FOOTNOTES:

The queen's trial, Aug.-Nov., 1820.

Another secret enquiry into her conduct was held by the lords, at the king's command, and upon evidence thus scraped together and unsupported by oath a Bill of Pains and Penalties was introduced into the House of Lords for depriving the queen of her title and dissolving her marriage. The Common Council entered a strong protest and appealed to both Houses to reject the Bill,[762]but in vain. The queen was put on her defence, and after a protracted trial succeeded with the help of her learned counsel—Brougham, Denman and Lushington—in placing her conduct in such a light that the Bill had to be abandoned.

City address to the queen, 21 Nov., 1820.

The news of the queen's triumph was received with the wildest delight, and for three nights in succession London was illuminated. Addresses began to flow in upon her in such quantities that a special day of the week had to be set apart for their reception.[763]The Common Council assured her that they had never entertained the slightest doubt as to what would be the result of a trial unconstitutionally instituted and unfairly carried on; and expressed a hope that she would continue to reside among them.[764]The Freedom of the City was voted to counsel engaged in her defence.[765]

The queen's reply, 24 Nov., 1820.

In acknowledging the City's address the queen referred to her late victory as a triumph for the people. "If my enemies had prevailed"—she said—"the people who are now feared would have been despised,their oppression would have been indefinitely increased." She declared that it was to the sympathy and support of the people and of the Press that she was chiefly indebted for her escape from a conspiracy such as had never before threatened an individual, and although she doubted whether her presence in the country was conducive to the national welfare, as seemed to be generally supposed, she expressed herself as being always ready to conform to the will of the community at large:—"The people have made many sacrifices for me, and I will live for the people."[766]

The queen at Brandenburgh House.

The Court of Aldermen, as a body, had rigidly withheld their support from the unfortunate queen. Nevertheless, there were two members of the Court who thoroughly believed in her innocence, and who rendered her every assistance in their power. These were Matthew Wood, in whose house in South Audley Street she first found shelter on her return from abroad, and Robert Waithman. Matthew Wood continued to attend her at Brandenburgh House, where she kept her court, and where he dined with her the day that the Bill against her was thrown out. The motley character of her attendants elicited a satirical poem from Theodore Hook, in which the alderman comes in for his share of ridicule in the following lines:—

"And who were attending her—heigh ma'am; ho ma'am?Who were attending her, ho?—Lord Hood for a man,For a maid Lady Anne,[767]And Alderman Wood for abeau—beauAnd Alderman Wood for abeau."

Presents her portrait to the City.

It was Matthew Wood whom the queen employed to write to the Corporation, whilst her trial was still pending, asking that body to accept her portrait in testimony of her attachment and gratitude to "the first city in the world" for the zeal they had manifested in her cause, and it was Waithman who laid the letter before the Common Council. The offer was graciously accepted, and Queen Caroline's picture, as well as that of her deceased daughter, the Princess Charlotte—a subsequent gift—are preserved in the Guildhall Art Gallery.[768]

The queen at St. Paul's, 29 Nov., 1820.

An intimation which the Common Council received from the gentleman acting as the queen's vice-chamberlain that she proposed to attend the usual service held at St. Paul's on Wednesday, the 29th November, was received with mixed feelings. It was feared that her appearance in the city might cause inconvenience, and perhaps lead to riot. Nevertheless a special committee was appointed to give her a suitable reception.[769]A similar foreboding was felt by the Court of Aldermen as soon as they heard of the queen's intention, and a motion was made expressing regret; but before any vote could be taken on the matter, the Court was abruptly broken up by Wood and Waithman leaving.[770]On the 27th, the Court again met, when communications were read from the Dean of St. Paul's, and from Lord Sidmouth, touching the preparations to be made for her majesty's reception in the Cathedral, and the precautions to betaken against injury being done by accident or otherwise within the sacred precinct or in the public streets. The lord mayor was promised the assistance of the military if necessary. Again, a motion was made expressive of regret at the queen's proposal, but with no better success than at the previous Court. Alderman Wood again got up and left the Court so as to reduce the number present to less than aquorum, and Alderman Waithman immediately moved a count out.[771]Fortunately the day passed off without any mishap. One of the chief grievances which the queen had been made to suffer had been the omission of her name from the Liturgy. On this occasion she desired that "the particular thanksgiving, which at the request of any parishioner, it is customary to offer up" might be offered on her behalf, but the officiating minister refused on the ground that the rubric directed that "those may be named, who have been previously prayed for, but that the queen not having been prayed for, could not be named in the thanksgiving." After all was over, the queen communicated her thanks to the lord mayor and the committee for the trouble they had taken, and expressed herself as particularly obliged to his lordship for not yielding to alarm, and for declining all military assistance.[772]

Address of Common Council to the king, 7 Dec., 1820.

The queen's trial served only to increase the City's dissatisfaction with the ministers, and the Common Council once more urged their dismissal (9 Dec.). In their address to the king they referred"with pain and reluctance" to the late proceedings against the queen—proceedings which (they said) had drawn forth "the reprobation of the great body of the people"—and they expressed indignation at the flagrant outrage that had been committed on the moral and religious feelings of the nation.[773]

The king's reply, 9 Dec.

It is not to be supposed that the king would receive such an address very graciously. Indeed, he acknowledged that he received it "with the most painful feelings," and he vouchsafed no further answer than to tell the citizens that whatever might be their motives in presenting the address, it served no other purpose than to inflame the passions and mislead the judgment of the less enlightened of his subjects, and to aggravate the difficulties with which he had to contend.[774]

Address, Court of Aldermen.

Very different had been the reception accorded the previous day (8 Dec.) to an address from the Court of Aldermen, in which they informed the king of their resolution to defend the monarchy and other branches of the constitution, at that time so bitterly attacked. The subject of the queen's trial was not mentioned, although an attempt had been made to introduce it into the address by some members of the Court. This "loyal and dutiful" address was graciously received with the king's "warmest thanks."[775]

The queen's death, 7 Aug., 1821.

Early in the following year (Jan., 1821) the Common Council petitioned both Houses for the restoration of the queen's name in the Liturgy, and for making her a proper provision to enable her tosupport her rights and dignities. It at the same time demanded an enquiry into the manner in which the queen's prosecution had been brought about.[776]As regards a provision to be made for the queen, she had previously declined to accept any at the hands of the ministry.[777]The Commons now voted her an annuity of £50,000,[778]which she accepted but did not long enjoy, for in the following August she died.

Disgraceful scene at her funeral, 14 Aug., 1821.

The circumstances attending her funeral were of a most disgraceful character. She had expressed a wish to be buried in her own country, and this wish was carried out. The citizens were extremely anxious to pay a last token of respect in the event of her corpse being brought through the city to Harwich, the port of embarkation, and the Remembrancer waited upon Lord Liverpool for the purpose of notifying to him the resolutions passed by the Common Council to that effect. As in Chatham's case, so in the case of this unfortunate queen, the wishes of the citizens were ignored. After some delay they were informed that the funeral arrangements were already completed, and had been laid before the king, and that it was not intended that the procession should pass through the city.[779]The people, nevertheless, decided otherwise, and succeeded in gaining the day. This was not accomplished, however, without bloodshed. In order to insure the funeral procession passing through the city, the roads not leading in that direction were blocked and the pavement taken up. At Knightsbridgethe mob came into collision with the military quartered in the barracks there. Stones and mud were freely thrown, and the guards were tempted at last to fire on the mob, killing two of their number. After the procession had passed through the city, with the lord mayor at its head, it was allowed to continue its course without further opposition. This took place on Tuesday, the 14th August.[780]

The sheriff assaulted by the military, 26 Aug., 1821.

On the 26th, when the funeral procession of the two men shot by the military had to pass in front of Knightsbridge barracks, another disgraceful scene occurred. Waithman, who was sheriff at the time, fearing lest the sight of soldiers outside the barracks might infuriate the people, had taken the precaution of asking the officers in command to keep their men within the gates until the procession had gone by, but the only answer he got was that "the sheriff might be d—d, they would not make their men prisoners for him." In the course of the day Waithman himself was struck. This led to a long correspondence with Lord Bathurst, one of the principal secretaries of state, but the sheriff failed to get any redress. The Common Council instituted an enquiry, and upheld his action.[781]The Court of Aldermen ignored the whole affair, but one of their number, viz., Sir William Curtis, a member for the City, made a violent speech in the House against the Common Council for having dared to institute an enquiry. The alderman himself was a memberof the General Purposes Committee to which the matter had been referred, but did not attend its meetings. The Common Council voted his speech a gross and injurious reflection upon the members of the Corporation and an unfounded calumny upon the committee.[782]

The City and the Holy Alliance, 1823-1824.

The citizens appreciated too well the blessings of freedom not to sympathise with the struggles of others to obtain it, and they looked askance at the Holy Alliance which had been formed with the view of dictating to the rest of the world. In their eyes "national independence is to states what liberty is to individuals," and that being so the Common Council readily voted two sums of £1,000 to assist Spain and Greece in throwing off their respective yokes.[783]In 1823 the relations between the City and Spain, then threatened by France, were of such a friendly nature that a proposal was actually made to set up, in the centre of Moorfields, a statue of Don Rafael Del Riego, a patriotic Spanish general, who had lost his life in the cause.[784]In the following year (1824) the City again raised its voice against the pretensions of the Holy Alliance, and opposed the renewal of the Alien Act, mainly on the ground that its renewal would appear to countenance the action of the allies "against the independence of nations and the rights and liberties of mankind."[785]

Revival of trade followed by wild speculation, 1825-1826.

A revival of commerce, which commenced in 1821, was succeeded in 1825 by an era of wild speculation such as had not been seen since the days of the SouthSea Bubble. The civic authorities protested against the reckless formation of Joint Stock Companies, but in vain.[786]Before the end of the year a crash came, firms and companies began to break, credit was shaken, trade depressed, and a run on banks took place, resulting in many of them stopping payment altogether. In six weeks between sixty and seventy banks are said to have stopped payment, of which six or seven were London houses. The distress which ensued was widespread, so widespread indeed that it extended to Scotland, and brought to grief that "wizard of the North," whose writings have delighted, and continue to delight, so many thousands, both young and old—Sir Walter Scott. In the city of London the Spitalfield weavers were reduced to such straits that the Corporation had to come to their assistance with a grant of £500.[787]Although the worst was over by the end of 1825, bankruptcies were frequent during the following year, whilst the country was much disturbed by riots and attacks on all kinds of machinery, which the artisan foolishly regarded as the chief cause of all the misery. When Venables, the lord mayor, went out of office (Nov., 1826) and the Common Council passed the usual vote of thanks, they expressly referred to the decision, energy and judgment he had evinced "during a recent period of commercial embarrassment," and the prompt measures he had taken for relieving distress and restoring confidence.[788]

FOOTNOTES:[718]Journal 90, fos. 123-125; Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 339-340.[719]Journal House of Commons, lxxi, 4.[720]The custom of setting the assize in the city continued until 1822, when it was abolished by Stat. 3 Geo. III, c. cvi.[721]Journal 87, fos. 68, 104b.[722]See Report of Special Committee on the continued high price of bread, 24 March, 1814.—Journal 88, fos. 262b-268b.[723]Journal 89, fos. 216b, 217b-219, 237b; Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 316-318b.[724]Journal 89, fos. 242b-244.[725]Journal 99, fos. 101-105; Journal 100, fos. 113b-115; Journal 117, fos. 225-226; Journal 118, fos. 438b-441.[726]Journal 90, fo. 124b.[727]Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 343-345, 346b-347.[728]He had just entered upon his second year of office, and had given no little offence to Lord Sidmouth—at that time high steward of the city and liberties of Westminster, as well as secretary of state for the home department—by returning from Westminster after being sworn in, through the streets of Westminster instead of by water, without having given notice to the high steward. Wood justified his conduct to Sidmouth in a letter in which he protested against the claim of the high steward to dictate to the lord mayor, the city of London, and the sheriffs of London and Middlesex, the particular course they were to take in going or returning on the occasion of the lord mayor being sworn before the Barons of the Exchequer.—Journal 90, fos. 348b-349b.[729]Journal 90, fos. 345b-348.[730]Common Hall Book, No. 9, fo. 348b-350b.[731]Repertory 221, fos. 6-18.[732]Journal 90, fos. 377-380b, 384-384b.[733]Journal 90, fos. 383-384.[734]Repertory 221, fo. 175. Journal 91, fo. 18. A curious incident is recorded in connection with these addresses. Owing to the requisition for a Common Council having referred to the attack on the Regent as an act of some "rash and intemperate" individuals only, and not as a treasonable outrage, the Recorder declared the Common Council to be illegal, and the Court at once broke up, there being no aldermen present. The Common Council resented what they considered to be an unjust attempt on the part of the aldermen to dictate to them in the exercise of their duty, and an unwarrantable attack upon their privileges, and a few days later (13 Feb.) passed resolutions to that effect, and ordered them to be published in the morning and evening papers.—Journal 91, fos. 33b, 34.[735]Journal 91, fo. 12.[736]Common Hall Book, No. 10, fo. 9.[737]Journal 91, fos. 34b-40. Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 14-22.[738]Journal 92, fos. 57b-58.[739]Journal House of Commons, lxxiii, 11. The suspension had been renewed in June (1817), notwithstanding the City's continued opposition.—Journal 91, fos. 187-189b.—Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 23-31.[740]Addresses of Common Council and Common Hall to parliament, 23 and 27 Feb., 1818.—Journal 92, fos. 54b-58b.—Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 48-55.—Journal House of Commons, lxxiii, 90, 106.[741]See report of lord mayor to Court of Aldermen on the public meetings held in Smithfield, 21 July, and 25 Aug., 1819.—Repertory 223, 627-632.[742]Repertory 223, fos. 629-630.[743]Journal 93, fos. 156b-157b.[744]Id., fos. 159b-160.[745]Journal 93, fos. 332-335b.[746]Repertory 223, fos. 656-659.[747]Id., fos. 635-636, 758-764.[748]Journal 93, fos. 323b-325.[749]Repertory 224, fos. 26-34.[750]Repertory 225, fos. 61-69, 907,seq.For Glynn's opinionvide sup., p. 138.[751]Repertory 223, fos. 636-645.[752]Sir Gilbert Heathcote is said to have been the last mayor (1710-11) to have ridden to Westminster on horseback for the purpose of being sworn in.[753]Repertory 223, fos. 660-672.[754]Repertory 224, fos. 181-193.[755]Journal 94, fos. 32-34, 71b-73b; Repertory 224, fos. 193-200.[756]Repertory 224, fos. 333-341; Repertory 225, fo. 499.[757]Repertory 224, fos. 342-343, 350, seq. 427; Repertory 225, fos. 502-514, 582-584.[758]Repertory 235, fos. 551-557.[759]Common Hall Book, No. 9, fo. 285; the address was not allowed to be printed in the Gazette;Id., fos. 287b-288b.[760]Journal 87, fo. 508.[761]Journal 94, fo. 182b; Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 92-93.[762]Journal 94, fos. 199b-203b.[763]Annual register lxii, 482, 483, 498.[764]Journal 94, fo. 277b.[765]Id., fos. 291b-292.[766]Journal 94, fos. 278b-279b.[767]Lady Anne Hamilton.[768]Journal 94, fos. 231b, 242, 275.[769]Id., fos. 273-275. She had originally proposed to attend on Sunday, the 26th Nov., but changed the day, lest her presence should lead to a desecration of the Sabbath.[770]Repertory 225, fos. 25-28. Annual Register lxii, 499-500.[771]Repertory 225, fos. 29-37. Annual Register lxii, 500.[772]Journal 94, fo. 285b. Annual Register lxii, 503-506.[773]Journal 94, fos. 287-289.[774]Id., fo. 304.[775]Repertory 225, fos. 42-50, 59-60.[776]Journal 94, fos. 337-340b.[777]Annual Register lxii, 491-492.[778]Journal House of Commons lxxvi, 24, 73.[779]Journal 95, fos. 327, 327b, 331-331b.[780]Annual Register lxiii, 127.[781]Journal 95, fos. 332, 370-375; Journal 96, fos. 21-22. After Waithman's death, in 1833, an obelisk was erected to his memory in Ludgate Circus, opposite to that erected to commemorate the mayoralty of Wilkes in 1775.[782]Journal 96, fos. 101-102.[783]Journal 97, fos. 168b, 170-171b, 172b-173b.[784]Id., fos. 313-314.[785]Journal 98, fos. 40-43.[786]Journal 99, fos. 83b-87b; Journal 100, fos. 116-118b.[787]Journal 100, fo. 76.[788]Id., fo. 298.

[718]Journal 90, fos. 123-125; Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 339-340.

[719]Journal House of Commons, lxxi, 4.

[720]The custom of setting the assize in the city continued until 1822, when it was abolished by Stat. 3 Geo. III, c. cvi.

[721]Journal 87, fos. 68, 104b.

[722]See Report of Special Committee on the continued high price of bread, 24 March, 1814.—Journal 88, fos. 262b-268b.

[723]Journal 89, fos. 216b, 217b-219, 237b; Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 316-318b.

[724]Journal 89, fos. 242b-244.

[725]Journal 99, fos. 101-105; Journal 100, fos. 113b-115; Journal 117, fos. 225-226; Journal 118, fos. 438b-441.

[726]Journal 90, fo. 124b.

[727]Common Hall Book, No. 9, fos. 343-345, 346b-347.

[728]He had just entered upon his second year of office, and had given no little offence to Lord Sidmouth—at that time high steward of the city and liberties of Westminster, as well as secretary of state for the home department—by returning from Westminster after being sworn in, through the streets of Westminster instead of by water, without having given notice to the high steward. Wood justified his conduct to Sidmouth in a letter in which he protested against the claim of the high steward to dictate to the lord mayor, the city of London, and the sheriffs of London and Middlesex, the particular course they were to take in going or returning on the occasion of the lord mayor being sworn before the Barons of the Exchequer.—Journal 90, fos. 348b-349b.

[729]Journal 90, fos. 345b-348.

[730]Common Hall Book, No. 9, fo. 348b-350b.

[731]Repertory 221, fos. 6-18.

[732]Journal 90, fos. 377-380b, 384-384b.

[733]Journal 90, fos. 383-384.

[734]Repertory 221, fo. 175. Journal 91, fo. 18. A curious incident is recorded in connection with these addresses. Owing to the requisition for a Common Council having referred to the attack on the Regent as an act of some "rash and intemperate" individuals only, and not as a treasonable outrage, the Recorder declared the Common Council to be illegal, and the Court at once broke up, there being no aldermen present. The Common Council resented what they considered to be an unjust attempt on the part of the aldermen to dictate to them in the exercise of their duty, and an unwarrantable attack upon their privileges, and a few days later (13 Feb.) passed resolutions to that effect, and ordered them to be published in the morning and evening papers.—Journal 91, fos. 33b, 34.

[735]Journal 91, fo. 12.

[736]Common Hall Book, No. 10, fo. 9.

[737]Journal 91, fos. 34b-40. Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 14-22.

[738]Journal 92, fos. 57b-58.

[739]Journal House of Commons, lxxiii, 11. The suspension had been renewed in June (1817), notwithstanding the City's continued opposition.—Journal 91, fos. 187-189b.—Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 23-31.

[740]Addresses of Common Council and Common Hall to parliament, 23 and 27 Feb., 1818.—Journal 92, fos. 54b-58b.—Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 48-55.—Journal House of Commons, lxxiii, 90, 106.

[741]See report of lord mayor to Court of Aldermen on the public meetings held in Smithfield, 21 July, and 25 Aug., 1819.—Repertory 223, 627-632.

[742]Repertory 223, fos. 629-630.

[743]Journal 93, fos. 156b-157b.

[744]Id., fos. 159b-160.

[745]Journal 93, fos. 332-335b.

[746]Repertory 223, fos. 656-659.

[747]Id., fos. 635-636, 758-764.

[748]Journal 93, fos. 323b-325.

[749]Repertory 224, fos. 26-34.

[750]Repertory 225, fos. 61-69, 907,seq.For Glynn's opinionvide sup., p. 138.

[751]Repertory 223, fos. 636-645.

[752]Sir Gilbert Heathcote is said to have been the last mayor (1710-11) to have ridden to Westminster on horseback for the purpose of being sworn in.

[753]Repertory 223, fos. 660-672.

[754]Repertory 224, fos. 181-193.

[755]Journal 94, fos. 32-34, 71b-73b; Repertory 224, fos. 193-200.

[756]Repertory 224, fos. 333-341; Repertory 225, fo. 499.

[757]Repertory 224, fos. 342-343, 350, seq. 427; Repertory 225, fos. 502-514, 582-584.

[758]Repertory 235, fos. 551-557.

[759]Common Hall Book, No. 9, fo. 285; the address was not allowed to be printed in the Gazette;Id., fos. 287b-288b.

[760]Journal 87, fo. 508.

[761]Journal 94, fo. 182b; Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 92-93.

[762]Journal 94, fos. 199b-203b.

[763]Annual register lxii, 482, 483, 498.

[764]Journal 94, fo. 277b.

[765]Id., fos. 291b-292.

[766]Journal 94, fos. 278b-279b.

[767]Lady Anne Hamilton.

[768]Journal 94, fos. 231b, 242, 275.

[769]Id., fos. 273-275. She had originally proposed to attend on Sunday, the 26th Nov., but changed the day, lest her presence should lead to a desecration of the Sabbath.

[770]Repertory 225, fos. 25-28. Annual Register lxii, 499-500.

[771]Repertory 225, fos. 29-37. Annual Register lxii, 500.

[772]Journal 94, fo. 285b. Annual Register lxii, 503-506.

[773]Journal 94, fos. 287-289.

[774]Id., fo. 304.

[775]Repertory 225, fos. 42-50, 59-60.

[776]Journal 94, fos. 337-340b.

[777]Annual Register lxii, 491-492.

[778]Journal House of Commons lxxvi, 24, 73.

[779]Journal 95, fos. 327, 327b, 331-331b.

[780]Annual Register lxiii, 127.

[781]Journal 95, fos. 332, 370-375; Journal 96, fos. 21-22. After Waithman's death, in 1833, an obelisk was erected to his memory in Ludgate Circus, opposite to that erected to commemorate the mayoralty of Wilkes in 1775.

[782]Journal 96, fos. 101-102.

[783]Journal 97, fos. 168b, 170-171b, 172b-173b.

[784]Id., fos. 313-314.

[785]Journal 98, fos. 40-43.

[786]Journal 99, fos. 83b-87b; Journal 100, fos. 116-118b.

[787]Journal 100, fo. 76.

[788]Id., fo. 298.

Repeal of Corporation and Test Acts, May, 1828.

In November (1826) a new Parliament met. Of the old city members only one—viz., Matthew Wood, the popular alderman—retained his seat. He was joined by two other aldermen, one of them being the no less popular Waithman, and a commoner. The questions most pressing were Catholic Emancipation and Parliamentary Reform. The latter had been long urged by the City. As regards the emancipation of Catholics, the City had at one time shown considerable opposition. In 1790, the Common Council expressed itself as anxious to strengthen the hands of those friends of the established church who had twice successfully opposed in Parliament the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts—a necessary preliminary to Catholic emancipation—and had called upon the city members and those of the Common Council who had seats in Parliament, to resist any future attempt that might be made in the same direction.[789]Since that time the citizens had changed their minds, and we find them now (May, 1827), passing resolutions against the iniquity of making the solemn ordinance of the Lord's Supper "a qualification and passport for power," and congratulating the king upon his having placed Canning, a notorious friend of Catholic emancipation, in power.[790]

Canning unfortunately died before he was able to accomplish anything in this direction, and his successor,Goderich was deficient in moral backbone; but early in 1828 the Duke of Wellington became Prime Minister, and upon a motion made by Lord John Russell, a Bill was introduced for the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts. A simple declaration that an applicant for office would not compromise the Established Church, was to be substituted for the old sacramental test. During the passage of the Bill through the Lords, the City endeavoured to get certain amendments introduced, for the purpose chiefly of protecting members of the Common Council from incurring penalties and forfeitures imposed by the Bill, but in this they failed.[791]The Bill passed, and a great step towards Catholic emancipation was thus gained. The same principle which prompted the City to urge the repeal of these Acts, also prompted them in later years to petition Parliament, and themselves to pass resolutions in favour of the abolition of unnecessary oaths.[792]

The Catholic Emancipation Bill, April, 1829.

Renewed activity on the part of the Catholic Association in Ireland, and the return of O'Connell for County Clare, hastened Catholic emancipation. The question was taken up by Peel, hitherto an anti-Catholic. He succeeded in winning over the Duke of Wellington, and the latter at last persuaded the king to promise some concession at the opening of Parliament on the 5th February, 1829. The City voted Peel the Freedom in a gold box and thanked the Duke of Wellington.[793]The Common Council atthe same time presented addresses to both Houses praying them to support the measures about to be introduced.[794]A Bill, giving effect to the intentions of the Government, was brought in on the 5th March. The king who had reluctantly consented to its introduction resisted to the last, but was compelled to give way, and on the 14th April the Bill became law.

Addresses on accession of William IV, June-July, 1830.

The other pressing question of the day, viz., Parliamentary Reform, awaited settlement under a new king and a new Parliament. On the 26th June, 1830, George IV died, and his eldest surviving brother, the Duke of Clarence, was welcomed by the City as his successor under the title of William IV. The City—both Aldermen and Common Council—lost no time in presenting the usual congratulatory addresses,[795]but not a word was said on the subject that was about to move the country from one end to the other. A month later (28th July) the livery prepared a long address, in which, disclaiming "the fulsome strains of unmeaning flattery," such as they declared had been poured into the royal ear "from more than one body of men in the city of London already," they respectfully but firmly laid before the new king a representation of what they believed to be the true state of affairs. The chief grievance of the country, they said, lay in the fact that the great body of the people who paid taxes, had no control whatever over those who falsely called themselves the representatives of the people; and they expressed their long-confirmed and deep-rooted conviction that this and all other evils had arisen from the people not being properlyrepresented in the House of Commons. Notwithstanding former rebuffs they desired that their address should be received by the king on his throne. As this could not be—although the king expressed his willingness to receive it at the next levée, or through the secretary of state—the address was not presented at all.[796]

A General Election, July, 1830.

The accession of a new king necessitated the dissolution of Parliament and fresh elections. These took place amid great excitement, for already the country was agitating by means of political unions for Parliamentary reform. At their close it was found that the Government, although losing many seats, still retained a majority. No change was made in the city members.

Opening of the new parliament, 2 Nov., 1830.

When parliament met on the 2nd November, the country was on the tip-toe of expectation as to what the ministry would do. Would the Duke of Wellington continue to ignore the manifest will of the nation or would he give way? He did the first. He not only declared that the country was satisfied with the existing state of things, but he pledged himself to oppose any measure of Parliamentary reform that might be proposed by others. Here was a distinct challenge to the reformers, a challenge which they were not slow to take up. That same night Brougham, who had been returned to Parliament for Yorkshire, free of expense, gave notice that on the 16th, he would bring forward a motion for reform. Before that day arrived the ministry had resigned.

The king's visit to the city postponed.

In the meanwhile, the new king had received a cordial invitation to dine at the Guildhall on anyday most convenient, and his majesty had graciously accepted the invitation, and had named the 9th November, lord mayor's day.[797]He chose that day for the reason probably that it was customary for a new sovereign to honour the citizens with his presence on the first lord mayor's day after his accession. Extensive preparations had already been made to give the king a befitting reception, when on the 7th November, Sir Robert Peel informed the outgoing mayor by letter, that his majesty had been advised to forego his visit to the city, for fear lest his presence might give occasion to riot and tumult, and endanger the property and lives of his subjects. The fact was, that the lord mayor elect (Sir John Key) had, on his own responsibility, written to the Duke of Wellington warning him of danger. A copy of his letter was read before the Common Council on the 8th, when exception was taken to it as being "indiscreet and unauthorised." After considerable debate, a resolution was at length drawn up to the effect that in the opinion of the court "neither riot nor commotion was to be apprehended had his majesty and his royal consort ... condescended to honour the city of London with their presence; and that had evil disposed and disaffected persons made attempts to excite commotion or disturbance on that occasion, the most perfect reliance might have been placed on the good feeling and spontaneous exertions of the great mass of the population of London to co-operate with the civil power in effectually suppressing such attempts and preserving the public tranquility."[798]This was all very well. Nevertheless, in spite of allprecautions taken by the civic authorities, and although the king and his ministers, who had given so much offence by opposing the popular will, refrained from entering the city, an affray actually took place at Temple Bar, in which one of the city marshals was severely wounded in the head.[799]

Back to Index Next