FOOTNOTES:

Sir Francis Burdett committed to the Tower, 9 April, 1810.

In the spring of this year (1810) the question of parliamentary reform was (after an interval of twenty-five years) again brought into prominence by the committal of Sir Francis Burdett to the Tower by order of the House of Commons. The House had recently committed to Newgate a man named John Gale Jones for having published an attack on its proceedings, and Sir Francis Burdett had questioned its right to commit any man to prison. The consequence was that on the 6th April a warrant was issued for the committal of Burdett himself to the Tower. Burdett resisted the warrant as illegal, and had to be conveyed to the Tower by an armed force (9 April). The ministry anticipated a riot, and made application to the lord mayor for permission to quarter troops in the government storehouses situate on the banks of the river. The mayor, in reply, assured the secretary of state, through whom the application had been made, that the city was perfectly quiet, but he would consult his brother aldermen on the matter. The next day—the day that Burdett was to be conveyed to the Tower—he wrote again to the secretary, assuring him that the city continued quiet, but that if necessity arose for military assistance to protect the government stores he (the mayor) would allow the premises to be occupied by troops, but only on the express conditionthat they acted under his own directions or the directions of one of the city marshals.[686]

Riots in the city.

Unfortunately the day did not pass off without bloodshed. Notwithstanding the care taken to conduct their prisoner by a circuitous route instead of by the direct way through Eastcheap to the Tower, the troops were severely handled by the mob both going and returning. For a long time the soldiers exhibited the greatest patience, but at length they were forced in sheer self-defence to fire, and a man named Thomas Ebrall was killed and others wounded. The Court of Aldermen were asked to offer a reward of £200 for the discovery of the man who had shot Ebrall, on whose death a jury had brought in a verdict of wilful murder against a guardsman, name unknown, but the Court declined. They instituted an enquiry, however, into the whole of the proceedings of the day, and after taking numerous depositions and giving the matter their best attention they came to the conclusion that the firing by the soldiers was justified.[687]

Petition of the livery to Parliament, 4 May, 1810.

The livery in the meanwhile had insisted upon a special Common Hall being summoned for the purpose of taking into consideration "the alarming assumption of privilege by the honourable the House of Commons, of arresting and imprisoning during pleasure the people of England, for offences cognisable in the usual courts of law," and on the 4th May, they passed a cordial vote of thanks to Burdett for having resisted the Speaker's warrant, and for having upheld the right of freedom of speech. They also thankedthe lord mayor for his "constitutional endeavours to preserve the peace of the city without the aid of the military." Furthermore, they resolved that the only means left to save the constitution and the country was parliamentary reform, which must be both speedy and radical, and they called upon the people of the United Kingdom to join them in endeavouring to bring this reform about. A petition to the House was then read and adopted, the language of which was so strong that even the petitioners themselves felt constrained to offer some kind of apology, and to declare that by it they intended no disrespect to the House. After commenting upon what they deemed an illegal and totally unjustifiable act of the House, in committing Jones and Burdett to prison without legal process, they proceeded to remind the Commons that so far from representing the people, they were known to have been sent to Parliament "by the absolute nomination or powerful influence of about 150 peers and others;" that they had refused to examine the charge brought against Lord Castlereagh and Spencer Perceval, two ministers of the Crown, of trafficking in seats; that when, on a former occasion, it was averred before the House "that seats for legislation in the House of Commons were as notoriously rented and bought as the standings for cattle at a fair," the House had treated the assertion with affected indignation, and ministers had threatened to punish the petitioners for presenting a scandalous and libellous petition. The petitioners, nevertheless, had lived "to see a House of Commons avow the traffick and screen those accused of this breach of law and right, because it had been equallycommitted by all parties, and was a practice as notorious as the sun at noon-day." Where, they asked, was the justice of the House? Where its dignity? Jones was confined to prison for an alleged offence which if committed against any subject of the realm, or even the king himself, would have been made the subject of legal investigation; Lord Castlereagh continued to be a principal minister of the Crown, and was at that very time a free member of Parliament; Sir Francis Burdett had been dragged from the bosom of his family and committed to the Tower, for exercising the right of constitutional discussion, common and undeniable to all, whilst Spencer Perceval continued a member of the House, taking a lead in its deliberations, the first minister of the Crown, and the chief adviser of the royal council. There was no need, the petitioners said, to recapitulate to the House the numerous instances of neglect to punish public delinquents, to economise the public money, to obtain redress for the lavish profusion of blood and money in the late Walcheren expedition. These and similar proceedings required no comment. Under these circumstances the petitioners called upon the House to expunge from its Journal all its orders respecting Jones and Sir Francis Burdett, and in conjunction with the latter to adopt such measures as would effect an immediate and radical parliamentary reform.[688]

The petition dismissed.

Such strong language addressed to the Parliament of the United Kingdom was more than some of the livery then present in Common Hall could approve of, and they adjourned to the London Tavern wherethey drew up a formal protest against what they conceived to be nothing less than an attempt "to degrade the legislature; to alienate the affections of the people from the Government, to produce contempt and distrust of the House of Commons, to introduce anarchy, and to subvert the constitution." The petition nevertheless was presented to the House, but after considerable debate, and after a motion that it should be allowed to lie on the table had been lost by a large majority, it was dismissed.[689]

Proceedings of Common Hall, 21 May, 1810.

The rejection of their petition occasioned the holding of another Common Hall for the purpose of maintaining the rights of the livery constitutionally assembled. As soon as the Hall met (21 May), the livery proceeded to pass a number of resolutions. They declared that the recent protest had been signed by "contractors, commissioners, and collectors of taxes, placemen, and place-hunters," and that its object was "the excitement of civil dissension, the increase of public abuses, and the further and fuller participation in the wages of corruption," by many of those who had signed it; that the right of petitioning, which had been denied to the subject in 1680, and allowed and confirmed in 1688 by the Bill of Rights, had again been invaded, and a new race ofAbhorrershad sprung up, and that it behoved every real friend of the country "to resist their mischievous designs by recurring to the genuine principles of the constitution, and by using every legal means for obtaining a full, fair and free representation of the people in Parliament." They resolved, notwithstanding the rejection of their last petition, to givethe House of Commons every opportunity of hearing and redressing the grievances of the people, and sanctioned the presentation of another humble address, petition and remonstrance. This new petition, which differed but slightly from the last, was presented to the House on the 25th, and instead of being rejected, was ordered to lie on the table.[690]

The king's illness, Nov., 1810.

Just as lord mayor's day was approaching the king suffered a sudden relapse, owing in a great measure to the loss of his favourite daughter, and became hopelessly insane. The question thereupon arose whether the new lord mayor could, under the circumstances, be sworn before the barons of the exchequer. Counsel were of opinion that this was the proper course to pursue and the incoming mayor was so sworn.[691]There was no pageant owing to the death of the princess.[692]

His statue in the Council Chamber.

A few days prior to the king's seizure the City resolved to place his statue in their council chamber, in token of their sense of his "endearing and amiable qualities."[693]The work was entrusted to Chantrey who had already executed a bust of the younger Pitt for the Trinity House Brethren.[694]The artist undertook to complete the statue in three years, but it was not until 1815 that it was ready to be set up. It originally bore an inscription written by Samuel Birch, who was mayor at the time, but upon the removal of the statueto the new council chamber, in 1884, the pedestal bearing the inscription was left behind.

The Regency Bill, Feb., 1811.

The necessity of a regency soon became manifest, and in January, 1811, a Bill was introduced for the purpose of appointing the Prince of Wales. When Pitt introduced a similar Bill in 1788 he had displayed no little courage in upholding the authority of parliament and imposing certain restrictions and limitations upon the regency of the prince whose character was none of the best, and the City had acknowledged the wisdom of his policy and passed him a vote of thanks. At that time it was a matter of uncertainty whether the king might not recover, as recover he did, and there was danger of prematurely paying court to the rising sun. More than twenty years had since passed away. The king was now an old man and the Prince of Wales must, in the ordinary course of things, succeed to the throne before long. Parliament still wished to impose restrictions upon the regency, but in a more modified form than in the former Bill. The prince, however, was adverse to any restrictions and the City sided with the prince against parliament.[695]In spite of their protest the Bill, with its limitations, was passed (5 Feb., 1811) and the prince submitted to take the oaths. A few days later the City offered him an address of condolence and congratulation, and at the same time appealed to him for redress of grievances and more especially for parliamentary reform.[696]

The Freedom declined by Prince Regent.

In May the Common Council offered him the Freedom of the City, but this he declined on the strangeplea that its acceptation would be incompatible with his station as Regent. He made, however, a gracious reply to the deputation which waited upon him to learn his pleasure (he declined to receive more than the lord mayor, the sheriff, the recorder, and the remembrancer, as being contrary to precedent), and assured them that it was his earnest desire at all times to promote the interest and welfare of the ancient corporation.[697]

Proposed reform meeting at the Guildhall, 3 June, 1811.

The regency being thus settled the "friends of parliamentary reform" appointed a committee (May, 1811) to organise a meeting in London. The meeting was to take place on Whit Monday (3 June) and was to be attended by delegates from all parts of the kingdom. The Common Council were disposed to accede to a request for the use of the Guildhall for the purpose of the meeting, but upon representation being made to them by the Court of Aldermen, and by some of the livery, that such a course would be without precedent as well as dangerous to the peace of the city, the permission was withdrawn.[698]

Address of the livery to the Regent, 26 Mar., 1812.

As time wore on and the livery who had confessedly looked upon the regency as the "dawn of a new era" found their hopes disappointed, no change being made in the ministry and no reforms carried out, they resolved to address themselves to the Regent. They accordingly drew up a petition after their kind, and appointed a deputation of twenty-one liverymen to attend its presentation (26 March, 1812). Not a word was said about the petition being presented tothe prince on the throne. When the sheriffs attended at Carlton House on Wednesday, the 1st April, to learn when the Regent would be pleased to receive it, they were told that he would receive it at the levée on the following Thursday week (9th) in "the usual way." When asked if he would receive the deputation appointed by the livery, the prince demurred. There were "certain forms attending that," but he would communicate with the secretary of state who would give them an answer. The next day (2 April), secretary Ryder informed the sheriffs by letter, that no persons beyond "the number allowed by law," to present petitions to his majesty, would be admitted to the levée on the 9th, except the lord mayor, aldermen, sheriffs, and city officers. The sheriffs, on the receipt of this letter again came to the charge and represented to the secretary of state—apparently for the first time, and on their own responsibility—that the livery had expected that the Regent would have received their address on the throne. What, moreover, did the Regent mean when he said that he would receive it in "the usual way"? To this query, the secretary replied that by the words "in the usual way," the prince meant "the way in which the petitions of persons in general were received, and not in which the addresses or petitions of the livery of London had been received in some instances previous to the year 1775." He also added that the address and petition would not be read at the levée nor would any answer be given, and, further, that only a deputation of the livery, not exceeding ten persons, might attend. On being informed of all this the livery were furious, but had to content themselves as before, with passinga number of resolutions against the advisers of the crown, etc., etc., and these the sheriffs were ordered to deliver into the prince's own hands.[699]

Address of Common Council to regent, 28 April, 1812.

Ten days later (17 April), the Common Council drew up an address to the prince, which proved to be such a formidable indictment of the government that it was characterised by his highness (who presumably received it on the throne) as one that involved "the total change in the domestic government and foreign policy of the country." This address did not appear in theLondon Gazette, as it ought to have done according to custom, and upon enquiry as to the reason for this omission, answer was made that "theLondon Gazettewas the king's paper," and nothing appeared therein without the order of government; that no such order had been received in this case; that nevertheless, as it had been found to be usual to insert addresses of the Corporation presented to the king with the answer thereto, the secretary of state would give directions for inserting the last address and answer "on account of the usage," and not as a matter of right.[700]

Assassination of Spencer Perceval, 11 May, 1812.

Dissatisfied as the citizens were with the ministry, they nevertheless viewed with horror the dastardly assassination of Spencer Perceval in the lobby of the House of Commons (11 May), and both the Court of Aldermen and the Common Council presented addresses on the subject to the Prince Regent.[701]As soon as news of the outrage reached the lord mayor, he dispatched messengers to the House for confirmation ofthe report, and at the same time sent his chaplain to the secretaries of state for further particulars. The city marshals were immediately ordered to take steps for calling out the watch and ward, and to report every half-hour to the Mansion House. All that night a double patrol was kept, and half-hourly reports sent in until daylight. At eight o'clock the following morning, the East Regiment of London militia mustered at head-quarters in case of an outbreak,[702]but it soon became known that the outrage was the work of a single individual—one Bellingham, a Liverpool broker, with some real or fancied grievance—and not of a political conspiracy as was at first believed. The assassin was convicted and hanged within a week. All the ministers resigned, and an attempt was made to construct a Whig cabinet, but it failed and Lord Liverpool became premier.

The Battle of Salamanca, 22 July, 1812.

In June, Napoleon entered Russia, and Wellington prepared to carry out offensive operations in Spain. In the following month (22 July) the latter defeated the French general, Marmont, at Salamanca, and afterwards entered Madrid in triumph. For his victory at Salamanca, the Common Council added a gold box to the Freedom of the City already accorded to him but not yet conferred;[703]whilst later on they voted a sum of £2,000 in aid of the sufferers from Napoleon's Russian invasion.[704]

The "Shannon" and "Chesapeake," 1 June, 1813.

The year 1813 found England at war, not only with France but with America. For some time past the United States had felt aggrieved at certain Ordersin Council which had been issued by way of retaliation for the famous Berlin decree; and in contravention of these orders they had insisted on the doctrine that a neutral flag made free goods. The orders had been revoked in favour of America in June, 1812, but the concession came too late, and war had been declared. An attempt to draw off Canada from her allegiance failed, but at sea the Americans succeeded in capturing some of our frigates. At length, a duel was, by arrangement, fought outside Boston harbour, between the English vessel "Shannon," Captain Broke in command, and the American frigate "Chesapeake." The vessels were well matched, but the action which took place on the 1st June (1813), lasted little more than a quarter of an hour. It was reported at the time that an explosion took place on the "Chesapeake," and that it was owing to this rather than to any superiority in courage or tactics on the part of the crew of the English vessel that the American was made a prize.[705]But, however, this may have been, the honour of the day rested with Captain Broke, who was presented with the Freedom of the City and a sword of the value of 100 guineas.[706]The unhappy war was not brought to a close until December (1814).

Treaty of Paris, May, 1814.

In the meantime, Napoleon had met with a series of unprecedented reverses, and been forced to abdicate; Louis XVIII had succeeded to his murdered brother's throne, and peace between England and France had been signed at Paris (May, 1814). The City presenteda long congratulatory address to the Prince Regent, on the fall of Napoleon and the accession of Louis to the throne.[707]Swords of honour were showered on foreign officers,[708]whilst our royal allies, the czar of Russia and the king of Prussia, as well as the new French king were presented with congratulatory addresses, and with the Prince Regent magnificently entertained by the citizens at the Guildhall (18 June).[709]Two days later the peace was proclaimed in the city with the same formalities as those used in the proclamation of peace with France and Spain, in 1783,[710]and on Thursday, the 7th July, a solemn thanksgiving service was held in St. Paul's, and was attended by the Regent.[711]

The Duke of Wellington at the Guildhall, 9 July, 1814.

The entertainment at the Guildhall was followed at a short interval (9 July) by another given to the Duke of Wellington, when opportunity was taken of presenting him with the Freedom of the City, which he had hitherto been unable to "take up," as also with the sword of honour and gold box already voted to him. The second entertainment was scarcely less brilliant than the former, the general arrangements and decorations being the same on both occasions.[712]

Petition Common Council for abolition of slave trade, 4 July, 1814.

Before the terms of peace were actually settled, the House of Commons embraced the opportunity of addressing the Regent upon the advisability of provisionbeing made against the revival of the slave trade in those parts which were about to be ceded to France.[713]Ever since 1792 Bills had from time to time been introduced, with the view of putting down or at least suspending the nefarious traffic, but with little or no success, until in 1807 an Act was passed prohibiting the slave trade, under a penalty of heavy fines. As this Act was not sufficiently deterrent, another Act had been passed in 1811, making slave trading a felony, and so the trade had, after a long struggle, been finally abolished throughout the British dominion. Since 1792 the civic fathers do not appear to have taken any active part in the matter; but when it became known that the peace had been concluded, not only without any guarantee against the revival of the slave trade in parts where it had been abolished by England, and which were now to be ceded to France, but with express stipulations that the traffic should and might be exercised in those parts for a certain number of years, the City again took the matter up. A strong petition was drawn up by the Common Council (4 July), and submitted to both Houses of Parliament. They expressed the deepest regret that by such stipulations "all the labours and exertions of the wise and virtuous in this country, and all the enactments of the legislature," for the abolition of the slave trade had been rendered useless and unavailing. After such a formal recognition in the treaty of the right of France to carry on the abominable traffic, it would be preposterous for the British government to ask the assistance of other powers to put it down. The petitioners, therefore, humbly prayedboth Houses to take speedy steps to impress upon his majesty's government the necessity of having the obnoxious clauses rescinded.[714]A week later (11 July) the prince, who, when originally applied to on the matter by the House of Commons, had returned what was then considered a favourable answer, now assured Parliament that he would endeavour to carry out its wishes.[715]

Battle of Waterloo, 18 June, 1815.

Early in the following year, whilst a congress was sitting at Vienna to regulate the affairs of Europe, news was brought that Napoleon had made his escape from Elba. Louis XVIII, the restored Bourbon king, who had already become unpopular, fled to Lille, and Napoleon became once more emperor of the French. His reign was, however, cut short on the field of Waterloo (18 June). The allies entered Paris in triumph (7 July), Napoleon took refuge on board the "Bellerophon," a British man-of-war, and claimed the hospitality of the Prince Regent. It was, however, only too clear that the peace of Europe would be constantly menaced were he to be allowed his liberty. He was, therefore, removed to St. Helena, and kept under guard. Louis XVIII was again restored, and negotiations were resumed, which resulted in a second treaty of Paris (20 Nov.). Once more the City offered congratulations to the Regent,[716]and as the swords of honour, voted last year to Blucher and other distinguished foreign officers, had not yet been presented, the lord mayor (Samuel Birch) proposed going to Paris himself, with a small deputation of theCommon Council, and making the presentation—as he said—"in the face of the world." Although he had received assurances that every possible respect would be shown him, he eventually abandoned the idea, and contented himself with despatching the swords to the Duke of Wellington for delivery to their respective owners.[717]

FOOTNOTES:[642]Journal 81, fo. 142[643]Parliamentary History xxxvi, 1,661, 1,662.[644]Journal 81, fos. 166-167.[645]Id., fos. 171-172, 204.[646]Id., fos. 219b, 231b.[647]Journal 81, fos. 345-345b.[648]Journal 82, fos. 54-55.[649]Journal 82, fos. 97-98.[650]Id., fos. 181-182.[651]See Appendix to Stanhope's Life of Pitt, Vol. iv, pp. iv-xiii.[652]Journal 82, fos. 27-28.[653]Journal 82, fos. 34b-36.[654]Journal 82, fos. 33-34.[655]Journal House of Commons, lix, 406-422.[656]Journal 82, fos. 44, 69b.[657]Repertory 210, fos. 375-376.[658]Journal 82, fo. 253.[659]Journal 82, fos. 368-368b.[660]Id., fos. 381-382.[661]Repertory 210, fos. 54-62, 65, 102-168; Journal 82, fo. 393b; Journal 83, fos. 12Ob-128b.[662]Journal 82, fo. 380; Journal 83 fos. 117-118b, 144-144b.[663]Stanhope "Life of Pitt," iv, 345, 346.[664]Repertory 210, fos. 373-375.[665]Journal 83, fos. 11b-12, 45b-46, 225-226.[666]Journal 83, fo. 16.[667]Journal 83, fos. 154, 233-4.[668]Id., fo. 234.[669]Journal 83, fo. 352b.[670]Id., fos. 382, 384b, 388.[671]Id., fos. 67, 151, 170-170b, 171b. Journal 84, fo. 96b.[672]Journal 84, fos. 197b-198b, 201.[673]Upon the lord mayor (Ansley) quitting office a vote of thanks was moved for the hospitality he had shown the Spanish envoys, but the motion was negatived. Affairs had not gone so well in Spain as the City had hoped.—Journal 84, fo. 357b.[674]Journal 84, fo. 294b.[675]Id., fos. 333, 336b.[676]Journal 85, fos. 79b-80b.[677]Journal 85, fos. 201b-205. See Annual Register li, 457.[678]Journal 85, fo. 258.[679]Journal 85, fo. 279b.[680]Id., fos. 277b-278, 291.[681]Id., fos. 322-325b, 350. The substitution of a new address in the place of one already agreed to was afterwards (8 Feb., 1810) declared irregular.—Id., fo. 397.[682]Journal 85, fo. 355b.[683]Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 237b-243.[684]Journal 85, fos. 420-422b.[685]Journal 86, fos. 380, 380b.[686]Repertory 214, fos. 307-311.[687]Id., fos. 336-339, 373-477.[688]Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 245-248b.[689]Journal House of Commons, lxv, 346.[690]Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 249b-253b. Journal House of Commons, lxv, 410, 411.[691]Repertory 214, fos. 772-812.[692]Id., fos. 761-762.[693]Journal 86, fo. 216b.[694]Journal 86, fo. 332.—See minutes of committee relative to the king's statue, 19 April, 1811.[695]Journal 86, fos. 262b-268. Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 259-261b.[696]Journal 86, fos. 290-291b.[697]Journal 86, fos. 373b-374, 384-385b.[698]Id., fos. 386b-387b, 400-405; Repertory 215, fos. 345-350; Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 263-265.[699]Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 272-277b.[700]Journal 87, fos. 195, 196b, 204b.[701]Journal 87, fos. 228b-23lb; Repertory 216, fo. 340.[702]Repertory 216, fos. 338-339.[703]Journal 87, fos. 397b.[704]Id., fos. 438b.[705]See letter from Commodore William Bainbridge to the secretary of the navy. Dated Charleston (Mass.), 2 June.—Examiner, No. 294.[706]Journal 88, fos. 114, 171.[707]Journal 88, fo. 285b.[708]Journal 89, fos. 45b-46.[709]Journal 88, fos. 295b, 297b; Journal 89, fos. 42-45, 47-47b, 50-52b, 307b-320; Repertory 218, fos. 448-453, 472-481. A plaster of Paris bust of the Czar was presented to the lord mayor, and set up in the centre niche of the Egyptian Hall, in the Mansion House. Journal 89, fo. 93b; Journal 90, fo. 47.[710]Repertory 218, fos. 485-487.[711]Journal 89, fos. 39b, 56.[712]Journal 90, fos. 71-80b.[713]Journal House of Commons, lxix, 231.[714]Journal 89, fos. 61b-64b.[715]Journal House of Commons, lxix, 450.[716]Journal 89, fos. 352-353b.[717]Journal 89, fos. 368-368b; Journal 90, fo. 57b.

[642]Journal 81, fo. 142

[643]Parliamentary History xxxvi, 1,661, 1,662.

[644]Journal 81, fos. 166-167.

[645]Id., fos. 171-172, 204.

[646]Id., fos. 219b, 231b.

[647]Journal 81, fos. 345-345b.

[648]Journal 82, fos. 54-55.

[649]Journal 82, fos. 97-98.

[650]Id., fos. 181-182.

[651]See Appendix to Stanhope's Life of Pitt, Vol. iv, pp. iv-xiii.

[652]Journal 82, fos. 27-28.

[653]Journal 82, fos. 34b-36.

[654]Journal 82, fos. 33-34.

[655]Journal House of Commons, lix, 406-422.

[656]Journal 82, fos. 44, 69b.

[657]Repertory 210, fos. 375-376.

[658]Journal 82, fo. 253.

[659]Journal 82, fos. 368-368b.

[660]Id., fos. 381-382.

[661]Repertory 210, fos. 54-62, 65, 102-168; Journal 82, fo. 393b; Journal 83, fos. 12Ob-128b.

[662]Journal 82, fo. 380; Journal 83 fos. 117-118b, 144-144b.

[663]Stanhope "Life of Pitt," iv, 345, 346.

[664]Repertory 210, fos. 373-375.

[665]Journal 83, fos. 11b-12, 45b-46, 225-226.

[666]Journal 83, fo. 16.

[667]Journal 83, fos. 154, 233-4.

[668]Id., fo. 234.

[669]Journal 83, fo. 352b.

[670]Id., fos. 382, 384b, 388.

[671]Id., fos. 67, 151, 170-170b, 171b. Journal 84, fo. 96b.

[672]Journal 84, fos. 197b-198b, 201.

[673]Upon the lord mayor (Ansley) quitting office a vote of thanks was moved for the hospitality he had shown the Spanish envoys, but the motion was negatived. Affairs had not gone so well in Spain as the City had hoped.—Journal 84, fo. 357b.

[674]Journal 84, fo. 294b.

[675]Id., fos. 333, 336b.

[676]Journal 85, fos. 79b-80b.

[677]Journal 85, fos. 201b-205. See Annual Register li, 457.

[678]Journal 85, fo. 258.

[679]Journal 85, fo. 279b.

[680]Id., fos. 277b-278, 291.

[681]Id., fos. 322-325b, 350. The substitution of a new address in the place of one already agreed to was afterwards (8 Feb., 1810) declared irregular.—Id., fo. 397.

[682]Journal 85, fo. 355b.

[683]Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 237b-243.

[684]Journal 85, fos. 420-422b.

[685]Journal 86, fos. 380, 380b.

[686]Repertory 214, fos. 307-311.

[687]Id., fos. 336-339, 373-477.

[688]Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 245-248b.

[689]Journal House of Commons, lxv, 346.

[690]Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 249b-253b. Journal House of Commons, lxv, 410, 411.

[691]Repertory 214, fos. 772-812.

[692]Id., fos. 761-762.

[693]Journal 86, fo. 216b.

[694]Journal 86, fo. 332.—See minutes of committee relative to the king's statue, 19 April, 1811.

[695]Journal 86, fos. 262b-268. Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 259-261b.

[696]Journal 86, fos. 290-291b.

[697]Journal 86, fos. 373b-374, 384-385b.

[698]Id., fos. 386b-387b, 400-405; Repertory 215, fos. 345-350; Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 263-265.

[699]Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 272-277b.

[700]Journal 87, fos. 195, 196b, 204b.

[701]Journal 87, fos. 228b-23lb; Repertory 216, fo. 340.

[702]Repertory 216, fos. 338-339.

[703]Journal 87, fos. 397b.

[704]Id., fos. 438b.

[705]See letter from Commodore William Bainbridge to the secretary of the navy. Dated Charleston (Mass.), 2 June.—Examiner, No. 294.

[706]Journal 88, fos. 114, 171.

[707]Journal 88, fo. 285b.

[708]Journal 89, fos. 45b-46.

[709]Journal 88, fos. 295b, 297b; Journal 89, fos. 42-45, 47-47b, 50-52b, 307b-320; Repertory 218, fos. 448-453, 472-481. A plaster of Paris bust of the Czar was presented to the lord mayor, and set up in the centre niche of the Egyptian Hall, in the Mansion House. Journal 89, fo. 93b; Journal 90, fo. 47.

[710]Repertory 218, fos. 485-487.

[711]Journal 89, fos. 39b, 56.

[712]Journal 90, fos. 71-80b.

[713]Journal House of Commons, lxix, 231.

[714]Journal 89, fos. 61b-64b.

[715]Journal House of Commons, lxix, 450.

[716]Journal 89, fos. 352-353b.

[717]Journal 89, fos. 368-368b; Journal 90, fo. 57b.

Back to Index Next