of the claims of the City orphans. Another committee was appointed at the expiration of that time to consider the matter, and in November, 1691, the committee reported to the Common Council. They recommended that certain rents of the value of £8,000 per annum should be set aside towards the payment of four per cent. per annum for the immediate relief of the orphans, and that parliament should be asked to authorise the raising of a sum of £24,000 to be vested in the Corporation for the satisfaction of debts to existing orphans, and for security of the money of orphans that should be paid into the Chamber in future. The recommendation of the committee was accepted by the court (20 Nov.), and three days later a draft petition to parliament was read and approved.1786The petition set forth that in the troublous times during and after the reign of Charles I the City lost divers large sums of money, and that by reason of this, as well as of the destruction of the greatest part of their estate in the great fire and their losses consequent on the illegal judgment on theQuo Warranto, their debts to the orphans had amounted to a sum far larger than the City was able to pay without the assistance of parliament. It proceeded to lay before the House the scheme proposed by the committee, and prayed the House to assist the petitioners to raise a sufficient sum for an annual payment to be made in lieu of the said debts, or such other provision for the same as the House might think fit. On the 27th November leave was granted to bring in a Bill, and on the 3rd December a Bill was brought in and read the first time, but nothing further[pg 581]appears to have come of it.1787On the 6th August, 1692, a committee was appointed to consider the question how best the City's revenues might be improved with the view to the easier discharge of orphans' claims. The committee showed itself very active, meeting at least once and often twice a week. Nevertheless it was not until the 2nd November it was in a position to make a report to the Common Council.1788What was thought of the committee's recommendations is not recorded, but a few days later (11 Nov.) we find the court resolving to present a petition to parliament in precisely the same terms as their former petition.1789

The Orphans' Bill of 1693.

The Orphans' Bill of 1693.

The Orphans' Bill of 1693.

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

A fresh scheme, Feb., 1694.

A fresh scheme, Feb., 1694.

A fresh scheme, Feb., 1694.

When the House re-assembled in November (1693) the City again presented a petition in terms[pg 582]similar to their former petitions. The petition having been referred to a committee of the whole House that committee reported (17 Feb., 1694) to the following effect,1792viz., that (1) a rent-charge of £8,000 per annum should be set aside out of the City's revenues towards payment of interest due to orphans, (2) that the City should be permitted to raise a sum not exceeding £2,000 per annum upon personal estates in the city to satisfy the orphans' debts, (3) that the patentees of a new kind of glass light known as convex lights1793should contribute an annual sum of £600, (4) that an additional duty of 4d.per chaldron should be imposed upon coal entering the port of London and 6d.per chaldron on coals imported into the city for a term of fifty years commencing from the determination of the duty already existing in respect of re-building St. Paul's, (5) that an additional duty of 4s.should be laid on every tun of wine entering the port of London, (6) that the improvements about to be made in the water supply of the city1794should also contribute, and lastly (7) that every person bound apprentice in the city should contribute 2s.6d., and every person made free of the city 5s.towards the same object.

City Orphans' Act passed, March, 1694.

City Orphans' Act passed, March, 1694.

City Orphans' Act passed, March, 1694.

A Bill1795was subsequently introduced embodying these resolutions, but with an additional proviso that[pg 583]when the tax of 6d.per chaldron on coals, to be imposed for a term of fifty years, should cease the City's lands should be charged with an annual sum of £6,000 over and above the rent-charge of £8,000 previously mentioned. The Bill was read the first and second time on the 22nd February, and the third time on the 12th March. A few days later (21 March) it passed the Lords without amendment, and on the 23rd received the royal assent.1796

City loan of £200,000, 6 March, 1694.

City loan of £200,000, 6 March, 1694.

City loan of £200,000, 6 March, 1694.

On the 6th March (1694) the lord keeper came to the Guildhall, accompanied by the lords of the treasury, to ask the Common Council for a loan of £200,000, upon security of the land tax, for naval and military purposes. The court at once assented, and before the end of the month the whole amount had been paid into the exchequer.1797The money was raised in the usual way from the inhabitants of each ward and from the livery companies. The Corporation itself was by no means well off, and encouragement was given to anyone who could suggest a means whereby the City's revenues could be increased.1798Recourse was had, among other things, to nominating for sheriff the least suitable men for the office, and such as would prefer paying the fine to serving. In no other way can one reasonably account for the fact that the fines for refusing to undertake the office of sheriff amounted for this year (1694) to over £5,000.1799

The foundation of the Bank of England, April, 1694.

The foundation of the Bank of England, April, 1694.

The foundation of the Bank of England, April, 1694.

This loan was but as a drop in the ocean compared with the necessities of the times. The estimates for the year 1694 were enormous. The army, which was already the largest standing force that England had ever seen, was to receive a large increase, whilst considerable sums of money were required for payment of arrears, no less than for the future expenses, of the navy. Notwithstanding the renewal of the land tax, the imposition of a poll-tax, the revival of stamp duties, and the raising of a million of money by a lottery loan, there yet remained a large deficit before the estimated revenue of the year balanced the estimated expenditure. At this juncture Charles Montague, poet, politician andsavant, took up a scheme propounded to government three years before by William Paterson, an enterprising if not always successful Scotsman, but allowed to drop. This scheme was none other than the formation of a national bank. The idea was not altogether a new one. Before the close of the reign of Charles II several plans of the kind had been suggested, some being in favour of establishing such a bank under the immediate direction of the Crown, whilst others were of opinion that its management should be entrusted to the Corporation of the city. It was now proposed to raise the sum of £1,200,000 for the use of the government by way of loan at eight per cent. interest, the subscribers being incorporated by the name of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The matter was introduced into parliament for the first time on the 28th March, in the shape of a Bill for granting their majesties certain tonnage duties on wine, ale and other liquors.1800[pg 585]Although it was not easy to recognise in the terms of the Bill the germ of "the greatest commercial institution that the world had ever seen,"1801it met with considerable opposition in the House, and still more outside. With their recent experience of the evils arising from a rich and powerful body like the East India Company, men were cautious in allowing a Corporation to be erected in their midst which, as many feared, would absorb the wealth of the nation,1802and might render the Crown independent of parliament and people. This last consideration was not unimportant, and, in order to avert the possibility of such a danger, a clause was inserted in the Bill forbidding under the severest penalties the new Corporation advancing money to the Crown without the authority of parliament.1803Subject to this and other conditions the Bill passed the Commons, and on the 24th April was agreed to by the Lords.1804

At the head of the Commission, issued under the Great Seal for the establishment of the new bank, stood the name of the lord mayor, Sir William Ashurst; and out of the twenty-four original directors at least four rose to be chief magistrate of the city, whilst others are known to have taken an active part in the affairs of the municipality.1805In the city the undertaking met with a success beyond all expectation. The very first day (21 June) that the subscription lists were opened at Mercers' Hall nearly £300,000 was received, and[pg 586]within a week that amount was doubled. Sir John Houblon, who succeeded to the mayoralty the following year, and became the first Governor of the Bank, subscribed £10,000, the largest amount any one individual was allowed by the terms of the charter to subscribe before the first day of July. The same amount was subscribed by the lords of the treasury on behalf of the queen. By mid-day of the 2nd July the whole of the money (£1,200,000) had been subscribed and the books closed.1806The Great Seal was put to the bank charter, and business was commenced in the hall of the Grocers' Company.

Hitherto, as we have seen, the city of London had always acted (as indeed it claimed to be) as the king's Chamber, and the occupier of the throne of England for the time being had never hesitated to draw upon this Chamber whenever he was in need of money. The mode of procedure was nearly always the same. The lords of the treasury would appear some morning before the Common Council, and after a few words of explanation as to the necessities of the time, would ask for a loan, offering in most cases (we are bound to confess) undeniable security. Supposing that the Council agreed to raise the required loan, which it nearly always did, the mayor for the time being was usually instructed to issue his precept to the aldermen to collect subscriptions within their several wards, whilst other precepts were (in later times at least) sent to the master or wardens of the livery companies to do the same among the members of their companies. There were times, also, when the[pg 587]companies were called upon to subscribe in proportion to their assessment for supplying the city with corn in times of distress.1807Times were now changed. Instead of applying to the City for an advance in case of need, the king thenceforth drew what he required from the Bank of England. During the remainder of his reign William only applied twice to the City for a loan: once, towards the close of 1696, when he required money for the army and navy, and again in 1697, when it was necessary to pay off his continental allies and lay up the navy after the peace of Ryswick (10 Sept.).1808The City, in its corporate capacity, was no longer to be the purse of the nation.

The death of Queen Mary, 28 Dec, 1694.

The death of Queen Mary, 28 Dec, 1694.

The death of Queen Mary, 28 Dec, 1694.

In December of this year (1694)—soon after his return from an unsuccessful campaign—William suffered an irreparable loss by the death of the queen. The old adage touching an ill wind received a curious exemplification at Queen Mary's death, for although that event sent down the stock of the Bank of England three per cent., it benefited the East India Company by causing a rapid rise in the price of muslin, a commodity of which we are told that company happened to possess a large quantity.1809The Court of Aldermen put themselves into mourning,1810whilst the Common Council voted an address of condolence to the king and ordered statues ("effigies") of both king and queen to be erected at the Royal[pg 588]Exchange.1811The king followed the advice given to him by the city fathers not to suffer too much "resentment" over his recent loss, and diverted himself by practising shooting on horseback in Richmond Park whilst his dead wife was still above ground.1812

The queen's funeral, 5 March, 1695.

The queen's funeral, 5 March, 1695.

The queen's funeral, 5 March, 1695.

The funeral did not take place until the 6th March (1695). In anticipation of that event the Court of Aldermen had some time since (18 Jan.) appointed a committee to consider of the right and title of the lord mayor, aldermen and sheriffs of the city to their mourning and their places in the funeral procession, as also of the mourning due to the several officers of the city. Four days later (22 Jan.) the committee reported1813to the effect that they had found from the records of the city that it had been the custom for the lord mayor, aldermen, recorder, sheriffs and the principal and other officers of the city to have mourning allowed them by the Crown at the public interments of kings and queens, but as to the places and precedency of the lord mayor and aldermen on those occasions the committee had only found one instance of a funeral procession, and that was at the funeral of Henry VII, when it appeared that the aldermen walked "next after the knights and before the great chaplains of dignitys and the knights of the garter being noe lords." The lord mayor (the report went on to say) was not named in the procession, but at the mass and offering at the interment it appeared that the lord mayor, with his[pg 589]mace in hand, offered next after the lord chamberlain, and the aldermen who had been mayors offered next to the knights of the garter and before the knights of the body, after whom came those aldermen who had not been lord mayor.1814The committee concluded their report by recommending that a deputation should wait upon the Privy Council and assert the right of the Court of Aldermen to mourning. The representation thereupon made had the desired effect and the usual mourning was allowed by warrant (29 Jan.).1815The citizens marked their respect for the late queen by shutting up their shops on the day of the funeral.1816

Discovery of corrupt practices, 1695.

Discovery of corrupt practices, 1695.

Discovery of corrupt practices, 1695.

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

The Speaker convicted of bribery.

The Speaker convicted of bribery.

The Speaker convicted of bribery.

On the 7th March the House appointed a committee to investigate the matter, with power to send for persons and papers.1817On the 12th the committee reported to the House that they had discovered an[pg 590]order of a committee appointed by the Corporation for the purpose of seeing the Orphans' Bill through parliament, dated the 12th February, 1694, authorising the payment of 1,000 guineas to the Speaker, Sir John Trevor, as soon as the Bill should pass. This order, they said, was signed by every member of the committee except Sir James Houblon and Mr. Deputy Ayres, and was endorsed to the effect that the money had been delivered and paid to the Hon. Sir John Trevor on the 22nd June, 1694, in the presence of Sir Robert Clayton and Sir James Houblon, brother of Sir John.1818When summoned to account for his having refused to sign the order of the committee whilst allowing himself to witness the actual payment of the money to the Speaker, Sir James excused himself by saying that he had accompanied Sir Robert Clayton, at the latter's request, professedly for the purpose of thanking the Speaker for his pains about the Orphans' Bill; that this being done, the Chamberlain, who had gone with them, pulled out a note or bill which he handed to the Speaker, but as to the nature of the note or bill Houblon declared himself to have been ignorant until subsequently informed by the Chamberlain. Other[pg 591]members of the Corporation Committee also gave evidence as to the warrant for payment of the money having been originally made out with a blank space left for the name of the payee. The report further declared that sums of money had been paid to Paul Godrell, clerk of the House of Commons, to the city solicitor, the solicitor-general and the chairman of the Corporation Committee in respect of the Orphans' Bill, whilst the orphans themselves had been prevailed upon to give security for the payment of five per cent. on their whole property to certain other parties who professed to be able to render valuable services in the event of the Bill being passed.1819

The Speaker expelled the House, 16 March, 1695.

The Speaker expelled the House, 16 March, 1695.

The Speaker expelled the House, 16 March, 1695.

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

Transactions between the City and the Marquis of Normanby.

Transactions between the City and the Marquis of Normanby.

Transactions between the City and the Marquis of Normanby.

A month later (18 April) the House of Lords were busy investigating the conduct of the Marquis of Normanby in accepting, and of the Corporation of the City in granting, a lease of a certain plot of land lying behind Clarendon House, part of the City's estate known as Conduit Mead. It was shown by oral and documentary evidence that a longer lease than usual had recently been granted (Jan., 1695) to the marquis as "a gratification," he being a person of distinction[pg 592]who had shown himself very friendly to the interests of the City and likely to continue so.1821Negotiations for a lease had been commenced so far back as January, 1694, "before the Orphans' Bill was on the anvill in the House of Commons."1822It was not denied that the City entertained the hope that the marquis would use his interest in expediting the passage of the Bill, and that this hope had been realised. On the other hand it was shown that when the marquis learnt that one of the conditions of the lease was that he should "covenant" to procure an Act of Parliament for settling some doubts of title to the land conveyed, he at once declared that such a thing was not in his power, but lay with the king, the lords and the commons; nevertheless, he consented to use his best endeavours in that direction. The marquis, it was said, had also been indiscreet enough to divulge certain proceedings of the House of Lords in the matter of the Convex Lights, and this formed the subject of an investigation by the House at the same time as the granting of this lease. After careful consideration the House entirely acquitted his lordship of blame in both cases.1823

Corrupt practices of East India Company in connection with its charter.

Corrupt practices of East India Company in connection with its charter.

Corrupt practices of East India Company in connection with its charter.

In considering the City's action in respect of the Orphans' Bill we must not forget to take into account the condition of the age. It was one in which peculation and venality were predominant. Nearly every official who was worth the buying could be bought, and the world thought none the worse of him provided that these pecuniary transactions were[pg 593]kept decently veiled. The "gifts and rewards" bestowed by the City with the object of expediting the passage of the Orphans' Bill were as nothing compared with the vast sums which the East India Company was reported to have disbursed in order to obtain the confirmation of its charter. It was the practice when Sir Thomas Cook was in power for the directors of the company to sign warrants for any sum that he might require without demanding particulars from him. In seven years (1688-1694) more than £100,000 had been disposed of for the company's "special service," nearly £90,000 of which had been disbursed whilst Cook was governor (1692-1693).1824

Sir Thomas Cook and Sir Basil Firebrace.

Sir Thomas Cook and Sir Basil Firebrace.

Sir Thomas Cook and Sir Basil Firebrace.

A parliamentary committee endeavoured to obtain some account as to how this large sum of money had been expended, but could learn nothing more than that it had been spent on the "special service" of the company and that a great part of it had been entrusted to Sir Basil Firebrace.1825Firebrace denied this, but confessed to having received upwards of £16,000 for which he had accounted to the company. The committee's report proceeded to inform the House that the company had spent considerable sums of money, under the guise of contracts, in buying up the interests of "interlopers" and getting them to join the company. They had found Sir Samuel Dashwood, Sir John Fleet, Sir Thomas Cook (all aldermen of the city), Sir Joseph Herne and John Perry to have been cognisant of[pg 594]these proceedings, but they being members of parliament the committee did not think fit to send for or examine them.1826Acting upon the committee's report, the House called upon Sir Thomas Cook (26 March) to give an account of the sum of £87,000 which he had received of the company's money, and upon his refusing committed him to the Tower.1827A Bill was within a few days introduced into the House for compelling Cook to make disclosure and rapidly passed (6 April).1828In the Upper House the Bill met with the strongest denunciation by the Duke of Leeds (who saw in it considerable danger to himself), as also by Cook himself, who was brought from the Tower for the purpose of allowing him to plead against the passing of such a Bill. At the Bar of the House the latter earnestly implored the Peers not to pass the Bill in its present form. Let them pass a Bill of Indemnity and he would tell them all. The Lords considered his request reasonable, and after a conference with the Lower House it was agreed that the Bill should take the form of an Indemnity Bill, and so it was passed (19 April), a joint committee of both Houses being appointed to examine Cook and others.1829

Examination of Cook, 23 April, 1695.

Examination of Cook, 23 April, 1695.

Examination of Cook, 23 April, 1695.

His examination, which took place in the Exchequer Chamber on the 23rd April, confirmed the committee's previous suspicions.1830The sum of £10,000[pg 595]had been paid (he said) to Sir Basil Firebrace about November, 1693, when the charter of the East India Company had been confirmed, and he had always been under the apprehension that Firebrace had pocketed the money "to recompense his losses in the interloping trade." A further sum of £30,000 had been paid to Firebrace on various contracts. There had been a contract involving the payment of £60,000 on account of procuring a new charter, and another of the value of £40,000 on account of getting the charter sanctioned by an Act of Parliament, but as no Act was passed this latter contract fell through. There was a further sum of £30,000 which had been lost to the company on account of certain stock it had agreed to purchase from Firebrace at the price of £150 per cent. at a time when the company's stock was standing at par. Firebrace had always refused to give him any account as to how this money was disposed of, and had declared that "if he were further pressed he would have no more to do in it." Such was the sum and substance of Cook's confession so far as it affected Firebrace.

Examination of Firebrace, 24-26 April, 1695.

Examination of Firebrace, 24-26 April, 1695.

Examination of Firebrace, 24-26 April, 1695.

The next day (24 April) Firebrace appeared before the committee. As to the £10,000 he had received from Cook, that was (he said) a gratuity which had been given to him before the granting of the charter. The other sum of £30,000 was due on a contract "for favours and services done." He was positive that both sums were intended "directly for himself and for the use of no other person whatsoever"; that he paid nothing thereout towards procuring either charter or Act, nor had promised to do so. He acknowledged himself to have been very[pg 596]active in his endeavours to gain over interlopers, and to improve the stock of the company, but when pressed by the committee for particulars he asked to be excused giving an immediate answer on the score of ill-health; he had not slept for two nights and was much indisposed.1831On the 25th and following day he was well enough to volunteer further evidence incriminating the Duke of Leeds. He told the committee of an interview he (Firebrace) had had with Sir Thomas Cook, when the latter expressed his apprehension lest the passing the East India Company's charter should be opposed by the lord president. They had then agreed to endeavour to win his lordship's favour by an offer of 5,000 guineas. That sum had been actually left at the duke's house, and it was only returned on the morning the enquiry opened. After the payment of the money both Cook and himself had enjoyed free access to the duke and found him willing to give them his assistance.1832

Evidence of Josiah Child, 26 April, 1695.

Evidence of Josiah Child, 26 April, 1695.

Evidence of Josiah Child, 26 April, 1695.

Among others who gave evidence was Child himself, who acknowledged that he had suggested an offer of £50,000 to the king in order to induce his majesty to waive his prerogative and allow the company to be settled by Act of Parliament. William, however, was impervious to a bribe and declined to meddle in the matter.

Cook and Firebrace committed to the Tower.

Cook and Firebrace committed to the Tower.

Cook and Firebrace committed to the Tower.

The result of the enquiry was that the Duke of Leeds was ordered to be impeached, whilst Firebrace and Cook were committed to the Tower.1833They[pg 597]recovered their liberty in April, 1696, and in July, 1698, Firebrace was created a baronet.1834

The Old and the New Company agree to unite, 22 July, 1702.

The Old and the New Company agree to unite, 22 July, 1702.

The Old and the New Company agree to unite, 22 July, 1702.

In July, 1702, the rival companies were content to sink their differences, and a union was effected.1835Shortly before this took place the Old Company voted the sum of £12,000 as a free gift to Cook for his past services.1836Firebrace, who had used his best endeavours to bring about the union, brought an action against the Old Company for compensation for his services, but consented to drop all proceedings on receiving stock in the company to the amount of £10,000.1837In 1704 Cook was elected mayor, but the state of his health not allowing him to serve, he was discharged. He died in September, 1709.1838

Jacobite tumults during the king's absence abroad, May-Oct., 1695.

Jacobite tumults during the king's absence abroad, May-Oct., 1695.

Jacobite tumults during the king's absence abroad, May-Oct., 1695.

On Sunday the 12th May, 1695, William again set out for the continent, and did not return until the 10th October. The great feature of the campaign was the brilliant siege and recovery of the town of Namur, which had been lost to the allied forces three years before. Baulked in a proposed design against the king's person by his unexpected departure, the Jacobites had to content themselves with other measures. On the 10th June, the birthday of the unfortunate Prince of Wales, a number of them met at a tavern in Drury Lane. Excited by wine they sallied forth, with drums beating and colours flying, and insisted on passers by drinking the prince's health.[pg 598]This roused the indignation of the neighbours, who sacked the tavern and put the revellers to flight, one of the ringleaders being seized and afterwards committed to Newgate.1839When, in the following August, the whole of London was on the tiptoe of excitement, waiting for news of the fall of Namur, the citizens were suddenly amazed at the sight of a horseman in military uniform riding through the main streets and announcing that William had been killed. That the wish was father to the thought became sufficiently clear to the by-standers when they heard the man declare with pistol in hand and sword drawn that he would kill anyone who denied the truth of his statement. A serious disturbance was avoided by his being incontinently dragged from his horse and carried before the lord mayor, who committed him to prison.1840

Elections for a triennial parliament, Oct., 1695.

Elections for a triennial parliament, Oct., 1695.

Elections for a triennial parliament, Oct., 1695.

When the king returned in October, with the laurels of victory fresh on his brow, he determined to seize the favourable opportunity for dissolving parliament. The result of the elections for a new parliament—the first triennial parliament under a recent Act—justified the course he had taken. The citizens, who had been among the first to welcome him on his arrival in London, and whose sheriffs—Edward Wills and Owen Buckingham—he had recently knighted,1841instead of returning Tory members, as in the late parliament, returned four Whigs, viz., three aldermen, Sir Robert Clayton, Sir John Fleet and Sir William Ashurst, and one commoner, Thomas Papillon. The election was strongly contested, a poll being demanded by three other candidates, viz., Sir[pg 599]William Pritchard, Sir Thomas Vernon and Sir William Russell, against the return of Clayton, Ashurst and Papillon. The result of the poll, however, left matters undisturbed.1842The contest in Westminster was more severe than in the city, but, like the latter, ended in a victory for the Whigs. Cook, who was still a prisoner in the Tower, again contested Colchester, but lost his seat.1843On the 22nd November the Houses met.

The Barclay conspiracy, 1696.

The Barclay conspiracy, 1696.

The Barclay conspiracy, 1696.

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

The signing of associations.

The signing of associations.

The signing of associations.

By that time parliament had been informed of what had taken place. The Commons immediately suspended the Habeas Corpus Act and agreed to enter into an association for the defence of their king and country. An instrument was forthwith drawn up[pg 600]whereby each individual member of the House pledged himself to uphold King William and William's government against James and his adherents, and in case his majesty should meet with a violent death to unite with one another in inflicting condign vengeance on his murderers, and in supporting the order of succession to the crown as settled by the Bill of Rights. On Tuesday (25 Feb.) the House was called over; the association engrossed on parchment lay on the table, and every member present went up and signed, those who from sickness or other cause were absent being ordered to sign the document on their first appearance in the House, or publicly declare from their seat in the House their refusal to do so.1845The next day the Common Council of the city unanimously resolved to enter into the like association, the livery companies of the city being afterwards called upon by the mayor to do the same.1846

Bill of Attainder against Sir John Fenwick.

Bill of Attainder against Sir John Fenwick.

Bill of Attainder against Sir John Fenwick.

For weeks and months strict search was made in the city for Papists and suspect persons,1847and among them for Sir John Fenwick, for whose arrest a proclamation was issued on the 22nd March.1848He was eventually captured whilst making his way to the coast for the purpose of escaping to France, and was committed to Newgate. When a motion was made in November for proceeding against him by Bill of Attainder the sheriffs of London surrendered their charge to the sergeant-at-arms of the House of Commons. After his execution on Tower Hill in January[pg 601]of the following year (1697) some officers of Sheriff Blewet, whose duty it had been to keep watch over Fenwick by night and day whilst lying in Newgate, had to apply to the Court of Aldermen before they could get the sheriff to pay them the money (£9 10s.) due to them for that service.1849

The City and the Election Bill, April, 1696.

The City and the Election Bill, April, 1696.

The City and the Election Bill, April, 1696.

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

Resolution of the Common Hall, 29 Sept., 1696.

Resolution of the Common Hall, 29 Sept., 1696.

Resolution of the Common Hall, 29 Sept., 1696.

The City was not behindhand in renewing its assurances of loyalty. The liverymen of the several companies assembled in the Guildhall for the election of a mayor on Michaelmas-day passed a resolution to stand by the king with their lives and fortunes, and desired the city members of parliament to see that a searching enquiry were made into the late conspiracy[pg 602]as the best means of preserving the king's person, establishing the government, and reviving trade and credit.1852

The new currency, May-Aug., 1696.

The new currency, May-Aug., 1696.

The new currency, May-Aug., 1696.

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

City loans, July-Nov., 1696.

City loans, July-Nov., 1696.

City loans, July-Nov., 1696.

Towards the end of July matters became worse. In spite of the extraordinary activity displayed by the Mint authorities, at the Tower and in divers parts of the country, the supply had not equalled the demand, yet a large sum of money was now imperatively demanded for payment of the army on the continent. The king himself had written to say that unless the money was forthcoming his troops were ready to mutiny or desert. Nothing less than a million would satisfy the requirements of the army in Flanders, a like sum was wanted for the navy, whilst half that amount was necessary for the army in England.1855How was this enormous sum to be raised? It was thought that the City might vote something towards it, but the Chamberlain declared that any proposal for a loan at that time would with difficulty be carried into execution owing to the scarcity of money.1856Some private individuals, however, managed to raise £200,000 for the king, whilst others, like Sir Josiah Child, Charles Duncombe and Sir Joseph Herne, were prepared to stand security for £300,000 more, which the Dutch were ready to advance. After long deliberation the Bank of England agreed (15 Aug.) to advance another £200,000.1857These sums sufficed for the more immediate wants of the king, and allowed time for the issue of the new currency.

The Peace of Ryswick, 10 Sept., 1697.

The Peace of Ryswick, 10 Sept., 1697.

The Peace of Ryswick, 10 Sept., 1697.

The campaign of 1696 had been carried on in a very desultory way. All parties were anxious for a peace. Towards the end of April, 1697, William once more crossed over to Flanders,1858and the French king having for the first time shown a disposition to come[pg 604]to terms, it was arranged that a congress should meet near the Hague. The result of the congress was the conclusion (10 Sept.) of the Peace of Ryswick, whereby Louis consented to acknowledge William's title to the throne. The news was received in the city four days later with every demonstration of joy; the Tower guns were discharged, flags hung out, bells set ringing and bonfires lighted.1859

Preparations to welcome the king on his return.

Preparations to welcome the king on his return.

Preparations to welcome the king on his return.

The Court of Aldermen resolved to give the king a more than ordinary reception on his return. Search was made for precedents as to the manner in which former kings had been received on their return from progresses or from parts beyond the sea, and these precedents, from the time of Edward IV down to that of King Charles II, were duly reported to the court by a committee appointed to make the search.1860The committee was next instructed to consider of suitable ways and methods for the reception of his majesty if he should be pleased to pass through the city, and on this also the committee reported with elaborate detail.1861These and other preparations were all made under the apprehension that the king was about to return immediately. Weeks went by and no king appeared. The Court of Aldermen availed themselves of the delay to put the finishing touches to the programme of welcome that was to be accorded him, and to commit into custody any suspicious character they found.1862At length, after long and impatient expectation, news came that the king had[pg 605]landed at Margate on the 14th November.1863By the following night his majesty reached Greenwich and rested in the handsome building which, at the desire of his beloved queen, had been recently converted from a palace into a hospital for disabled seamen.1864

The king met at Southwark by the mayor, aldermen, etc., 16 Nov., 1697.

The king met at Southwark by the mayor, aldermen, etc., 16 Nov., 1697.

The king met at Southwark by the mayor, aldermen, etc., 16 Nov., 1697.

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

Congratulations offered by the city, 17 Nov., 1697.

Congratulations offered by the city, 17 Nov., 1697.

Congratulations offered by the city, 17 Nov., 1697.

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

A day of public thanksgiving, 2 Dec.

A day of public thanksgiving, 2 Dec.

A day of public thanksgiving, 2 Dec.

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

Parliamentary elections for the city, 1698-1701.

Parliamentary elections for the city, 1698-1701.

Parliamentary elections for the city, 1698-1701.

When, in 1698, the first triennial parliament had run its course and a new election of members for the city took place all the old members retained their seats except Sir Robert Clayton. His place was taken by Sir James Houblon, a Tory. On this occasion the election for the city did not take place until the returns of many constituencies in the country had been made known. As a rule the returns of the metropolitan constituencies were looked forward to as an augury of the political complexion of the coming parliament. This parliament was not allowed to live its full time, but was dissolved in December, 1700, a new parliament being summoned to meet in[pg 607]the following February (1701).1870Sir Robert Clayton regained his seat, and with him were returned Sir William Ashurst (who headed the poll), Gilbert Heathcote and Sir William Withers.1871Upon Heathcote being declared by parliament disqualified to sit owing to a technical breach of trust his seat was taken by Sir John Fleet.1872

Death of James II, 5 Sept., 1701.

Death of James II, 5 Sept., 1701.

Death of James II, 5 Sept., 1701.

The City's address of loyalty to William.

The City's address of loyalty to William.

The City's address of loyalty to William.

After the death of James II at St. Germains (5 Sept., 1701) Louis broke his vow (made at Ryswick) not to do anything to disturb or subvert the government of England, and forthwith proclaimed the late king's son to be heir to his father's throne. The whole English nation was stirred against the French king for having dared to acknowledge as their sovereign the boy who had been held to be supposititious and whose title to the crown had been rejected by parliament. The citizens of London were among the first to express their loyalty to William and their readiness to do their utmost to preserve his person and government against all invasion. The king was on the continent at the time, but an address to this effect, unanimously agreed to by the Common Council (26 Sept.), was forwarded to him by the lords justices, who held the reins of government during his absence, and who in due course were instructed to inform the City of the great satisfaction its address had afforded his majesty. The example thus set was quickly followed by others, and similar addresses began to flow in from all parts of the kingdom,1873[pg 608]whilst the City's address was by the king's orders translated into foreign languages for transmission to the several courts of Europe.1874

Sir William Gore elected mayor, Sept., 1701.

Sir William Gore elected mayor, Sept., 1701.

Sir William Gore elected mayor, Sept., 1701.

A few hours before the City's address reached the hands of the lords justices the citizens had assembled (29 Sept.) in Common Hall to choose a mayor for the ensuing year. Sir Charles Duncombe, who had amassed a large fortune as a goldsmith and banker, and who, although returned by the livery at the head of the poll the previous year, had been set aside by the Court of Aldermen in his contest for the mayoralty probably on account of his Tory principles,1875was again put up as a candidate, although in point of seniority he was one of the youngest aldermen. This time he failed to get a majority of votes at the Common Hall, but his popularity was still sufficiently strong to return him second on the poll, and his name was submitted in conjunction with that of William Gore to the Court of Aldermen for them to select one. It was quite within their province to select if they chose the second name submitted to them—they[pg 609]had frequently done so before—but in the face of Louis's recent act of insolence they preferred to call to the mayoralty chair a man whose Tory principles were not too pronounced rather than one who had accepted an alderman's commission from James II, and Sir William Gore was accordingly declared elected.1876

Election of William's last parliament, Nov.-Dec., 1701.

Election of William's last parliament, Nov.-Dec., 1701.

Election of William's last parliament, Nov.-Dec., 1701.

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

Back to IndexNext