FOOTNOTES:

Resolutions of the livery, 10 Oct., 1769.

On the day that the result of the poll was declared (10 Oct.) in favour of Beckford as mayor for the ensuing year the livery passed several resolutions. The first was that the outgoing lord mayor (Turner) should be asked if he had received any answer to the recent petition. Secondly that he should be called upon to produce Lord Holland's letter. They in the next place publicly named Lord Holland as the paymaster to whom they had referred in their petition as "a public defaulter of unaccounted millions," and insisted upon a parliamentary enquiry into his accounts. Should he be found such a defaulter as they alleged, it was the duty of the city's representatives in Parliament to move for his impeachment. These resolutions they ordered to be placed on record, as part of the proceedings in relation to the election of a mayor, and a copy of them was to be sent to each of the city's members.[229]

Another address of the livery, 6 March, 1770.

Here matters were allowed to rest until the following March (1770), when the livery sought the assistance of the Common Council to get Beckford tosummon a Common Hall for the purpose of taking further measures to secure their rights and privileges.[230]Why they did not make a direct application to the mayor himself, as was the usual practice, is not clear. The Court, after some hesitation, acceded to their request, and a Common Hall was summoned accordingly. Another address, remonstrance and petition was thereupon drawn up (6 March).[231]"A bolder declaration, both against king and Parliament"—Walpole writes to his friend[232]—was never seen. The majority of the Court of Aldermen would have formally disavowed it, but Beckford, who presided, refused to allow a motion to that effect to be moved until the City's Records had been searched with the view of determining the several powers of the Courts of Aldermen and Common Council, and of the livery in Common Hall assembled.[233]After referring to their former petition remaining still unanswered, the petitioners proceeded to inveigh against Parliament and the ministry for having deprived the people of their just rights. The majority in the House (they said) had "done a deed more ruinous in its consequences than the levying of ship-money by Charles the First or the dispensing power assumed by James the Second." They told the king to his face that the House of Commons as then constituted did not only fail to represent the people, but it was "corruptly subservient" to his own ministers, and they called upon his majesty on that account to dissolvethe Parliament and dismiss those ministers who had advised him badly.

The remonstrance approved byJunius.

This language was bold, but it conveyed no more than the truth. Its truthfulness, no less than its boldness, attractedJunius, who thus wrote approvingly of the attitude taken up by London: "The city of London hath given an example which, I doubt not, will be followed by the whole kingdom. The noble spirit of the metropolis is the life-blood of the state, collected at the heart; from that point it circulates, with health and vigour, through every artery of the constitution.... The city of London have expressed their sentiments with freedom and firmness; they have spoken truth boldly; and in whatever light their remonstrance may be represented by courtiers, I defy the most subtle lawyer in this country to point out a single instance in which they have exceeded the truth. Even that assertion, which we are told is most offensive to Parliament, in the theory of the English constitution is strictly true. If any part of the representative body be not chosen by the people that part vitiates the whole."[234]Adopting the words of the remonstrance, he declared that the principle on which the Middlesex election had been determined was more pernicious in its effects than either the levying of ship-money by Charles I or the suspending power claimed by his son.

Condemned by Goldsmiths, Weavers and Grocers.

On the other hand several of the livery companies themselves, viz.: the Goldsmiths, the Weavers, and the Grocers, had declared the remonstrance to be indecent and disrespectful, and forbade the membersof their respective liveries to attend any Common Hall in future (except for purposes of election) without express leave of their Courts of Assistants. The authority of the mayor and aldermen over the livery companies was thus openly defied. On learning of these resolutions Beckford summoned a Common Hall to meet on the 12th April to consider what course to take, but his precept was ignored by the recalcitrant companies. Such disobedience was hitherto unheard of, and the matter was reported to the livery committee, appointed the 28th September, 1769.[235]This committee was afterwards united with a committee of the Common Council, and after due consideration the question of the rights of the livery was submitted to counsel.[236]The result will be seen in the next chapter.

The king hesitates to receive the address.

Unlike the former address, this was invested with a corporate character by being ordered to be presented by the lord mayor, the city members, the Court of Aldermen, the sheriffs and the Common Council. In due course the sheriffs attended (6 March), to learn when the king would be pleased to receive the address. They were told they had come at an improper time, and must deliver their message on a court day. By treating them in this manner the king hoped to hear no more of the matter; it was—he told Lord Weymouth—the most likely means of putting an end to "this stuff." He desired, however, that the opinion of Lord Mansfield should be taken as to whether the sheriffs could claim to be received"as on occasions that they addressed the crown."[237]On the following day the sheriffs again presented themselves. After the levée was over they were admitted to the closet, but not before some questions had been asked as to the nature of the address to be presented. Sheriff Townshend having made his formal request the king replied that as the case was "entirely new" he would take time to consider it, and would send an answer by one of his principal secretaries of state. The question to be decided was whether the address ought to be treated as coming from the citizens of London in their corporate capacity or as only proceeding from a comparatively small body of them, viz., the livery. If the former, it would, in accordance with custom, be received by the king on the throne; if the latter, the king would receive it at a levée or in any other manner he might think fit. In order, therefore, to discover the precise nature of the address the king directed Lord Weymouth to make the necessary enquiries. Lord Weymouth accordingly wrote (8 March) to the sheriffs asking in what manner the address was authenticated and what was the nature of the assembly by which it had been adopted as it appeared to be "entirely new."[238]Instead of answering the letter the sheriffs the next day (9 March) again put in an appearance at St. James's, accompanied by the Remembrancer. Being asked whether they came "with a fresh message or with a message?" they answered "with a message." The secretaries of state then appeared, and LordWeymouth asked the sheriffs if they had received his letter, and whether they came in consequence of it or on any fresh business? They replied that they had received his letter and had come in consequence of it. The following dialogue is recorded as having then taken place:—

Lord Weymouth: "Would it not be more proper to send an answer in writing through me?"

The Sheriffs: "We act ministerially. As sheriffs of London we have a right to an audience, and cannot communicate to any other person than the king the subject of our message."

Lord Weymouth: "I do not dispute your right to an audience, but would it not be better and more accurate to give your message to me in writing?"

The Sheriffs: "We know the value and consequence of the citizen's right to apply immediately to the king, and not to a third person, and we do not mean that any of their rights and privileges should be betrayed by our means."

Sheriff Townshend's speech to the king, 9 March, 1770.

At last the king consented to see them, and Sheriff Townshend then addressed his majesty in the following terms:—

"When we had last the honour to appear before your majesty, your majesty was graciously pleased to promise an answer by one of your majesty's principal secretaries of state; but we had yesterday questions proposed to us by Lord Weymouth. In answer to which we beg leave humbly to inform your majesty that the application we make to your majesty we make as sheriffs of the city of London by the direction of the livery in Common Hall legallyassembled. The address, remonstrance and petition to be presented to your majesty, by their chief magistrate, is the act of the citizens of London in their greatest court, and is ordered by them to be properly authenticated as their act."[239]

The king consults Lord North.

To this the king vouchsafed no further reply than that he would take time to consider the matter. The next day (10 March) he wrote to Lord North: "The more I reflect on the present remonstrance from the livery the more I am desirous it should receive an answer, otherwise this bone of contention will never end; I therefore am thoroughly of opinion that, as the sheriffs (though falsely) have insinuated that it is properly authenticated, that the least inconvenience will be receiving them on the throne."[240]All that the minister could do to help the king out of his difficulty was to instance cases where only "a certain number" were allowed to attend, but the king was not satisfied, and expressed himself as being still of opinion that under the circumstances he had better receive the address on the throne.[241]

The king's reply, 14 March, 1770.

Accordingly it was decided to receive it in that manner on Wednesday, the 14th.[242]Having listened with composure, distasteful as the address was, the king read an answer in which, after declaring his readiness ever to listen to the complaints of hissubjects, he expressed concern at finding that any of them had been so misled as to offer an address at once disrespectful to himself, injurious to Parliament and irreconcilable with the principles of the constitution.[243]

Parliament and the remonstrance, 15-19 March, 1770.

The next day (15 March) the House of Commons resolved to pray the king that he would be pleased to lay the remonstrance and his answer before the House. The king at once gave his consent, but the ministry betrayed the greatest timidity. "The fright at court continues"—wrote Calcraft to Chatham (17 March)—"and they are not only puzzled, but undetermined what to do with the remonstrance, now it is got to parliament. The only resolution taken is to be most temperate and avoid either expulsion or commitment seeing the lord mayor and sheriffs court it." Again "the ministers dread a resolution of the Common Hall against the advisers of the strong words in his majesty's answer."[244]After long debate the House contented themselves (19 March) with passing a resolution to the effect that the document was an "unwarrantable and dangerous petition" as well as a gross abuse of the right of petitioning the king.[245]

Entertainment at Mansion House, 22 March, 1770.

In the meantime Beckford, who with the two sheriffs, Townshend and Sawbridge, and with Alderman Trecothick avowed their share in the remonstrance, had issued invitations to a banquet at the Mansion House to "a very numerous though a select number of persons" of both houses of parliament. He had previously taken the precaution of sounding LordRockingham, and in doing so had used the good offices of his friend Lord Chatham. The entertainment would afford a good opportunity (thought the mayor), for obtaining some guarantee of the future policy of the Opposition whenever they should come into power, and he and Horne had devised a plan for getting the guests to sign a formal document committing them definitely to certain reforms. Such a document Horne afterwards declared himself to have actually drawn up "in terms so cautious and precise as to leave no room for future quibble and evasion."[246]This device becoming known, Chatham wrote to say that in the opinion of himself, Lord Rockingham and Lord Temple, "no new matters should be opened or agitated at or after the convivium"[247]which was fixed for Thursday, the 22nd March,—the eve of the day on which both Houses were to present an address to the king touching the remonstrance. The entertainment was one of the most magnificent ever given by a private individual. The members were escorted to the city by the livery of London on horseback through the crowded streets. Those who failed to illuminate their houses ran the risk of having their windows broken.[248]Chatham was prevented from attending by an attack of his old enemy the gout.[249]Magnificent as was the entertainment from a social point of view, from a political it was money thrown away.

Wilkes regains his liberty, 17 April, 1770.

Wilkes's term of imprisonment was now fast drawing to a close. His release was looked forward to by his friends with great joy, by his enemies with no little fear and concern. In November last (1769), his spirits and the spirits of his party had been raised by a jury awarding him no less a sum than £4,000 by way of damages in his long protracted action against Lord Halifax,[250]by whose orders his papers had been seized. Nevertheless his second fine of £500 remained yet unpaid.[251]On the 17th April (1770) Wilkes regained his liberty, and in order to prevent disturbance slipped away into the country, to the house of his friend Reynolds, for a few days. On his return he was immediately sworn in as alderman of the ward of Farringdon Without (24 April).[252]At the outset of his new career Wilkes behaved with the greatest propriety. "I don't know whether Wilkes is subdued by his imprisonment"—wrote Walpole to his friend—"or waits for the rising of parliament, to take the field; or whether his dignity of alderman has dulled him into prudence and the love of feasting; but hitherto he has done nothing but go to city-banquets and sermons, and sit at Guildhall as a sober magistrate."[253]

A remonstrance by Common Council, 14 May, 1770.

On the 14th May, he was nominated a member of the committee appointed by the Common Council to draw up another humble address, remonstrance and petition to the king, "touching the violated right of election, and the applications of the livery of London, and his majesty's answer thereupon." Anaddress was accordingly drawn up—"much less hot than the former"—calling upon the king to dissolve parliament and dismiss his ministers.[254]It was adopted by the Common Council by a large majority (viz. 98 votes to 46). At first the king was disposed not to receive it at all. "I suppose this is another remonstrance" he wrote to North, after telling the sheriffs to call again "if so I think it ought not to have any answer."[255]After seeing a draft of it, however, he changed his mind. He acknowledged that it was less offensive than he had been given to understand, but he thought "the whole performance" required no more than "a short dry answer."[256]

The king's reply, 23 May, 1770.

In the ordinary course the presentation would have been made by the Recorder on behalf of the citizens. Eyre, however, refused to attend on this occasion,[257]so that the address may possibly have been read by the lord mayor himself. The king's reply was even briefer than usual. He would (he said) have been wanting to the public and to himself had he not expressed dissatisfaction at the former address. He declared his sentiments to be unchanged, and he declined to use his prerogative in a manner which might be dangerous to the constitution of the kingdom.[258]

Beckford's memorable speech.

It was now that Beckford made that memorable speech with which his name will ever be associated (although claimed by Horne Tooke as his composition), and which was afterwards inscribed, by order of the Common Council, upon the pediment of his statue erected in the Guildhall.[259]Deeming the king's answer unsatisfactory the mayor, to the surprise of all present, and contrary to all form and precedent, again stept forward, and, addressing the king, besought his majesty to allow him—the mayor of the king's loyal city of London—to express on behalf of his fellow citizens their sorrow at having incurred his majesty's displeasure. He assured the king that there were no subjects "more faithful, more dutiful, or more affectionate" than the citizens, and he denounced the man who should attempt to alienate the king's affection from his subjects in general, and from the city of London in particular, as an enemy to the king and constitution. Even Walpole allowed that the speech was "wondrous loyal and respectful," if a trifle disconcerting. The king was so much taken by surprise that he hesitated whether to stay or withdraw. He decided on the former, and remained until Beckford had finished, when he immediately got up and retired without a word. Chatham was immensely pleased at the spirit displayed by Beckford on this occasion, and wrote to tell him so: "Thespirit of Old Englandspoke that never-to-be-forgotten day." His letter concludes with the following enthusiastic passage: "Adieu, then for the present (to call you by the most honourable of titles)trueLord Mayor of London; that is,firstmagistrate of thefirstcity of the world! I mean to tell you only a plain truth when I say your lordship's mayoralty will be revered till the constitution is destroyed and forgotten."[260]Beckford, in his reply, justified his conduct. "What I spoke in the king's presence was uttered in the language of truth, and with that humility and submission which become a subject speaking to his lawful king: at least I endeavoured to behave properly and decently; but I am inclined to believe that I was mistaken, for the language of the court is that my deportment was impudent, insolent and unprecedented. God forgive them all!"[261]

Vote of thanks to Beckford for his speech, 25 May.

When the matter came to be reported to the Common Council (25 May) two aldermen, viz., Rossiter and Harley, objected to Beckford having made a speech to the king without instructions from the Common Council, whilst Wilkes and the two sheriffs, Townshend and Sawbridge, upheld his conduct. The Court then desired Beckford to state what he had said to his majesty. Thereupon the speech was produced and read, and this being done a formal vote of thanks was passed to the mayor for having presented the remonstrance, and "for his vindicating at the foot of the throne the loyalty and affection of the citizens of London."[262]

Vote of thanks to Chatham, 14 May, 1770.

The same motive which prompted Beckford's action in March last on the occasion of his magnificent entertainment to the Opposition had in themeanwhile incited the Common Council to a similar indiscretion. On the 14th May—the day that the last remonstrance was prepared—the Court passed a vote of thanks to Chatham for the zeal he had shown in support of the rights of election and petition, as well as for his "declaration that his endeavours shall hereafter be used that Parliaments may be restored to their original purity by shortening their duration and introducing a more full and equal representation."[263]Here the wish was distinctly father to the thought. Chatham had made no such declaration. The vote was nothing more or less than an attempt to "fix" Chatham to a definite policy of reform just as Beckford had previously tried to fix Rockingham and his party. Chatham was not to be thus caught, and in his acknowledgment of the vote he declared that as to any assurance he was supposed to have given that he was in favour of shorter Parliaments there had been some misapprehension. With all deference to the sentiments of the City he felt bound to say that he could not recommend triennial Parliaments as a remedy for venality in elections. He would not, however, oppose any measure for their introduction if the country showed itself unmistakably in favour of them.[264]

The last days of Beckford.

On the 30th May, Beckford again appeared at court at the head of a deputation from the city to present a formal address of congratulation from the Common Council on the birth of another princess. The address had been passed unanimously by the Council, although Wilkes declared it was no time for such compliments. The deputation met with some little opposition on its way to St. James's, the gates at Temple Bar being suddenly closed by the mob before the whole of the civic party had passed through, and they were not admitted into the presence chamber, until the lord mayor had promised not to repeat his former offence of making a speech.[265]The next day Beckford laid the first stone of the new gaol of Newgate.[266]This was his last appearance in public. He had recently caught a chill whilst at Fonthill, and this had been aggravated by his hasty return to town in order to attend to his mayoralty duties, and the excitement consequent thereto. For some years past he had not enjoyed good health, and age began to tell upon him. Even his first mayoralty in 1762-3, he entered upon with reluctance, and the day before his election had gone so far as to petition the Court of Aldermen to be discharged from his aldermanry on the score of ill-health.[267]He was, as we have seen, still more reluctant to undertake a second year of office, and only consented to do so after pressing solicitation. On the 12th June, he was so ill from rheumatic fever that he was unable to attend a Court of Aldermen, and on the 21st he died.[268]

FOOTNOTES:[168]Repertory 164, fos. 367-369.[169]Repertory 164, fos. 370, 379; Journal 62, fos. 159, 162. This address of the Common Council, as well as similar addresses from 1760 downwards, will be found in a volume printed by order of the Corporation in 1865.[170]Parliament was dissolved 20 March (1761), and a new Parliament summoned for May. Of the old city members three out of the four were again returned: but the place of Barnard, now getting advanced in years, was taken by Thomas Harley, a brother of the Earl of Oxford.[171]When, speaking on the address, Alderman Beckford proposed to push the war with more vigour than formerly, Pitt is recorded as having fired up and to have asked his friend what new piece of extravagance he wished for?—Walpole, "Memoirs of the reign of George III," i, 24.[172]Chatham Correspondence, ii, 158.[173]Journal 62, fos. 298, 299.[174]Journal 62, fo. 302.[175]A schedule of the different "services" at the various tables and particulars of the cost (£6,898 5s.4d.) of the entertainment are entered on record.—Journal 62, fos. 337-340b.[176]Walpole, "Memoirs of reign of George III," i. 89, 90; Walpole to Mann.—Letters, iii, 459.[177]Journal 62, fo. 303.[178]Id., fos. 298b-299.[179]Horace Walpole was indignant at the Common Council presuming to speak on behalf of the City of London, and to "usurp the right of making peace and war." At the same time he could not shut his eyes to the fact that the City held the purse-strings, and that without its assistance supplies would run short.—Walpole to Conway, 26 Oct., 1761. The same to Horace Mann, 14 Nov.—Letters, iii, 457, 459.[180]Walpole, Memoirs, i, 91-93.[181]Almon, "Correspondence of Wilkes," i, 65, 66.[182]Journal 62, fos. 330b, 334b.[183]Repertory 167, fo. 184.[184]Repertory 167, fos. 280, 286, 291.[185]Journal 62, fos. 72-73b, 75-76, 87b-88b, 131-131b, 134-134b[186]Journal House of Commons, xxix, 666.[187]Walpole, Memoirs, i, 332.[188]Journal House of Commons, xxix, 668, 685.[189]Journal House of Commons, xxix, 690.[190]Journal House of Lords, xxx, 437.[191]Walpole, Memoirs, i, 331; see also Grenville Papers, ii, 235.[192]Journal House of Lords, xxx, 438; Journal House of Commons, xxix, 698.[193]Journal 63, fo. 146b; Grenville Papers, ii, 237.[194]Walpole, Memoirs, i, 309-314.[195]Journal House of Commons, xxix, 723.[196]Walpole, Memoirs, i, 385, ii, 35.[197]Journal 63, fos. 166-167, 171.[198]Walpole, Memoirs, i, 391.[199]Walpole to Mann, 1 Aug., 1766. Letters, v, 8. "The city of London"—he writes elsewhere—"had intended to celebrate Mr. Pitt's return to employment, and lamps for an illumination had been placed round the Monument. But no sooner did they hear of his new dignity, than the festival was counter-ordered." Memoirs, ii, 359.[200]Walpole. Memoirs, ii, 394.[201]Journal 64, fos. 142b, 204. Before the freedom could be conferred, Townshend had died (4 Sept.).[202]The letter is dated from Paris, 12 Dec., 1767. Almon's Life of Wilkes, iii, 184.[203]Walpole. Memoirs, iii, 186-188. Walpole to Mann, 31 March, 1768. Letters, v, 91-93. The City offered a reward of £50 for the capture and conviction of the ringleaders. Journal 64, fos. 247b, 248.[204]Walpole to Mann, 23 April, 1768.—Letters, v, 98; Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 199.[205]The king to Lord North, 25 April, 1768.—"Correspondence of George III with Lord North" (W. Bodham Donne), i, 2.[206]Walpole to Mann, 6 June, 1768.—Letters, v, 101; Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 204-206.[207]Journal House of Lords, xxxii, 152.[208]Walpole to Mann, 22 June, 1768.—Letters, v, 110; Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 228, 229.[209]Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 297.[210]Repertory 173, fos. 91-94, 114, 115.[211]Repertory 173, fos. 140-142, 153-155.[212]Repertory 173, fos. 264-314.[213]Id., fos. 315-318.[214]Journal House of Commons, xxxii, 178. Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 292, 298, 313-319, 324-325, 327.[215]Journal House of Commons, xxxii, 228, 229.[216]Annual Register, xii, 80, 82[217]Journal 64, fo. 341b. Several wards met and drew up instructions to the Common Council not to allow of an address to the king, "as calculated to countenance the unconstitutional measures of the present administration, rather than to express duty and affection to the best of kings."—Annual Register, xii, 88.[218]Annual Register, xii, 75. Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 339.[219]Annual Register, xii, 82, 84.[220]Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 353.[221]Journal House of Commons, xxxii, 386, 387.[222]"The arbitrary appointment of Mr. Luttrell"—he wrote to the Duke of Grafton (8 July)—"invades the foundation of the laws themselves, as it manifestly transfers the right of legislation from those whom the people have chosen to those whom they have rejected. With a succession of such appointments, we may soon see a House of Commons collected in the choice of which the other towns and counties of England will have as little share as the devoted county of Middlesex."—Letters of Junius (Woodfall), i, 509.[223]Journal 64, fo. 344b.[224]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 146b-147b. The petition is printed in a small volume of "city petitions, addresses and remonstrances," (1778), preserved in the Guildhall Library.[225]Beckford denied this—Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 380.[226]"That the moment of his [Chatham's] appearance,i.e., so immediately after the petition of the livery of London set on foot and presented by his friend Alderman Beckford, has a hostile look, cannot be doubted."—Walpole to Mann, 19 July, 1769. Letters, v, 177.[227]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 148b.[228]"London, for the first time in its life, has not dictated to England. Essex and Hertfordshire have refused to petition; Wiltshire and Worcester say they will petition, and Yorkshire probably will."—Walpole to Mann, 19 July, 1769. Letters, v, 177.[229]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 149.[230]Journal 65, fos. 62b-63b.[231]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 152-153.[232]Walpole to Mann, 15 March, 1770.—Letters, v, 229.[233]Repertory 174, fos. 155, 156.[234]Junius to the printer of thePublic Advertiser, 19 March, 1770.—Letters of Junius (Woodfall), ii, 115.[235]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 154.[236]Journal 65, fos. 118b, 125.[237]The king to Lord Weymouth, 6 March, 1770.—Jesse, Memoirs of George III, i, 490-491.[238]Lord Weymouth to the sheriffs of London, 8 March, 1770.—Cal. Home Office Papers (1770-1772), p. 20.[239]Gentleman's Magazine, xl, 111-112.[240]The editor of the correspondence between the king and Lord North gives the date of this letter as the 20th March—a mistake, probably, for the 10th—as the remonstrance was presented on the 14th.—Correspondence, i, 20.[241]The King to Lord North, 11 March, 1770.—Correspondence, i, 17-18.[242]Lord Weymouth to the sheriffs, 12 March, 1770.—Gentleman's Magazine, xl, 112.[243]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 153b.[244]Chatham correspondence, iii, 429, 430.[245]Journal House of Commons, xxxii, 810.[246]Horne to Junius, 31 July, 1771. Letters of Junius, ii, 298, 299.[247]Chatham to Beckford, 10 March, 1770.—Chatham correspondence, iii, 431, note.[248]Annual Register, xiii, 82, 83. Walpole to Mann, 23 March, 1770. Letters, v, 232. Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 115.[249]"A real or political fit of the gout."—Walpole.[250]Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 395. Annual Register, xii, 150.[251]Annual Register, xiii, 80.[252]Repertory 174, fo. 184.[253]Walpole to Mann, 6 May, 1770. Letters, v, 235.[254]Journal 65, fos. 80-82. Walpole to Mann, 24 May, 1770, Letters, v, 238. It is supposed that Chatham had a hand in drawing it up. It is certain, at least, that he approved of it, and that he and Beckford were intimate friends at the time.—Walpole, Memoirs of reign of George III, iv, 153.[255]The king to Lord North, 14 May, 1770.—Correspondence, i, 26.[256]The same to the same, 19 May, 1770.—Correspondence, i, 27.[257]An order was thereupon made that the services of Eyre as a standing counsel for the city should in future be dispensed with. Two years later his connection with the city was severed and his conduct rewarded by his being created one of the barons of the exchequer.—Journal 65, fos. 117b, 121; Repertory 176, fo. 458.[258]Journal 65, fo. 83.[259]Journal 65, fo. 92. Horne Tooke was accustomed to exclaim "that he could not be deemed a vain man, as he had obtained statues for others, but never for himself!"—Stephen, Memoirs of Horne Tooke, i, 151, 157.[260]Chatham to the Lord Mayor, 25 May, 1770.—Chatham Correspondence, iii, 462.[261]Beckford to Chatham, 25 May, 1770.—Chatham Correspondence, iii, 463.[262]Journal 65, fos. 83-84; Gentleman's Magazine, vol. xl. (where the date of the Common Council is given as the 28 May).[263]Journal 65, fo. 82b.[264]Journal 65, fos. 82b, 94. A year later he held more decided views as to the advantage of short Parliaments. Writing to Earl Temple on the 17th April, 1771, he remarks: "Allow a speculator in a great chair to add that a plan for more equal representation by additional knights of the shire seems highly seasonable, and to shorten the duration of Parliaments not less so. If your lordship should approve, could Lord Lyttleton's caution be brought to take these ideas, we should take possession of strong ground, let who will decline to follow us. One line of men, I am assured, will zealously support, and a respectable weight of law,si quid novisti rectius istis candidus imperti." This extract was read at a Common Council held the 13th April, 1780, and was ordered to be entered on the Journal of the Court.—Chatham Correspondence, iv, 155, note.—Journal 68, fo. 52.[265]Annual Register, xiii, 111.[266]Annual Register, xiii, 112.[267]Repertory 166, fo. 358.[268]Repertory 174, fo. 276. Annual Register, xiii, 119.

[168]Repertory 164, fos. 367-369.

[169]Repertory 164, fos. 370, 379; Journal 62, fos. 159, 162. This address of the Common Council, as well as similar addresses from 1760 downwards, will be found in a volume printed by order of the Corporation in 1865.

[170]Parliament was dissolved 20 March (1761), and a new Parliament summoned for May. Of the old city members three out of the four were again returned: but the place of Barnard, now getting advanced in years, was taken by Thomas Harley, a brother of the Earl of Oxford.

[171]When, speaking on the address, Alderman Beckford proposed to push the war with more vigour than formerly, Pitt is recorded as having fired up and to have asked his friend what new piece of extravagance he wished for?—Walpole, "Memoirs of the reign of George III," i, 24.

[172]Chatham Correspondence, ii, 158.

[173]Journal 62, fos. 298, 299.

[174]Journal 62, fo. 302.

[175]A schedule of the different "services" at the various tables and particulars of the cost (£6,898 5s.4d.) of the entertainment are entered on record.—Journal 62, fos. 337-340b.

[176]Walpole, "Memoirs of reign of George III," i. 89, 90; Walpole to Mann.—Letters, iii, 459.

[177]Journal 62, fo. 303.

[178]Id., fos. 298b-299.

[179]Horace Walpole was indignant at the Common Council presuming to speak on behalf of the City of London, and to "usurp the right of making peace and war." At the same time he could not shut his eyes to the fact that the City held the purse-strings, and that without its assistance supplies would run short.—Walpole to Conway, 26 Oct., 1761. The same to Horace Mann, 14 Nov.—Letters, iii, 457, 459.

[180]Walpole, Memoirs, i, 91-93.

[181]Almon, "Correspondence of Wilkes," i, 65, 66.

[182]Journal 62, fos. 330b, 334b.

[183]Repertory 167, fo. 184.

[184]Repertory 167, fos. 280, 286, 291.

[185]Journal 62, fos. 72-73b, 75-76, 87b-88b, 131-131b, 134-134b

[186]Journal House of Commons, xxix, 666.

[187]Walpole, Memoirs, i, 332.

[188]Journal House of Commons, xxix, 668, 685.

[189]Journal House of Commons, xxix, 690.

[190]Journal House of Lords, xxx, 437.

[191]Walpole, Memoirs, i, 331; see also Grenville Papers, ii, 235.

[192]Journal House of Lords, xxx, 438; Journal House of Commons, xxix, 698.

[193]Journal 63, fo. 146b; Grenville Papers, ii, 237.

[194]Walpole, Memoirs, i, 309-314.

[195]Journal House of Commons, xxix, 723.

[196]Walpole, Memoirs, i, 385, ii, 35.

[197]Journal 63, fos. 166-167, 171.

[198]Walpole, Memoirs, i, 391.

[199]Walpole to Mann, 1 Aug., 1766. Letters, v, 8. "The city of London"—he writes elsewhere—"had intended to celebrate Mr. Pitt's return to employment, and lamps for an illumination had been placed round the Monument. But no sooner did they hear of his new dignity, than the festival was counter-ordered." Memoirs, ii, 359.

[200]Walpole. Memoirs, ii, 394.

[201]Journal 64, fos. 142b, 204. Before the freedom could be conferred, Townshend had died (4 Sept.).

[202]The letter is dated from Paris, 12 Dec., 1767. Almon's Life of Wilkes, iii, 184.

[203]Walpole. Memoirs, iii, 186-188. Walpole to Mann, 31 March, 1768. Letters, v, 91-93. The City offered a reward of £50 for the capture and conviction of the ringleaders. Journal 64, fos. 247b, 248.

[204]Walpole to Mann, 23 April, 1768.—Letters, v, 98; Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 199.

[205]The king to Lord North, 25 April, 1768.—"Correspondence of George III with Lord North" (W. Bodham Donne), i, 2.

[206]Walpole to Mann, 6 June, 1768.—Letters, v, 101; Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 204-206.

[207]Journal House of Lords, xxxii, 152.

[208]Walpole to Mann, 22 June, 1768.—Letters, v, 110; Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 228, 229.

[209]Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 297.

[210]Repertory 173, fos. 91-94, 114, 115.

[211]Repertory 173, fos. 140-142, 153-155.

[212]Repertory 173, fos. 264-314.

[213]Id., fos. 315-318.

[214]Journal House of Commons, xxxii, 178. Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 292, 298, 313-319, 324-325, 327.

[215]Journal House of Commons, xxxii, 228, 229.

[216]Annual Register, xii, 80, 82

[217]Journal 64, fo. 341b. Several wards met and drew up instructions to the Common Council not to allow of an address to the king, "as calculated to countenance the unconstitutional measures of the present administration, rather than to express duty and affection to the best of kings."—Annual Register, xii, 88.

[218]Annual Register, xii, 75. Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 339.

[219]Annual Register, xii, 82, 84.

[220]Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 353.

[221]Journal House of Commons, xxxii, 386, 387.

[222]"The arbitrary appointment of Mr. Luttrell"—he wrote to the Duke of Grafton (8 July)—"invades the foundation of the laws themselves, as it manifestly transfers the right of legislation from those whom the people have chosen to those whom they have rejected. With a succession of such appointments, we may soon see a House of Commons collected in the choice of which the other towns and counties of England will have as little share as the devoted county of Middlesex."—Letters of Junius (Woodfall), i, 509.

[223]Journal 64, fo. 344b.

[224]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 146b-147b. The petition is printed in a small volume of "city petitions, addresses and remonstrances," (1778), preserved in the Guildhall Library.

[225]Beckford denied this—Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 380.

[226]"That the moment of his [Chatham's] appearance,i.e., so immediately after the petition of the livery of London set on foot and presented by his friend Alderman Beckford, has a hostile look, cannot be doubted."—Walpole to Mann, 19 July, 1769. Letters, v, 177.

[227]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 148b.

[228]"London, for the first time in its life, has not dictated to England. Essex and Hertfordshire have refused to petition; Wiltshire and Worcester say they will petition, and Yorkshire probably will."—Walpole to Mann, 19 July, 1769. Letters, v, 177.

[229]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 149.

[230]Journal 65, fos. 62b-63b.

[231]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 152-153.

[232]Walpole to Mann, 15 March, 1770.—Letters, v, 229.

[233]Repertory 174, fos. 155, 156.

[234]Junius to the printer of thePublic Advertiser, 19 March, 1770.—Letters of Junius (Woodfall), ii, 115.

[235]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 154.

[236]Journal 65, fos. 118b, 125.

[237]The king to Lord Weymouth, 6 March, 1770.—Jesse, Memoirs of George III, i, 490-491.

[238]Lord Weymouth to the sheriffs of London, 8 March, 1770.—Cal. Home Office Papers (1770-1772), p. 20.

[239]Gentleman's Magazine, xl, 111-112.

[240]The editor of the correspondence between the king and Lord North gives the date of this letter as the 20th March—a mistake, probably, for the 10th—as the remonstrance was presented on the 14th.—Correspondence, i, 20.

[241]The King to Lord North, 11 March, 1770.—Correspondence, i, 17-18.

[242]Lord Weymouth to the sheriffs, 12 March, 1770.—Gentleman's Magazine, xl, 112.

[243]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 153b.

[244]Chatham correspondence, iii, 429, 430.

[245]Journal House of Commons, xxxii, 810.

[246]Horne to Junius, 31 July, 1771. Letters of Junius, ii, 298, 299.

[247]Chatham to Beckford, 10 March, 1770.—Chatham correspondence, iii, 431, note.

[248]Annual Register, xiii, 82, 83. Walpole to Mann, 23 March, 1770. Letters, v, 232. Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 115.

[249]"A real or political fit of the gout."—Walpole.

[250]Walpole, Memoirs, iii, 395. Annual Register, xii, 150.

[251]Annual Register, xiii, 80.

[252]Repertory 174, fo. 184.

[253]Walpole to Mann, 6 May, 1770. Letters, v, 235.

[254]Journal 65, fos. 80-82. Walpole to Mann, 24 May, 1770, Letters, v, 238. It is supposed that Chatham had a hand in drawing it up. It is certain, at least, that he approved of it, and that he and Beckford were intimate friends at the time.—Walpole, Memoirs of reign of George III, iv, 153.

[255]The king to Lord North, 14 May, 1770.—Correspondence, i, 26.

[256]The same to the same, 19 May, 1770.—Correspondence, i, 27.

[257]An order was thereupon made that the services of Eyre as a standing counsel for the city should in future be dispensed with. Two years later his connection with the city was severed and his conduct rewarded by his being created one of the barons of the exchequer.—Journal 65, fos. 117b, 121; Repertory 176, fo. 458.

[258]Journal 65, fo. 83.

[259]Journal 65, fo. 92. Horne Tooke was accustomed to exclaim "that he could not be deemed a vain man, as he had obtained statues for others, but never for himself!"—Stephen, Memoirs of Horne Tooke, i, 151, 157.

[260]Chatham to the Lord Mayor, 25 May, 1770.—Chatham Correspondence, iii, 462.

[261]Beckford to Chatham, 25 May, 1770.—Chatham Correspondence, iii, 463.

[262]Journal 65, fos. 83-84; Gentleman's Magazine, vol. xl. (where the date of the Common Council is given as the 28 May).

[263]Journal 65, fo. 82b.

[264]Journal 65, fos. 82b, 94. A year later he held more decided views as to the advantage of short Parliaments. Writing to Earl Temple on the 17th April, 1771, he remarks: "Allow a speculator in a great chair to add that a plan for more equal representation by additional knights of the shire seems highly seasonable, and to shorten the duration of Parliaments not less so. If your lordship should approve, could Lord Lyttleton's caution be brought to take these ideas, we should take possession of strong ground, let who will decline to follow us. One line of men, I am assured, will zealously support, and a respectable weight of law,si quid novisti rectius istis candidus imperti." This extract was read at a Common Council held the 13th April, 1780, and was ordered to be entered on the Journal of the Court.—Chatham Correspondence, iv, 155, note.—Journal 68, fo. 52.

[265]Annual Register, xiii, 111.

[266]Annual Register, xiii, 112.

[267]Repertory 166, fo. 358.

[268]Repertory 174, fo. 276. Annual Register, xiii, 119.

Back to Index Next