FOOTNOTES:

Lord Bathurst's reply, 15 June.

In reply to this letter, the President of the Council explained that Lord Amherst's letters had been misunderstood, "for when he speaks of the arms in the hands of the city militia or other persons authorised by the king to be armed, he certainly includes the arms in the hands of the citizens and house-keepers, who by virtue of an order of the Court of Lieutenancy are required to keep them in their houses." As regards the order of the adjutant-general of the 7th June, he was of opinion that it had better remain in force so long as the presence of the military in the city was necessary for the preservation of peace. His letter concluded with a warning lest the armed house-keepers should expose themselves to the military, who in a tumult would have difficulty in distinguishing them from the rioters.[472]

The City's second letter to Lord Bathurst. 17 June, 1780.

This reply being deemed unsatisfactory, the lord mayor wrote a second letter (17 June) pointing out that Lord Amherst's orders to Colonel Twistleton, of the 13th, would, if literally executed, disarm those very persons without whose assistance it would have been impossible for the civic authorities to have executed the Order of Council of the 9th instant. This (he explains) is what was meant in his former letter, when he said that Lord Amherst's letters militated against the orders first received from the Lords of the Council, and the Court of Aldermen now desired him to submit to his lordship's consideration "whether some further explanation might not be necessary to prevent a construction which would leave the civil magistrate without power to act at all, for want of necessary support."[473]

Lord Bathurst's reply, 20 June, 1780.

The lord mayor's letter having been submitted to the Lords of the Council, the President replied, three days later (20 June), that in the opinion of their lordships the matter had been fully explained in his letter of the 15th. With regard, however, to the alleged impracticability of executing the Orders of Council of the 9th instant without the assistance of the inhabitants of the several wards who had armed themselves, the Council was of opinion that in times of danger "a reasonable number of inhabitants, armed according to the nature and circumstances of the case, may attend the peace-officers, as assistants to them, for the preservation of the public peace, until the danger be over." He concluded by reminding the aldermen that the privilege enjoyed by subjects of carrying arms under the Bill of Rights (to which they had referred in the mayor's last letter) did not extend to mustering and arraying armed bodies without the king's permission.[474]The next day (21 June) the Duke of Richmond moved in the Lords that the adjutant-general's orders contravened the Bill of Rights, but the motion was negatived without a division.[475]

Another letter to Lord Bathurst, 24 June, 1780.

Still the Court of Aldermen were far from being satisfied. They foresaw that difficulties were likely to arise in the execution of their duty if the military were to be allowed to act independently. They desired, therefore, the lord mayor once more to address the President of the Council with the view of getting the order of the adjutant-general respecting the military acting without previous directions fromthe civil magistrates, withdrawn. Accordingly on the 24th June Kennet wrote again to this effect,[476]but the only answer vouchsafed to this was the passing of a Bill of Indemnity for the acts of the military.[477]It was useless, therefore, for the Court of Aldermen to proceed further in the matter, and they had the wisdom to ignore a series of propositions which one of their number introduced later on (18 July) touching the rights of the citizens to bear arms and the noninterference of the military powers.[478]

Speech of Wilkes in the House, 19 June, 1780.

When Parliament resumed its sitting on the 19th Wilkes, who had displayed great zeal during the riots, not only made an attack on the lord mayor for not having taken proper precautions to prevent their occurrence in the city, but he declared that the petition drawn up and approved by the Common Council on the 8th had been improperly procured, having been moved in the Court after many of the members had gone home under the impression that business was over. He next proceeded to attack his former friend and colleague, Alderman Bull, who (he said) had not only omitted to take steps to quell the rioters, but had allowed the constables of his wards to "wear the ensigns of riot in their hats," and had been seen leaving the House of Commons arm-in-arm with Lord George Gordon himself. Bull could only reply that it was true that constables of his ward had worn the cockades, but he had made four of them remove them.[479]Permission was eventually given for bringing in a Bill for securing the Protestant religion.

City address to the king on late riots, 28 July, 1780.

On the 8th July a motion was made in the Common Council for presenting an address to the king "expressing the grateful thanks of this Court for his majesty's care and attention to the citizens of London in granting them such aid as became necessary to subdue the late dangerous riots, they being too formidable for the control of the civil authority." To this the previous question was moved and lost, and the original motion was at length carried, but when it came to nominating four aldermen and eight commoners to draw up the address, there were not found sufficient aldermen present, and the matter had to be postponed.[480]It was eventually passed on the 24th, and presented on the 28th, when the king made a suitable reply.[481]

City claims for damages during the riots.

The riots over, and the ringleaders (all except Lord George Gordon himself) brought to justice, it remained to pay the costs. To make good all the damages involved much time and expenditure. The new gaol at Newgate on which so much money had been spent, and which was approaching completion at the outbreak of the riots, was completely "gutted," only the external walls being left standing. The keeper's house was demolished, and much damage done to the neighbouring Sessions House. For all this the City sent in claims for compensation,[482]and in course of time succeeded in getting from Parliament three several sums of £10,000 to assist in defraying the expense of rebuilding Newgate.[483]The cost of maintaining the military force quartered in the cityduring the riots was no slight one, and had to be provided for by the Common Council. One ward alone, that of Farringdon Within, sent in a bill exceeding £350 for victuals supplied to a party of light horse quartered at the Oxford Arms in Warwick Lane, and the Sessions House, to a detachment of foot guards quartered in St. Paul's, and several companies of militia at Christchurch, Newgate.[484]There were, moreover, legal expenses incurred by the City in defending actions brought against the sheriffs by various inhabitants of the city for damage done to houses.[485]

A new Parliament, 31 Oct., 1780.

Whilst the riots brought a respite to Parliament from the importunity of associations, their suppression brought temporary support to the king, who embraced the opportunity of dissolving Parliament before the court party lost ground.[486]Parliament was accordingly prorogued on the 8th July, and on the 1st September, was dissolved, another being summoned to meet on the last day of October. Only two of the old city members were re-elected. These were Bull and Hayley. The places of Sawbridge and Oliver were taken by two other aldermen, namely, Kirkman—who commanded the light horse volunteers during the riots—and Nathaniel Newnham. Sawbridge, however, recovered his seat upon Kirkman's death, which occurred within a few days after his election. A year later (Sept., 1781) Hayley died, and Lord George Gordon, whom a jury had recently acquitted of high treason, made some show of contesting the seat. He soon, however, discovered that theCity would have none of him, and withdrew before the election came on. The seat was won, after a severe contest, by Sir Watkin Lewes the outgoing lord mayor.[487]

The City's Committee of Correspondence dissolved, 15 March, 1781.

The late riots had somewhat cooled the ardour of the associations. Many of them, according to Walpole,[488]had been formed chiefly with a view to the coming Parliamentary elections, and now that these were over, the various committees became less active. The City's Committee of Correspondence was dissolved, and the civic authorities after some wavering refused to allow country associations the use of the Guildhall for fear of renewed disturbances.[489]

Proceedings of Common Hall, 6 Dec., 1781.

The news of the capitulation of Cornwallis and his army at Yorktown which reached London on Sunday, the 25th November (1781), induced the livery to urge the king once more to put an end to the war. A Common Hall was summoned by special request to meet on Thursday, the 6th December. Alderman Bull being too ill to attend and to consult his constituents as he wished, contented himself with addressing a letter to the "Gentlemen of the Livery" calling upon them to continue to be an example to the nation, as they always had been. With their assistance he hoped to see a change effected which should put an end to the evils from which the country was suffering. This letter having been read to the livery they proceeded to consider the terms of a new remonstrance, which was produced ready cut and dried. After expressing concern at the king'srecent speech in Parliament, declaring his intention to persevere in a system of measures which had already proved so disastrous, the document plainly told the king that he had been deluded by his ministers, and the consequences of that delusion had been the almost total extinction of trade and commerce, and the annihilation of public and private credit. "Your majesty's fleets"—it went on to say—"have lost their wonted superiority. Your armies have been captured. Your dominions have been lost." The petitioners expressed a desire publicly to declare not only to the king, but to Europe and to America itself, their abhorence of the continuation of the unnatural and unfortunate war, which could only tend to the alienation of the American colonies with whom they still hoped to live on terms of intercourse and friendship so necessary to the commercial prosperity of the kingdom; and they concluded by imploring his majesty to dismiss his present advisers as a pledge to the world of his determination to abandon a system incompatible with the interests of his crown and the happiness of his people.[490]

The remonstrance was ordered to be presented by the lord mayor, the city members, the Court of Aldermen [notthe Common Council], the sheriffs and ten of the livery—the number permitted by Stat. 13, Chas. II, c. 5—attended by the Recorder and city officers; and notwithstanding all previous objections on the part of the king it was resolved that the sheriffs should enquire when his Majesty would be pleased to receive it on the throne. The result was such as might have been, and no doubt was, expected. When those"fellows in fur,"[491]as George called the sheriffs, attended at court to deliver their message, the king told them he would consider the matter, and would let them know; and in due course Lord Hertford addressed (10 Dec.) the following letter to the mayor:—"It is well known to be the settled custom for the King to receive upon the Throne an address from the City of London only in their corporate capacity, and the same was signified by a letter written by me, in obedience to His Majesty's command, on the eleventh of April, 1775, to the then Lord Mayor. In consequence thereof I am commanded by His Majesty to acquaint you that His Majesty will receive at the levée on Friday the 14th inst. the Address, Petition and Remonstrance of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Livery in Common Hall assembled. I have, etc." To this the mayor replied by referring the lord chamberlain to Wilkes's letter of the 2nd May, 1775, as to the question of custom. With regard to the present address, petition and remonstrance he contented himself with representing to his lordship that as the resolution of the livery was that it should be presented to the king on the throne, the persons directed by the said resolution to present it could not dispense therewith by presenting it in any other mode.[492]The remonstrance was in consequence never presented, although Walpole believed it to have been presented at the levée.[493]

Resolutions of Common Hall, 31 Jan., 1782.

Thus baulked in their design the livery proceeded at another special Common Hall (31 Jan., 1782) to pass a number of resolutions condemning the king'sadvisers and maintaining the necessity of shorter parliaments and fairer representation. They declared that the Committee of Correspondence appointed by the Common Council in February, 1780 (and since abolished) had "proved themselves firm friends to the people," and they resolved to appoint a similar committee from among themselves, and to petition the Common Council to grant the use of their new council chamber[494]to the committee for the purpose of occasionally meeting therein.[495]When the petition was laid before the Court on the 5th February it was refused, but in the following April it was granted, and the Committee of Correspondence was permitted to meet in the council chamber, or in any other part of the Guildhall that might be most convenient.[496]

The fall of North's ministry, 20 March, 1782.

The ministry was now fast tottering to its fall. On the 22nd February General Conway moved the House of Commons to address the king for the purpose of restoring peace and giving up all thoughts of subduing America by force. After prolonged debate the motion was lost by one vote only.[497]Five days later (27 Feb.) the City agreed to a petition to the House imploring the Commons to interpose and prevent the continuation of the war,[498]and that same day the attack was renewed by Conway, who moved that the use of force to put down the colonies was impracticable. This time he was more successful.

His motion was carried by a majority of nineteen,[499]and a few weeks later (20 March) North resigned.

City's address on change of ministry, 12 April, 1782.

Much to his annoyance, the king found himself compelled to place the Opposition in office, with Rockingham as prime minister and Fox and Shelburne as secretaries of state, and to consent to negotiations for peace being opened on the basis of an acknowledgment of American independence. As soon as the change of government had taken place the Common Council presented a loyal address to the king expressing their warmest thanks for having complied with the wishes of the people and taken into his confidence men who were respected by the country for their constitutional principles. They trusted that with the assistance of these new advisers, and with the blessing of Providence, the dignity of the crown would be restored, and prosperity and unity promoted throughout the king's dominions. The king thanked the City for their address, and assured them that the dignity of the crown, the union of his people and the interests and prosperity of his dominions must ever be the principal objects of his care.[500]

Parliamentary reform, 1782.

The new ministers were pledged to do something towards purifying Parliament, and accordingly they carried a measure disqualifying contractors from sitting in the House of Commons, unless their contract should have been made at a public bidding. It was thought that government contractors might be too easily moved to support the party that happened to be in power. Alderman Harley, who sat with SirGeorge Cornewall for the county of Hereford, was one of those whom the Bill affected, inasmuch as he held a contract for supplying the army in Canada, Nova Scotia, Carolina, New York and the West Indies with money. He rose from his seat in the House and boldly defended himself. He had never (he said) asked for the contract; he was not in the habit of asking favours of ministers; "he got his contract in consequence of an address which the late Lord Suffolk intended to have moved to the king, that his majesty would be pleased to confer upon him some mark of his favour ... he was afterwards offered a pension which he would not accept, saying at the same time that he had rather have something in the way of his profession; on this he got the gold contract, which he fulfilled for twelve years with the fairest character, and he now felt himself hurt indeed that he should be treated as if he were a criminal, in being forced to give up a valuable branch of his business, or renounce the honour, which he held so high, of sitting in Parliament."[501]The measure was carried on the 1st May. As Harley retained his seat, and continued to hold it until 1802, it is presumed he gave up his contract. On the 7th, William Pitt, the second son of the late Earl Chatham—who had already displayed such oratorical powers in defence of Burke's economical reform Bill that Burke himself, no less delighted than surprised, had declared him to be not a chip of the old block, but "the old block itself"[502]—moved for a committee to examine into the state of therepresentation of the country. The motion was rejected by only a majority of twenty, the closest division that the reformers ever achieved until 1831, the eve of their ultimate success.

Military reform, May, 1782.

The ministers now turned their attention to a reform of another kind. On the same day that Pitt made his motion in the House, Lord Shelburne, one of the secretaries of state, sent a letter to the lord mayor enclosing copies of a plan for augmenting the home force, and of a circular thereon he had sent to the chief magistrates of principal towns. His majesty (the letter said) expected that "his faithful citizens of London" would set an example to the rest of the kingdom, as they had so often done before, in gathering forces for the protection of their sovereign and their country; the more so, as the city of London had greater interests at stake. The Common Council not only voted (17 May) a sum of £5,000 to put the City militia on a proper footing, but resolved to invite subscriptions in the several wards of the city, and to send copies of Shelburne's letter to all the chartered and trading companies of the city.[503]The matter had already (9 May) been laid before the Court of Aldermen, and the lord mayor had been requested to wait upon Lord Shelburne, to thank him for the letter, and to assure him that the Court would at once proceed to accomplish his majesty's wish "and to do justice to his majesty's most gratifying sentiments of the exemplary loyalty and zeal of his faithful citizens of London."[504]

Rodney's naval victory, 12 April, 1782.

On the 18th May, news arrived that the French fleet under De Grasse had been defeated by Rodney inthe West Indies (12 April). The City presented a congratulatory address to the king, who in reply (5 June) assured his "good city of London" of his constant attention to their commerce and happiness.[505]Rodney who had previously been in disgrace was now raised to the Peerage; but a proposal to entertain him at a public banquet at the City's expense fell through.[506]In October, however, the Common Council unanimously passed a vote of thanks to him for the service he had rendered to the commercial interests of the City, and the committee appointed to convey the same entertained him and his friends at a banquet given at the London Tavern—[507]an event which Horace Walpole had cause to remember, for the windows of his house in Berkeley Square were smashed by the mob which accompanied Rodney home from the City.[508]

The wreck of the Royal George, Aug., 1782.

In the meantime the British navy suffered a severe loss by the capsizing of the Royal George off Spithead. The vessel was reckoned the finest ship in the navy. The unfortunate circumstances, which carried her to the bottom with 800 souls, including Kempenfelt, the admiral, who was at the time writing in his cabin, have been immortalised in Cowper's well known lines:—

"Toll for the brave!"The brave that are no more!All sunk beneath the waveFast by their native shore!

It was, possibly, this loss which prompted the Common Council to consider the question of raisinga sum of money (the Corporation itself contributing £10,000) for the purpose of presenting the king with a man-of-war, to be called the "City of London." It will be remembered that in 1665, when the ship "London" suddenly blew up on her way up to the Hope from Chatham, the City made good the loss then sustained by the navy. It was proposed now to follow the precedent then set, but after several adjournments the proposal was allowed to drop.[509]

The relief of Gibraltar, Sept., 1782.

In September Lord Howe set sail to relieve Gibraltar, which had endured a siege of three years and more. It was defended by General Elliot, afterwards raised to the peerage as Lord Heathfield, and the sufferings of the garrison had at times been terrible. When Shelburne succeeded to the premiership, on the death of Rockingham in July, negotiations for a peace with America and her allies were far advanced, but before a peace was signed France and Spain were anxious above all things to regain Gibraltar. Accordingly on the 13th September a tremendous attack was made on the fortress by the combined fleets. The forts replied with red hot shot, and eventually succeeded in destroying the floating batteries. Just when these were silenced Lord Howe appeared in the bay, and the combined fleet, not venturing to attack him, withdrew. The siege had attracted the eyes of all Europe, and in February (1783) the Common Council appointed a committee to consider the most suitable mode to be adopted by the City to express their respect to Elliot and Howe and the officers of the army and navy employed in "the glorious defence and relief of Gibraltar."

Copley's picture at the Guildhall.

Two artists were consulted on the matter, namely, West and Copley. The former was of opinion that it would be better to have two pictures instead of one, inasmuch as the defence of the Rock by Elliot and the relief by Howe were two distinct subjects. Copley, on the other hand, thought that both subjects could be treated in one picture of sufficient size to fill one of the side windows of the Common Council Chamber. The cost of such a picture he estimated at £1,500, but rather than lose the commission he was prepared to paint it for 1,000 guineas. His offer was in course of time accepted,[510]and his picture now adorns one entire wall of the Guildhall Art Gallery.[511]

The Peace of Paris, 3 Sept., 1783.

This great success, following so close upon Rodney's victory in the West Indies, convinced the allies that England was not by any means so prostrate as her failures in America had led them to believe, and they now showed a disposition to negotiate. Accordingly in January (1783) preliminaries of peace were signed at Paris. A provisional treaty had already been concluded with America, by which theindependence of the United States was formally acknowledged. The news was received in the city with the greatest joy, and the Common Council congratulated the king on his having paid "final attention" to the petitions of his faithful citizens and people. They took the opportunity of expressing their firm conviction that the commercial interests of this country and of North America were inseparably united—a sentiment with which the king declared in his reply that he entirely concurred—and hoped that the stipulations of the treaty would restore commercial intercourse between the two countries.[512]The preliminaries of both treaties were converted into definitive treaties on the 3rd September, and on the 6th October the peace was proclaimed in the city of London in the same manner as at the proclamation of peace with France on the 22nd March, 1763.[513]

FOOTNOTES:[435]Walpole makes the following comment upon this paragraph:—"The French will not like theéclaircissementof the court martial by which it is clear that they were beaten and fled. The city which does not haggle, has expressed this a little grossly in their address to Keppel."—Walpole to Mann, 18 Feb., 1779. Letters vii, 179.[436]Journal 67, fo. 200b.[437]Walpole, Journal ii, 345.[438]Journal 67, fos. 2O9b-212.[439]Walpole to Mann, 9 March, 1779. Letters vii, 182.[440]Journal 67, fos. 329b-331b.[441]The king to Lord North, 29 Jan. and 19 Feb., 1779.—Correspondence ii, 224, 232.[442]Journal House of Lords, xxxv, 802.[443]Journal 67, fo. 268-271.[444]Journal 67, fos. 331b-333b. Journal 68, fos. 5b-12b.[445]Journal 68, fo. 13.[446]Walpole, Journal ii, 366, 367, 374.[447]When that staunchest of Tories, Dr. Johnson, was asked by his friend Boswell if he had not felt vexed at the passing of such a resolution he characteristically replied, "I would have knocked the factious dogs on the head, to be sure, but I was notvexed."—Boswell's Life of Johnson (Napier) iv, 154.[448]Journal 68, fos. 47-47b, 49-50.[449]Walpole to Mason, 13 and 17 April, 1780.—Letters vii, 352, 353; Walpole, Journal ii, 378, 379.[450]Journal 68, fo. 46b.[451]Id., fo. 49.[452]"The Form of Association prepared by the committee appointed by the Court of Common Council to correspond with the committees appointed or to be appointed by the several Counties, Cities and Boroughs in the kingdom."—Journal 68, fo. 51.[453]Journal 68, fo. 52.[454]Journal 68, fos. 29-29b, 61.[455]Walpole to the Countess of Ossory. 3 June, 1780.—Letters vii, 377.[456]Repertory 184, fos. 204-207.[457]Repertory 184, fo. 207.[458]Id., fo. 209.[459]Journal 68, fos. 65, 65b.[460]Repertory 184, fo. 210.[461]The king to Lord North, 6 June, 1780.—Correspondence ii, 324.[462]Journal 68, fo. 65b.[463]Journal 68, fo. 66. Notwithstanding these precautions—and it is difficult to see what more could be done—Walpole declares that "the Lord Mayor Kennet and Sheriff Pughe behaved shamefully."—Journal ii, 408.[464]This incident is depicted in a well known engraving, where the Mayor is represented, with his hat off, giving the command to fire. A prominent figure in the group is the surgeon, Sir William Blizard, tending a wounded man, whilst an attempt is being made on his own life by one of the rioters.—See Raikes's History of the Hon. Artillery Company ii, 68.[465]Repertory 184, fo. 246; Walpole, Journal ii, 407-409; Walpole to the Countess of Ossory, 7 June, 1780.—Letters vii, 386-389.[466]Annual Register xxiii, 262.[467]Journal 68, fo. 67. Walpole, Journal ii, 409, 410.[468]Repertory 184, fos. 228-236.[469]Id., fo. 232. According to the Gentleman's Magazine (Vol. 50, p. 295) it would appear that the mayor was put on his defence for we read: "The lord mayor of London was summoned before the privy council; but discharged the same evening." A modern writer goes so far as to say "the lord mayor was tried and convicted of criminal negligence." (Bright, Hist, of England iii, 1, 094). Another goes still further, and states that he was "prosecuted by the attorney general for a gross neglect of duty and was convicted, but his death prevented the passing sentence." (See note by editor of Letters of George III to Lord North, ii, 324). As a matter of fact Kennet did not die until two years later, and he continued to perform his civic duties to the last.—Repertory 186, fo. 196.[470]Highmore, Hist, of Hon. Artillery Company, p. 332. On the 16th June, the Court of Aldermen passed a vote of thanks to the association, as well as to the corps of light horse volunteers, serving under Alderman Kirkman, who had been the first to call the attention of the Court of Aldermen to Lord Amherst's orders. (Repertory 184, fos. 251-253.) The Common Council also acknowledged the services of both bodies, by resolving to present the first mentioned corps with a handsome pair of colours, and the second with a pair of standards.—Journal 68, fos. 72b-73.[471]Repertory 184, fos. 243-248.[472]Repertory 184, fos. 249-250.[473]Id., fos. 254-256.[474]Repertory 184, fo. 267.[475]Journal House of Lords, xxxvi, 151.[476]Repertory 184, fo. 270.[477]Journal House of Commons, xxxvii, 929.[478]Repertory 184, fos. 309-312.[479]Hansard, Parliamentary History xxi, 701, 702; Walpole, Journal ii, 418.[480]Journal 68, fo. 338. The entry is misplaced.[481]Id., fos. 70, 74b.[482]Id., fos. 71, 77b-78.[483]Id., fos. 159b, 196b, 296. Journal 69, fo. 257b.[484]Journal 68, fos. 164b, 165.[485]Id., fo. 152b.[486]Walpole, Journal ii, 425.[487]Walpole, Journal ii, 468-471.[488]Id., 453.[489]Journal 68, fos. 127-128.[490]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 227b-228b.[491]Walpole, Journal ii, 484.[492]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 229.[493]Walpole, Journal ii, 484.[494]Now known as the old council chamber.[495]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 229-230.[496]Journal 68, fos. 198, 221b.[497]Journal House of Commons xxxviii, 814.[498]Journal 68, fo. 217b.[499]Journal House of Commons, xxxviii, 860, 861; Walpole, Journal ii, 5O5-5O9.[500]Journal 68, fos. 221-221b, 226.[501]Hansard, Parliamentary History xxii, 1, 335.[502]Walpole, Journal ii, 446.[503]Journal 68, fos. 226b-228.[504]Repertory 186, fos. 187-194.[505]Journal 68, fos. 230, 238b.[506]Id., fo. 251.[507]Id., fos. 265, 290.[508]Walpole to Mann, 26 Nov., 1782.—Letters viii, 309.[509]Journal 68, fos. 273b, 284, 293, 296.[510]Journal 68, fos. 298, 317. Considerable additions having been made to the picture as originally designed, a further sum of 300 guineas was voted to the artist, on condition, however, that he repaid Alderman Boydell the sum of 200 guineas which the worthy alderman had advanced to enable him to proceed to Germany for the purpose of painting certain portraits of Hanoverian officers for his picture. Copley objected to the Common Council taking cognisance of what was a private pecuniary transaction, and declined to pay Boydell out of the sum voted by the City. Thereupon the Common Council rescinded its vote, and paid 200 guineas to Boydell direct. This was in March, 1794. Five years later Copley changed his mood, and petitioned the Court for the other 100 guineas and for the return of the sketch of his picture. Both requests were granted.—Journal 70, fo. 259; Journal 74, fos. 63, 164b, 221; Journal 75, fo. 108; Journal 79, fo. 33. In 1817 this picture was lent to the British Institution for exhibition.—Journal 91, fo. 89b.[511]The picture is so large, measuring over 24 feet in length, that it necessitated certain structural alterations in the old Council Chamber, where it was originally placed in 1793, at a cost of £300.—Journal 73, fo. 309b.[512]Journal 68, fos. 307-307b, 310-310b.[513]Repertory 187, fos. 310, 311.

[435]Walpole makes the following comment upon this paragraph:—"The French will not like theéclaircissementof the court martial by which it is clear that they were beaten and fled. The city which does not haggle, has expressed this a little grossly in their address to Keppel."—Walpole to Mann, 18 Feb., 1779. Letters vii, 179.

[436]Journal 67, fo. 200b.

[437]Walpole, Journal ii, 345.

[438]Journal 67, fos. 2O9b-212.

[439]Walpole to Mann, 9 March, 1779. Letters vii, 182.

[440]Journal 67, fos. 329b-331b.

[441]The king to Lord North, 29 Jan. and 19 Feb., 1779.—Correspondence ii, 224, 232.

[442]Journal House of Lords, xxxv, 802.

[443]Journal 67, fo. 268-271.

[444]Journal 67, fos. 331b-333b. Journal 68, fos. 5b-12b.

[445]Journal 68, fo. 13.

[446]Walpole, Journal ii, 366, 367, 374.

[447]When that staunchest of Tories, Dr. Johnson, was asked by his friend Boswell if he had not felt vexed at the passing of such a resolution he characteristically replied, "I would have knocked the factious dogs on the head, to be sure, but I was notvexed."—Boswell's Life of Johnson (Napier) iv, 154.

[448]Journal 68, fos. 47-47b, 49-50.

[449]Walpole to Mason, 13 and 17 April, 1780.—Letters vii, 352, 353; Walpole, Journal ii, 378, 379.

[450]Journal 68, fo. 46b.

[451]Id., fo. 49.

[452]"The Form of Association prepared by the committee appointed by the Court of Common Council to correspond with the committees appointed or to be appointed by the several Counties, Cities and Boroughs in the kingdom."—Journal 68, fo. 51.

[453]Journal 68, fo. 52.

[454]Journal 68, fos. 29-29b, 61.

[455]Walpole to the Countess of Ossory. 3 June, 1780.—Letters vii, 377.

[456]Repertory 184, fos. 204-207.

[457]Repertory 184, fo. 207.

[458]Id., fo. 209.

[459]Journal 68, fos. 65, 65b.

[460]Repertory 184, fo. 210.

[461]The king to Lord North, 6 June, 1780.—Correspondence ii, 324.

[462]Journal 68, fo. 65b.

[463]Journal 68, fo. 66. Notwithstanding these precautions—and it is difficult to see what more could be done—Walpole declares that "the Lord Mayor Kennet and Sheriff Pughe behaved shamefully."—Journal ii, 408.

[464]This incident is depicted in a well known engraving, where the Mayor is represented, with his hat off, giving the command to fire. A prominent figure in the group is the surgeon, Sir William Blizard, tending a wounded man, whilst an attempt is being made on his own life by one of the rioters.—See Raikes's History of the Hon. Artillery Company ii, 68.

[465]Repertory 184, fo. 246; Walpole, Journal ii, 407-409; Walpole to the Countess of Ossory, 7 June, 1780.—Letters vii, 386-389.

[466]Annual Register xxiii, 262.

[467]Journal 68, fo. 67. Walpole, Journal ii, 409, 410.

[468]Repertory 184, fos. 228-236.

[469]Id., fo. 232. According to the Gentleman's Magazine (Vol. 50, p. 295) it would appear that the mayor was put on his defence for we read: "The lord mayor of London was summoned before the privy council; but discharged the same evening." A modern writer goes so far as to say "the lord mayor was tried and convicted of criminal negligence." (Bright, Hist, of England iii, 1, 094). Another goes still further, and states that he was "prosecuted by the attorney general for a gross neglect of duty and was convicted, but his death prevented the passing sentence." (See note by editor of Letters of George III to Lord North, ii, 324). As a matter of fact Kennet did not die until two years later, and he continued to perform his civic duties to the last.—Repertory 186, fo. 196.

[470]Highmore, Hist, of Hon. Artillery Company, p. 332. On the 16th June, the Court of Aldermen passed a vote of thanks to the association, as well as to the corps of light horse volunteers, serving under Alderman Kirkman, who had been the first to call the attention of the Court of Aldermen to Lord Amherst's orders. (Repertory 184, fos. 251-253.) The Common Council also acknowledged the services of both bodies, by resolving to present the first mentioned corps with a handsome pair of colours, and the second with a pair of standards.—Journal 68, fos. 72b-73.

[471]Repertory 184, fos. 243-248.

[472]Repertory 184, fos. 249-250.

[473]Id., fos. 254-256.

[474]Repertory 184, fo. 267.

[475]Journal House of Lords, xxxvi, 151.

[476]Repertory 184, fo. 270.

[477]Journal House of Commons, xxxvii, 929.

[478]Repertory 184, fos. 309-312.

[479]Hansard, Parliamentary History xxi, 701, 702; Walpole, Journal ii, 418.

[480]Journal 68, fo. 338. The entry is misplaced.

[481]Id., fos. 70, 74b.

[482]Id., fos. 71, 77b-78.

[483]Id., fos. 159b, 196b, 296. Journal 69, fo. 257b.

[484]Journal 68, fos. 164b, 165.

[485]Id., fo. 152b.

[486]Walpole, Journal ii, 425.

[487]Walpole, Journal ii, 468-471.

[488]Id., 453.

[489]Journal 68, fos. 127-128.

[490]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 227b-228b.

[491]Walpole, Journal ii, 484.

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

[493]Walpole, Journal ii, 484.

[494]Now known as the old council chamber.

[495]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 229-230.

[496]Journal 68, fos. 198, 221b.

[497]Journal House of Commons xxxviii, 814.

[498]Journal 68, fo. 217b.

[499]Journal House of Commons, xxxviii, 860, 861; Walpole, Journal ii, 5O5-5O9.

[500]Journal 68, fos. 221-221b, 226.

[501]Hansard, Parliamentary History xxii, 1, 335.

[502]Walpole, Journal ii, 446.

[503]Journal 68, fos. 226b-228.

[504]Repertory 186, fos. 187-194.

[505]Journal 68, fos. 230, 238b.

[506]Id., fo. 251.

[507]Id., fos. 265, 290.

[508]Walpole to Mann, 26 Nov., 1782.—Letters viii, 309.

[509]Journal 68, fos. 273b, 284, 293, 296.

[510]Journal 68, fos. 298, 317. Considerable additions having been made to the picture as originally designed, a further sum of 300 guineas was voted to the artist, on condition, however, that he repaid Alderman Boydell the sum of 200 guineas which the worthy alderman had advanced to enable him to proceed to Germany for the purpose of painting certain portraits of Hanoverian officers for his picture. Copley objected to the Common Council taking cognisance of what was a private pecuniary transaction, and declined to pay Boydell out of the sum voted by the City. Thereupon the Common Council rescinded its vote, and paid 200 guineas to Boydell direct. This was in March, 1794. Five years later Copley changed his mood, and petitioned the Court for the other 100 guineas and for the return of the sketch of his picture. Both requests were granted.—Journal 70, fo. 259; Journal 74, fos. 63, 164b, 221; Journal 75, fo. 108; Journal 79, fo. 33. In 1817 this picture was lent to the British Institution for exhibition.—Journal 91, fo. 89b.

[511]The picture is so large, measuring over 24 feet in length, that it necessitated certain structural alterations in the old Council Chamber, where it was originally placed in 1793, at a cost of £300.—Journal 73, fo. 309b.

[512]Journal 68, fos. 307-307b, 310-310b.

[513]Repertory 187, fos. 310, 311.

Back to Index Next