FOOTNOTES:

Negotiations for peace, 1796.

In December (1795), Pitt brought a royal message to Parliament declaring that the establishment of a new constitution (viz., the Directory) in France offered facilities for negotiations,[583]and in the following March (1796), overtures were made through the British envoy in Switzerland. They were, however, ungraciously received, and matters remained asthey were until the following October, when the king notified his intention to the new Parliament of despatching a minister to Paris for the purpose of re-opening negotiations. By a certain section of the Common Council the news was received with anything but favour, and they would gladly have seen Pitt dismissed. The majority, however, preferred to present a loyal address to the king, assuring him that in the event of the negotiations failing he might depend upon the City for future support in any crisis that might arise. The king thanked the City.[584]As was feared, the negotiations again proved fruitless. France was all the while preparing to make a descent on Ireland, and as soon as these preparations were complete, the British ambassador was abruptly ordered to quit Paris (19 Dec.).

The "Loyalty Loan" of £18,000,000 Dec., 1796.

Thanks to the minister at the head of affairs the crisis did not find England unprepared. Fresh levies had already been made, both for the army and the navy; supplementary corps of militia had been raised, and plans laid for forming bodies of irregular infantry and cavalry. One thing only was wanting, and that was money. In order to raise this, Pitt at first thought of introducing a Bill to compel all persons enjoying a certain amount of income to subscribe one-fourth for the service of the country. On second thoughts, however, he preferred to trust to the patriotic spirit of the nation. He believed that many would be found ready to contribute even a larger proportion of their income if only an example were set by the Bank of England and the Corporation ofLondon. The sum required was large, being no less than £18,000,000, and the terms he had to offer were scarcely remunerative. On the last day of November he addressed a letter to the governor of the Bank of England, desiring him to lay the proposal before the directors, and at the same time expressing a hope that they might "not be disinclined to take the lead in a measure which must have the most beneficial effect on public credit and the most evident tendency to accelerate the restoration of peace on secure and honourable terms."[585]

Pitt's letter to the lord mayor, 1 Dec., 1796.

The next day (1 Dec.) he wrote to the lord mayor, urging him to lay the matter before the Common Council;—"The repeated proofs which the citizens of London have given of their zeal and public spirit leave me no doubt that if it appears likely to promote the interests of the country at this important crisis, it will receive their cheerful support in their individual capacity, as well as that of the corporate body and of the different public companies. It is unnecessary for me to state the effect which such an example would produce throughout the kingdom." To this the mayor (Brook Watson) replied that previous to the receipt of the letter he had been desired by a number of members to call a Common Council as soon as possible to consider the grant of an aid to government at the present crisis, and that he had in consequence summoned a court for the following Monday (5 Dec.).[586]

The loan subscribed.

For once the Corporation found themselves left in the lurch. Long before the time named for theCommon Council to consider Pitt's proposal the directors of the Bank of England had met, public subscriptions had been invited, and the whole loan of eighteen millions had been subscribed. Here is an account by a contemporary writer of the scene witnessed in the Bank on Thursday, the 1st December, and two following days[587];—"At ten o'clock this morning [1 Dec.] the parlour doors were opened, before which time the lobby was crowded. Numbers could not get near the books at all; while others, to testify their zeal, called to the persons at the books then signing to put down their names for them, as they were fearful of being shut out. At about twenty minutes past eleven the subscription was declared to be completely full, and hundreds in the room were reluctantly obliged to go away. By the post innumerable orders came from the country for subscriptions to be put down, scarcely one of which could be executed. And long after the subscription was closed persons continued coming, and were obliged to depart disappointed. It is a curious fact, and well worth stating, that the subscription completely filled in fifteen hours and twenty minutes: two hours on Thursday, six ditto on Friday, six ditto on Saturday and one ditto and twenty minutes on Monday—fifteen hours and twenty minutes." The directors of the Bank subscribed one million in their corporate capacity and £400,000 individually. The Common Council finding themselves left out in the cold, scarcely knew what to do. At first a somewhat pompous proposal was made for a committee to "prepare a plan for assisting theexigencies of the state in the present conjuncture." This, however, fell through, and the court finally contented itself with voting a sum of £100,000 towards the loan.[588]

The City and foreign subsidies, Dec., 1796.

Pitt's method of disposing of public money, when he got it, was not always approved by the citizens, more especially when it went to subsidise foreign mercenaries, without any authority from Parliament. Here, again, the livery and the Common Council entertained opposite views, and whilst the former called upon the city members to move or support a motion for censuring the ministry for sending money to the Emperor of Germany during the sitting of Parliament without the consent of Parliament,[589]the latter gave public testimony of their opinion that such payments as had been made to the Emperor had been beneficial to the country.[590]

Suspension of cash payments, 1797.

The constant drain of gold to the continent under Pitt's administration again began to affect the Bank of England as it had formerly done in 1793. On the previous occasion the difficulty had been got over by the issue of Exchequer Bills. Since that time the financial state of the country had been going from bad to worse. A run on country banks set in, resulting in demands being made on the Bank of England, which threatened to exhaust its reserve. At this crisis the Bank applied to the government. Pitt, with his usual promptitude, summoned a council, although it was Sunday (26 Feb., 1797), and a proclamation was issued suspending cash payments until Parliament should decide what should be done. Thenext day a meeting of the leading merchants of the city was held at the Mansion House under the presidency of the lord mayor. They at once grasped the situation, and unanimously consented to accept bank-notes as legal tender.[591]The Order in Council was subsequently approved by Parliament, and though intended only as a temporary expedient, the Act then passed continued in operation for twenty-two years, the resumption of cash payments not taking place until May, 1819.

Naval victory off Cape St. Vincent, 14 Feb., 1797.

At a time when England seemed on the verge of bankruptcy, she seemed also likely to lose her supremacy at sea. A plan was set on foot for a junction of the French and Spanish fleets, whereby an overwhelming force might be brought into the English Channel and an invasion rendered comparatively easy. Both the king and the citizens expressed the greatest confidence in the navy,[592]although there were not wanting signs of discontent among the seamen. Fortunately the Spanish fleet was intercepted by Sir John Jervis off Cape St. Vincent; the British sailors forgot their grievances in the presence of the enemy, and a signal victory was won (14 Feb.), for which Jervis received the thanks of the City and a sword of honour, whilst Nelson and others serving under him were voted the Freedom and gold boxes.[593]

Address of the livery, 23 March, 1797.

Although the Common Council—i.e., the City in its corporate capacity—were satisfied that the king had done all that was possible to procure an honourable peace, the livery were far from content. Again, they drew up an address to the king demandingthe instant dismissal of his ministers, and once more they made an attempt to get their address received by the king on the throne. The king, however, stood out, and all that the livery could do was to pass resolutions in their Common Hall to the effect that they had always possessed the privilege they claimed, and that it had never been questioned "except under the corrupt and infamous administration" of those who were responsible for the American war.[594]

Mutiny at the Nore, May, 1797.

All immediate danger from the foreign enemy being over, the crews of the Channel Fleet at Portsmouth broke out into open mutiny. Their grievances were real, and as soon as they were assured of a remedy they returned to their duty. No sooner was one mutiny quelled, however, than another broke out at the Nore and threatened danger to London. The two movements were entirely distinct, and the sailors at Spithead expressed their strong disapproval of the conduct of their fellow seamen at the Nore. The danger was none the less. The Common Council resolved (6 June) to form ward associations for the defence of the city, but only one association, viz., the "Cornhill Military Association," appears to have been actually formed, and that comprised no more than fifty-three members.[595]

Duncan's victory off Camperdown, 11 Oct., 1797.

The mutiny soon spread to the fleet off the Texel where Admiral Duncan was stationed for the purpose of preventing a junction between the French and the Dutch. Many of the ships sailed away to jointhe fleet at the Nore and Duncan was left in great straits. Nevertheless he still continued to make a show of force, and after the suppression of the mutiny, had the satisfaction of defeating the Dutch fleet off Camperdown (11 Oct.), and so putting an end to another projected invasion of Ireland. The Common Council presented a congratulatory address to the king; passed votes of thanks and presented swords of honour to Duncan and Sir Richard Onslow, and contributed £500 for the relief of the wounded and the widows and orphans of those who had fallen.[596]

Thanksgiving service at St. Paul's, 19 Dec., 1797.

Three such naval victories as those achieved by Howe, Jervis, and Duncan, deserved a solemn service of thanksgiving at St. Paul's, and on Saturday, the 25th November, the lord mayor received orders from the Duke of Portland to prepare for the king's reception in the city.[597]Tuesday, the 19th December, was the day fixed for the ceremony, and on that day the king and queen, the royal family, the cabinet and foreign ministers, the two Houses of Parliament, and a large body of naval officers and seamen came in solemn procession to the city, being met at Temple Bar by the mayor, sheriffs, and a deputation of the Common Council.[598]The gallant Duncan received an ovation, but Pitt was so grossly insulted on his wayto the city that after the ceremony, instead of returning in his own carriage as he came, he betook himself to some friends in Doctors Commons and there dined, being afterwards conveyed home under military escort.[599]

Dispute as to command of London militia, 1797-1798.

The occasion caused a re-opening of the question as to the command of the London militia. Was the command vested in the lord mayor or in the Court of Lieutenancy?[600]The latter body had claimed to have the disposition of troops brought into the city to keep order on thanksgiving day. The lord mayor conceived such a claim to be opposed to his own prerogative, and he at once communicated with the Duke of York desiring his royal highness to order up the regiment of militia then quartered at Greenwich, and to place it for the day under his (the mayor's) command, and that had accordingly been done.[601]The question whether the lord mayor, for the time being, could on his own individual responsibility, and without consulting the Court of Lieutenancy, call out the London militia except in cases of emergency, was afterwards submitted to the law officers of the City, and they unanimously pronounced an opinion in favour of the lord mayor's contention.[602]

Military associations in the city, 1798.

Except for the naval victories of Jervis and Duncan the year 1797 had been one of the darkest in the nation's history. The war had lasted over four years, and although it had already added a hundredand thirty-five millions to the National Debt, Pitt found it necessary early in 1798 to make another appeal to the country for a voluntary loan. Determined not to be behindhand again, the Common Council at once resolved (13 Feb.) to subscribe £10,000; but the money had to be borrowed.[603]A third invasion was threatening under the command of Napoleon Bonaparte himself. The Duke of York sent for the lord mayor to learn what military associations had been formed in the city, and was disappointed to find that only one existed (viz., the Cornhill Military Association just mentioned), and even that had threatened to dissolve itself when it found the rest of the city wards doing nothing. It now resolved, however, to put itself into active training. In April Secretary Dundas wrote more than once to the lord mayor urging the necessity of forming as many military associations as possible. The municipal authorities and the Court of Lieutenancy buried their differences, and vied with each other in inspiring the inhabitants of the city with military ardour. The Phœnix Fire Office offered its firemen for military training, and every effort was made to bring the militia regiments up to their full strength.[604]

The Battle of the Nile, 1 Aug., 1798.

Instead of making a descent on England Bonaparte sailed to Egypt, seizing Malta on his way, and there he was forced to remain, owing to the destruction of his transports by Nelson at the battle of the Nile (1 Aug.). Nelson, a freeman of the City, presented to the Corporation the French admiral's (Blanquet)sword, which lies in the Guildhall Museum.[605]The Corporation, on their part, presented Nelson with a sword of honour, and Captain Berry with the Freedom of the City in a gold box. They also passed a vote of thanks to the officers and men engaged in the action, and contributed the sum of £500 for the relief of the widows and orphans of those who had fallen.[606]The City further proposed to erect a suitable memorial of Nelson's victory. Several suggestions were offered. Copley recommended pictures to hang in the Council Chamber opposite his siege of Gibraltar, others were in favour of sculpture.[607]All suggestions were set aside, however, when it became known that a national memorial, in the shape of a Grand Naval Pillar, orRostra, to be set up on Portsdown Hill, was proposed, and subscriptions invited. The Common Council at once resolved to subscribe 100 guineas to the fund.[608]Contributions, however, came in so slowly that the idea of a national monument had to be abandoned, and subscriptions were returned, the City's 100 guineas being paid over to the Marine Society by order of the Common Council.[609]On the 17th January (1799) the Honourable Mrs. Damer, a daughter of General Conway, and a clever artist, offered to execute a bust of Nelson for the Corporation, either in bronze or marble, in commemoration of his recent victory. The offer was gracefully made and no less gracefullyaccepted;[610]and the City's Art Gallery is enriched by an admirable specimen of that lady's handiwork.[611]

Pitt's Income Tax Bill, 3 Dec., 1798.

Soon after Parliament met in November (1798) Pitt introduced his financial scheme for the coming year. The principal feature of this scheme was a Bill for imposing a tax upon all the leading branches of income. The tax was professedly of a temporary character and was to be employed solely to meet the exigencies of the war. Some little opposition was made to the Bill both before and after it passed, as well in the city as in Parliament. The Common Council objected to it on the ground that it drew no distinction between the precarious and fluctuating income arising from labour, trade and professions and the more settled income arising from landed and funded property. They were afraid also that unless the assessors were bound to secrecy a man's credit might be unduly prejudiced.[612]In spite of all opposition the Bill passed the Commons by a large majority on the last day of the year, and early in 1799 was accepted by the Lords.

The Siege of Acre raised, 21 May, 1799.

In the meantime the situation of Bonaparte and the French army—shut up as they were in Egypt—had become very critical. To complete his scheme of Eastern conquest Bonaparte had marched into Syria. After capturing Joppa, where he massacred his prisoners, he advanced to Acre, the key of Syria. There he was met by Sir Sidney Smith, whosucceeded in throwing himself into the town, and at length compelled him to raise the siege (21 May).[613]For his extraordinary gallantry in defending the fortress Sir Sidney was accorded the thanks of the City and a sword of honour.[614]

Royal review of City volunteers, 21 June, 1799.

On the 21st June (1799) the king himself came to the City, accompanied by the Dukes of York, Gloucester, Kent and Cumberland, and officers of the Life Guards, for the purpose of reviewing the several volunteer corps of the City, drawn up in Bridge Street, Blackfriars, at St. Paul's, the Bank, the Royal Exchange and on Tower Hill. The royal party were met on the south side of Blackfriars Bridge, where the City's jurisdiction commenced, by the mayor, sheriffs and city marshals on horseback, followed by the grenadiers of the East Regiment of London militia. The ceremony of delivering the City's sword into the king's hands having been gone through, the inspection of the regiments took place. The royal party afterwards repaired to Finsbury to hold an inspection of the Artillery Company in their own ground;[615]and in Sun Street, the limit of the City's jurisdiction, the mayor took leave by lowering the sword. The Duke of Portland was subsequently commissioned by the king to express to the mayor the gratification the visit had given his majesty.[616]

Capture of the Dutch fleet, Aug., 1799.

Pitt, in the meanwhile, though failing in health, had succeeded in forming a new coalition, and in August (1799), the whole of the Dutch fleet fell into the hands of Sir Ralph Abercromby and AdmiralMitchell. A series of reverses, however, quickly followed, and before the end of November the allied forces, English and Russians, were glad to accept terms and quit Holland. Some members of the Common Council were for presenting a strongly worded address to the king demanding an enquiry into the cause of the failure of the expedition, and the punishment of the authors, but the motion was eventually allowed to drop.[617]The Council had previously congratulated the king upon the capture of the Dutch fleet.[618]

French overtures rejected, Jan., 1800.

As soon as Bonaparte heard of the new coalition that had been formed against him he hurried to Paris, leaving his army behind him in Egypt to shift for itself. Soon after his arrival he succeeded in putting an end to the Directory, and in getting himself appointed First Consul. He was now practically supreme, and on his own responsibility made overtures to England for peace. These overtures were declined, to the great disappointment of the livery of London, who again petitioned Parliament against the prolongation of the war, which had been undertaken, they said, for no other purpose than for restoring the Bourbon family to the throne.[619]

The Act of Union, 1800.

The disaffection that had so long manifested itself in Ireland led at last to the passing of an Act of Union. The subject was brought before Parliament by the king on the 2nd April (1800). A Bill was subsequently introduced and read a first time on the 17th June. On the 24th it passed the Commons.[620]

The assent of the Irish Parliament was necessary for the scheme to take effect. This occasioned some difficulty, but by a wholesale system of bribery and corruption, such as was only too common in those days, it was at last obtained, and it was agreed that the union of Great Britain and Ireland should commence from the 1st January, 1801. Thenceforth there was to be but one Parliament for the two countries.

Bread riots in the city, 15-20 Sept., 1800.

In the meantime distress in England had been increasing to an alarming extent owing to the bad harvests and the consequent scarcity of wheat. At the commencement of the year (1800), the price of flour had risen to such an extent that the Court of Aldermen resolved to enforce the consumption of the standard wheaten bread according to the Statute (13 Geo. III, c. 62).[621]As time went on matters became worse. In September the city was threatened with riot. On the night of Saturday the 13th, the following placard was stuck upon the Monument[622]:—

"Bread will be sixpence the quartern loaf if the people will assemble at the Corn Market on Monday.

"Fellow countrymen.

"How long will ye quietly and cowardly suffer yourselves to be thus imposed upon and half starved by a set of mercenary slaves and government hirelings; can you still suffer them to proceed in their extensive monopolies and your families are crying for food? No, let them exist not a day longer. Ye are the sovereignty. Rouse then fromyour lethargy and meet at the Corn Market, Monday."

As soon as the attention of the lord mayor (Harvey Combe) was drawn to the placard, he forthwith took steps to put down any disturbance that might arise. The city constables were posted in the neighbourhood of the Corn Market. The West Regiment of the city militia was held ready for action under the command of Alderman Newnham, at their head-quarters in the Old Bailey, whilst the South-East Division of Loyal London Volunteers under the command of Alderman Curtis took up its station at Fishmongers' Hall. The fact of inflammatory papers having appeared posted on the Monument, and the steps he had thus taken to prevent disturbance, were duly reported by the mayor to the Duke of Portland, who signified his approval of the chief magistrate's conduct.[623]At eleven o'clock on Monday morning word was brought to the lord mayor that a crowd had collected at the Corn Market in Mark Lane, and that business was impeded. He immediately set out, accompanied by Alderman Hibbert, for Mark Lane. At the Corn Market they were joined by Sir William Leighton and Sheriff Flower. Finding a large number of people assembled who had no business in the Corn Market, his lordship ascended the staircase and proceeded to address the assembly, entreating them to go home, as that was the best way of getting rid of their grievance. Thereupon he was met with loud cries of "bread, bread, give us bread, and don't starve us!" On the whole, the mobappeared fairly good tempered and cheered the mayor as he left for the Mansion House. In the afternoon, however, his presence was again required, and the Riot Act had to be read. Still nothing very serious occurred; one man suspected of being connected with the corn trade received rough treatment at the hands of the mob, and a few rioters were committed by the mayor to the Compter for attacking the city marshal with bludgeons, but matters soon quieted down and the mayor again returned to the Mansion House to write a report of the day's doings to the Duke of Portland as before. Whilst thus occupied, he was again sent for. This was at half-past six in the evening. As the mob were at that time beginning to display signs of mischief, he sent to Colonel Newnham to have his men ready at a moment's warning, whilst he drew the volunteers from Fishmongers' Hall, and with their assistance succeeded in clearing the whole of Mark Lane and guarding its approaches. The East India Volunteers, the Bishopsgate Volunteers, and the Portsoken also rendered assistance. In the course of the evening the Loyal London Volunteers were relieved by the militia; but nothing serious happened, and at one o'clock in the morning the troops were withdrawn.

Proceedings of Court of Aldermen, 16 Sept., 1800.

On Tuesday (16 Sept.) the lord mayor gave a full account of all that had taken place to the Court of Aldermen, and informed that body that he had caused advertisements to be published offering a reward of £100 for the apprehension and conviction of the person or persons who had written or caused to be stuck up the inflammatory placards on theMonument.[624]At the suggestion of the Duke of Portland the amount of the reward was afterwards raised to £500.[625]The Court of Aldermen passed a vote of thanks to the mayor for what he had done. They also placed on record their opinion that, but for business in the Corn Market being hindered by the mob, the price of wheat and flour would have experienced a greater fall than it actually had done on the 15th, and further, that as nothing would more tend to the reduction of the existing high price of the principal articles of food than the affording protection to dealers bringing corn and other commodities to the market, the Court was resolved at once and by force (if necessary) to put down any attempt to impede the regular business of the markets of the metropolis.[626]

Letter of the Duke of Portland to the mayor, 16 Sept., 1800.

Whilst the mayor was presiding over the Court of Aldermen a letter was placed in his hands from the Duke of Portland, informing him that the duke had instructed Colonel Herries, commanding the London and Westminster light horse volunteers, to lose no time in placing his services at the lord mayor's disposal. The duke at the same time seemed to suggest that the lord mayor had been somewhat remiss in apprehending the ringleaders in yesterday's disturbances.[627]The mayor sent a reply that evening. He thanked the duke for his offer of assistance; but he had no occasion for it, as the city was perfectly quiet. As to his grace's suggestion that the arrest of some of the ringleaders might have been useful, the mayor begged to inform him that four of them had been arrested, and had been committed for trial. Ifhis grace thought that their prosecution by the crown would be more efficacious than by the city, he would forward the minutes of evidence that had been taken. The letter concluded by an assurance that at the time of writing (5 p.m.) the mayor had not the smallest intimation of any disorder in any part of the city.[628]

Precautions taken by the lord mayor.

Notwithstanding the apparent tranquillity of the city, the mayor received notice three hours later that a mob had gathered in Bishopsgate Street and was threatening the premises of Messrs. Wood, Fossick and Wood. In anticipation of some further outbreak he had already massed troops in Drapers' Hall Gardens and at the Royal Exchange, whilst he had given orders to Colonel le Mesurier to hold the Artillery Company in readiness in the Artillery House. The colonel thought fit to disobey orders—to the mayor's great indignation—and on his own responsibility marched 150 men to Bishopsgate Street, and sent orders for a party of the light horse to follow him. The troops continued to parade the streets until nearly one o'clock in the morning, when all fear of a disturbance having passed away, they were withdrawn for the night, and the mayor went home to write another report to the Duke of Portland.[629]Disturbances continued to occur in different parts of the city between Wednesday, the 17th September, and the following Saturday, but they were not of a serious kind, the damage being chiefly confined to the breaking of street lamps.[630]After Saturday the streets resumed their wonted appearance, and business was carried on at Smithfield and the Corn Market as usual.

The lord mayor's speech to Common Council, 14 Oct., 1800.

The lord mayor of London for the time being has, as we have seen, always jealously guarded his right to the supreme control over all military forces within his jurisdiction. Harvey Combe was no exception. When the colonel commanding the Artillery Company ventured to disobey his orders during the recent riots Combe was justly indignant. He was more indignant when, a few weeks later, the military associations were called out without his orders on information of a likelihood of a riot sent by the Duke of Portland to the police officers of the city, and not to himself; and he laid the matter before the Common Council in the following speech,[631]delivered on the 14th October:—

"Gentlemen of the Common Council,

"After the disturbances which existed within this city a month ago it is very natural for everyone to be alarmed by the appearance of the least symptom of their return. I have the satisfaction to state to this Court that from the time I had the honor to sit here last [27 Sept.] to the present moment I have not received the slightest information of that tendency, nor has any one person expressed to me an apprehension on that head. I should not have thought it necessary to have made this declaration had it not been that a considerable agitation prevailed in the city yesterday because the police officers round the city had ordered out various military associations to assist the civil power in consequence of information received from the Secretary of State that riots were expected—no such information was given to me."

City petition to king to summon Parliament, 16 Oct., 1800.

The same day that the lord mayor thus addressed the Common Council the Court resolved to present an humble address to the king praying him to hasten the meeting of Parliament in order to consider the enormously high price of provisions. To this the king replied that he was always desirous of recurring to the advice and assistance of Parliament on any public emergency, and that previous to receiving the City's petition he had already given directions for convening Parliament for the despatch of business. This was scarcely the reply the City looked for, and it gave rise to much debate in the Common Council. When the usual motion was made and question put that his majesty's gracious answer should be entered in the Journal of the Court, an amendment was moved reflecting upon the character of the answer received as one disrespectful to the Court and regardless of the extreme sufferings and distress of his majesty's subjects. This amendment was, however, negatived.[632]When Parliament at last met, the question of remedial measures was at once referred to select committees of both Houses. Nevertheless, the high price of bread continued to exercise the minds of the civic authorities for some time to come.[633]

Pitt's resignation and the king's illness, Feb., 1801.

Early in the following year (1801), Pitt resigned. It had been his intention to introduce a Bill into Parliament—the first united Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland—for the full emancipation of Roman Catholics, and thereby to fulfil a pledge he had given before the Union was effected. The king,however, displayed so much opposition to the proposal, that Pitt could not do otherwise than send in his resignation, which the king reluctantly accepted. The excitement caused by recent events brought on a recurrence of the king's insanity, and measures were taken for appointing a regent on the terms formerly insisted on by Pitt. The king's illness, however, again proved to be only of a temporary character, and when he recovered, the Common Council who had recently presented him with a congratulatory address on the Union,[634]deemed it best to take no notice either of his illness or recovery.[635]

Battle of Alexandria, 21 March, 1801.

The new ministry, with Addington, the late Speaker, at its head, was fortunate so far as the war was concerned. In March (1801) an expedition under Sir Ralph Abercromby landed in Egypt and succeeded in defeating the French army left there by Bonaparte. Abercromby was killed, but General Hutchinson, who succeeded him, continued to act with vigour, and was backed up by Admiral Lord Keith. The Common Council voted (23 July) a sum of £500 towards the relief of the widows and orphans of those who had perished in the expedition.[636]A month later the town of Alexandria capitulated, and the French army was allowed to evacuate Egypt. For these services the Freedom of the City was conferred on Keith and Hutchinson, and the thanks of the Common Council voted to the officers and men of the army and navy under their command, as well as to Sir Sidney Smith, who had recently been mixed up in the El Arish Treaty.[637]

Battle of Copenhagen, 2 April, 1801.

At sea the British government was no less successful. A few days after the battle of Alexandria it became necessary to despatch a fleet to the Baltic in order to break up a Northern confederacy formed between Russia, Sweden, and Denmark, which threatened the interests of this country. The fleet was placed under the command of Sir Hyde Parker. Thanks to Nelson's insubordination in declining to obey the Admiral's signal to discontinue action, the battle of Copenhagen was won. The Common Council voted another sum of £500 for the relief of the wounded and the widows and orphans of those who had died in the action, but Nelson's name is not even mentioned.[638]

Peace of Amiens, 27 March, 1802.

Defeated in Egypt, and thwarted in her Northern policy, France was now willing to accede to terms, and on the night of the 1st October, Lord Hawkesbury, foreign secretary, was able to inform the lord mayor by letter that preliminaries of peace had been signed that evening. On the 10th, he wrote again informing the mayor that the preliminaries had been ratified.[639]The news caused immense satisfaction. Some time, however, was still to elapse before the final ratification took place. Negotiations to this end were carried on at Amiens, and although a number of outstanding questions were still left unsettled, peace was finally concluded on the 27th March, 1802, and proclaimed in the city on the 29th April, amid general rejoicing.[640]The termination (as it was thought to be) of a war which left the British navy "more proudly pre-eminent" thanthe termination of any former war, called forth another of that long series of loyal addresses which the citizens found it their duty to present to the king in the course of his long and eventful reign.[641]

FOOTNOTES:[514]Journal 69, fos. 15, 16b-18b, 20-21. Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 239b-240. In May, 1784, the Common Council petitioned Parliament for its repeal. Journal 69, fo. 113b.[515]Journal 69, fo. 65.[516]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 246.[517]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 246b.[518]Journal 69, fos. 67, 128. The gold box was not presented until the 5th Feb., 1785.Id., fos. 265b-266b.[519]Alderman Bull had died during the Christmas recess, and his place had been taken by Brook Watson.—Annual Register xxvii, 179.[520]Wraxall, Memoirs iii, 433, 434.[521]Parliamentary History xxiv, 975-1006.[522]The votes against Sawbridge's motion had been 199 to 125, whilst those against Pitt were 248 to 174, or a majority of 74 in each case.—Journal House of Commons, xl, 216, 863.[523]Journal 69, fo. 223b.[524]Id., fos. 248-249.[525]Journal 69, fos. 249b-250.[526]Journal House of Commons, xl, 1000, 1032.[527]Journal 69, fo. 250b.[528]Id., fos. 288b-290.[529]Journal 69, fos. 330, 338b-339, 355. Journal House of Commons, xli, 151.[530]Journal 69, fos. 297b-298, 302-305.[531]Repertory 191, fos. 74-79.[532]Journal 70, fos. 132-133.[533]Journal House of Commons, xlii, 289.[534]Journal 70, fos. 134, 134b.[535]Journal 71, fos. 48-49, 74b, 75, 93, 99-99b.[536]Journal House of Commons, xliv, 276.[537]Journal House of Commons, xlii, 266, 289. The city solicitor and comptroller were specially commended for their services in preserving the city's rights in the treaty.—Journal 71, fos. 17b-18b.[538]Journal 70, fo. 303b.[539]Journal 71, fo. 47b. Journal House of Commons, xliii, 166, 167.[540]Journal 73, fo. 87.[541]Journal 71, fos. 179b, 180, 188.[542]Id., fos. 190, 190b.[543]Id., fos. 186b-187, 190.[544]Journal 71, fos. 212-213b, 216-216b, 221.[545]Journal 71, fos. 221b, 222b-223b, 231b; Repertory 193, fos. 193-201, 206-215.[546]The picture was painted as a private speculation by the artist, and was offered for sale to the Corporation in 1791. The committee to whom the matter was referred suggested that the City might give 200 guineas for the picture, not so much on account of its intrinsic merit as because the artist was an industrious and promising man with a numerous family. This suggestion did not meet with the approval of the Common Council. It preferred to give the artist half that sum in acknowledgment of his pains and to allow him to keep the picture. Whether the artist thought himself thus sufficiently paid for his work is not clear, but the picture for many years stood in the Long Parlour at the Mansion House, where it served as a screen. It has recently been restored, and is now hung in the lobby of the Guildhall.—Journal 72, fos. 357b, 431-431b.[547]Journal 71, fos. 253, 272, 274b; Journal 72, fo. 55.[548]Repertory 191, fos. 363-364.[549]Id., fos. 381-383.[550]Repertory 192, fos. 201-203.[551]Repertory 192, fos. 296, 308, 344, 394.[552]Repertory, 193, fo. 34.[553]Repertory 194, fos. 128-132.[554]To this day the secretary of state for the home department requests the sanction of the lord mayor before despatching troops through the city, and when permission is given, it is on the understanding that all troops (with the exception of the "buffs," who claim to be directly descended from the ancient trained bands), march without colours flying, drums beating, or bayonets fixed. As a further token of the lord mayor's supremacy in the city, we may add that the pass-word of the Tower is sent to him quarterly.[555]Repertory 194, fos. 132-137, 150-152.[556]Journal 73, fos. 144b-145; Annual Register xxxiv, 36.[557]Annual Register xxxiv, 36, 39.[558]Annual Register xxxiv, 44.[559]At the close of his mayoralty he again received the thanks of the Common Council for having hazarded his life in putting down seditious meetings.—Journal 74, fo. 2.[560]Journal 73, fo. 218.[561]Annual Register xxxiv, 46.[562]Journal 73, fo. 237.[563]Id., fo. 249b.[564]Id., fos. 255b-257.[565]Id., fo. 273.[566]Journal 74, fo. 2b.[567]Committee Book, 21 Dec, 1793.[568]Journal 74, fos. 126b-129b.[569]Journal 74, fo. 172; Journal 75, fo. 33.[570]Journal 74, fos. 172b, 174b.[571]Journal 74, fos. 156b-157, 195b; Journal 75, fo. 5.[572]Journal 74, fos. 170b-172.[573]Stat. 34 Geo. III, c. 81; Journal 74, fos. 133b, 145b, 153, 178.[574]Journal 74, fos. 187-187b; Raikes, History of Hon. Artillery Company ii, 130, 131; Annual Register xxxvi, 25.[575]Repertory 199, fo. 39.[576]Journal 75, fos. 38, 239b.[577]Id., fos. 181, 243.[578]Repertory 199, fos. 363-366, 369-371, 387-395. Journal 75, fos. 238b-247.[579]Common Hall Book, No. 9, fo. 50b.[580]Journal 75, fos. 43b-44b.[581]Journal 75, fos. 312-313b.[582]Journal 76, fos. 25-26.[583]A proposal had previously (5 Nov.) been made in the Common Council to beseech the king "not to consider the Directory as incapable of maintaining the relations of peace and amity." The motion was, however, negatived.—Journal 75, fo. 312.[584]Journal 76, fos. 309-311, 314.[585]Journal 77, fos. 14b-15.[586]Id., fos. 14-16.[587]Annual Register xxxviii, 44.[588]Journal 77, fo. 16.[589]Common Hall Book, No. 9, fo. 72b.[590]Journal 77, fo. 34b.[591]Annual Register xxxix, 9.[592]Journal 77, fos. 23, 36.[593]Journal 77, fos. 83b-84.[594]Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 75-76, 80b.[595]Journal 77, fos. 195-196b, 353-354.[596]Journal 77, fos. 264-266, 277, 305b, 388.[597]Repertory 202, fo. 36. Journal 77, fo. 300b.[598]Repertory 202, fos. 167b-169b. A picture by John Graham representing the reception of his majesty at Temple Bar was offered to the City by the artist for the sum of £300, but the offer was not accepted. In 1798, after the battle of the Nile, Alderman Boydell presented to the City portraits of Howe, St. Vincent, and Duncan, together with one of Nelson, and these were gratefully accepted.—Journal 78, fos. 61b, 94, 107.[599]Annual Register xxxix, 83.[600]The question had arisen in the month of July, when the Court of Lieutenancy took upon itself to change the quarters of the East and West regiments without consulting the lord mayor, but no decision had been arrived at.—Journal 77, fos. 222b, 238b. Journal 78, fos. 60, 152b.[601]Repertory 202, fos. 162-166.[602]Id., fos. 308-316, 423-428.[603]Journal 77, fo. 369.[604]Journal 78, fos. 7-8, 82b; Repertory 202, fos. 231, 268-281.[605]Journal 78, fos. 100, 100b. It was originally placed in the Council Chamber with the medal struck by order of Alexander Davison, Nelson's friend and agent, and presented by him to the city.—Id., fos. 105b, 287b-288.[606]Id., fos. 103, 106-107, 258b.[607]Id., fos. 147, 150, 165b, 171-172, 196, 244, 267.[608]Id., fos. 299b-301; Journal 79, fos. 160b-161.[609]Journal 85, fos. 165b-166b.[610]Journal 78, fos. 159b, 168.[611]In May, 1817, Mrs. Damer obtained permission to have the bust removed from the city in order to allow her to make an alteration, and it was not returned until March, 1820.—Journal 91, fo. 159b; Journal 94, fo. 73b.[612]Journal 78, fos. 157b-158, 204b-205.[613]Annual Register xli, 35.[614]Journal 78, fo. 320.[615]Raikes, History of Hon. Artillery Company ii, 216.[616]Repertory 203, fos. 308, 340-343; Journal 78, fos. 298-299.[617]Journal 79, fo. 28b.[618]Journal 78, fo. 314.[619]Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 118-119.[620]Journal House of Commons, lv, 362, 667, 694.[621]Repertory 204, fos. 58-60.[622]Id., fo. 412.[623]Repertory 204, fos. 413, 418-420.[624]Repertory 204, fos. 414-418.[625]Id., fos. 423-425.[626]Id., fos. 427, 428.[627]Id., fo. 423.[628]Repertory 204, fos. 432-434.[629]Id., fos. 434-437.[630]Id., fos. 439-446, 469-472.[631]Journal 79, fo. 209b.[632]Journal 79, fos. 215-217, 218-218b.[633]Repertory 205, fos. 85, 319-328. Journal 80, fos. 113b, 125.[634]Journal 79, fos. 255, 256, 283.[635]Id., fo. 325.[636]Journal 80, fo. 46b.[637]Id., fos. 97-97b.[638]Journal 80, fos. 46-46b.[639]Repertory 205, fos. 644-646.[640]Repertory 206, fos. 292-293, 458-465.[641]Journal 80, fos. 219b, 237b-238b.

[514]Journal 69, fos. 15, 16b-18b, 20-21. Common Hall Book, No. 8, fos. 239b-240. In May, 1784, the Common Council petitioned Parliament for its repeal. Journal 69, fo. 113b.

[515]Journal 69, fo. 65.

[516]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 246.

[517]Common Hall Book, No. 8, fo. 246b.

[518]Journal 69, fos. 67, 128. The gold box was not presented until the 5th Feb., 1785.Id., fos. 265b-266b.

[519]Alderman Bull had died during the Christmas recess, and his place had been taken by Brook Watson.—Annual Register xxvii, 179.

[520]Wraxall, Memoirs iii, 433, 434.

[521]Parliamentary History xxiv, 975-1006.

[522]The votes against Sawbridge's motion had been 199 to 125, whilst those against Pitt were 248 to 174, or a majority of 74 in each case.—Journal House of Commons, xl, 216, 863.

[523]Journal 69, fo. 223b.

[524]Id., fos. 248-249.

[525]Journal 69, fos. 249b-250.

[526]Journal House of Commons, xl, 1000, 1032.

[527]Journal 69, fo. 250b.

[528]Id., fos. 288b-290.

[529]Journal 69, fos. 330, 338b-339, 355. Journal House of Commons, xli, 151.

[530]Journal 69, fos. 297b-298, 302-305.

[531]Repertory 191, fos. 74-79.

[532]Journal 70, fos. 132-133.

[533]Journal House of Commons, xlii, 289.

[534]Journal 70, fos. 134, 134b.

[535]Journal 71, fos. 48-49, 74b, 75, 93, 99-99b.

[536]Journal House of Commons, xliv, 276.

[537]Journal House of Commons, xlii, 266, 289. The city solicitor and comptroller were specially commended for their services in preserving the city's rights in the treaty.—Journal 71, fos. 17b-18b.

[538]Journal 70, fo. 303b.

[539]Journal 71, fo. 47b. Journal House of Commons, xliii, 166, 167.

[540]Journal 73, fo. 87.

[541]Journal 71, fos. 179b, 180, 188.

[542]Id., fos. 190, 190b.

[543]Id., fos. 186b-187, 190.

[544]Journal 71, fos. 212-213b, 216-216b, 221.

[545]Journal 71, fos. 221b, 222b-223b, 231b; Repertory 193, fos. 193-201, 206-215.

[546]The picture was painted as a private speculation by the artist, and was offered for sale to the Corporation in 1791. The committee to whom the matter was referred suggested that the City might give 200 guineas for the picture, not so much on account of its intrinsic merit as because the artist was an industrious and promising man with a numerous family. This suggestion did not meet with the approval of the Common Council. It preferred to give the artist half that sum in acknowledgment of his pains and to allow him to keep the picture. Whether the artist thought himself thus sufficiently paid for his work is not clear, but the picture for many years stood in the Long Parlour at the Mansion House, where it served as a screen. It has recently been restored, and is now hung in the lobby of the Guildhall.—Journal 72, fos. 357b, 431-431b.

[547]Journal 71, fos. 253, 272, 274b; Journal 72, fo. 55.

[548]Repertory 191, fos. 363-364.

[549]Id., fos. 381-383.

[550]Repertory 192, fos. 201-203.

[551]Repertory 192, fos. 296, 308, 344, 394.

[552]Repertory, 193, fo. 34.

[553]Repertory 194, fos. 128-132.

[554]To this day the secretary of state for the home department requests the sanction of the lord mayor before despatching troops through the city, and when permission is given, it is on the understanding that all troops (with the exception of the "buffs," who claim to be directly descended from the ancient trained bands), march without colours flying, drums beating, or bayonets fixed. As a further token of the lord mayor's supremacy in the city, we may add that the pass-word of the Tower is sent to him quarterly.

[555]Repertory 194, fos. 132-137, 150-152.

[556]Journal 73, fos. 144b-145; Annual Register xxxiv, 36.

[557]Annual Register xxxiv, 36, 39.

[558]Annual Register xxxiv, 44.

[559]At the close of his mayoralty he again received the thanks of the Common Council for having hazarded his life in putting down seditious meetings.—Journal 74, fo. 2.

[560]Journal 73, fo. 218.

[561]Annual Register xxxiv, 46.

[562]Journal 73, fo. 237.

[563]Id., fo. 249b.

[564]Id., fos. 255b-257.

[565]Id., fo. 273.

[566]Journal 74, fo. 2b.

[567]Committee Book, 21 Dec, 1793.

[568]Journal 74, fos. 126b-129b.

[569]Journal 74, fo. 172; Journal 75, fo. 33.

[570]Journal 74, fos. 172b, 174b.

[571]Journal 74, fos. 156b-157, 195b; Journal 75, fo. 5.

[572]Journal 74, fos. 170b-172.

[573]Stat. 34 Geo. III, c. 81; Journal 74, fos. 133b, 145b, 153, 178.

[574]Journal 74, fos. 187-187b; Raikes, History of Hon. Artillery Company ii, 130, 131; Annual Register xxxvi, 25.

[575]Repertory 199, fo. 39.

[576]Journal 75, fos. 38, 239b.

[577]Id., fos. 181, 243.

[578]Repertory 199, fos. 363-366, 369-371, 387-395. Journal 75, fos. 238b-247.

[579]Common Hall Book, No. 9, fo. 50b.

[580]Journal 75, fos. 43b-44b.

[581]Journal 75, fos. 312-313b.

[582]Journal 76, fos. 25-26.

[583]A proposal had previously (5 Nov.) been made in the Common Council to beseech the king "not to consider the Directory as incapable of maintaining the relations of peace and amity." The motion was, however, negatived.—Journal 75, fo. 312.

[584]Journal 76, fos. 309-311, 314.

[585]Journal 77, fos. 14b-15.

[586]Id., fos. 14-16.

[587]Annual Register xxxviii, 44.

[588]Journal 77, fo. 16.

[589]Common Hall Book, No. 9, fo. 72b.

[590]Journal 77, fo. 34b.

[591]Annual Register xxxix, 9.

[592]Journal 77, fos. 23, 36.

[593]Journal 77, fos. 83b-84.

[594]Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 75-76, 80b.

[595]Journal 77, fos. 195-196b, 353-354.

[596]Journal 77, fos. 264-266, 277, 305b, 388.

[597]Repertory 202, fo. 36. Journal 77, fo. 300b.

[598]Repertory 202, fos. 167b-169b. A picture by John Graham representing the reception of his majesty at Temple Bar was offered to the City by the artist for the sum of £300, but the offer was not accepted. In 1798, after the battle of the Nile, Alderman Boydell presented to the City portraits of Howe, St. Vincent, and Duncan, together with one of Nelson, and these were gratefully accepted.—Journal 78, fos. 61b, 94, 107.

[599]Annual Register xxxix, 83.

[600]The question had arisen in the month of July, when the Court of Lieutenancy took upon itself to change the quarters of the East and West regiments without consulting the lord mayor, but no decision had been arrived at.—Journal 77, fos. 222b, 238b. Journal 78, fos. 60, 152b.

[601]Repertory 202, fos. 162-166.

[602]Id., fos. 308-316, 423-428.

[603]Journal 77, fo. 369.

[604]Journal 78, fos. 7-8, 82b; Repertory 202, fos. 231, 268-281.

[605]Journal 78, fos. 100, 100b. It was originally placed in the Council Chamber with the medal struck by order of Alexander Davison, Nelson's friend and agent, and presented by him to the city.—Id., fos. 105b, 287b-288.

[606]Id., fos. 103, 106-107, 258b.

[607]Id., fos. 147, 150, 165b, 171-172, 196, 244, 267.

[608]Id., fos. 299b-301; Journal 79, fos. 160b-161.

[609]Journal 85, fos. 165b-166b.

[610]Journal 78, fos. 159b, 168.

[611]In May, 1817, Mrs. Damer obtained permission to have the bust removed from the city in order to allow her to make an alteration, and it was not returned until March, 1820.—Journal 91, fo. 159b; Journal 94, fo. 73b.

[612]Journal 78, fos. 157b-158, 204b-205.

[613]Annual Register xli, 35.

[614]Journal 78, fo. 320.

[615]Raikes, History of Hon. Artillery Company ii, 216.

[616]Repertory 203, fos. 308, 340-343; Journal 78, fos. 298-299.

[617]Journal 79, fo. 28b.

[618]Journal 78, fo. 314.

[619]Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 118-119.

[620]Journal House of Commons, lv, 362, 667, 694.

[621]Repertory 204, fos. 58-60.

[622]Id., fo. 412.

[623]Repertory 204, fos. 413, 418-420.

[624]Repertory 204, fos. 414-418.

[625]Id., fos. 423-425.

[626]Id., fos. 427, 428.

[627]Id., fo. 423.

[628]Repertory 204, fos. 432-434.

[629]Id., fos. 434-437.

[630]Id., fos. 439-446, 469-472.

[631]Journal 79, fo. 209b.

[632]Journal 79, fos. 215-217, 218-218b.

[633]Repertory 205, fos. 85, 319-328. Journal 80, fos. 113b, 125.

[634]Journal 79, fos. 255, 256, 283.

[635]Id., fo. 325.

[636]Journal 80, fo. 46b.

[637]Id., fos. 97-97b.

[638]Journal 80, fos. 46-46b.

[639]Repertory 205, fos. 644-646.

[640]Repertory 206, fos. 292-293, 458-465.

[641]Journal 80, fos. 219b, 237b-238b.

Back to Index Next