Chapter 63

The campaign of 1708.Before the elections were over news arrived of another victory gained by Marlborough. The French had been utterly defeated at Oudenarde (30 June, o.s.).1936The fact that the Common Council allowed some weeks to slip by before voting a congratulatory address to the queen1937may possibly be accounted for by the growing strength of the Tory party in the city, with whom the war was never in favour. The victory was followed before the close of the year by the capture of Lille, one of the strongest fortresses in Flanders, and the recovery of Bruges and Ghent, which had fallen into the hands of the French general, Vendôme.1938The death of Prince George of Denmark, 28 Oct., 1708.The general joy which succeeded the victory of Oudenarde was damped by the somewhat sudden death of Prince George of Denmark, the queen's husband. For some time past the prince had been suffering from asthma, but it was not until Monday, the 25th October, that graver symptoms appeared.1939On that day he was attacked with dropsy and hæmorrhage, and the Court of Aldermen thought so seriously of the attack that three days later (28 Oct.)[pg 630]they instructed the City Remembrancer to repair daily to Kensington to enquire after the prince's health.1940That same afternoon, however, the prince died, and the City's address, presented to the queen a month later, whilst congratulating her on her victories abroad, condoled with her majesty on the loss she had sustained at home.1941The sad event happening so close upon lord mayor's day, when Sir Charles Duncombe was to be sworn into office, the customary pageant on such occasions was foregone, the mayor-elect contenting himself with driving to Westminster Hall attended only by some of his brother aldermen.1942The campaign of 1709.After a futile attempt to arrange terms for a cessation of hostilities both parties again took the field. Tournay having been reduced by the allies under Marlborough and Eugene, they next proceeded to threaten Mons. In order to protect this stronghold Villars, the French marshal, entrenched himself at Malplaquet. From this post, however, the allies succeeded in driving him after a "very bloody battle," in which the victors lost more men than the defeated (31 Aug., o.s.).1943The citizens of London, in an address to the queen, expressed their delight at the prospect of the French king being soon compelled to accept terms.1944Tuesday, the 22nd November, was ordered to be observed as a day of public thanksgiving for the victory of "Blaregnies," by which name the battle of Malplaquet was sometimes known.1945[pg 631]Scarcity of corn and bread, 1709.Before another campaign was opened the ascendancy of the Whigs had passed away. They had rendered themselves the more obnoxious to the citizens by the passing of an Act for the naturalization of foreign Protestants,1946the result of which had been to overcrowd the city with needy foreigners at a time when there was a great scarcity of provisions. A cry was raised that the price of corn and bread was being enhanced by the action of forestallers, and the lord mayor was instructed by letter from Sunderland (3 Oct., 1709) to put the law in force against all engrossers, forestallers and regraters of corn. The mayor in reply assured the secretary of state that there were no such engrossers in the city, but that the present dearness was caused by the exportation of large quantities of corn and grain to foreign countries. The city authorities had, moreover, been informed that wheat was selling in the north of England at 40s.a quarter and less. They therefore suggested that government should furnish a sufficient convoy for the purpose of bringing it to London.1947The representation as to the evils arising from exportation of corn had the desired effect, for a Bill was shortly afterwards passed limiting such importation,1948whilst another Bill was passed for regulating the assize of bread.1949Dr. Sacheverell's sermon, 5 Nov., 1709.The Court of Aldermen decline to print it, 8 Nov., 1709.The bitter feeling against the Whigs engendered by their overbearing and dictatorial conduct whenever in power was increased by a sermon preached at St. Paul's on the 5th November before the lord mayor[pg 632]and aldermen by Dr. Sacheverell, a high church Tory. Taking for his text the words of the Apostle, "In perils among false brethren" (2 Cor., xi, 26), the preacher advocated in its entirety the doctrine of non-resistance, condemned every sort of toleration, and attacked with much bitterness the Dissenters. Sir Samuel Garrard, who had but recently entered on his duties as lord mayor (having been elected in place of Sir Jeffery Jeffreys, who had been excused from office on the ground of ill-health),1950was himself also a high Tory, and as such was greatly pleased with the sentiments put forth by Sacheverell. He congratulated the preacher on his sermon, and is said to have expressed a hope that it would be printed. If so, it would appear to betoken some doubt in his mind as to his brother aldermen consenting to print such a polemical discourse. As a rule all sermons preached on state occasions before the mayor and aldermen were ordered by the court to be printed as a matter of course, the sum of forty shillings being voted towards the expense. Two sermons recently preached before them, one at St. Paul's and the other in the church of St. Lawrence Jewry, were so ordered (8 Nov.) to be printed by the court; but when on the same day the question was put to them that Dr. Sacheverell should be desired to print his sermon it was negatived.1951Sacheverell took no notice of this rebuff, but printed the sermon on his own responsibility and at his own expense, with a prefatory dedication to the mayor.1952The sermon was immensely popular with the high church party,[pg 633]and a large number of copies were circulated, much to the disgust of the Whigs.The sermon brought to the notice of parliament, 13 Dec., 1709.At length the ministry resolved to take proceedings against the author. On the 13th December a complaint was made to the House of Commons of this sermon, as well as of another sermon of similar character which had been preached by Sacheverell before the judges at the last summer assizes at Derby. After some debate the House resolved that both these sermons were "malicious, scandalous and seditious libels highly reflecting upon her majesty and her government, the late happy revolution, and the Protestant succession as by law established," and ordered that Dr. Henry Sacheverell and Henry Clements, his publisher, should attend at the Bar of the House the next day.Sacheverell's impeachment ordered, 14 Dec., 1709.Accordingly the next day (14 Dec.) the doctor and the bookseller appeared. Sacheverell owned that he was the author of the two discourses, and gave an account of what had taken place between himself and the lord mayor; but whilst expressing his regret at having incurred the displeasure of the House, he showed no contrition for the doctrines he had promulgated. The lord mayor, who was present in the House in his capacity as member for Agmondesham, was thereupon asked if he had given any orders for causing the sermon preached at St. Paul's to be printed, but he denied having done so.1953The doctor being called upon to retire, the House resolved to impeach him of high crimes and misdemeanours and in the meantime committed him to the custody of the[pg 634]sergeant-at-arms. Application was made a few days later for bail to be allowed, but this the House refused.1954It was, however, subsequently granted by the Lords, but at a very high amount, viz., Sacheverell himself in £6,000 and two sureties in £3,000 respectively. One of these sureties was no other than the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, of which Sacheverell was a member.1955His trial in Westminster Hall, 27 Feb., 1710.It was originally intended that the trial should take place at the Bar of the House of Lords, but as the Commons insisted upon being present as a committee of the whole House, the Lords appointed Westminster Hall to be the place of trial and instructed Sir Christopher Wren to make the necessary preparations as speedily as possible.1956The trial commenced on the 27th February and continued for three weeks. Day after day as Sacheverell passed from his lodgings in the Temple to Westminster Hall and home again his coach was besieged by crowds striving to kiss his hand and shouting "Sacheverell and the Church for ever!" So again when the queen, impelled by curiosity, attended the trial, as she did on more than one occasion, shouts were raised as she passed on her way of "God bless your majesty and the Church! we hope your majesty is for Dr. Sacheverell!" Had the mob confined itself to this kind of demonstration little harm had been done. Unfortunately it allowed itself to be carried away by excitement and took to attacking meeting-houses and damaging[pg 635]the property of Dissenters.1957The arguments on both sides having at last been concluded, the Lords, by a narrow majority, pronounced Sacheverell guilty. They did not venture, however, to proceed against him with any greater severity than to order his sermons to be burnt at the Exchange by the common hangman, in the presence of the lord mayor and sheriffs, and to prohibit him from preaching for the next three years.1958Such a sentence was virtually a victory for the Tories and a defeat of the Whigs. Lord mayor Garrard contrived to escape the humiliation of presiding over the burning of a sermon of which he in his heart approved, and this part of the sentence was carried out in his absence under the supervision of the sheriffs.1959The verdict was welcomed in the city with illuminations and bonfires, accompanied with some little tumult and disorder. The queen complained to the Court of Aldermen by letter, and thereupon the court appointed a committee to investigate the recent riots (27 March, 1710). The result was that the ringleaders were arrested and bound over to the sessions.1960The streets were flooded with republican pamphlets which the House ordered to be burnt by the common hangman.1961Addresses were sent in from all parts of the country, some in favour of the existing parliament, but the majority advocated a speedy dissolution.1962The Common Council voted an address (but only by a small majority) in which[pg 636]her majesty was assured of the City's hatred of all "anti-monarchical principles," its continued loyalty to her person and government, its zeal for the Church of England, its tender regard for liberty of conscience and its resolution to maintain the Protestant succession. The address concluded by saying that in obedience to her majesty's commands the civic authorities would do their utmost care to prevent and suppress riotous assemblies.1963The address, together with one from the lieutenancy of London, was presented to the queen on the 13th April.1964The fall of the Whigs, 1710.The queen seized the opportunity afforded her by this outburst of Tory enthusiasm to get rid of the Whig ministry. For some time past she had been anxious to free herself from Marlborough and the domineering influence of his wife. During the trial of Sacheverell Marlborough had been on the continent. In view of the approaching struggle between Whigs and Tories, both parties preferred to be relieved of his presence. To this end Sir Gilbert Heathcote, one of the Whig members for the city, had moved an address to her majesty (16 Feb.) praying she would order the duke to Holland, "where his presence will be equally necessary to assist at the negotiations of peace and to hasten the preparations for an early campaign."1965The address, having received the unanimous assent of both Houses, was graciously received by the queen, and Marlborough had set out. In his absence the queen proceeded cautiously to effect her object. One by one the Whigs were removed from office and their places[pg 637]filled up by Tories. Sunderland was the first to go, the seals being transferred to Lord Dartmouth. It was feared in commercial circles that his dismissal betokened a general change of ministry and that a panic would follow. The queen, however, assured Sir Gilbert Heathcote, at that time governor of the Bank of England, that she had no immediate intention of making further changes, but that if any were made she would take care that they should not be prejudicial to the bank or to the common cause.1966Notwithstanding the assurances thus given, less than two months elapsed before Godolphin was made to follow Sunderland. After this many of the Whig ministers resigned, whilst others waited to be turned out.Parliamentary elections, 1710.The city members.A few weeks after the dismissal of Godolphin the queen insisted on dissolving parliament, and writs were issued (27 Sept.) for a new House to meet in November.1967Harley, who was the queen's chief adviser, having failed in an attempt to form a coalition of Tories and moderate Whigs, placed all his hopes in the result of a general election. Every effort was made to get a Tory majority returned, and with success. Bishop Burnet, whose Whiggish proclivities are apparent in every page of his history, took no pains to disguise his opinions as to the way the elections were generally carried out, and more particularly in the city of London. "While the poll was taken in London," he writes,1968"a new commission for the lieutenancy of the city was sent in, by which a great change was made; Tories were put in[pg 638]and Whigs were left out; in a word, the practice and violence now used in elections went far beyond anything that I have ever known in England." If freedom of election was to count for anything, the worthy bishop entertained grave doubts as to the new parliament being a representative parliament at all. Only one of the old members was returned by the city, viz., Sir William Withers. With him were elected another alderman of the city, viz., Sir Richard Hoare, who had been defeated in the Tory interest at the last election, Sir George Newland and John Cass,1969who afterwards became an alderman, and who, at his decease, left money for the foundation of a school in the parish of St. Botoph, Aldgate.The Tory ministry, 1710-1711.The new House of Commons being strongly Tory, Harley and St. John found themselves compelled to form a purely Tory ministry. On the 27th the queen delivered a speech in person, reflecting, as was supposed, the policy of the new ministry. To carry on the war with the utmost vigour was, she declared, the surest way of procuring a safe and honourable peace for England and her allies, and in February of the following year (1711) Marlborough was despatched for the avowed purpose of carrying this policy into execution, the Commons being called upon to furnish supplies. Yet in the midst of all this Harley commenced opening secret negotiations for a peace with France, regardless of the interests of England's allies. By September (1711) these negotiations had so far progressed that preliminaries for a peace were actually signed, but[pg 639]for fear lest the favourable terms obtained for England should provoke the jealousy of the Dutch a garbled edition of the treaty was specially prepared for the edification of our allies. Such was the political morality of the age!Act of Parliament for building fifty new churches in and around London, 28 May, 1711.The High Church party being in power, the queen took the opportunity of enlisting their support for a project she had much at heart. For some time past the want of new churches in the fast increasing suburbs of London had engaged the attention of convocation, by whom the matter had been represented to the queen. Her majesty now commended "so good and pious a work" to the attention of the Commons, a commendation which received additional force from the presentation of petitions from ministers of various parishes in and around London for assistance in carrying out repairs. The Commons showed considerable zeal in the matter, declaring, in their reply to her majesty's address, that neither the long expensive war in which they were engaged nor the pressure of heavy debts should hinder them from granting whatever was necessary.1970A Bill was accordingly brought in (18 May) for the purpose of building fifty new churches, computing 4,750 souls to each church, as well as for providing annual sums of money to be expended on the completion of Westminster Abbey and Greenwich Hospital. The cost was to be defrayed by a further duty on coal. By the 28th May the Bill passed the Commons.1971The Occasional Conformity Act, 1711.In June (1711) parliament was prorogued and did not meet again before December. A compromise[pg 640]was then effected which reflected little credit upon either of the political parties, but secured the passing of the Occasional Conformity Bill, a Bill on which the queen and the high Tories had set their hearts, but which had already been defeated twice by the Lords. The object of the Bill was to inflict penalties upon those Dissenters who, having qualified themselves to sit as common councilmen or as officers in corporations or elsewhere by receiving the Sacrament, afterwards betook themselves to places of worship where the Book of Common Prayer was not used, and where neither the queen nor the Princess Sophia were prayed for.1972Disputed elections of aldermen, 1711-1712.In September (1711) party spirit ran high in the city, the occasion being the election of an alderman for the ward of Broad Street in the place of Sir Joseph Woolfe, deceased. No less than four candidates were nominated by each side, two out of each four being already aldermen. The Tory or Church party were represented by Sir William Withers and William Lewen, aldermen, Sir George Newland and Sir Robert Dunkley, commoners. The Whigs or Dissenters advocated Sir John Houblon and Sir Samuel Stanier, aldermen, Sir John Scott and Gerrard Conyers, commoners. The wardmote was held at Drapers' Hall, and was presided over by Sir Gilbert Heathcote, the mayor, a strong Whig. It appears from a newspaper of the day1973that although the mayor caused the Act of Common Council, setting forth the qualifications of persons who had a right to vote on[pg 641]the occasion, to be read at the wardmote, he refused to make proclamation that those who were not qualified should depart from the hall. The result was that a large number of foreigners and other unqualified persons voted. The lord mayor having declared the show of hands to be in favour of the four Whig candidates, a poll was demanded, which reversed the mayor's decision. A scrutiny was next asked for and allowed, but the mayor steadily refused to express any opinion as to who of the voters were qualified and who were disqualified without first consulting counsel. The result of the scrutiny was declared (27 Oct.) by the mayor to be in favour of all four Whig candidates, and on the following day he made a report to that effect to the Court of Aldermen, who thereupon elected Gerrard Conyers alderman of the ward. The mayor's decision, however, was challenged, and a motion was made in the Queen's Bench for setting it aside as being manifestly wrong and not in accordance with the number of lawful votes. After Heathcote's year of office had expired the assistance of the Common Council was invoked in support of the rights of electors against such arbitrary proceedings as had recently taken place. The court agreed to the necessary legal expenses being defrayed by the Chamber.1974The practice of nominating as many as four candidates for a vacant aldermanry had prevailed since the commencement of the 15th century,1975but the[pg 642]inconvenience arising from this practice became so manifest during this last election that the Common Council passed an Act before the result of the election had been declared, abolishing the custom and enacting that henceforth only two candidates should be put in nomination, one an alderman and the other a commoner.1976Even this number was found too many, and within three years was reduced to one commoner,1977thus reverting to the primitive custom of the city before it was enacted,temp.Richard II, that two (commoners)at leastshould be nominated for every vacant aldermanry.1978In July, 1712, another dispute arose over the election of an alderman. Sir John Fleet, alderman of the ward of Langbourn, had recently died, and it was necessary to appoint a successor. Four candidates were put up for the post, of whom two were to be selected for nomination to the Court of Aldermen according to the provisions of the recent Act. The wardmote was opened on the 9th July at Pewterers' Hall. Sir Robert Beachcroft, the lord mayor, was himself one of the candidates, the other three being Sir William Withers, alderman, Sir Samuel Clarke and Peter Delmé, commoners. The show of hands being declared to be in favour of Withers and Clarke, two Tories, a poll was demanded on behalf of his lordship and Delmé. The result, however, was the same, and a scrutiny followed. To the great surprise of a large[pg 643]body of the electors, the mayor eventually declared (22 Aug.) the majority of votes to be in favour of himself and Delmé, but like his predecessor he steadily refused to give any explanation as to how he had arrived at that conclusion. Again there appeared to be no remedy but to apply to the Queen's Bench. The Common Council was again appealed to (6 Sept.), but whilst the matter was in course of debate the lord mayor was suddenly taken ill, and the court had to break up before coming to any resolution on the matter. On the 12th November, however, the council agreed to assist the petitioners as before, but refused any assistance to Delmé, who had already been admitted alderman, and was about to be put on his defence.1979The Court of Aldermen charged with obstructing business by not keeping aquorum, 1713.In 1713 the relations between the Courts of Aldermen and Common Council became still more strained. The latter complained of the city's business being hindered from insufficient Courts of Aldermen, and of a newly elected alderman not having been sworn in on a certain day by reason of there not being aquorumof aldermen present. On the 15th May a joint committee of aldermen and commoners was appointed to enquire into the matter. Six weeks elapsed before the committee was ready with its report. At length, on the 30th June, the committee certified1980that having examined the minute books of the Court of Aldermen it had found that between the 24th March and the 15th May last six courts had been summoned to meet, but for want of aquorum[pg 644]only one full court had been held. On the other occasions only seven, eight, nine, ten or twelve aldermen appeared, inclusive of the mayor. The committee also found that the courts were in the habit of meeting between twelve and one o'clock, and reported its opinion that such a late hour for meeting was prejudicial to the citizens and others who had business there.Touching the other matter which had been referred to them, the committee found that on the 7th May the lord mayor had reported to the Court of Aldermen the nomination and election of Sir William Withers, alderman, and Joseph Lawrence to succeed Sir Owen Buckingham in the aldermanry of the ward of Bishopsgate; that Withers declining to remove, had moved that Lawrence should be called in and sworn, according to the provisions of the Act of 1711 for regulating the elections of aldermen; that thereupon a petition was offered and part of the Act was read; that after some debate Lawrence was sent for and came into court; that upon the Common Sergeant being called in to give his opinion seven of the aldermen withdrew from the court, but one of them presently returned, and after hearing the Common Sergeant deliver his opinion—viz., that notwithstanding any petition the court was bound by the Act to admit and swear in Lawrence—again withdrew, notwithstanding the lord mayor's expressed desire that he should remain; that by this means a full court was not kept (only eleven aldermen being left with the mayor), and so Lawrence, although present, could not be sworn.1981The committee's report was ordered to[pg 645]be entered on the Journal and likewise to be forthwith printed and a copy sent to every member of the Common Council.Visit of Prince Eugene to London, Jan., 1712.In the meantime the queen had been persuaded to dismiss Marlborough on his return to England (Nov., 1711) from all his offices, and to place the Duke of Ormond, a strong Tory, in command of the English forces in the Netherlands. Negotiations with France were simultaneously pushed on, in spite of a personal visit which Eugene himself paid to London (Jan., 1712) in the hope of obtaining a continuance of English support for carrying on the war. The presence of the illustrious prince was heartily welcomed by the Whigs, by whom he was hospitably entertained. On the 15th January a motion was made in the Court of Aldermen and carried to the effect that the court was prepared to join with as many leading citizens (not exceeding sixty in number) as should be willing in providing an entertainment by private subscription for his highness, provided they first obtained her majesty's permission. Two aldermen were thereupon nominated to wait upon Lord Dartmouth, principal secretary of state, in order to learn her majesty's pleasure. There was nothing unusual in this proceeding. Nevertheless the idea of the prince being publicly entertained in the city was so distasteful to the queen and her government that she found fault with the citizens for daring to approach her with a mere verbal message (she was suffering from gout at the time),1982and declined to return an answer to any message which was not brought to her "with the same respect as has always been paid[pg 646]by the city of London to her predecessors."1983That there might be no mistake about the matter the queen's answer was sent to the City in writing by Lord Dartmouth. The Court of Aldermen at once appointed a committee to search the City's Records for the purpose of ascertaining how and in what manner messages had been delivered from the court to her majesty and her predecessors, whether they had usually been in writing or only verbal. On the 5th February the committee reported that they found that such messages had been delivered in a variety of ways: sometimes by the lord mayor alone, sometimes by two or three aldermen, and at other times by the recorder and sheriffs only. One instance had been found of a message having been sent by a single sheriff. Not once did they find that a message had been delivered in writing.1984It need scarcely be said that under the circumstances all idea of the entertainment was dropt.In spite of the prince's high character the greatest calumnies were whispered against him behind his back. He was said to be conspiring with Marlborough and the Whigs to raise an insurrection in the streets, fire the city and seize the person of the queen. A general panic prevailed. Even the roysterings of a few drunken revellers calling themselves "Mohocks"1985—the successors of the "Roreres" and "Riffleres" of a past age—were looked upon as signs and tokens of some deep laid plot, so that more than ordinary precautions had to be taken, both in the city and elsewhere, to prevent riot.1986[pg 647]Finding at length that his presence in England did not promote his object the prince, after a stay of some weeks, returned to the Hague.The Peace of Utrecht, 31 March, 1713.By the 6th June negotiations with France had so far advanced that the queen went down to the House of Lords to fulfil, as she said, her promise of communicating to her parliament the terms of peace before it was absolutely concluded. What pleased the citizens most in her elaborate speech was the announcement of the steps taken to secure the Protestant succession to the House of Hanover and for protecting British commerce. For these measures they returned to her majesty their hearty thanks, and expressed their sincere hopes that she might speedily finish the good work which had advanced so far notwithstanding "the artful contrivances and envious efforts of a factious and malicious party."1987In August a proclamation was made of a suspension of hostilities,1988and on the 31st March, 1713, the Peace of Utrecht was signed.A fortnight later (14 April, 1713) the Common Council voted a congratulatory address to her majesty on the conclusion of the peace with France, but no copy of the address was to be shown to anyone until it had been actually presented.1989On the 5th May the lord mayor and Court of Aldermen attended at Temple Bar to assist at the proclamation, whilst Tuesday the 6th July was observed as a day of public thanksgiving at St. Paul's. The queen did not attend the service owing probably to indisposition, and the livery companies were on that account excused attendance.[pg 648]The mayor and aldermen displayed no little anxiety to have their proper seats reserved for them in the cathedral.1990Sacheverell presented to the living of St. Andrew's, Holborn, April, 1713.Shortly before the conclusion of the peace the term of Sacheverell's suspension expired. His popularity became greater than ever. The queen presented him with the living of St. Andrew's, Holborn, whilst the House of Commons, which had formerly condemned him, now invited him to preach before them.1991

The campaign of 1708.

Before the elections were over news arrived of another victory gained by Marlborough. The French had been utterly defeated at Oudenarde (30 June, o.s.).1936The fact that the Common Council allowed some weeks to slip by before voting a congratulatory address to the queen1937may possibly be accounted for by the growing strength of the Tory party in the city, with whom the war was never in favour. The victory was followed before the close of the year by the capture of Lille, one of the strongest fortresses in Flanders, and the recovery of Bruges and Ghent, which had fallen into the hands of the French general, Vendôme.1938

The death of Prince George of Denmark, 28 Oct., 1708.

The general joy which succeeded the victory of Oudenarde was damped by the somewhat sudden death of Prince George of Denmark, the queen's husband. For some time past the prince had been suffering from asthma, but it was not until Monday, the 25th October, that graver symptoms appeared.1939On that day he was attacked with dropsy and hæmorrhage, and the Court of Aldermen thought so seriously of the attack that three days later (28 Oct.)[pg 630]they instructed the City Remembrancer to repair daily to Kensington to enquire after the prince's health.1940That same afternoon, however, the prince died, and the City's address, presented to the queen a month later, whilst congratulating her on her victories abroad, condoled with her majesty on the loss she had sustained at home.1941The sad event happening so close upon lord mayor's day, when Sir Charles Duncombe was to be sworn into office, the customary pageant on such occasions was foregone, the mayor-elect contenting himself with driving to Westminster Hall attended only by some of his brother aldermen.1942

The campaign of 1709.

After a futile attempt to arrange terms for a cessation of hostilities both parties again took the field. Tournay having been reduced by the allies under Marlborough and Eugene, they next proceeded to threaten Mons. In order to protect this stronghold Villars, the French marshal, entrenched himself at Malplaquet. From this post, however, the allies succeeded in driving him after a "very bloody battle," in which the victors lost more men than the defeated (31 Aug., o.s.).1943The citizens of London, in an address to the queen, expressed their delight at the prospect of the French king being soon compelled to accept terms.1944Tuesday, the 22nd November, was ordered to be observed as a day of public thanksgiving for the victory of "Blaregnies," by which name the battle of Malplaquet was sometimes known.1945

Scarcity of corn and bread, 1709.

Before another campaign was opened the ascendancy of the Whigs had passed away. They had rendered themselves the more obnoxious to the citizens by the passing of an Act for the naturalization of foreign Protestants,1946the result of which had been to overcrowd the city with needy foreigners at a time when there was a great scarcity of provisions. A cry was raised that the price of corn and bread was being enhanced by the action of forestallers, and the lord mayor was instructed by letter from Sunderland (3 Oct., 1709) to put the law in force against all engrossers, forestallers and regraters of corn. The mayor in reply assured the secretary of state that there were no such engrossers in the city, but that the present dearness was caused by the exportation of large quantities of corn and grain to foreign countries. The city authorities had, moreover, been informed that wheat was selling in the north of England at 40s.a quarter and less. They therefore suggested that government should furnish a sufficient convoy for the purpose of bringing it to London.1947The representation as to the evils arising from exportation of corn had the desired effect, for a Bill was shortly afterwards passed limiting such importation,1948whilst another Bill was passed for regulating the assize of bread.1949

Dr. Sacheverell's sermon, 5 Nov., 1709.

The Court of Aldermen decline to print it, 8 Nov., 1709.

The bitter feeling against the Whigs engendered by their overbearing and dictatorial conduct whenever in power was increased by a sermon preached at St. Paul's on the 5th November before the lord mayor[pg 632]and aldermen by Dr. Sacheverell, a high church Tory. Taking for his text the words of the Apostle, "In perils among false brethren" (2 Cor., xi, 26), the preacher advocated in its entirety the doctrine of non-resistance, condemned every sort of toleration, and attacked with much bitterness the Dissenters. Sir Samuel Garrard, who had but recently entered on his duties as lord mayor (having been elected in place of Sir Jeffery Jeffreys, who had been excused from office on the ground of ill-health),1950was himself also a high Tory, and as such was greatly pleased with the sentiments put forth by Sacheverell. He congratulated the preacher on his sermon, and is said to have expressed a hope that it would be printed. If so, it would appear to betoken some doubt in his mind as to his brother aldermen consenting to print such a polemical discourse. As a rule all sermons preached on state occasions before the mayor and aldermen were ordered by the court to be printed as a matter of course, the sum of forty shillings being voted towards the expense. Two sermons recently preached before them, one at St. Paul's and the other in the church of St. Lawrence Jewry, were so ordered (8 Nov.) to be printed by the court; but when on the same day the question was put to them that Dr. Sacheverell should be desired to print his sermon it was negatived.1951Sacheverell took no notice of this rebuff, but printed the sermon on his own responsibility and at his own expense, with a prefatory dedication to the mayor.1952The sermon was immensely popular with the high church party,[pg 633]and a large number of copies were circulated, much to the disgust of the Whigs.

The sermon brought to the notice of parliament, 13 Dec., 1709.

At length the ministry resolved to take proceedings against the author. On the 13th December a complaint was made to the House of Commons of this sermon, as well as of another sermon of similar character which had been preached by Sacheverell before the judges at the last summer assizes at Derby. After some debate the House resolved that both these sermons were "malicious, scandalous and seditious libels highly reflecting upon her majesty and her government, the late happy revolution, and the Protestant succession as by law established," and ordered that Dr. Henry Sacheverell and Henry Clements, his publisher, should attend at the Bar of the House the next day.

Sacheverell's impeachment ordered, 14 Dec., 1709.

Accordingly the next day (14 Dec.) the doctor and the bookseller appeared. Sacheverell owned that he was the author of the two discourses, and gave an account of what had taken place between himself and the lord mayor; but whilst expressing his regret at having incurred the displeasure of the House, he showed no contrition for the doctrines he had promulgated. The lord mayor, who was present in the House in his capacity as member for Agmondesham, was thereupon asked if he had given any orders for causing the sermon preached at St. Paul's to be printed, but he denied having done so.1953The doctor being called upon to retire, the House resolved to impeach him of high crimes and misdemeanours and in the meantime committed him to the custody of the[pg 634]sergeant-at-arms. Application was made a few days later for bail to be allowed, but this the House refused.1954It was, however, subsequently granted by the Lords, but at a very high amount, viz., Sacheverell himself in £6,000 and two sureties in £3,000 respectively. One of these sureties was no other than the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, of which Sacheverell was a member.1955

His trial in Westminster Hall, 27 Feb., 1710.

It was originally intended that the trial should take place at the Bar of the House of Lords, but as the Commons insisted upon being present as a committee of the whole House, the Lords appointed Westminster Hall to be the place of trial and instructed Sir Christopher Wren to make the necessary preparations as speedily as possible.1956The trial commenced on the 27th February and continued for three weeks. Day after day as Sacheverell passed from his lodgings in the Temple to Westminster Hall and home again his coach was besieged by crowds striving to kiss his hand and shouting "Sacheverell and the Church for ever!" So again when the queen, impelled by curiosity, attended the trial, as she did on more than one occasion, shouts were raised as she passed on her way of "God bless your majesty and the Church! we hope your majesty is for Dr. Sacheverell!" Had the mob confined itself to this kind of demonstration little harm had been done. Unfortunately it allowed itself to be carried away by excitement and took to attacking meeting-houses and damaging[pg 635]the property of Dissenters.1957The arguments on both sides having at last been concluded, the Lords, by a narrow majority, pronounced Sacheverell guilty. They did not venture, however, to proceed against him with any greater severity than to order his sermons to be burnt at the Exchange by the common hangman, in the presence of the lord mayor and sheriffs, and to prohibit him from preaching for the next three years.1958Such a sentence was virtually a victory for the Tories and a defeat of the Whigs. Lord mayor Garrard contrived to escape the humiliation of presiding over the burning of a sermon of which he in his heart approved, and this part of the sentence was carried out in his absence under the supervision of the sheriffs.1959The verdict was welcomed in the city with illuminations and bonfires, accompanied with some little tumult and disorder. The queen complained to the Court of Aldermen by letter, and thereupon the court appointed a committee to investigate the recent riots (27 March, 1710). The result was that the ringleaders were arrested and bound over to the sessions.1960The streets were flooded with republican pamphlets which the House ordered to be burnt by the common hangman.1961Addresses were sent in from all parts of the country, some in favour of the existing parliament, but the majority advocated a speedy dissolution.1962The Common Council voted an address (but only by a small majority) in which[pg 636]her majesty was assured of the City's hatred of all "anti-monarchical principles," its continued loyalty to her person and government, its zeal for the Church of England, its tender regard for liberty of conscience and its resolution to maintain the Protestant succession. The address concluded by saying that in obedience to her majesty's commands the civic authorities would do their utmost care to prevent and suppress riotous assemblies.1963The address, together with one from the lieutenancy of London, was presented to the queen on the 13th April.1964

The fall of the Whigs, 1710.

The queen seized the opportunity afforded her by this outburst of Tory enthusiasm to get rid of the Whig ministry. For some time past she had been anxious to free herself from Marlborough and the domineering influence of his wife. During the trial of Sacheverell Marlborough had been on the continent. In view of the approaching struggle between Whigs and Tories, both parties preferred to be relieved of his presence. To this end Sir Gilbert Heathcote, one of the Whig members for the city, had moved an address to her majesty (16 Feb.) praying she would order the duke to Holland, "where his presence will be equally necessary to assist at the negotiations of peace and to hasten the preparations for an early campaign."1965The address, having received the unanimous assent of both Houses, was graciously received by the queen, and Marlborough had set out. In his absence the queen proceeded cautiously to effect her object. One by one the Whigs were removed from office and their places[pg 637]filled up by Tories. Sunderland was the first to go, the seals being transferred to Lord Dartmouth. It was feared in commercial circles that his dismissal betokened a general change of ministry and that a panic would follow. The queen, however, assured Sir Gilbert Heathcote, at that time governor of the Bank of England, that she had no immediate intention of making further changes, but that if any were made she would take care that they should not be prejudicial to the bank or to the common cause.1966Notwithstanding the assurances thus given, less than two months elapsed before Godolphin was made to follow Sunderland. After this many of the Whig ministers resigned, whilst others waited to be turned out.

Parliamentary elections, 1710.

The city members.

A few weeks after the dismissal of Godolphin the queen insisted on dissolving parliament, and writs were issued (27 Sept.) for a new House to meet in November.1967Harley, who was the queen's chief adviser, having failed in an attempt to form a coalition of Tories and moderate Whigs, placed all his hopes in the result of a general election. Every effort was made to get a Tory majority returned, and with success. Bishop Burnet, whose Whiggish proclivities are apparent in every page of his history, took no pains to disguise his opinions as to the way the elections were generally carried out, and more particularly in the city of London. "While the poll was taken in London," he writes,1968"a new commission for the lieutenancy of the city was sent in, by which a great change was made; Tories were put in[pg 638]and Whigs were left out; in a word, the practice and violence now used in elections went far beyond anything that I have ever known in England." If freedom of election was to count for anything, the worthy bishop entertained grave doubts as to the new parliament being a representative parliament at all. Only one of the old members was returned by the city, viz., Sir William Withers. With him were elected another alderman of the city, viz., Sir Richard Hoare, who had been defeated in the Tory interest at the last election, Sir George Newland and John Cass,1969who afterwards became an alderman, and who, at his decease, left money for the foundation of a school in the parish of St. Botoph, Aldgate.

The Tory ministry, 1710-1711.

The new House of Commons being strongly Tory, Harley and St. John found themselves compelled to form a purely Tory ministry. On the 27th the queen delivered a speech in person, reflecting, as was supposed, the policy of the new ministry. To carry on the war with the utmost vigour was, she declared, the surest way of procuring a safe and honourable peace for England and her allies, and in February of the following year (1711) Marlborough was despatched for the avowed purpose of carrying this policy into execution, the Commons being called upon to furnish supplies. Yet in the midst of all this Harley commenced opening secret negotiations for a peace with France, regardless of the interests of England's allies. By September (1711) these negotiations had so far progressed that preliminaries for a peace were actually signed, but[pg 639]for fear lest the favourable terms obtained for England should provoke the jealousy of the Dutch a garbled edition of the treaty was specially prepared for the edification of our allies. Such was the political morality of the age!

Act of Parliament for building fifty new churches in and around London, 28 May, 1711.

The High Church party being in power, the queen took the opportunity of enlisting their support for a project she had much at heart. For some time past the want of new churches in the fast increasing suburbs of London had engaged the attention of convocation, by whom the matter had been represented to the queen. Her majesty now commended "so good and pious a work" to the attention of the Commons, a commendation which received additional force from the presentation of petitions from ministers of various parishes in and around London for assistance in carrying out repairs. The Commons showed considerable zeal in the matter, declaring, in their reply to her majesty's address, that neither the long expensive war in which they were engaged nor the pressure of heavy debts should hinder them from granting whatever was necessary.1970A Bill was accordingly brought in (18 May) for the purpose of building fifty new churches, computing 4,750 souls to each church, as well as for providing annual sums of money to be expended on the completion of Westminster Abbey and Greenwich Hospital. The cost was to be defrayed by a further duty on coal. By the 28th May the Bill passed the Commons.1971

The Occasional Conformity Act, 1711.

In June (1711) parliament was prorogued and did not meet again before December. A compromise[pg 640]was then effected which reflected little credit upon either of the political parties, but secured the passing of the Occasional Conformity Bill, a Bill on which the queen and the high Tories had set their hearts, but which had already been defeated twice by the Lords. The object of the Bill was to inflict penalties upon those Dissenters who, having qualified themselves to sit as common councilmen or as officers in corporations or elsewhere by receiving the Sacrament, afterwards betook themselves to places of worship where the Book of Common Prayer was not used, and where neither the queen nor the Princess Sophia were prayed for.1972

Disputed elections of aldermen, 1711-1712.

In September (1711) party spirit ran high in the city, the occasion being the election of an alderman for the ward of Broad Street in the place of Sir Joseph Woolfe, deceased. No less than four candidates were nominated by each side, two out of each four being already aldermen. The Tory or Church party were represented by Sir William Withers and William Lewen, aldermen, Sir George Newland and Sir Robert Dunkley, commoners. The Whigs or Dissenters advocated Sir John Houblon and Sir Samuel Stanier, aldermen, Sir John Scott and Gerrard Conyers, commoners. The wardmote was held at Drapers' Hall, and was presided over by Sir Gilbert Heathcote, the mayor, a strong Whig. It appears from a newspaper of the day1973that although the mayor caused the Act of Common Council, setting forth the qualifications of persons who had a right to vote on[pg 641]the occasion, to be read at the wardmote, he refused to make proclamation that those who were not qualified should depart from the hall. The result was that a large number of foreigners and other unqualified persons voted. The lord mayor having declared the show of hands to be in favour of the four Whig candidates, a poll was demanded, which reversed the mayor's decision. A scrutiny was next asked for and allowed, but the mayor steadily refused to express any opinion as to who of the voters were qualified and who were disqualified without first consulting counsel. The result of the scrutiny was declared (27 Oct.) by the mayor to be in favour of all four Whig candidates, and on the following day he made a report to that effect to the Court of Aldermen, who thereupon elected Gerrard Conyers alderman of the ward. The mayor's decision, however, was challenged, and a motion was made in the Queen's Bench for setting it aside as being manifestly wrong and not in accordance with the number of lawful votes. After Heathcote's year of office had expired the assistance of the Common Council was invoked in support of the rights of electors against such arbitrary proceedings as had recently taken place. The court agreed to the necessary legal expenses being defrayed by the Chamber.1974

The practice of nominating as many as four candidates for a vacant aldermanry had prevailed since the commencement of the 15th century,1975but the[pg 642]inconvenience arising from this practice became so manifest during this last election that the Common Council passed an Act before the result of the election had been declared, abolishing the custom and enacting that henceforth only two candidates should be put in nomination, one an alderman and the other a commoner.1976Even this number was found too many, and within three years was reduced to one commoner,1977thus reverting to the primitive custom of the city before it was enacted,temp.Richard II, that two (commoners)at leastshould be nominated for every vacant aldermanry.1978

In July, 1712, another dispute arose over the election of an alderman. Sir John Fleet, alderman of the ward of Langbourn, had recently died, and it was necessary to appoint a successor. Four candidates were put up for the post, of whom two were to be selected for nomination to the Court of Aldermen according to the provisions of the recent Act. The wardmote was opened on the 9th July at Pewterers' Hall. Sir Robert Beachcroft, the lord mayor, was himself one of the candidates, the other three being Sir William Withers, alderman, Sir Samuel Clarke and Peter Delmé, commoners. The show of hands being declared to be in favour of Withers and Clarke, two Tories, a poll was demanded on behalf of his lordship and Delmé. The result, however, was the same, and a scrutiny followed. To the great surprise of a large[pg 643]body of the electors, the mayor eventually declared (22 Aug.) the majority of votes to be in favour of himself and Delmé, but like his predecessor he steadily refused to give any explanation as to how he had arrived at that conclusion. Again there appeared to be no remedy but to apply to the Queen's Bench. The Common Council was again appealed to (6 Sept.), but whilst the matter was in course of debate the lord mayor was suddenly taken ill, and the court had to break up before coming to any resolution on the matter. On the 12th November, however, the council agreed to assist the petitioners as before, but refused any assistance to Delmé, who had already been admitted alderman, and was about to be put on his defence.1979

The Court of Aldermen charged with obstructing business by not keeping aquorum, 1713.

In 1713 the relations between the Courts of Aldermen and Common Council became still more strained. The latter complained of the city's business being hindered from insufficient Courts of Aldermen, and of a newly elected alderman not having been sworn in on a certain day by reason of there not being aquorumof aldermen present. On the 15th May a joint committee of aldermen and commoners was appointed to enquire into the matter. Six weeks elapsed before the committee was ready with its report. At length, on the 30th June, the committee certified1980that having examined the minute books of the Court of Aldermen it had found that between the 24th March and the 15th May last six courts had been summoned to meet, but for want of aquorum[pg 644]only one full court had been held. On the other occasions only seven, eight, nine, ten or twelve aldermen appeared, inclusive of the mayor. The committee also found that the courts were in the habit of meeting between twelve and one o'clock, and reported its opinion that such a late hour for meeting was prejudicial to the citizens and others who had business there.

Touching the other matter which had been referred to them, the committee found that on the 7th May the lord mayor had reported to the Court of Aldermen the nomination and election of Sir William Withers, alderman, and Joseph Lawrence to succeed Sir Owen Buckingham in the aldermanry of the ward of Bishopsgate; that Withers declining to remove, had moved that Lawrence should be called in and sworn, according to the provisions of the Act of 1711 for regulating the elections of aldermen; that thereupon a petition was offered and part of the Act was read; that after some debate Lawrence was sent for and came into court; that upon the Common Sergeant being called in to give his opinion seven of the aldermen withdrew from the court, but one of them presently returned, and after hearing the Common Sergeant deliver his opinion—viz., that notwithstanding any petition the court was bound by the Act to admit and swear in Lawrence—again withdrew, notwithstanding the lord mayor's expressed desire that he should remain; that by this means a full court was not kept (only eleven aldermen being left with the mayor), and so Lawrence, although present, could not be sworn.1981The committee's report was ordered to[pg 645]be entered on the Journal and likewise to be forthwith printed and a copy sent to every member of the Common Council.

Visit of Prince Eugene to London, Jan., 1712.

In the meantime the queen had been persuaded to dismiss Marlborough on his return to England (Nov., 1711) from all his offices, and to place the Duke of Ormond, a strong Tory, in command of the English forces in the Netherlands. Negotiations with France were simultaneously pushed on, in spite of a personal visit which Eugene himself paid to London (Jan., 1712) in the hope of obtaining a continuance of English support for carrying on the war. The presence of the illustrious prince was heartily welcomed by the Whigs, by whom he was hospitably entertained. On the 15th January a motion was made in the Court of Aldermen and carried to the effect that the court was prepared to join with as many leading citizens (not exceeding sixty in number) as should be willing in providing an entertainment by private subscription for his highness, provided they first obtained her majesty's permission. Two aldermen were thereupon nominated to wait upon Lord Dartmouth, principal secretary of state, in order to learn her majesty's pleasure. There was nothing unusual in this proceeding. Nevertheless the idea of the prince being publicly entertained in the city was so distasteful to the queen and her government that she found fault with the citizens for daring to approach her with a mere verbal message (she was suffering from gout at the time),1982and declined to return an answer to any message which was not brought to her "with the same respect as has always been paid[pg 646]by the city of London to her predecessors."1983That there might be no mistake about the matter the queen's answer was sent to the City in writing by Lord Dartmouth. The Court of Aldermen at once appointed a committee to search the City's Records for the purpose of ascertaining how and in what manner messages had been delivered from the court to her majesty and her predecessors, whether they had usually been in writing or only verbal. On the 5th February the committee reported that they found that such messages had been delivered in a variety of ways: sometimes by the lord mayor alone, sometimes by two or three aldermen, and at other times by the recorder and sheriffs only. One instance had been found of a message having been sent by a single sheriff. Not once did they find that a message had been delivered in writing.1984It need scarcely be said that under the circumstances all idea of the entertainment was dropt.

In spite of the prince's high character the greatest calumnies were whispered against him behind his back. He was said to be conspiring with Marlborough and the Whigs to raise an insurrection in the streets, fire the city and seize the person of the queen. A general panic prevailed. Even the roysterings of a few drunken revellers calling themselves "Mohocks"1985—the successors of the "Roreres" and "Riffleres" of a past age—were looked upon as signs and tokens of some deep laid plot, so that more than ordinary precautions had to be taken, both in the city and elsewhere, to prevent riot.1986[pg 647]Finding at length that his presence in England did not promote his object the prince, after a stay of some weeks, returned to the Hague.

The Peace of Utrecht, 31 March, 1713.

By the 6th June negotiations with France had so far advanced that the queen went down to the House of Lords to fulfil, as she said, her promise of communicating to her parliament the terms of peace before it was absolutely concluded. What pleased the citizens most in her elaborate speech was the announcement of the steps taken to secure the Protestant succession to the House of Hanover and for protecting British commerce. For these measures they returned to her majesty their hearty thanks, and expressed their sincere hopes that she might speedily finish the good work which had advanced so far notwithstanding "the artful contrivances and envious efforts of a factious and malicious party."1987In August a proclamation was made of a suspension of hostilities,1988and on the 31st March, 1713, the Peace of Utrecht was signed.

A fortnight later (14 April, 1713) the Common Council voted a congratulatory address to her majesty on the conclusion of the peace with France, but no copy of the address was to be shown to anyone until it had been actually presented.1989On the 5th May the lord mayor and Court of Aldermen attended at Temple Bar to assist at the proclamation, whilst Tuesday the 6th July was observed as a day of public thanksgiving at St. Paul's. The queen did not attend the service owing probably to indisposition, and the livery companies were on that account excused attendance.[pg 648]The mayor and aldermen displayed no little anxiety to have their proper seats reserved for them in the cathedral.1990

Sacheverell presented to the living of St. Andrew's, Holborn, April, 1713.

Shortly before the conclusion of the peace the term of Sacheverell's suspension expired. His popularity became greater than ever. The queen presented him with the living of St. Andrew's, Holborn, whilst the House of Commons, which had formerly condemned him, now invited him to preach before them.1991

Back to Index Next