FOOTNOTES:

An insult offered to an alderman on Lord Mayor's Day, 29 Oct., 1720.

On Lord Mayor's day (29 Oct.) 1720, an incident occurred worthy of a passing notice. From particulars laid before the Court of Aldermen (10 Jan., 1721) by a committee appointed to investigate the matter,[47]it appears that when the members of the Court of Aldermen were riding in their coaches towards the Three Cranes on the banks of the river, thence to attend the new lord mayor (Sir John Fryer) in his barge to Westminster, a certain ensign in the Second Regiment of the Guards—Thomas Hockenhull or Hocknell by name—who was in charge of a detachment of soldiers on their way to the Tower, thought fit to break through the aldermen's procession, and to bring Sir John Ward's coach to a sudden standstill, his horses being struck over the head by the soldiers' muskets. The affront was too serious to be passed over, and Sir John reported the matter to Secretary Craggs, who forwarded the alderman's letter to the Secretary at War, and at the same time expressed regret that such an incident should have happened.[48]Later on the officer himself appeared before the Courtof Aldermen bearing a letter from Sir George Treby to Alderman Ward to the effect that the officer had already received a reprimand, and would (he hoped) make a suitable apology. A written apology was read to the Court of Aldermen in which Hockenhull pleaded ignorance as to whose coach it was that had been stopped, and endeavoured to throw the blame on two of his soldiers, who he declared to be "a little in liquor." The officer being called in offered to make submission and to beg pardon, but the Court was not in the humour to accept his apology, and so the matter rested until the following January (1721), when upon Sir George Treby's intercession and Hockenhull's submission the Court agreed to pass the matter over. The Secretary at War was at the same time desired "that for the future the route for the Guards marching to and from the Tower may be as usual through Watling Street, and not through the high streets of this city."

The South Sea Company, 1711-1720.

Sir John Fryer had been elected mayor at one of the most critical times in the history either of London or the kingdom, for his election took place just at the time of the bursting of the great South Sea bubble. The South Sea Company had been formed in 1711 by Harley, with the view of carrying on such trade with Spanish America as Spain might be willing to allow in the treaty which was then expected. When the Treaty of Utrecht was concluded Spain was found to have conceded the right of trading with America, but only to a limited extent. Nevertheless the idea got abroad that the company was possessed of a very valuable monopoly, and that the trade with Spanish America would enrich all who took part in it.Accordingly the shares of the company were eagerly bought, and in a few years the institution began to rival the Bank of England itself. Early in 1720, when a scheme was propounded for lessening the National Debt, the company was in a position to outbid the Bank in buying up government annuities, and holders of such annuities were found only too ready to exchange them for shares in the company. The company next invited the public to subscribe new capital, and upwards of £5,000,000 were subscribed in an incredibly short space of time. The wildest speculation prevailed. Bogus companies sprang up in all directions, and no matter how ridiculous the purpose might be for which they were avowedly started, they always found subscribers. Men of all ranks, ages, and professions, nay! women also flocked to Threadneedle Street (where stood the South Sea House) or to Change Alley, and the very streets were blocked with desks and clerks, and converted into counting-houses. The whole nation suddenly became stock-jobbers. Swift, writing of the ruin worked by the mad speculation of the day, thus characterises Change Alley, the centre of all the mischief:

"There is a gulf where thousands fellHere all the bold adventurers came,A narrow sound, though deep as hell;'Change Alleyis the dreadful name."

The South Sea Company continued to maintain its pre-eminent position, and the value of its shares continued to rise until, in August, a £100 share was worth £1,000.

At last it brought about its own ruin in a way little anticipated. In an evil hour the directorscommenced proceedings against the unlicensed, and therefore illegal, companies which had interfered with the great company's more legitimate business. The result was disastrous. One fraud after another was exposed. The nation suddenly recovered its senses. A panic arose as bubble after bubble burst. By the end of September, South Sea stock had fallen from £1,000 to £150, and at last, after an abortive effort to obtain assistance from the Bank of England, this biggest bubble of all collapsed, bringing thousands to beggary. Even the Bank of England itself experienced difficulty in maintaining its credit during the panic, and was compelled once more to resort to stratagem. Payments were made in silver, and chiefly to persons who were in league with the bank, and who no sooner received their money than they brought it back. The money had of course to be re-counted, and by this means time was gained, and time at such a crisis, and to such an institution, meant literally money. On Michaelmas-day the Bank according to the custom prevailing was closed, and when it opened again, the public alarm had subsided.[49]

Thomas Guy and his hospital.

A few—a very few—of those who had speculated in South Sea stock kept their heads, and got out before the bubble burst. Among these was Thomas Guy, the founder of Guy's Hospital, at that time carrying on business as a bookseller at the corner of Lombard Street and Cornhill—the "lucky corner." He made a large fortune by buying stock at a low price and selling before the crash came, and rightgood use did he make of his money, for at his death he endowed the hospital called by his name with a sum exceeding £200,000.

Parliamentary enquiry, Jan., 1721.

As is not unusual in such cases, there was a universal endeavour to fasten the guilt upon others than the rash speculators themselves. An outcry was raised, not only against the directors of the company, but also against the ministry. Nothing would suffice but a Parliamentary enquiry into the affairs of the company. This was granted, and early in the following year the Lords commenced an open investigation, whilst the Commons appointed a committee of secrecy. The Lords had scarcely entered upon their investigation before it was discovered that the secretary of the company had made his escape to the continent. Thereupon the Commons gave orders for all ports to be watched in order to prevent the directors of the company following his example. Any director holding office under Government was dismissed. Two members of the House, who were also directors, were expelled the House and taken into custody. These were Jacob Sawbridge, the grandfather of Alderman John Sawbridge, of whom we shall hear more later on, and Sir Theodore Janssen, the father of Stephen Theodore Janssen who, after serving the City in Parliament and in the Mayoralty chair, became the City's Chamberlain. Other directors were also taken into custody and their papers seized.

The Sword-blade Company.

Jacob Sawbridge was a member of the firm of Turner, Caswall and Company, commonly known as the Sword-blade Company, carrying on business as goldsmiths in Birchin Lane. Sir George Caswall,one of the partners, was member for Leominster, and was serving as Sheriff the year of the South Sea Bubble. His firm had acted as cashiers of the South Sea Company, and like many similar firms of goldsmiths, had advanced large sums upon the company's stock. The committee of secrecy appointed by the House of Commons soon discovered that Sir George had been guilty of tampering with the firm's books in order to shield Charles Stanhope. For this he was expelled the House and committed to the Tower, whilst his firm was made to surrender its illgotten gains to the extent of a quarter of a million sterling.[50]

Parliament and the South Sea Company.

All the directors were forced to send in inventories of their respective estates to the Parliamentary Committee. These were confiscated for the benefit of their dupes, their owners being allowed some small portion of their former wealth to keep them from starvation. Peculation and dishonesty were not confined to the city. Peers of the realm and cabinet ministers were charged with receiving large bribes either in money or stock. The Earl of Sunderland, first commissioner of the Treasury, was reported by the committee of investigation to have received £50,000 stock without any consideration whatsoever, and although the House of Commons refused to find him guilty,[51]the Earl felt compelled to give up his post. Craggs, who was Secretary of State, and Aislabie, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to mention others, were convicted by the House of receiving similar bribes.[52]Craggs died of an attack of small-pox, pending the enquiry, but he left a largeestate, and this was confiscated for the relief of sufferers. Aislabie was expelled the House, and committed to the Tower. Among the directors who were thus made to feel the heavy hand of Parliament was Edward Gibbon, grandfather of the great historian of the "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." Out of an estate of £60,000, Parliament allowed him to retain no more than £10,000. That the action of Parliament towards the directors was afterwards condemned by the historian as arbitrary and unjust, and only to be excused by the most imperious necessity, need not therefore cause surprise.[53]

The action of Parliament upheld by the City.

The city fathers, on the other hand, upheld the action of Parliament, and urged it to take further measures to alleviate the prevalent distress by presenting to the House the following petition (3 April)[54]:—

"Your peticoners think it their duty most humbly to represent to this HonobleHouse the present state of the City of London (so considerable a part of the kingdom) now filled with numberless objects of grief and compassion (the sad effects of the mismanagemts avarice and fatal contrivances of the late Directors of the South Sea Company, their aiders, abettors and confederates in the destruccõn of their country.)

"Nor is it the case of this great city alone your peticoners lament, but the general decay of trade manufactures and of public creditt, whereof this HonobleHouse have been alwaies so extreamlytender, as also of the honour of the British name and nacõn.

"Your peticoners beg leave to return their most humble thanks to this HonobleHouse for the great pains they have taken to releive the unhappy sufferers by compelling the offenders to make restitucõn as likewise for their continued applicacõn to lay open this whole scene of guilt, notwithstanding the industrious artificers of such sharers in the common plunder as have endeavoured to obstruct the deteccõn of fraud and corrupcõn, and your peticoners doubt not but the same fortitude, impartiality and public spirit wherewith this HonobleHouse have hitherto acted will still animate them in pursuit of those truly great and noble ends.

"We are too sensible"—the petitioners went on to say—"of the load of public debts not to wish that all proper methods may be taken to lessen them, and it is an infinite concern to us that the paiment of a great summe towards them (which was expected from the success of the late scheme) is now rendered extreamly difficult, if not impracticable, and yet is a cloud hanging over the heads of the present unfortunate Proprietors of the South Sea Company, and a great damp to public credit.

"We will not presume," they said in conclusion, "to mention in what manner releif may be given in this arduous affair, but humbly submit it to the serious consideracõn of this HonobleHouse."

This petition was followed by others in the same strain from different parts of the country, and conduced to the passing of a Bill which, besides appropriatingthe sum of £2,000,000 out of the private property of the directors for the relief of sufferers, remitted a sum of £7,000,000 due by the Company to the Government, and made an equitable division of the remainder of the Company's capital among the proprietors.[55]

Supremacy of Walpole.

These measures were greatly, if not exclusively, due to Walpole, the great financier of the day, and one of the few who had not allowed themselves to become involved in the affairs of the South Sea Company. The recent disclosures led to his becoming first lord of the treasury, and chancellor of the exchequer, with his brother-in-law Townshend as secretary of state. In March, 1722, the first septennial Parliament came to an end, and again the Whigs were returned by an overwhelming majority.[56]Walpole thus found himself absolute master of the field, and this position he continued to maintain for twenty years.

Jacobite Conspiracy, 1722.

In the meanwhile the birth of an heir[57]to the Pretender (1721) had raised the hopes of the Jacobites, who were only waiting for a fitting opportunity to renew their attack upon the House of Hanover. The confusion which followed the bursting of the South Sea Bubble seemed to afford them the opportunity they desired. Again the aid of France was invoked. Not only did the Regent refuse assistance, however, but he informed the English minister in Paris of the conspiracy that was on foot. Thus it was that on the 8th May (1722) Townshend informed the LordMayor (Sir William Stewart) by letter[58]that the king had the best of grounds for believing that another plot was being prepared in favour of the Pretender, but that as the plot was unsupported by any foreign power, and the king had been forewarned, there would be little to fear. At the same time the king looked to the mayor and his fellow magistrates to secure the city.

City address to the king, 9 May, 1722.

The letter being the next day brought to the notice of the Court of Aldermen, that body prepared a loyal address to the king and presented it to him the same evening.[59]In acknowledging the address the king assured the deputation that his interests and the interests of the City were inseparable, that he would do all in his power to maintain public credit and protect the City's privileges and estate as well as uphold the religion, laws and liberties of the kingdom. An order was issued the same day by the Privy Council for putting into execution the laws against papists, reputed papists and non-jurors, as well as against riots and tumults.[60]In addition to this the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended for a whole year, the longest time on record, and throughout the summer troops were kept encamped ready for any emergency. Some of the chief conspirators in England, among them being Atterbury, Bishop of Rochester, were placed under arrest. Had not the conspiracy been timely discovered and precautions taken the whole kingdom "and particularly the Cityof London"—as George told the new parliament when, after frequent prorogations, it met in October—might have become involved in blood and confusion.[61]As matters turned out, the conspiracy proved a complete failure.

Bill for regulating elections in the city, Jan., 1725.

Whilst Walpole continued to pursue his policy of peace and increased in influence year by year, the City found itself constantly involved in disputed elections. At one time it was an election of an alderman, at another a member of the Common Council, at another an election of a sheriff. At length matters arrived at such a pitch that a petition from the citizens at large was presented to the House of Commons (16 Dec., 1724)[62]setting forth that, at elections by the liverymen of the city, numbers of people voted who had no right to vote; that at wardmote elections non-freemen claimed the right to vote on the ground that they contributed to the charges of their respective wards, refusing at the same time to qualify as voters by taking up the freedom of the city because they would thereby restrict their right of testamentary disposition of their estate;[63]that the Court of Aldermen had decided (as we have just seen) that payment of scot was a general contribution to all the public taxes and charges upon the city and inhabitants thereof—a decision which had not met with the favour of the Common Council, and that thus fresh causes of dissension between these two bodies had recently arisen. The petitioners prayedtherefore "the relief of the House for preserving the liberties and peace and quieting the minds of the citizens and for punishing all intruders upon their rights and privileges, and settling their elections upon a just and lasting foundation." In answer to this prayer the House gave leave for the introduction of a Bill "for regulating elections within the City of London, and for preserving the peace, good order and government of the said City."

Bill supported by majority of Aldermen.

After the Bill had been brought in (27 Jan., 1725), two petitions were laid before the House; one purporting to come from "the major part of the Aldermen of the city," the other from the Common Council.[64]The former, which was in favour of the Bill, had been previously submitted to the Court of Aldermen; but upon the question being proposed that the petition should be the petition of the Court, the lord mayor (Sir George Merttins) declined to put the question on the ground that it would not be consistent with his honour to let his name be inserted in that petition, when already a petition had been presented to parliament in the name of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Commons in Common Council assembled.[65]The aldermen's petition drew attention more particularly to a clause in the Bill touching the right of passing Acts or By-laws by the Common Council. It declared that the right of the aldermen to veto such proceedings had never been questioned until the time of the civil war, and not afterwards until quite recently; it further stated that the aldermen had lately (20 Feb., 1724), by their recorder, proposed tothe Common Council a settlement of all disputes by reference either to the judges of the High Court or the parliament; but the offer had been declined.[66]

Bill opposed by Common Council.

The petition of the Common Council was against the Bill as being destructive to many of the rights and privileges which they and their fellow citizens enjoyed by ancient charters.[67]The Bill passed its second reading on the 6th of February, after which both parties were heard by counsel. When the Bill was before the committee, several petitions against it were presented from Livery Companies of the city. On the 19th March it was read a third time and passed the Commons.[68]In the passage of the Bill through the Lower House it had been strenuously opposed by three out of the four members for the city, viz: Francis Child, Richard Lockwood and John Barnard. For their services in this respect the Common Council passed (22 March) them a formal vote of thanks. The Court at the same time prepared to oppose the Bill in the Lords.[69]

Election Act, 11 Geo. i. c, 18, 1725.

When the Bill was carried up to the Lords, petitions from "the major part of the aldermen" and from the Common Council were again presented, as well as another petition subscribed by certain freemen who objected to parts of the Bill.[70]The passage of the Bill through the Upper House was nevertheless expeditious; on the 1st April it was read a second time and committed, and on the 13th, itwas passed with some amendments, but not without a protest being formally entered by dissentient lords.[71]On the 20th the Bill received the royal assent.

There are three clauses in the Act of special interest. First, the clause (No. ix), which prescribes the nature of the charges embraced in the term "payment of scot;" secondly, the clause (No. xv), which confirms to the Aldermen of the city their right to negative Acts of the Common Council;[72]and thirdly, the clause (No. xvii) abolishing the custom of the City restraining citizens and freemen from disposing of the whole of their personal estates by will.

Death of George I, 11 June, 1727.

Just when the reign of George I was drawing to an unexpected close, it seemed as if England was on the point of becoming involved in a European War. The emperor and the king of Spain had laid aside their quarrels and become united in a confederacy against France and England. Unless Gibraltar were ceded by England, another invasion of the Pretender might be shortly expected. The citizens were highly incensed at the thought of their trade being periodically put in jeopardy by Jacobite risings, and they hastened to assure the king once more of theirdetermination to sacrifice their lives and fortunes in defence of the constitution both in church and state against all enemies whatsoever.[73]Thanks to the pacific tendencies of Walpole and the diplomatic skill of Townshend, hostilities were averted, and George was able to set out for his customary visit to Hanover, where he had been in the habit of spending a portion of each year. Before his journey was completed, however, he was seized with apoplexy and died in his coach, near Osnabrück (11 June).

FOOTNOTES:[1]Journal 56, fo. 130b; Repertory 118, fo. 357.[2]Journal 56, fos. 132b, 150; Repertory 118, fo. 363.[3]Journal 56, fos. 133-134b.[4]Journal 56, fo. 150; Repertory 118, fo. 394.[5]Repertory 118, fos. 389-391.[6]Id., fos. 368, 369, 384.[7]Repertory 118, fos. 377, 381.[8]This "indulgence" was granted by the lords justices, but was not to be drawn into precedent.—Id., fo. 395.[9]Journal 56, fo. 150b.[10]Proclamation dated 15 Sept., 1714.—Id.fo. 135b.[11]Repertory 119, fo. 8.[12]The City put in its customary claims, and the masters and wardens of the principal livery companies were appointed to assist the lord mayor in his duties.—Repertory 118, fos. 382-383.[13]Journal 56, fos. 151b, 161b, 181b.[14]Maitland, i, 517.[15]Proclamation dated 6 Dec., 1714.—Journal 56, fo. 139b.[16]Repertory 119, fos. 79-81.[17]Journal 56, fo. 147b.[18]Both aldermen had been knighted by George soon after his landing.—Maitland, i, 517.[19]Maitland, i, 518.[20]Journal 56, fo. 164.[21]Rapin's Hist. of England (continuation by Tindal), v, 424, 425.[22]Journal House of Commons, xviii, 232.[23]Journal 56, fos. 194b-195.[24]Stat. 1 Geo., i, c. 5. Journal House of Commons, xviii, 232.[25]Stat. 1 Geo., i, c. 13. "An Act for the further security of his majesty's person and government ... and for extinguishing the hopes of the pretended Prince of Wales...."Id., xviii, 279.[26]Repertory 120, fos. 50-70. Rolls of quarter sessions of this period containing the signatures of those who had not previously subscribed to the oaths are preserved at the Guildhall.[27]Repertory 119, fo. 386. Journal 56, fo. 203.[28]Journal 56, fos. 217, 217b, 218b.[29]Id., fos. 217b, 218b, 270b. Journal 57, fo. 3b.[30]Journal 67, fo. 267.[31]Journal 56, fos. 216b, 218.[32]Stat. 1, Geo. i, c. 38.[33]Rapin, History of England (contd. by Tindal) iv, 550.[34]Repertory 121, fos. 250, 265, George Seton, the 5th Earl of Winton, had joined the rising of 1715. He was taken at Preston, and being brought to trial was condemned to death. He managed, however, to make his escape from the Tower and fled to France.[35]Rapin iv, 541-545.[36]Repertory 123, fo. 17.[37]Id., 123, fo. 19.[38]Journal House of Commons, xix, 47.[39]Journal House of Lords, xxi, 72, 145-147.[40]A mistake for 19th Jan., 1641-2. See Journal 40, fo. 16.[41]Journal 50, fo. 32b.[42]Journal House of Lords, xxi, 148, 149.[43]See Maitland i, 521-525; Noorthouck, 312.[44]Repertory 123, fos. 210-215.[45]Repertory 123, fos. 223, 242.[46]Journal 57, fo. 22b; Repertory 123, fo. 401.[47]Repertory 125, fos. 149-156.[48]Letter from Secretary Craggs to Alderman Ward "at his house upon Lambeth Hill," 8 Nov., 1720. Repertory 125, fo. 151.[49]Macleod, "Rise and Progress of Banking in England," ii, 55.[50]Journal House of Commons, xix, 476.[51]Id., xix, 482.[52]Id., xix, 472-473, 532.[53]Gibbon, Miscellaneous Works, i, 16-18.[54]Journal 57, fo. 85. Journal House of Commons, xix, 502.[55]Rapin v. 645.—Journal House of Lords, xxi, 584.[56]Only one of the old members (viz., Peter Godfrey) was returned for the City, the remaining seats being gained by Francis Child, of the banking firm, who in the next Parliament sat for Middlesex, Richard Lockwood and John Barnard, who afterwards became Lord Mayor and one of Walpole's strongest opponents.[57]Charles Edward Stuart, better known as the young Pretender.[58]Repertory 126, fo. 344.[59]Id., fos. 344-352. The address as well as the king's reply are set out by Maitland (i, 531-532).[60]Repertory 126, fo. 355.[61]Journal House of Commons, xx, 11.[62]Journal House of Commons, xx, 363.[63]By the custom of the City a freeman disposing by will of his personal estate was obliged to leave his wife one-third of that estate, and to his children, if any, another third.[64]Journal House of Commons, xx, 383, 387, 389.[65]Repertory 129, fo. 123.[66]Repertory 128, fos. 149-150, 204. Journal 57, fo. 110.[67]Journal 57, fos. 119b. 120.[68]Journal House of Commons, xx, 403, 426, 462.[69]Journal 57, fos. 121, 121b.[70]Journal House of Lords, xxii, 472, 474, 483. Journal 57, fo. 121. Repertory 129, fo. 218.[71]Journal House of Lords, xxii, 499, 500. During the debate in committee, a proposal had been made to ask the opinion of the judges whether the Bill repealed any of the privileges, customs, or liberties of the City restored to them or preserved by the Act passed in 2 William and Mary for reversing the judgment on theQuo Warrantoand for restoring the City its ancient rights and privileges. The proposal was negatived; but 16 lords entered a formal protest against rejecting it, whilst 25 lords protested against passing the Bill.[72]This clause was repealed by Stat. 19, Geo. ii, c. 8. On the 24 April, 1746, the Common Council passed a general vote of thanks to the lord mayor and Aldermen who had assisted in bringing about the repeal of a clause which had been "productive of great jealousies and discontents and might, if continued, have proved subversive of the rights and liberties of the citizens of London."—Journal 59, fo. 29b.[73]Journal 57, fo. 149b.

[1]Journal 56, fo. 130b; Repertory 118, fo. 357.

[2]Journal 56, fos. 132b, 150; Repertory 118, fo. 363.

[3]Journal 56, fos. 133-134b.

[4]Journal 56, fo. 150; Repertory 118, fo. 394.

[5]Repertory 118, fos. 389-391.

[6]Id., fos. 368, 369, 384.

[7]Repertory 118, fos. 377, 381.

[8]This "indulgence" was granted by the lords justices, but was not to be drawn into precedent.—Id., fo. 395.

[9]Journal 56, fo. 150b.

[10]Proclamation dated 15 Sept., 1714.—Id.fo. 135b.

[11]Repertory 119, fo. 8.

[12]The City put in its customary claims, and the masters and wardens of the principal livery companies were appointed to assist the lord mayor in his duties.—Repertory 118, fos. 382-383.

[13]Journal 56, fos. 151b, 161b, 181b.

[14]Maitland, i, 517.

[15]Proclamation dated 6 Dec., 1714.—Journal 56, fo. 139b.

[16]Repertory 119, fos. 79-81.

[17]Journal 56, fo. 147b.

[18]Both aldermen had been knighted by George soon after his landing.—Maitland, i, 517.

[19]Maitland, i, 518.

[20]Journal 56, fo. 164.

[21]Rapin's Hist. of England (continuation by Tindal), v, 424, 425.

[22]Journal House of Commons, xviii, 232.

[23]Journal 56, fos. 194b-195.

[24]Stat. 1 Geo., i, c. 5. Journal House of Commons, xviii, 232.

[25]Stat. 1 Geo., i, c. 13. "An Act for the further security of his majesty's person and government ... and for extinguishing the hopes of the pretended Prince of Wales...."Id., xviii, 279.

[26]Repertory 120, fos. 50-70. Rolls of quarter sessions of this period containing the signatures of those who had not previously subscribed to the oaths are preserved at the Guildhall.

[27]Repertory 119, fo. 386. Journal 56, fo. 203.

[28]Journal 56, fos. 217, 217b, 218b.

[29]Id., fos. 217b, 218b, 270b. Journal 57, fo. 3b.

[30]Journal 67, fo. 267.

[31]Journal 56, fos. 216b, 218.

[32]Stat. 1, Geo. i, c. 38.

[33]Rapin, History of England (contd. by Tindal) iv, 550.

[34]Repertory 121, fos. 250, 265, George Seton, the 5th Earl of Winton, had joined the rising of 1715. He was taken at Preston, and being brought to trial was condemned to death. He managed, however, to make his escape from the Tower and fled to France.

[35]Rapin iv, 541-545.

[36]Repertory 123, fo. 17.

[37]Id., 123, fo. 19.

[38]Journal House of Commons, xix, 47.

[39]Journal House of Lords, xxi, 72, 145-147.

[40]A mistake for 19th Jan., 1641-2. See Journal 40, fo. 16.

[41]Journal 50, fo. 32b.

[42]Journal House of Lords, xxi, 148, 149.

[43]See Maitland i, 521-525; Noorthouck, 312.

[44]Repertory 123, fos. 210-215.

[45]Repertory 123, fos. 223, 242.

[46]Journal 57, fo. 22b; Repertory 123, fo. 401.

[47]Repertory 125, fos. 149-156.

[48]Letter from Secretary Craggs to Alderman Ward "at his house upon Lambeth Hill," 8 Nov., 1720. Repertory 125, fo. 151.

[49]Macleod, "Rise and Progress of Banking in England," ii, 55.

[50]Journal House of Commons, xix, 476.

[51]Id., xix, 482.

[52]Id., xix, 472-473, 532.

[53]Gibbon, Miscellaneous Works, i, 16-18.

[54]Journal 57, fo. 85. Journal House of Commons, xix, 502.

[55]Rapin v. 645.—Journal House of Lords, xxi, 584.

[56]Only one of the old members (viz., Peter Godfrey) was returned for the City, the remaining seats being gained by Francis Child, of the banking firm, who in the next Parliament sat for Middlesex, Richard Lockwood and John Barnard, who afterwards became Lord Mayor and one of Walpole's strongest opponents.

[57]Charles Edward Stuart, better known as the young Pretender.

[58]Repertory 126, fo. 344.

[59]Id., fos. 344-352. The address as well as the king's reply are set out by Maitland (i, 531-532).

[60]Repertory 126, fo. 355.

[61]Journal House of Commons, xx, 11.

[62]Journal House of Commons, xx, 363.

[63]By the custom of the City a freeman disposing by will of his personal estate was obliged to leave his wife one-third of that estate, and to his children, if any, another third.

[64]Journal House of Commons, xx, 383, 387, 389.

[65]Repertory 129, fo. 123.

[66]Repertory 128, fos. 149-150, 204. Journal 57, fo. 110.

[67]Journal 57, fos. 119b. 120.

[68]Journal House of Commons, xx, 403, 426, 462.

[69]Journal 57, fos. 121, 121b.

[70]Journal House of Lords, xxii, 472, 474, 483. Journal 57, fo. 121. Repertory 129, fo. 218.

[71]Journal House of Lords, xxii, 499, 500. During the debate in committee, a proposal had been made to ask the opinion of the judges whether the Bill repealed any of the privileges, customs, or liberties of the City restored to them or preserved by the Act passed in 2 William and Mary for reversing the judgment on theQuo Warrantoand for restoring the City its ancient rights and privileges. The proposal was negatived; but 16 lords entered a formal protest against rejecting it, whilst 25 lords protested against passing the Bill.

[72]This clause was repealed by Stat. 19, Geo. ii, c. 8. On the 24 April, 1746, the Common Council passed a general vote of thanks to the lord mayor and Aldermen who had assisted in bringing about the repeal of a clause which had been "productive of great jealousies and discontents and might, if continued, have proved subversive of the rights and liberties of the citizens of London."—Journal 59, fo. 29b.

[73]Journal 57, fo. 149b.

King George II proclaimed, 15 June, 1727.

On the 15th June, 1727, the Court of Aldermen were informed by Sir John Eyles, the lord mayor, that he had received an order of council dated from Leicester House (the residence of the Prince of Wales) for his lordship and the Court to attend at eleven o'clock the next morning at Temple Bar for the purpose of proclaiming King George II. The Court thereupon agreed to be present, and instructed the lord mayor to see that they were allowed to follow in the procession immediately after the lords of the council.[74]Proclamation having been duly made the mayor and aldermen, accompanied by the Recorder, waited upon the king with an address, and afterwards proceeded to pay their compliments to the queen.[75]Another address had been drawn up by a joint committee of aldermen and common councilmen on behalf of the Common Council. But when it was submitted for approval the aldermen insisted upon exercising their right of veto—recently confirmed by parliamentary authority—and as they and the commons failed to agree on the several clauses of the address it had to be abandoned altogether. The mayor was asked to summon another court, "in pursuance to common usage and ancient right," to consider another address,but after consultation with the aldermen he declined to accede to the request.[76]

Back to Index Next