FOOTNOTES:

The City's monument to Chatham.

The citizens, on the other hand, though prevented from showing their respect at the grave-side of the deceased statesman, were resolved to erect a memorial to one who, when in power, had never (as they declared) allowed them to return from the throne dissatisfied. A sculptured monument by Bacon, with an inscription from the pen of the great Edmund Burke, was in due course erected in the Guildhall, for the express purpose that citizens might "never meet for the transaction of their affairs without being reminded that the means by which Providence raises a nation to greatness are the virtues infused into great men; and that to withhold from those virtues, either of the living or the dead, the tribute of esteem and veneration, is to deny themselves the means of happiness and honour."

FOOTNOTES:[376]Repertory 179, fos. 10-14, 17-20, 54-65.[377]Id., fos. 24-25.[378]Repertory 179, fo. 24.[379]Id., fos. 65-68.[380]Id., fos. 96, 97.[381]Repertory 180, fos. 288-294.[382]Repertory 179, fo. 194.[383]Chatham Correspondence iv, 378, note.[384]Journal 66, fos. 179, 181b.[385]Journal 66, fos. 185-185b, 188b-190, 191-192.[386]Journal House of Commons, xxxv, 182, 241; Journal House of Lords, xxxiv, 365.[387]On the 7th March a pamphlet had been published entitled "Taxation no Tyranny; an Answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American Congress,"—from the pen of Dr. Johnson.—Boswell's Life of Johnson (Napier), ii, 289.[388]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 186b-188.[389]Walpole, Journal i, 484. Wilkes's winning manner was never more conspicuous than when, a year later (15 May, 1776), he first met Dr. Johnson at dinner. The story how he succeeded in completely winning over the learned lexicographer who had hitherto looked upon Wilkes as little more than a low demagogue, is admirably told in Boswell's Life (iii, 108-117). They afterwards became very good friends, and Johnson was fain to confess that "Jack was a scholar" and "Jack had the manners of a gentleman," and that "although Jack had always been at him, he would do Jack a kindness rather than not."—(Id., iii, 208.)[390]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 189b-191.[391]See Plumbe's case.Suprapp. 138, 139.[392]Walpole's Journal i, 487. It is printed in the Gentleman's Magazine, xlv, 220-222, and in the Volume of Addresses, etc. (ed. 1778) in the Guildhall Library.[393]Journal 66, fos. 236-237b.[394]Journal 66, fo. 238.[395]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 188b-191.[396]Id., fos. 191-192.[397]Walpole, Journal i, 495.[398]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 192b, 193.[399]Journal 66, fos. 239b-240b.[400]"They could not help doing it, to satisfy the Americans on their address to them."—Walpole, Journal i, 496.[401]The king to Lord North, 5 July, 1775.—Correspondence i, 253.[402]Journal 66, fo. 241.[403]Walpole, Journal i, 500; Gentleman's Magazine xlv, 405.[404]Walpole, Journal i, 503.[405]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 193b-195b.[406]Journal 66, fos. 259b-260b; Walpole, Journal i, 501, 502; Journal House of Commons, xxxv, 405; Journal House of Lords, xxxiv, 489.[407]Walpole, Journal i, 508, 509; Walpole to Mann, 28 Oct., 1775; Letters vi, 277; Annual Register xviii, 167, 239-243.[408]Walpole, Journal i, 523.[409]Journal House of Commons, xxxv, 462. Walpole, Journal i, 524.[410]Journal 66, fo. 261b.[411]In November, 1776, an alteration was made in this respect, and it was ordained that for the future the sum of £1,000 should be paid to each mayor in lieu of the sale of offices. Journal 67, fo. 8b.[412]Journal 67, fo. 9. The respective amounts of receipts and expenditure by some of his more immediate predecessors in office, are recorded as having been as follows:—Receipts.Payments.1768.Turner£5,731510£7,749124.1770.Crosby4,2511166,6851011.1772.Townshend3,896007,592169.1773.Bull5,6471389,293100.[413]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 199, 200, 205-205b, 211.[414]Journal 67, fos. 85b, 100.[415]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 217b.[416]Almon, Wilkes's Correspondence v, 37.[417]Journal 66, fos. 296, 354.[418]Journal 66, fos. 296-297, 299b.[419]Walpole, Journal ii, 77.[420]Parliamentary History, vol. xviii, cols. 1,402, 1,403. Notwithstanding Wilkes's statement, instances are recorded of men having been pressed in the City; but their instant discharge was demanded.—Journal 67, fos. 12b-13, 43-43b.[421]On coming into office Hallifax invited the ministers to his banquet. They had not been asked to the lord mayor's banquet for the last seven years.—Walpole, Journal ii, 84.[422]Journal 67, fos. 42b, 95.[423]Journal 67, fos. 42, 107.[424]The king to Lord North, 17 Jan., 1778.—Correspondence ii, 122.[425]Walpole, Journal ii, 222, 223.[426]Journal 67, fos. 126-8.[427]Walpole, Journal ii, 223.[428]Repertory 182, fo. 184.[429]Parliamentary History xix, 1,022, 1,023.[430]Journal 67, fos. 137b-138b, 149b. Journal House of Commons, xxxvi, 990.[431]Journal 67, fo. 148.[432]Journal 67, fo. 150; Annual Register xxi, 243.[433]Journal 67, fo. 149b.[434]Id., fo. 150.

[376]Repertory 179, fos. 10-14, 17-20, 54-65.

[377]Id., fos. 24-25.

[378]Repertory 179, fo. 24.

[379]Id., fos. 65-68.

[380]Id., fos. 96, 97.

[381]Repertory 180, fos. 288-294.

[382]Repertory 179, fo. 194.

[383]Chatham Correspondence iv, 378, note.

[384]Journal 66, fos. 179, 181b.

[385]Journal 66, fos. 185-185b, 188b-190, 191-192.

[386]Journal House of Commons, xxxv, 182, 241; Journal House of Lords, xxxiv, 365.

[387]On the 7th March a pamphlet had been published entitled "Taxation no Tyranny; an Answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American Congress,"—from the pen of Dr. Johnson.—Boswell's Life of Johnson (Napier), ii, 289.

[388]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 186b-188.

[389]Walpole, Journal i, 484. Wilkes's winning manner was never more conspicuous than when, a year later (15 May, 1776), he first met Dr. Johnson at dinner. The story how he succeeded in completely winning over the learned lexicographer who had hitherto looked upon Wilkes as little more than a low demagogue, is admirably told in Boswell's Life (iii, 108-117). They afterwards became very good friends, and Johnson was fain to confess that "Jack was a scholar" and "Jack had the manners of a gentleman," and that "although Jack had always been at him, he would do Jack a kindness rather than not."—(Id., iii, 208.)

[390]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 189b-191.

[391]See Plumbe's case.Suprapp. 138, 139.

[392]Walpole's Journal i, 487. It is printed in the Gentleman's Magazine, xlv, 220-222, and in the Volume of Addresses, etc. (ed. 1778) in the Guildhall Library.

[393]Journal 66, fos. 236-237b.

[394]Journal 66, fo. 238.

[395]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 188b-191.

[396]Id., fos. 191-192.

[397]Walpole, Journal i, 495.

[398]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 192b, 193.

[399]Journal 66, fos. 239b-240b.

[400]"They could not help doing it, to satisfy the Americans on their address to them."—Walpole, Journal i, 496.

[401]The king to Lord North, 5 July, 1775.—Correspondence i, 253.

[402]Journal 66, fo. 241.

[403]Walpole, Journal i, 500; Gentleman's Magazine xlv, 405.

[404]Walpole, Journal i, 503.

[405]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 193b-195b.

[406]Journal 66, fos. 259b-260b; Walpole, Journal i, 501, 502; Journal House of Commons, xxxv, 405; Journal House of Lords, xxxiv, 489.

[407]Walpole, Journal i, 508, 509; Walpole to Mann, 28 Oct., 1775; Letters vi, 277; Annual Register xviii, 167, 239-243.

[408]Walpole, Journal i, 523.

[409]Journal House of Commons, xxxv, 462. Walpole, Journal i, 524.

[410]Journal 66, fo. 261b.

[411]In November, 1776, an alteration was made in this respect, and it was ordained that for the future the sum of £1,000 should be paid to each mayor in lieu of the sale of offices. Journal 67, fo. 8b.

[412]Journal 67, fo. 9. The respective amounts of receipts and expenditure by some of his more immediate predecessors in office, are recorded as having been as follows:—Receipts.Payments.1768.Turner£5,731510£7,749124.1770.Crosby4,2511166,6851011.1772.Townshend3,896007,592169.1773.Bull5,6471389,293100.

[412]Journal 67, fo. 9. The respective amounts of receipts and expenditure by some of his more immediate predecessors in office, are recorded as having been as follows:—

Receipts.Payments.1768.Turner£5,731510£7,749124.1770.Crosby4,2511166,6851011.1772.Townshend3,896007,592169.1773.Bull5,6471389,293100.

[413]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 199, 200, 205-205b, 211.

[414]Journal 67, fos. 85b, 100.

[415]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 217b.

[416]Almon, Wilkes's Correspondence v, 37.

[417]Journal 66, fos. 296, 354.

[418]Journal 66, fos. 296-297, 299b.

[419]Walpole, Journal ii, 77.

[420]Parliamentary History, vol. xviii, cols. 1,402, 1,403. Notwithstanding Wilkes's statement, instances are recorded of men having been pressed in the City; but their instant discharge was demanded.—Journal 67, fos. 12b-13, 43-43b.

[421]On coming into office Hallifax invited the ministers to his banquet. They had not been asked to the lord mayor's banquet for the last seven years.—Walpole, Journal ii, 84.

[422]Journal 67, fos. 42b, 95.

[423]Journal 67, fos. 42, 107.

[424]The king to Lord North, 17 Jan., 1778.—Correspondence ii, 122.

[425]Walpole, Journal ii, 222, 223.

[426]Journal 67, fos. 126-8.

[427]Walpole, Journal ii, 223.

[428]Repertory 182, fo. 184.

[429]Parliamentary History xix, 1,022, 1,023.

[430]Journal 67, fos. 137b-138b, 149b. Journal House of Commons, xxxvi, 990.

[431]Journal 67, fo. 148.

[432]Journal 67, fo. 150; Annual Register xxi, 243.

[433]Journal 67, fo. 149b.

[434]Id., fo. 150.

Court martial of Admiral Keppel, Jan., 1779.

The extension of the sphere of war owing to the French alliance with America brought great difficulties to the ministry. A powerful fleet under Keppel was sent into the Channel, and in July engaged the French fleet off Ushant, but the action was indecisive, and both fleets retired, the one to Brest, and the other to Plymouth. Keppel had signalled Sir Hugh Palliser, his second in command, to bear up with his squadron, and renew the action, but Palliser's ship was much crippled, and he was either unable or unwilling to comply. Mutual recriminations followed, and as both admirals were in Parliament and political adversaries, Keppel being in Opposition, whilst Palliser was a Lord of the Admiralty, the charges led to a fierce Parliamentary war, and eventually Keppel had to submit to a court martial. The trial took place at Portsmouth, and lasted over a month. The result was anxiously awaited by the City and the country. At length, late in the evening of the 11th February (1779), a courier brought the news that Keppel had been honourably acquitted. The whole of London was at once one blaze of illuminations. Palliser had to make his escape out of Portsmouth for fear of violence, and a house in Pall Mall once occupied by him was completely gutted by the mob and its contents burnt in St. James's Square. The gates of the Admiralty were taken off their hinges. LordSandwich had his windows smashed, so had Lord North, and greater damage would have been done but for the interference of the military.

Vote of thanks and Freedom of City to Keppel, 12 Feb., 1779.

The next day (12 Feb.) the Common Council passed a vote of thanks to Keppel "for his spirited behaviour on the 27th of July last in his attack on the French fleet, for his glorious and gallant efforts to renew the engagement in the afternoon of that day, efforts rendered unsuccessful thro' the want of obedience to his orders by the Vice-Admiral of the Blue."[435]They further voted him the Freedom of the City in a box of heart of oak, in testimony of the respect and gratitude which they entertained of his long and faithful services to his country.[436]That night the illuminations were repeated, but stringent measures were taken to prevent tumult.[437]The vote of thanks was conveyed to the admiral without delay, but circumstances prevented the Freedom being conferred on him until the following December. On the first occasion, Keppel was entertained with a few of his most intimate friends at the London Tavern;[438]on the second the admiral entertained a deputation from the Common Council at his own house in Audley Square. He and Lord Howe had by that time become so disgusted with the government that they had signified their intention of withdrawing their services from the navy so long as the ministers remained in power;[439]but he assured his guests that his zeal for the public good had in no wise abated, notwithstanding his withdrawal from the command of the fleet.[440]The friendly attitude of the City towards Keppel could not have been otherwise than distasteful to the king who looked upon "poor" Palliser as an ill-used man, and had even suggested his appointment to the command of the North American fleet until the recent affair had blown over.[441]

Spain declares war, 17 June, 1779.

The situation in which ministers found themselves was daily becoming more difficult, when Spain rendered it worse by allying herself (June, 1779) with France and America against Great Britain. North had again and again intimated his readiness to resign, but the king would not hear of it, and the minister yielded to his master's stronger will and consented to remain in office against his own convictions. With this increase of danger Parliament again rallied round the throne, and voted loyal addresses. At the same time the leading Whig lords protested against the affairs of the country being left in the hands of a ministry that had proved itself so incapable;—"In such a situation a change of system appears to us to be our indispensable duty to advise."[442]This too was the opinion of a large body of citizens, but the Common Council declined to hamper the king with another address on the subject.[443]

Economical reform.

The country for the most part was in favour of prosecuting the war with vigour, notwithstanding theaddition of a fresh enemy. At the same time there was increasing dissatisfaction at the national expenditure and the excessive use of court influence over Parliament. The Opposition took advantage of this feeling, and in December motions were brought before the House of Lords in favour of economical reform. These were rejected, and the further consideration of the matter was postponed until the 8th February (1780). The Common Council sympathised with the Dukes of Devonshire, Grafton, Manchester, Portland and other Whig lords in their endeavours to promote reform, and passed them a vote of thanks. The Corporation was convinced that the cause of all the existing trouble lay in the "enormous and undue influence of the crown," and promised them support. Each of the lords wrote to acknowledge the vote of thanks, and their answers were given a wide circulation.[444]

Committees of Association, 1779.

Before the question came on again the country had become thoroughly roused. Committees of Association—as they were called—sprang up in all directions, their object being to impress upon Parliament the necessity of economy and the abolition of sinecures. Petitions flowed in from all parts. Yorkshire took the lead, but was closely followed by London.[445]The day that the City's petition was laid before the House (11 Feb.) Burke introduced a Bill for carrying out economical reform, but the measure had to be abandoned owing to the opposition it met with in committee.[446]

Dunning's motion, 6 April, 1780.

Although Burke's Bill had failed to pass, the movement continued to gain force both in and out of Parliament, and on the 6th April Dunning moved his famous resolution that "it is the opinion of this committee that the influence of the crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished." This resolution, with but a slight variation, was, after a hot debate, carried by a majority of eighteen.[447]It was followed by two other resolutions in the same direction, one (moved also by Dunning) to the effect that it was competent for the House to reform the Civil List, the other (moved by Thomas Pitt) that it was the duty of the House to remedy the abuses mentioned in the petitions. Both were carried, and the movers were accorded the thanks of the City (which they in due course acknowledged[448]), but when it came to taking further action on these resolutions the House raised so many objections that all thought of carrying them into effect had to be abandoned.

The City's letter to Lord Shelburne, 7 April, 1780.

As time went on the Committees of Association, not content with their legitimate work—the work for which they were originally established—viz., economical reform, took upon themselves to push parliamentary reform, a matter on which the country was not as yet agreed. The City approved of their action, having long been anxious to see a recurrence to short parliaments and a change made in the mode of representation, but in other places the new departurecaused alarm. In Wiltshire, Lord Shelburne's county, the Association had been disavowed[449]owing to its recent action, and his lordship had in consequence written a letter to the county upholding the Association. Soon after this Shelburne was wounded in a duel, and upon his recovery the City took the opportunity of sending him a letter of congratulation, and at the same time of testifying their appreciation of his letter to the county of Wilts;—"The noble and manly proof which your lordship has given in your letter to the county of Wilts of your decided concurrence in the undoubted right of the people to short parliaments and the necessity of a more equal representation cannot but increase our regard, esteem and confidence; and your lordship in your further prosecution of those great constitutional objects may depend on the most firm and determined support of the city of London."[450]

Lord Shelburne's reply, 12 April, 1780.

The earl in reply assured the Common Council that the support of the City of London was the most honourable incentive he was capable of feeling, as well as the strongest preservative against despondency. As regards the proposals for shortening the duration of parliaments and a more equitable representation, which the counties, cities and boroughs of England were combining to obtain, they would certainly meet his zealous concurrence whenever they should appear "to be the public sense." Without wishing to influence others, he was bound at so critical a juncture to confess that his own opinion was in favour of both proposals.[451]

The City accepts a Form of Association, 13 April, 1780.

The day that the earl's answer was read before the Common Council (13 April) a Form of Association was submitted for their approval. It followed the lines of the Yorkshire Association, and subject to certain alterations it was recommended for acceptance by the City of London.[452]The main point was that subscribers to the form pledged themselves to support only those parliamentary candidates who were in favour (1) of cutting down public expenditure, (2) of shortening the duration of parliaments, and (3) of establishing greater equality in parliamentary representation by allowing the several counties of Great Britain to elect in a due proportion 100 members at least in addition to their present number. The Common Council at once approved of the form, and ordered the Town Clerk to subscribe to it in the name of the Corporation. The citizens were to be recommended also to subscribe to it as being the best plan for effecting the objects in view. The Court at the same time deemed it opportune to place on record the passage in Chatham's letter to Lord Temple of the 17th April, 1771, in which the writer signified his approval of shorter parliaments and more equal representation, and this was accordingly entered on their Journal.[453]

Outcry against Sir George Savile's Act.

Scarcely had the ministry managed to escape from Dunning's attack before they were threatened by a new danger. This time they did not stand alone; the strife of parties ceased in the presence of acommon danger. For some time past an agitation had been set on foot against a Bill which Sir George Savile had carried in 1778, for the relief of Catholics from some of the hardships inflicted upon them by law. The cry of "No Popery" had been raised, and in March last a motion had been made in the Common Council against any proceedings in Parliament calculated to favour Papists. The consideration of the motion was adjourned, and did not come on again until the 31st May, when the court came to a resolution that the passing of any Acts of Parliament in favour of Papists, or the repealing of any Acts against Popery, was repugnant to the true interests of the country. It, at the same time, directed the City's representatives in Parliament to support any movement for the repeal of Savile's Act, so far as it related "to the establishment of seminaries for the education of youth, and the purchasing of lands within the realm."[454]Protestant associations were formed in different parts of the country, and on all sides a cry was raised against catholic emancipation.

Lord George Gordon at Westminster, 2 June, 1780.

The chief leader of the movement was the crack-brained fanatic, Lord George Gordon, who led a mob some thousands strong, wearing blue cockades, through the city to Westminster with a petition which he desired to lay before the House of Commons. A motion that the petition should be brought up was seconded by Alderman Bull. This took place on Friday, the 2nd June. Whilst Lord George was thus engaged, the mob clamoured to be admitted into the House and would have forced an entrance, but for the arrival of a party of horse andfoot guards. Foiled in their attempt to intimidate the House, the mob dispersed in various directions, and proceeded to sack and burn the Roman Catholic chapels attached to the Sardinian and Bavarian embassies, standing in Duke Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields, and Warwick Street, Golden Square, and having so far wreaked their vengeance they retired to rest for the night.[455]

Riot in Moorfields, 4 and 5 June, 1780.

Matters were not allowed to rest here. On Saturday afternoon (3 June), Kennet, the lord mayor, received a letter from Lord Stormont, secretary of state, forewarning him of the likelihood of tumults arising within his jurisdiction and strongly recommending him to take the necessary steps for preserving the peace. The day passed off quietly, however. A few people gathered in Ropemakers Alley, Little Moorfields, where stood a Roman Catholic chapel, but no disturbance took place. On Sunday afternoon (4 June) matters took a turn for the worse, and the mayor, being informed that a very great concourse of people had assembled in Moorfields in a riotous manner, and was threatening the chapel, at once sent for the marshals and their men and instructed them to procure as many constables as possible, and disperse the mob. In the evening the mayor himself went to the scene of riot, and stayed there until three o'clock in the morning. In the course of the night he received another and more urgent letter from Lord Stormont;—"I cannot but hope, and trust from your lordship's known zeal and activity that every effectual legalmethod will be used by you to preserve the public peace by guarding it against those dangers to which it stands exposed." The mayor was quick to grasp the situation. There were not nearly sufficient constables procurable to put down the riot, and those that were present declined to exert themselves to save the property of Roman Catholics. Kennet therefore took the only course open to him, and sent to the Tower for military assistance. The commander, however, was slow to give the aid required, and could be prevailed upon to send no more than 73 men, all told, and even these were sent in detachments. The force was utterly inadequate to cope with the crowd, but fortunately the mob were by this time ready to listen to the appeals of the mayor and aldermen, and quiet was at length restored. The mayor went home to seek a much needed rest, leaving one of the sheriffs on the spot in case of emergency. On Monday morning (5 June) a fresh riot broke out, and the mayor sent again to the Tower. A detachment of horse and foot was despatched to his assistance, but by the time it arrived the chapel and several houses adjoining had been burnt and destroyed.[456]The principal object of attack outside the city was Savile House in Leicester Fields, the house of Sir George Savile himself, the indirect author of all the mischief, and this was sacked by the mob.

The conduct of the civic authorities impugned.

Upon hearing of this fresh outbreak the secretaries of state, Lords Stormont and Hillsborough, wrote a joint letter to the mayor expressing concern and surprise that houses in the city should bedemolished in broad daylight, and—as they were informed—"without the least interposition of the civic magistrates to preserve the public peace."[457]This was scarcely true. The mayor, aldermen and sheriffs appear to have done their duty, but they experienced no little difficulty in getting the marshalmen and constables—who were no friends to the Catholics, and had no real wish to save them from the mob—to do theirs. One marshalman, in fact, openly refused to obey the summons that was sent him, declaring that he would not go to protect any such Popish rascals, and for this he was suspended from office.[458]The mayor, in reply, justified himself (and with reason) by laying the blame upon the commanding officer at the Tower, who had failed to supply him with the requisite assistance. Lord Stormont accepted the mayor's explanation, and immediately sent copies of his letter to the field officer of the guards with directions to send to the city forthwith a detachment of foot guards and light dragoons, as well as to the commanding officer at the Tower, directing him to supply the lord mayor with such assistance as he might require.[459]

More rioting, 6 June, 1780.

On Tuesday morning (6 June) a Court of Aldermen sat, and the mayor reported all that had taken place since the previous Saturday. He was recommended to take the most effectual methods he could devise for preventing further tumult, and the Court promised to defray all expenses.[460]During the day the city was quiet, but at night the rioters split themselves up into various parties, and whilst one party was engaged insacking and burning Lord Mansfield's house in Bloomsbury Square, another attacked the house of Sir John Fielding, and others broke into old Newgate and Clerkenwell prisons, and set free the prisoners.

The king's letter to Lord North, 6 June, 1780.

Writing to Lord North late that night the king expressed surprise that Lord Gordon was still allowed to be at large, and complained of the "great supineness of the civil magistrates," whereby the rioters received encouragement;—"I fear without more vigour that this will not subside; indeed, unless exemplary punishment is procured, it will remain a lasting disgrace, and will be a precedent for future commotions."[461]The fact was that many justices of the peace had run away, and it was with the greatest difficulty that a magistrate was found to read the Riot Act in Bloomsbury, and when found it was too late to save Lord Mansfield's house.

The City in the hands of the mob, 7 June.

Early next morning (7 June) the mayor despatched a letter to the secretaries of state asking for more troops, and at half-past two o'clock a reply was sent that he should have such additional force as could be spared. In the meanwhile he was urged to take every possible measure for protecting the Bank of England, which there was reason to believe was about to be attacked.[462]On receipt of this letter the mayor summoned a Common Council to meet that evening at six o'clock. It was at once resolved to direct the sheriffs to raise theposse comitatus. The services of the Military Association were offered and readily accepted. Many officers of the City's militia volunteered for duty, and they weredesired to place themselves at the disposal of the sheriffs, who were instructed more particularly to protect the Mansion House, the Guildhall and the Bank of England.[463]The measures were not taken a whit too soon. Two attempts were made on the Bank, but in each case the rioters were repulsed. The King's Bench and Fleet prisons were fired; and as many as thirty-six fires, all blazing at one time and in different quarters of the city, might be seen from one spot. Houses were pillaged in all directions. In Broad Street the Artillery Company and the London Association were ordered to fire on the mob, and several were killed.[464]The streets were flooded in many places with raw spirits from wrecked distilleries, and as many (if not more) perished from excessive drink as from the firing of the military, although by an order of Lord Amherst, the adjutant-general, the latter were authorised to act without waiting for directions from the civil magistrates.[465]The return of the number of killed and wounded during the disturbances was 458.[466]

City petition for repeal of Savile's Act, 8 June, 1780

In the meanwhile troops had arrived in London from their various quarters in the country, and were encamped in the public parks. Their presence served to intimidate the rioters and order began to berestored. Before the Common Council of Wednesday evening broke up, it resolved to petition Parliament for a repeal of Savile's Act, and the next day (8 June) the petition was drawn up. It set out, in effect, that since the Act made in the 11th and 12th years of King William III, entitled "an Act for the further preventing the growth of Popery," the Papists had experienced no persecution, and the state had enjoyed perfect tranquility, and that the repealing of part of the Act had occasioned much discontent and produced dangerous tumults. The petitioners therefore prayed that the repealing Act should be itself repealed as being in their opinion "the most probable means of immediately quieting the minds of the people." The sheriffs and the remembrancer were instructed to present the petition to the House of Commons without delay, but rather than listen to a debate for a repeal of the Act, of which General Conway had given notice, the House suddenly adjourned until the 19th.[467]

Instructions of Lords of the Council, 9 June, 1780.

On Friday morning (9 June) the Lords of the Council issued a warrant for the arrest of the arch-mover in the recent troubles, and before nightfall Lord George Gordon was lodged in the Tower. Their lordships at the same time directed the lord mayor to make diligent search for all idle and disorderly persons, and to commit them for trial. All guns, pistols, and other offensive weapons were to be seized. A difficulty arose as to where to keep prisoners or those awaiting trial, now that Newgate and the other prisons were no longer serviceable. The mayor suggested the Tower, but the Lords ofthe Council would not hear of such a thing. They recommended him to commit his prisoners to some of the city halls or other public buildings, as he might deem most fit, and they (the lords) would furnish a sufficient force to guard these temporary prisons. The Court of Aldermen lost no time in carrying out the instructions thus given.[468]That evening the mayor was desired to meet the Lords of the Council at the Cockpit, Whitehall. What took place at the interview does not appear to be recorded.[469]

The civic and military authorities at variance, June, 1780.

A proposal to form an armed association of householders for future protection, brought the City into variance with the military authorities. No sooner was the proposal set on foot than Colonel Twistleton who was in command of the troops in the city, informed the adjutant-general of it. The latter at once signified his disapproval on the ground that "no person can bear arms in this country but under officers having the king's commission," and he instructed Colonel Twistleton (13 June) to see that all arms in the hands of persons who were not of the City militia, or authorised by the king to be armed, were given up. The existing London Association which had been on duty since the beginning of theriots, on learning this order, flatly refused to surrender their arms, on the ground that by the articles of the Bill of Rights, all his majesty's Protestant subjects were permitted to have arms for their defence suitable to their condition and as allowed by law.[470]The Court of Aldermen could not understand this interference of the military in the City's affairs, and directed the lord mayor to apply to Colonel Twistleton for a copy of the orders under which he acted in the city. Thereupon that officer produced the original orders of the 7th June, signed by the adjutant-general.

Letter to Lord Bathurst, 14 June, 1780.

This did not satisfy the Aldermen, and by their directions the lord mayor addressed a letter to Earl Bathurst, the president of the Council (14 June), informing him that in pursuance to his orders they had made diligent search for disorderly persons implicated in the late riots, and had "taken to their assistance the house-keepers in each district, who have armed themselves" under the directions of the Court for the purpose of supporting the civil magistrate, but the Court's attention having been drawn to Lord Amherst's letters to Colonel Twistleton, they desired some explanation, as those letters militated against former orders from the Lords of the Council. The Court further desired to know whether Lord Amherst's order of the 7th June was to continue in force.[471]

Back to Index Next