FOOTNOTES:

Instructions of livery to city members,reshort parliaments, 24 June, 1772.

Matters remained as they were until Midsummer-day, when the livery took the opportunity of a meeting of Common Hall to draw up instructions to the city members to support Sawbridge and short parliaments. The terms of the address were scarcely such as a member of Parliament of the present day would tolerate from his constituents:—"When we made choice of you, sirs, to transact our business inParliament we considered all of you to be possessed of fortune sufficient to render you independent; but such is the depravity of the present age that the more wealthy seem the easiest to be corrupted. Altho' some of you may have approved yourselves worthy of the confidence reposed in you, yet others, we are sorry to be obliged to observe, have been deficient in their duty. It becomes necessary, therefore, that we should exercise our indisputable right of instructing you, our representatives." All the oppression under which the country had suffered for the last thirteen years were due (they said) to long parliaments. As for the existing House they had not a good word to say. What (they asked) was to be thought of a House "which, devoid of all decency, could force the poor timid servant of a corporation to erase a judicial record—an House that could even punish two members of its own body in a most arbitrary manner for acting with integrity in a judicial capacity, nay! for adhering to their charters and their oaths, and virtuously administering justice!" Experience had taught them that what had been intended as a bulwark of their liberties had become a mere engine of oppression. A worthy alderman of the city (they declared in conclusion) had realised the danger of septennial parliaments, and had more than once endeavoured to shorten their duration, but unfortunately he had not received the support he deserved. As Sawbridge would no doubt renew his motion in the coming winter they insisted that each member should "afford him all possible support in order to restore us to our antient right of annually electing ourrepresentatives in Parliament."[333]Brave words, these! but all to little purpose. The Septennial Act outlived this and many another effort to obtain its repeal, and remains in force to this day.

Townshend elected mayor, 24 Oct., 1772.

The election of a mayor to succeed Nash was keenly contested. Bankes, Hallifax and Shakespeare were the senior aldermen below the chair, but these were set aside by the livery in favour of Wilkes and Townshend. A poll was demanded, and the business of taking the poll lasted until the 8th October. The king was in a great state of excitement, and was kept posted up by Lord North with each day's proceedings. "I trust by your account of this day's poll," he wrote to the minister (3 Oct.),[334]"that there can be no doubt that it will end favourably; the mob being less quiet this day is a proof that to [sic]riot, not numbers, thepatriotsalone can draw advantage." Again on the 5th October, when the voice of the city was evidently in favour of Wilkes, he writes: "The unpromising appearance of this day's poll does not in the least surprise me, knowing that Wilkes is not bound by any tyes, therefore would poll non-freemen rather than lose the election." He fancied that if Wilkes failed to get returned as one of the two to be submitted to the Court of Aldermen for selection he would not be allowed to stand again,[335]but here the king was in error. His hopes were damped by Wilkes being returned at the head of the poll, followed closely by Townshend, their respective votes being 2,301 and 2,278.[336]Although Townshend and Wilkes were at thetime personal enemies, yet many of Wilkes's friends were induced to give Townshend their second votes, in order to prevent a "court candidate" being successful. This at least is Horace Walpole's account, who declares that Townshend "disdained to canvass or even to attend the election," and that without the assistance of Wilkes's supporters he would have had "scarce any votes." On the other hand we must remember that, intense as was the personal animosity at this time between Townshend and Wilkes, both of them had one and the same political object in view, viz., the overthrow of the government, and Townshend must have added considerably to his popularity in the city by his recent refusal to pay his land tax on the plea that the Parliament which had ordained it was no true Parliament owing to the exclusion of Wilkes and intrusion of Luttrell.[337]The king's only remaining hope was that the result of the poll might be upset by a scrutiny demanded on behalf of Hallifax and Shakespeare. "I hope the scrutiny will be conducted with great exactness," he again writes to Lord North (6 Oct.), at the same time expressing a doubt as to whether such a thing was to be expected from Oliver and Watkin Lewes, who had succeeded Wilkes and Bull in the shrievalty. If these did their duty he felt sure it would go hard with Wilkes, whose "little regard to true votes" would soon be exposed, and "do him great injury, even among his admirers."[338]

Again the king was doomed to disappointment. The scrutiny, according to the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Common Hall preserved at the Guildhall, continued until the 24th day of the month, when the votes for each candidate were declared to be exactly the same as before, and Wilkes and Townshend being returned to the Court of Aldermen for their selection of one, that body chose Townshend to be mayor for the ensuing year. According to Walpole[339]the scrutiny was not proceeded with, and Wilkes was certain of being elected (Townshend being expected to withdraw in his favour) had not alderman and sheriff Oliver, his former friend, brought about his defeat by hastily collecting a Court of Aldermen before the Wilkite aldermen could take their seats, and getting Townshend named lord mayor. Such a proceeding on the part of Oliver is scarcely probable, if, indeed possible, and receives no corroboration from the City's record of what took place.[340]

Riot at the Guildhall on lord mayor's day, 9 Nov., 1772.

On lord mayor's day the partisans of Wilkes, smarting at their defeat, raised a riot at night outside the Guildhall, where a ball was being held. The assistance of the Artillery Company had to be called in, and they remained on duty all night. The new lord mayor, who was somewhat hot-headed, "proposed to sally out with drawn swords and fall on the mob," but was restrained. He, however, caused some of the rioters to be seized and committed to Newgate, and declared that he would bring home the riot to Wilkes. The whole city was now, and had been for some time, so split up into factions that evena vote of thanks to the Artillery Company for striving to keep order was with difficulty passed.[341]"A headstrong, self-willed spirit has sunk the City into nothing," wrote Chatham at the beginning of the year.[342]The government could afford to look upon Wilkes's disappointment and the unpopularity of Townshend with complacency, the real damage was to the nation, which, to use the words of Walpole, "saw those who would have gone farthest to stem the encroachments of the crown divided and warring each other."[343]

Resolution of Court of Aldermenreshort parliaments, 16 Feb., 1773.

Following in the steps of Sawbridge, his brother alderman and colleague during his shrievalty, Townshend introduced a motion before the Court of Aldermen on the 16th February (1773) to the effect "that a frequent appeal to the constituent part of the people by short parliaments is their undoubted right and the only means by which they can enjoy or maintain their right of a real representation."[344]Wilkes was the only alderman who raised any objection to the motion. He would willingly have given his vote against it, if only to spite Townshend, but he dared not do so. The motion was therefore carried unanimously.[345]

Another remonstrance of the livery, 11 March, 1773.

Three weeks later (11 March) a special Common Hall was summoned for the purpose of drawing up another remonstrance to the king, and of pledging the livery and the city members to use their utmostendeavours to obtain shorter parliaments. This new remonstrance—a "flagrant piece of impertinence," as the king styled it in a letter to Lord North (13 March)[346]—was said to have been the work of Wilkes, who drafted it in such terms that his enemy the lord mayor "would be undone at St. James's if he presented it, and stoned by the people if he did not."[347]It was resolved that the remonstrance should be presented by the mayor, the city members, the aldermen, the sheriffs and ten of the livery in their gowns, attended by the Recorder and city officers.[348]Wilkes showed considerable shrewdness in declining to attend, excusing himself on the ground that he knew himself to be personally disliked by the king. He would, he said, willingly have attended had he been sheriff, but now that he was only an alderman there was no reason for him to thrust himself where he was not wanted. "I am not used to go into any gentleman's house who does not wish to see me."[349]Even the livery seemed to shrink from having a hand in presenting so disreputable an address, for only eight of them attended at St. James's.

The king's reply, 26 March.

The document was presented to the king on Friday, the 26th March. It was (presumably) received on the throne, although the Common Council do not appear to have been present to give it a corporate character. A copy of it had previously reached the king's hands, and he had made up his mind, as he told Lord North,[350]that a "dry answer, rather bordering on contempt thananger," was the most suitable reply to make to a representation at once "the most violent, insolent and licentious ever presented." The answer he actually returned was more than "dry," and the deputation was dismissed with his majesty declaring that their petition was so void of foundation, and withal so disrespectful, that "I am convinced you do not yourselves seriously imagine it can be complied with."[351]

Wilkes again claims his seat, 26 April, 1773.

A month later an opportunity was afforded Wilkes of again claiming his seat in Parliament. War with France seemed imminent, and a call of the House[352]was moved for the 26th April. The sheriffs of London[353]thereupon sent a summons to Wilkes (notLuttrell) as member for Middlesex, and informed the Speaker of what they had done. Wilkes also wrote a bold letter to the Speaker asserting his right. On the day of the call Wilkes went to the crown office and demanded his writ, which was refused him by the deputy-clerk. Thence he proceeded to Westminster, attended by his friends and supporters. The guards were held in readiness, but there was no disturbance. Glynn—recently appointed Recorder of London—moved that Wilkes should be heard at the bar of the House as to his complaint against the deputy-clerk, and the motion was seconded by Sawbridge. The House was in no mood, however, to meet one who had so often worsted them, and the motion was rejected by 227 votes to 124.[354]

The powers of the livery defined, 1773.

When Midsummer-day (1773) came round Plumbe and Kirkman were for the fourth time rejected for the shrievalty in favour of Plomer and Sayre. Plomer paid fine and Lee was elected in his place. The livery being determined more than ever to win their independence and to break away from the authority of the mayor, took the opportunity of their meeting together to consult the new Recorder upon the question "whether the livery of London legally assembled in Common Hall, either on this or any other day, have not a right to enter upon any matter of public grievance they may think proper?" Glynn at once replied that they had an undoubted right, and that it was "beyond dispute that the right is inherent in them."[355]This importantdictumnegativing, as it did, a decision of Glynn's predecessor,[356]was afterwards used by Wilkes with effect in his famous letter to Lord Hertford (2 May, 1775).

Plumbe's case.

The aspirations of the livery were (at least for a time) damped by the decision given a few weeks later in a case known as "Plumbe's case." It will be remembered that in 1770 certain livery companies had objected to the tone of a recent remonstrance, and had in consequence passed resolutions forbidding their members to attend Common Halls except for the purpose of elections. A joint committee of the livery and the Common Council had thereupon been appointed to take counsel's opinion upon the rights of the livery.[357]Among the counsel consulted on the question was Glynn, and he and his brethren had given it as their opinion (June, 1771) that the mayor for thetime being might legally summon a Common Hall; that it was the duty of those livery companies to whom precepts were sent by the mayor to execute those precepts, and that a wilful refusal was punishable by disfranchisement, the procedure being by way of information filed by the common sergeant in the mayor's court. Informations had accordingly been filed against the masters or wardens of the several companies of Goldsmiths, Weavers and Grocers by order of Common Hall,[358]but only one, viz., that against Alderman Plumbe, of the Goldsmiths, was proceeded with. The question was tried before a jury on the 14th July of this year (1773) with the result that Plumbe was convicted and adjudged to be disfranchised.[359]

Counsel's opinion on the powers of Common Hall.

The powers of the livery were further defined in a legal opinion delivered about this time by the Recorder and Common Sergeant on the questions (1) Whether the lord mayor, aldermen and livery of London in Common Hall assembled could do any corporate act except under the powers given them by Acts of Parliament; (2) Whether an order of the livery in Common Hall to the Town Clerk to affix his signature to such a document as the last remonstrance would be a sufficient justification for him in a court of law in case of a criminal prosecution; and lastly (3) Whether individuals signing such a remonstrance be liable to a prosecution of libel? To the first twoquestions counsel made the following answer;—"From the best information wee can get of the usage and constitution of the City the Common Hall is not empowered to do any act strictly corporate not having the direction of the City Seal. They can do no act that binds the estate of the City or that effects the admission or removal of any of its members." Then, referring to the former opinion of the Recorder just mentioned, they proceeded to say;—"wee did in concurrence with Mr. Solicitor-General and Mr. Dunning upon consideration give an opinion that a Common Hall was a lawful assembly vested with legal powers. Wee find that opinion warranted by Lord Coke's authority, and therefore without more research and enquiry than can now be made, wee cannot alter our opinion." They were further of opinion "that no Act of Common Hall can endanger the Charters or Franchises of the city, and wee think that the right of petitioning a necessary consequence of a lawful assembly." As a result of their answer to the first question they believed that the Town Clerk, being by office the clerk of a legally convened meeting of the Common Hall, would not render himself criminally liable by giving his signature to the acts and resolutions of that assembly. As to the question of libel, that depended upon a variety of circumstances, but in their private opinion counsel believed that no one presenting the late remonstrance could be treated legally as a criminal.[360]

Bull, mayor, elected M.P. for the City, Dec., 1773.

At Michaelmas, Wilkes again put up for the mayoralty, but although he was again returned at thehead of the poll he was again rejected by the Court of Aldermen in favour of his friend Bull.[361]Before the end of the year Bull was also chosen member for the City in the place of Ladbroke, who had died. A petition was laid before Parliament against his election, and in favour of his opponent, John Roberts, a court candidate, but was afterwards withdrawn.[362]The king had at one time expressed himself to North as thinking it best not to offer any opposition to Bull's election as member for the city, unless there was a good hope of success. "If Alderman Bull can be with success opposed, I should think it eligible; but if that is not pretty certain it is best not to interfere."[363]On learning, however, that Roberts, a former director of the East India Company, was about to stand he wished him success.[364]Previous to his election Bull signed an engagement (formulated by the livery at their meeting in March), to use his best endeavours to shorten the duration of parliaments; to exclude pensioners and placemen from the House; to establish a fair and equal representation of the people in Parliament; and to redress the grievances and secure the constitutional rights of his fellow subjects in Great Britain, Ireland and America. He also solemnly promised not to accept from the crown or its ministers any place, pension, contract, title, gratuity or emolument whatsoever.[365]

England and the American colonies, 1765-1774.

It was during Bull's mayoralty that the relations between England and her American colonies became so strained that in 1775 the two countries were at open war. For the past ten years the colonies had displayed more or less resistance to the British government. In 1765 the Stamp Act was passed, and in the following year it had to be repealed. The irritation caused by its imposition remained, however, and the colonists began to ignore the authority of British Acts of Parliament. In 1767 another Act was passed by Parliament imposing import duties in America upon certain articles, and among them upon tea; but the Act was rendered from the outset almost a dead letter through the resistance offered to the execution of its provisions. Matters were not improved by the repeal of all the duties, except that on tea, three years later (1770), more especially when the Americans learnt that Lord North openly acknowledged that he retained the tea duty, not on account of its value, but simply in order to assert the right of England to tax her colonies. The crisis came in 1773, when the tea-ships lying in Boston harbour were attacked, and their cargo flung into the sea. In September of the following year (1774) all the American colonies agreed to combine in stopping commercial intercourse with Great Britain until their grievances were redressed.

The city and the Quebec Bill, 1774.

In the meantime a Bill had passed the Lords, and been sent down to the Commons, giving a constitution to Canada. The City presented a strong petition against the Bill (3 June) as unduly favouring the Roman Catholics, and begged the king to withholdhis assent after the Bill had passed both Houses.[366]It was to no purpose. The country generally, and the clergy of the Established Church more particularly, showed great indifference,[367]and the Bill became law. The mayor received a letter of thanks from the Protestant settlers in Quebec, through Francis Maseres, (Cursitor Baron) for what the City had done in the matter; and the City thus encouraged resolved to continue its efforts and endeavour to get the Act repealed as soon as possible.[368]The king was strongly of opinion that the agitation in the City was merely got up "just to make a noise" at the coming elections in Common Hall,[369]and Walpole appears to have been much of the same opinion. He believed it was a move on the part of Wilkes in order to carry the election of sheriffs. By getting two friends appointed sheriffs he would be in a position to get Reynolds, his own attorney and election agent, appointed under-sheriff, and so "be more sure of the returning officer against the general election," which was fast approaching.[370]If this were so his scheme was frustrated for his nominees failed to get elected.

Wilkes elected mayor, 8 Oct., 1774.

His star nevertheless was soon to be again in the ascendant. At the next election to the mayoralty, he was not only again returned at the head of the poll, but second to him was Bull, his friend, and actual mayor. The other candidates who went to the poll were James Esdaile and Brackley Kennet,both of them senior to Wilkes. Hallifax and Shakespeare, the senior of all did not even go to the poll. Sawbridge who was next below Wilkes did not press his candidature, as the latter—according to Walpole—"had regained him by promising to bring him into parliament for the city." According to the same authority Wilkes "made" Bull decline the chair a second time, and hence it came to pass that when these two were returned to the Court of Aldermen, eleven voted for Wilkes, whilst only two, viz., Townshend and Oliver, voted for Bull. "Thus, after so much persecution of the court, after so many attempts on his life, after a long imprisonment in a goal, after all his crimes and indiscretions, did this extraordinary man, of more extraordinary fortune, attain the highest office in so grave and important a city as the capital of England."[371]That night Alderman Harley, an old opponent of Wilkes, had his windows broken, and the culprit was carried before Wilkes himself.[372]

Takes his seat as M.P. for Middlesex, Nov., 1774.

Nor did his success end here. The mayoralty election was still pending when parliament was dissolved (30 Sept.), and writs issued for a new one to meet on the 29th November. Wilkes was again returned for Middlesex and with him his friend, Glynn, the Recorder. The popularity of Wilkes was indeed now so great that he was believed to be capable of carrying no less than twelve seats. Prior to their election both candidates signed an undertaking to use their best endeavours to shorten the duration of parliaments, remove placemen andpensioners from the House, advocate the repeal of the Quebec Act, and generally to follow the line of policy adopted by the livery of London, and recently accepted by Bull.[373]When the City elections came on, Bull and Oliver kept their seats, although Oliver declined to enter into any engagement. Wilkes kept his promise with Sawbridge (if any were really given), and Sawbridge was returned together with Wilkes's own brother-in-law, George Hayley. The irrepressible demagogue was at last allowed to take his seat without any opposition. Had he been permitted to have done so five years before, he would probably have sunk into insignificance, but now he "forced his way triumphantly, and came vested with the insignia of the first magistracy in England, and supported by half a dozen members of his own nomination."[374]His triumph was complete in 1782, when he succeeded in getting the House to stultify itself by rescinding its proceedings touching the Middlesex elections.[375]In the dogged persistence with which he fought the House of Commons and finally came off victorious, he reminds us of no one so much as of the late Charles Bradlaugh, member for Northampton; in other respects the two characters will not bear comparison.

FOOTNOTES:[269]SeeAnnals of the Mayoralty of the Right Hon. Barlow Trecothick, Esq., ascribed to Wilkes, printed in Stephens's Memoirs of John Horne Tooke, i, 191, note.[270]Annual Register, xiii, 161, 162.[271]Id., xiii, 157.[272]Journal 65, fos. 140seq.The king was very angry at having to receive more of this "stuff." "The idea of a fresh address, remonstrance and petition is so extremely absurd, and considering the time I may add puerile, that it deserves contempt."—The king to Lord North, 15 Nov., 1770.—Correspondence, i, 39.[273]Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 196, 197.[274]Journal House of Commons, xxi, 238.[275]Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 278, 287-289.[276]Correspondence, i, 64.[277]Crosby sat for Honiton, whilst Oliver had succeeded Beckford as one of the members for the city. Wilkes was also summoned to attend, but not as a member. He therefore disobeyed the summons, informing the Speaker by letter that when admitted to his seat for Middlesex he would attend, but not before.—Gentleman's Magazine, xli, 140; Annual Register, xiv, 188.[278]Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 275.[279]Annual Register, xiv, 83.[280]Walpole to Mann, 22 March.—Letters, v, 286.[281]Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 269.[282]Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 275; Journal 65, fo. 210.[283]Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 279, 280.[284]"Last night, when I went to bed at half-an-hour after twelve, I had just been told that all the avenues to the House were blockaded, and had beaten back the peace-officers who had been summoned, for it wastoute autre choseyesterday when the lord mayor went to the House from what it had been the first day." Walpole to Mann, 26 March, 1771.—Letters, v, 291.[285]Annual Register, xiv, 84; Gentleman's Magazine, xli, 141.[286]Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 283-285.[287]Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 285, 286. Walpole to Mann, 26 March, 1771, Letters, v, 291. Calcraft to Chatham, 26 March; Barré to the same, 26 March, Chatham Correspondence, iv, 125-127, 131-133. Walpole, Memoirs of reign of George III, iv, 299, 300.[288]Barré to Chatham, 26 March.—Chatham Correspondence, iv, 134. Gentleman's Magazine, xli, 170. Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 300, 301.[289]Journal 65, fos. 212-212b.[290]Chatham to Calcraft, 26 March, 1771; The same to Barré. 26 March.—Chatham Correspondence, iv, 129-130, 136-137.[291]Letters of Junius, iii, 376.[292]Annual Register, xiv, 85. Gentleman's Magazine, xli, 141. Calcraft to Chatham, 28 March, 1771.—Chatham Correspondence, iv, 138-140. Walpole to Mann, 30 March.—Letters, v, 292. Walpole Memoirs, iv, 292.[293]Baker sat for Plympton Earls, co. Devon, and Martin for Gatton, co. Surrey.[294]Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 289.[295]Id., ibid.[296]Journal 65, fos. 213, 214, 214b.[297]Referring to Bills in Parliament for embanking the Thames for the purpose of building Adelphi Terrace, which was deemed to encroach upon the City's rights of conservancy.—Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 173.[298]Journal 65, fo. 214b.[299]Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 307; TheMiddlesex Journal, 2 April, 1771; TheLondon Chronicle, 2-6 April.[300]Junius to thePublic Advertiser, 13 Aug., 1771; Woodfall, Letters of Junius, ii, 307.[301]Journal 65, fo. 222.[302]Id., fo. 226.[303]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 165.[304]Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 328. The number "allowed by law" appears to have been ten.[305]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 167.[306]TheLondon Chronicle, 13-16 April, 1771.[307]The king to Lord North, 26 June, 1771.—Correspondence, i. 76.[308]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 161, 161b.[309]Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 328. The letter will be found printed in Woodfall's Letters of Junius, ii, 252, 253, note.[310]Walpole to Mann, 6 July, 1771.—Letters, v, 313.[311]Wilkes to Junius, 12 Sept. and 17 Oct., 1771.—Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i, 299, 323.[312]Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i, 322.[313]Wilkes to Junius, 17 Oct., 1771. Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i, 323-325.[314]Junius to Wilkes, 21 Oct., 1771.—Letters of Junius, i, 325-328.[315]Horne to Junius, 13 July, 1771.Id., ii, 259.[316]A hit at Wilkes's connection with the city. It was usual at one time for the chamberlain thus to address a recipient of the honorary freedom of the city. The expression went out of use, but was revived by Wilkes when he became chamberlain.[317]Horne to Wilkes, 10 July.—Stephens, Memoirs of John Horne Tooke, i, 310.[318]"Mr. Wilkes, if not persecuted, will soon be forgotten."—Junius to the Duke of Grafton, 24 April, 1769. Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i, 478.[319]Junius to Horne, 24 July, 1771.Id., ii, 267.[320]The letter was placed in Wilkes's hand by a chairman, who said he brought it from a gentleman he had met in the Strand.Id., i, 263, note.[321]It is strange to find Wilkes giving this character of a mayor, who had shown him great partiality at the time that No. 45 of theNorth Britonwas ordered to be burnt at the Royal Exchange—and who in other respects displayed a distinct democratic tendency. Can it be possible that Wilkes was hood-winkingJunius, and that he would have been equally pleased to have seen either Bridgen or Crosby in the mayoralty chair?[322]Wilkes to Junius, 12 Sept., 1771.—Woodfall, i, 297-304.[323]Junius to Wilkes, 18 Sept., 1771.—Woodfall, i, 307-308.[324]Both Sir Henry Bankes and Richard Peers were senior to Nash, and both were nominated at the election.—Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 166.[325]Woodfall, Letters of Junius, ii, 338-344.[326]Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 346.[327]Journal 65, fos. 250, 253. Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 165.[328]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 162-163.[329]Journal 65, fos. 278b-280b.[330]Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i, 250.[331]Journal 65, fos. 289b, 290. Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 553. Walpole, Journal of reign of George III, i, 26, 42.[332]Journal 65, fo. 311.[333]These instructions were not entered on record until the following Midsummer-day (1773).—Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 176b, 177.[334]Correspondence, i, 110.[335]Ibid.[336]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 171b.[337]Townshend even allowed his goods to be seized rather than pay the tax, and then brought an action for trespass. The case had come on for hearing in June last, when Lord Mansfield, finding that counsel for the plaintiff wanted the court to retry the judgment of the House of Commons touching the case of the Middlesex election, stopt the case, and ordered the jury to find for the defendant.—Walpole, "Journal of the reign of George III," i, 124-126.[338]Correspondence, i, 112.[339]Journal of the reign of George III, i, 164.[340]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 171b.[341]Journal 65, fo. 311b.[342]Chatham to Shelburne, 10 Jan., 1772.—Chatham Correspondence, iv, 187.[343]"Journal of the reign of George III," i, 164, 165.[344]Repertory 177, fo. 164.[345]Walpole, Journal, i, 184, 185.[346]Correspondence, i, 125.[347]Walpole, Journal, i, 188, 189.[348]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 175b.[349]Walpole, Journal, i, 192.[350]The king to Lord North, 13 March, 1773.—Correspondence, i, 125.[351]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 176b.[352]This was something in the nature of a "whip," the custom being for the Speaker to send notice to the sheriffs to summon all their members to attend on a certain day.[353]Watkin Lewes and Oliver.[354]Journal House of Commons, xxxiv, 283; Walpole, Journal, i, 194-197.[355]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 176b.[356]Gentleman's Magazine, xliii, 300.[357]Supra, p. 94.[358]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 162-163.[359]This judgment was reversed in 1775, and from that day to this the lord mayor has been unable to compel the attendance of the livery at Common Hall.—Journal 66, fos. 36b, 349b-350b. See also "Case of Mr. Alderman Plumbe" (Guildhall Library) where the judgments of the several judges in error are set out with comments by James Roberts, the city solicitor.[360]This opinion was ordered to be entered in the Repertory of the Court of Aldermen (19 Oct., 1773).—Repertory 177, fos. 439-445.[361]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 178. The contest was so equal that Wilkes only lost the election by the casting vote of Townshend.—Walpole, Journal, i, 262.[362]Walpole, Journal, i, 275, 297, 301, 325; Gentleman's Magazine, xliv, 291.[363]The king to North, 31 Oct., 1773.—Correspondence, i, 153.[364]The same to the same, 12 Nov., 1773.—Id., i, 155-156.[365]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 183.[366]Journal 66, fos. 105b-106; Journal House of Commons, xxxiv, 765, 803; Gentleman's Magazine, xliv, 247, 283.[367]Walpole, Journal, i, 376, 377.[368]Journal 66, fos. 170-172, 178, 179.[369]The king to Lord North, 18 June, 1774.—Correspondence, i, 192.[370]Walpole, Journal, i, 380-382.[371]Walpole, Journal, i, 420.[372]Gentleman's Magazine, xliv, 491.[373]Gentleman's Magazine, xliv, 444.[374]Walpole, Journal, i, 427.[375]Journal House of Commons, xxxviii, 977.

[269]SeeAnnals of the Mayoralty of the Right Hon. Barlow Trecothick, Esq., ascribed to Wilkes, printed in Stephens's Memoirs of John Horne Tooke, i, 191, note.

[270]Annual Register, xiii, 161, 162.

[271]Id., xiii, 157.

[272]Journal 65, fos. 140seq.The king was very angry at having to receive more of this "stuff." "The idea of a fresh address, remonstrance and petition is so extremely absurd, and considering the time I may add puerile, that it deserves contempt."—The king to Lord North, 15 Nov., 1770.—Correspondence, i, 39.

[273]Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 196, 197.

[274]Journal House of Commons, xxi, 238.

[275]Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 278, 287-289.

[276]Correspondence, i, 64.

[277]Crosby sat for Honiton, whilst Oliver had succeeded Beckford as one of the members for the city. Wilkes was also summoned to attend, but not as a member. He therefore disobeyed the summons, informing the Speaker by letter that when admitted to his seat for Middlesex he would attend, but not before.—Gentleman's Magazine, xli, 140; Annual Register, xiv, 188.

[278]Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 275.

[279]Annual Register, xiv, 83.

[280]Walpole to Mann, 22 March.—Letters, v, 286.

[281]Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 269.

[282]Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 275; Journal 65, fo. 210.

[283]Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 279, 280.

[284]"Last night, when I went to bed at half-an-hour after twelve, I had just been told that all the avenues to the House were blockaded, and had beaten back the peace-officers who had been summoned, for it wastoute autre choseyesterday when the lord mayor went to the House from what it had been the first day." Walpole to Mann, 26 March, 1771.—Letters, v, 291.

[285]Annual Register, xiv, 84; Gentleman's Magazine, xli, 141.

[286]Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 283-285.

[287]Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 285, 286. Walpole to Mann, 26 March, 1771, Letters, v, 291. Calcraft to Chatham, 26 March; Barré to the same, 26 March, Chatham Correspondence, iv, 125-127, 131-133. Walpole, Memoirs of reign of George III, iv, 299, 300.

[288]Barré to Chatham, 26 March.—Chatham Correspondence, iv, 134. Gentleman's Magazine, xli, 170. Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 300, 301.

[289]Journal 65, fos. 212-212b.

[290]Chatham to Calcraft, 26 March, 1771; The same to Barré. 26 March.—Chatham Correspondence, iv, 129-130, 136-137.

[291]Letters of Junius, iii, 376.

[292]Annual Register, xiv, 85. Gentleman's Magazine, xli, 141. Calcraft to Chatham, 28 March, 1771.—Chatham Correspondence, iv, 138-140. Walpole to Mann, 30 March.—Letters, v, 292. Walpole Memoirs, iv, 292.

[293]Baker sat for Plympton Earls, co. Devon, and Martin for Gatton, co. Surrey.

[294]Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 289.

[295]Id., ibid.

[296]Journal 65, fos. 213, 214, 214b.

[297]Referring to Bills in Parliament for embanking the Thames for the purpose of building Adelphi Terrace, which was deemed to encroach upon the City's rights of conservancy.—Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 173.

[298]Journal 65, fo. 214b.

[299]Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 307; TheMiddlesex Journal, 2 April, 1771; TheLondon Chronicle, 2-6 April.

[300]Junius to thePublic Advertiser, 13 Aug., 1771; Woodfall, Letters of Junius, ii, 307.

[301]Journal 65, fo. 222.

[302]Id., fo. 226.

[303]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 165.

[304]Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 328. The number "allowed by law" appears to have been ten.

[305]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 167.

[306]TheLondon Chronicle, 13-16 April, 1771.

[307]The king to Lord North, 26 June, 1771.—Correspondence, i. 76.

[308]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 161, 161b.

[309]Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 328. The letter will be found printed in Woodfall's Letters of Junius, ii, 252, 253, note.

[310]Walpole to Mann, 6 July, 1771.—Letters, v, 313.

[311]Wilkes to Junius, 12 Sept. and 17 Oct., 1771.—Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i, 299, 323.

[312]Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i, 322.

[313]Wilkes to Junius, 17 Oct., 1771. Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i, 323-325.

[314]Junius to Wilkes, 21 Oct., 1771.—Letters of Junius, i, 325-328.

[315]Horne to Junius, 13 July, 1771.Id., ii, 259.

[316]A hit at Wilkes's connection with the city. It was usual at one time for the chamberlain thus to address a recipient of the honorary freedom of the city. The expression went out of use, but was revived by Wilkes when he became chamberlain.

[317]Horne to Wilkes, 10 July.—Stephens, Memoirs of John Horne Tooke, i, 310.

[318]"Mr. Wilkes, if not persecuted, will soon be forgotten."—Junius to the Duke of Grafton, 24 April, 1769. Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i, 478.

[319]Junius to Horne, 24 July, 1771.Id., ii, 267.

[320]The letter was placed in Wilkes's hand by a chairman, who said he brought it from a gentleman he had met in the Strand.Id., i, 263, note.

[321]It is strange to find Wilkes giving this character of a mayor, who had shown him great partiality at the time that No. 45 of theNorth Britonwas ordered to be burnt at the Royal Exchange—and who in other respects displayed a distinct democratic tendency. Can it be possible that Wilkes was hood-winkingJunius, and that he would have been equally pleased to have seen either Bridgen or Crosby in the mayoralty chair?

[322]Wilkes to Junius, 12 Sept., 1771.—Woodfall, i, 297-304.

[323]Junius to Wilkes, 18 Sept., 1771.—Woodfall, i, 307-308.

[324]Both Sir Henry Bankes and Richard Peers were senior to Nash, and both were nominated at the election.—Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 166.

[325]Woodfall, Letters of Junius, ii, 338-344.

[326]Walpole, Memoirs, iv, 346.

[327]Journal 65, fos. 250, 253. Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 165.

[328]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 162-163.

[329]Journal 65, fos. 278b-280b.

[330]Woodfall, Letters of Junius, i, 250.

[331]Journal 65, fos. 289b, 290. Journal House of Commons, xxxiii, 553. Walpole, Journal of reign of George III, i, 26, 42.

[332]Journal 65, fo. 311.

[333]These instructions were not entered on record until the following Midsummer-day (1773).—Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 176b, 177.

[334]Correspondence, i, 110.

[335]Ibid.

[336]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 171b.

[337]Townshend even allowed his goods to be seized rather than pay the tax, and then brought an action for trespass. The case had come on for hearing in June last, when Lord Mansfield, finding that counsel for the plaintiff wanted the court to retry the judgment of the House of Commons touching the case of the Middlesex election, stopt the case, and ordered the jury to find for the defendant.—Walpole, "Journal of the reign of George III," i, 124-126.

[338]Correspondence, i, 112.

[339]Journal of the reign of George III, i, 164.

[340]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 171b.

[341]Journal 65, fo. 311b.

[342]Chatham to Shelburne, 10 Jan., 1772.—Chatham Correspondence, iv, 187.

[343]"Journal of the reign of George III," i, 164, 165.

[344]Repertory 177, fo. 164.

[345]Walpole, Journal, i, 184, 185.

[346]Correspondence, i, 125.

[347]Walpole, Journal, i, 188, 189.

[348]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 175b.

[349]Walpole, Journal, i, 192.

[350]The king to Lord North, 13 March, 1773.—Correspondence, i, 125.

[351]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 176b.

[352]This was something in the nature of a "whip," the custom being for the Speaker to send notice to the sheriffs to summon all their members to attend on a certain day.

[353]Watkin Lewes and Oliver.

[354]Journal House of Commons, xxxiv, 283; Walpole, Journal, i, 194-197.

[355]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 176b.

[356]Gentleman's Magazine, xliii, 300.

[357]Supra, p. 94.

[358]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 162-163.

[359]This judgment was reversed in 1775, and from that day to this the lord mayor has been unable to compel the attendance of the livery at Common Hall.—Journal 66, fos. 36b, 349b-350b. See also "Case of Mr. Alderman Plumbe" (Guildhall Library) where the judgments of the several judges in error are set out with comments by James Roberts, the city solicitor.

[360]This opinion was ordered to be entered in the Repertory of the Court of Aldermen (19 Oct., 1773).—Repertory 177, fos. 439-445.

[361]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 178. The contest was so equal that Wilkes only lost the election by the casting vote of Townshend.—Walpole, Journal, i, 262.

[362]Walpole, Journal, i, 275, 297, 301, 325; Gentleman's Magazine, xliv, 291.

[363]The king to North, 31 Oct., 1773.—Correspondence, i, 153.

[364]The same to the same, 12 Nov., 1773.—Id., i, 155-156.

[365]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 183.

[366]Journal 66, fos. 105b-106; Journal House of Commons, xxxiv, 765, 803; Gentleman's Magazine, xliv, 247, 283.

[367]Walpole, Journal, i, 376, 377.

[368]Journal 66, fos. 170-172, 178, 179.

[369]The king to Lord North, 18 June, 1774.—Correspondence, i, 192.

[370]Walpole, Journal, i, 380-382.

[371]Walpole, Journal, i, 420.

[372]Gentleman's Magazine, xliv, 491.

[373]Gentleman's Magazine, xliv, 444.

[374]Walpole, Journal, i, 427.

[375]Journal House of Commons, xxxviii, 977.

Back to Index Next