FOOTNOTES:

Resolutions of Co. Co.reReform. 15 Nov., 1830.

On the 15th November, the day that the Wellington ministry received itscoup de grace, a Common Council was summoned to sit at the Mansion House, in order to consider Brougham's motion, which was to be made in parliament the following day. It then passed the following resolutions:—[800]

"Resolvedthat this court, as the representative body of the citizens of London, having at various times expressed its opinion of the propriety and necessity of a revision of the present state of the representation of the commons in parliament, is called upon in an especial manner at the present moment (after the declaration of the first minister of the crown, that the representation is satisfactory to the country), to make a renewed avowal of its conviction that the House of Commons as at present constituted is as far from being satisfactory to the country as it is from being a real representation of the people.

"Resolvedthat the power now exercised by various peers and other interested persons of returning a large portion of the members, is wholly incompatible with the true end and design of a House of Commons, which in principle and in practice, ought to be a representation not of a private, but of generalinterests, an effectual control upon taxation and the public expenditure, and the organ by which the commons of the realm may fully exercise that share in the legislature to which, by the constitution they are entitled.

"Resolvedthat petitions founded upon these resolutions, be forthwith presented to both Houses of Parliament, praying them to institute a full and faithful inquiry into the state of the representation with the view to the remedying of such defects therein as time and various encroachments have produced, so as to give real effect to the essential principles of the constitution, namely, that members of parliament shall be freely chosen, that peers shall not interfere in elections, and that in the House of Commons, the king may with truth, be said to meet his people in parliament." Before the petitions could be laid before parliament,[801]the ministry had resigned.

The Reform Bill introduced, 1 March, 1831.

The new prime minister was Lord Grey, who, as a young man, had urged the necessity of parliamentary reform as early as 1792. Among those who were content to accept office under the new ministry, although in an inferior capacity, was Lord John Russell, who had also done good service for the cause, and who was now to be entrusted with the task of introducing the long looked for Bill. On the 1st March (1831) the first Reform Bill, which for the last sixty years the City had been anxiouslyawaiting, and for which it had agitated with all the forces at its command, was at length brought in.

The Bill approved by Common Council and Livery.

As soon as the provisions of the Bill became known the Common Council, who had hitherto refrained from expressing any opinion upon the nature of the change that had taken place in the ministry, hastened to express their satisfaction to the king at the policy adopted by his new ministers;—"We beg to assure your Majesty that having long entertained a deep and increasing conviction of the necessity of a reform in the representation of the people in the Commons House of Parliament, we have looked forward with the greatest anxiety to the course which your Majesty's ministers would adopt in reference to that important subject; and we now feel ourselves imperatively called upon, humbly and dutifully, to express to your Majesty our entire satisfaction at the principles of the measure that has been introduced, under their sanction, to the Honorable House of Commons."[802]The livery, too, presented an address in much the same terms, although by the provisions of the Bill nonresident liverymen were threatened with exclusion from the franchise. The Bill, they said, afforded a clear proof of the sincerity and honesty of his majesty's ministers, and entitled them to the best thanks and lasting gratitude of the country. They further presented addresses in the same strain to both Houses of Parliament.[803]The Court of Aldermen, on the other hand, were as little enamoured of reform as the Lords, and thought it best to say nothing beyondwhat they were committed to in the address of the Common Council.

Dissolution of Parliament, 22 April, 1831.

The debate on the first reading lasted seven nights. When the second reading came on the Bill passed, but only by a bare majority. A hostile amendment was subsequently carried in committee by a majority of eight, and thereupon the government withdrew the Bill, and Parliament was dissolved in order that the question might be submitted to the country (22 April). A special Court of Common Council was summoned to meet on the 27th, when the committee which had been recently appointed to watch the proceedings in Parliament relative to the Bill, reported the fact of the dissolution, and recommended the City to place on record its "cordial gratitude" to the king for having thus given the country an opportunity of expressing its wishes. A resolution was thereupon passed to that effect. This was followed by another resolution expressing a fervent hope that at the general election about to take place all minor considerations might give way to the one great duty of promoting the country's welfare, and that only such members would be returned as would unequivocally pledge themselves to support his majesty's ministers in carrying the great question of reform to a successful issue. By so doing they would overthrow "a faction arrayed in hostility against the liberties of their country, and seeking to maintain themselves in the usurpation of a power unknown to the constitution, and no less injurious to the prerogatives of the Crown than distinctive to the legitimate rights of the People."[804]Thelord mayor had already received notice that in view of the elections which were to take place in the city on the 29th orders had been given that no troops should enter or be quartered in the city for one day at least previous to the day of election nor until one day at least after the closing of the poll. These steps were taken pursuant to Stat. 8 George II, c. 30, but the Court of Aldermen affected some surprise and the Town Clerk was instructed to ascertain whether similar orders had usually been given on the occasion of previous elections.[805]

The Reform Bill passes the Commons, 21 Sept., 1831.

The elections, which were carried on amid the greatest excitement, and no little riot and disorder, proved strongly in favour of the reformers. In the city the three aldermen, viz., Wood, Waithman and Thompson, who sat in the last Parliament, were again returned, but William Ward, who had been one of the city's representatives since 1826, was strongly advised not to put up again for fear of some personal violence being offered him,[806]and his seat was taken by Venables, another alderman. The Bill, in a slightly amended form, was again brought in, and eventually passed the Commons (21 Sept.).

The Bill rejected by the Lords, 8 Oct.

The livery of London, as well as the Common Council, had been anxious to petition the Lords to give their assent to the Bill, even before it had left the Commons. The livery, indeed, had drafted their petition two days before the Bill passed the Commons.[807]The Common Council were less precipitate, and waited until the 27th before they drew up their petition.[808]TheCourt of Aldermen again kept silence. The country waited with anxiety to see what the Lords would do. It had not long to wait. On the first reading the Bill was thrown out by a majority of forty-one (8 Oct.).

City address to the king on rejection of Bill by Lords, 8 Oct., 1831.

The opponents of the measure believed and hoped that the fate of the ministry was now sealed. The day that the Bill was rejected by the Lords another Common Council was summoned for the purpose of taking into consideration what under the circumstances was best to be done. It forthwith resolved to draw up an address to the king expressive of the City's bitter disappointment at the Lords "having turned a deaf ear to the nation's voice, and thrown out the great Bill for consolidating the peace, prosperity and liberties of the people," and of its continued confidence in his majesty's ministers. The address concluded with a solemn warning that unless the country received some assurance that a Bill, similar to that which had been just rejected, would soon be passed, nothing could prevent "the most fearful national commotions."[809]

The king's reply, 12 Oct.

The king received the address very graciously and thanked the City for its expressions of confidence and loyalty. He assured the citizens of his desire to uphold the just rights of the people, and of his determination to further the promotion of such measures as might seem best calculated for that purpose; and he concluded by recommending those present to use all their influence with their fellow citizens for the purpose of preventing acts of violence and commotion.[810]

Address of the livery, 10 Oct., 1831.

The livery were scarcely less prompt in assuring the king of their loyalty, and their confidence in the existing government:—"We venture humbly to represent to your majesty our belief that under the present trying and difficult circumstances, the security of public credit and the preservation of the public peace depend upon their continuance in office." No other ministers, they went on to say, would possess the same esteem and confidence of the country, and they only were in a position to carry the Bill.[811]At the same time they passed a vote of thanks to the ministers "for their honest, firm, and patriotic course of conduct."

Agitation in the country, Oct.-Nov., 1831.

The City's prognostications of evil arising out of the Lords' refusal to bow to the will of the nation were fully justified. The streets of London and other large towns became the scenes of disorderly riots. At Derby the houses of those opposed to reform were attacked by the mob and their windows smashed. The ancient castle of Nottingham, once a royal residence, was fired and reduced to a pile of smoking ruins. At Birmingham a meeting was held at which those who were present pledged themselves to pay no taxes if the Reform Bill were again rejected,[812]whilst at Bristol, nearly a whole square was burnt by the mob.[813]The political unions that had sprung up all over the country resolved to increase their strength by the formation of a National Political Union, which should have its head-quarters in London. To this end, a meeting washeld in Lincoln's Inn Fields, on the 31st of October, with Sir Francis Burdett in the chair. The proceedings, however, took such a radical turn that before long Burdett withdrew his name from the association. The government, too, became alarmed at the prospect of a meeting announced to be held on the 7th November. Orders were given to swear in special constables, the whole of the recently established (1829) police force was to be held in readiness, and a large body of troops was quartered in the neighbourhood of the capital ready to put down any disturbance that might arise. On the 4th November—three days before the proposed meeting—a royal proclamation was read before the Court of Aldermen calling upon all his majesty's liege subjects to assist the civil magistrates in putting down disturbances as soon as any should appear, and to aid in the preservation of the peace. Thereupon a resolution was passed to the effect that each member of the Court in his respective ward should immediately enroll and swear in a number of special constables to assist the magistracy upon any tumult, riot, outrage or breach of the peace occurring within the city.[814]Thanks to the precautions thus taken, and to the advice given to the leaders of the movement by Lord Melbourne, the meeting was not held.[815]

Votes of thanks to Sir John Key, mayor, Nov., 1831.

On the 9th November, Sir John Key, the lord mayor, entered upon his second year of office, having been re-elected by the livery, and forced upon theCourt of Aldermen for a second term.[816]The Common Council, as was usual, acknowledged his services of the past year, and more particularly his "vigilant superintendence of the police," which had conduced so much to the peace of the city, with a formal vote of thanks.[817]Two days previously (15 Nov.), when a similar vote had been proposed in the Court of Aldermen, it failed to pass for lack of aquorum,[818]and the matter was allowed to drop. The livery had already tendered him their thanks, not only for the zeal he had displayed in the cause of parliamentary reform, but also for his consenting to undertake another year of office and for upholding the election rights of the livery against the "secret tribunal" of the Court of Aldermen.[819]

Lords Grey and Althorp voted the Freedom of the City, 26 April, 1832.

On the 12th December (1831) the Bill was again brought in by Lord John Russell and on the 23rd March (1832), it passed the Commons. The second reading of the Bill took place in the Lords on the 14th April, and was carried by a majority of nine; after which both Houses rose for the Easter recess. Before they met again the Common Council had voted Earl Grey and Viscount Althorp, the chancellor of the exchequer, the Freedom of the City, (both of whom graciously acknowledged thecompliment), and had drawn up a petition to the Lords, to be presented by the Duke of Sussex, praying them to pass the Bill with the least possible delay.[820]

Resignation of the ministry, 9 May, 1832.

When, after the recess, the Bill came again before the Lords (7 May), the government found themselves beaten on an amendment introduced by Lord Lyndhurst, who had been chancellor in Wellington's ministry.[821]Grey who had been constantly urged to advise the king to create a sufficient number of new peers to insure the passing of the Bill, now asked him to cut the Gordian knot by the creation of fifty new peers. The king, however, was becoming frightened at the determined attitude of the country, and declined. Thereupon the minister tendered his resignation (9 May).

City petition to Parliament, 10 May, 1832.

The news that the ministers had resigned was received with howls of indignation throughout the country. The papers appeared with a black edge of deep mourning. The National Union decreed that whoever should advise a dissolution was an enemy to the country. The day following the resignation of the government a special Court of Common Council met and drew up a petition to the House of Commons, expressing their mortification and disappointment at finding that his majesty had refused his ministers the means of carrying the Bill through the House of Lords. They, too, like the National Union, were of opinion that whoever advised his majesty to withhold from his ministers the means of ensuring the success of the Reform Bill, had proved themselves the enemies of their sovereign, and had "put to imminenthazard the stability of the throne, and the tranquillity and security of the country," and they prayed the House to withhold all supplies until the Bill had passed.[822]The city members and those of the Common Council who had seats in Parliament were urged to support the prayer of the petition, and to decline voting any supplies until the Reform Bill should have been satisfactorily secured, and a joint committee of all the aldermen and commoners of the city was appointed to sit from day to day, to promote the object they had so much at heart.[823]

Proceedings of Common Hall, 11 May, 1832.

The next day (11 May), the livery met in Common Hall and drew up an address to the king. The defeat of the Bill, to pass which the electors of the country had specially sent their representatives to Parliament—the defeat of the Bill by a small majority in the House of Lords, had (they said), "spread terror and dismay" among his majesty's subjects, and threatened the credit, the tranquillity, the institutions of the country. At such a crisis the livery of London could not do less than pray his majesty to "adopt such measures as are provided by the constitution" (in other words, create a sufficient number of peers) for the purpose of removing all obstacles to the Bill.[824]Not content with appealing to the king, they called upon the House of Commons to exercise their right, given them for the good and welfare of the nation, and to refuse any further supplies until the Bill should have become law.[825]They, further, passed a number of resolutions upholding the conduct of Lord Grey and his colleaguesin the ministry, and condemning those, who like the Duke of Wellington and others, were at that moment attempting "to mislead and delude the people by pretended plans of reform," after defeating "the people's Bill."[826]

Another City address to the king, 14 May, 1832.

For a whole week the country was kept in a state of suspense, anxiously waiting to see whether the Duke of Wellington, who had declared his willingness to accept office and to give his support to a less complete measure of reform, would succeed in forming an administration or not. Whilst negotiations were being carried on the Common Council met (14 May), and drew up a long and strongly-worded address ending with a declaration that they—the lord mayor, aldermen and Common Council of the city of London—would be wanting in their duty to themselves and to posterity, if they did not express their overwhelming sorrow at the resignation of his majesty's late honest ministers, and their serious apprehension that unless Lord Grey and his colleagues were promptly recalled and allowed to pass the Reform Bill unmutilated and unimpaired, the country would witness those "calamities which have affected other nations when struggling to be free."[827]There would, in fact, be a revolution, such as had been witnessed in France at the close of the last century.

Re-call of Earl Grey's ministry, 18 May, 1832.

When the sheriffs applied for an appointment to be made for the reception of the address, they were put off from time to time. Thereupon, the matter was taken up by the recently appointed joint committee, and on the 18th, they had an interviewwith Earl Grey, but by that time matters had been accommodated, and there was no longer any occasion for presenting the address. The Duke of Wellington had three days before (15 May), communicated to the king his inability to form a ministry, and on the evening of the 18th, formal announcement was made to both houses that Earl Grey and his colleagues had been recalled and were in a position to carry through the Bill unimpaired in efficiency and without mutilation.[828]The Common Council took an early opportunity of expressing their utmost satisfaction at the turn of affairs, and passed resolutions to that effect, which were ordered to be delivered to the secretary of state, and also to be published in all the morning and evening newspapers.[829]

The Reform Bill becomes law, 7 June, 1832.

The question naturally arose whence this confidence of the recalled ministry? Was the House of Lords to be swamped by the creation of a batch of new peers, or had an arrangement been made for securing the withdrawal of the requisite number of opposition peers? The answer was soon forthcoming. When the Bill again came before the lords, the Duke of Wellington left the house, and was followed by about a hundred other peers. The bishops withdrew in a body, and the Bill, with some trifling alterations, which the Commons readily accepted, was passed by a large majority (4 June), and three days later received the royal assent.

The rights of the livery saved.

The Bill as introduced in December last, had to undergo some alterations in order that the proposed plan of reform might embrace the livery franchisepeculiar to the city of London. The necessity of amendments in this direction did not escape the attention of the committee appointed on the 21st April (1831), to watch the course of the Reform Bill and to give support to Earl Grey's ministry; and the day after the Bill had received the royal assent, this committee had the satisfaction of reporting to the Common Council that the most important of the amendments proposed by them had been adopted and introduced in the Act.[830]

Celebration of Reform at Guildhall, 11 July, 1832.

The citizens were immensely pleased at the success which, after so long a struggle, had at last attended their efforts to secure a better representation of the people in the House of Commons. The measure was not and could not be final, but it was a step, and a long step in the right direction, and as such, the Common Council resolved that it should be publicly celebrated, and honour given to those to whom honour was due in effecting its accomplishment. An Irish and a Scottish Reform Bill were still before parliament, but as the passing of these measures was looked upon as a foregone conclusion, they were not allowed to stand in the way of the City's proposed celebration of the passing of the English Bill. Earl Grey and Lord Althorp had not yet received the Freedom of the City voted in April last. It was therefore arranged that the Freedom should be conferred upon these ministers with all the pomp and ceremony that befitted the occasion on Wednesday, the 11th July,[831]and thatthe presentation should be followed by an entertainment at the Guildhall, given to all those members of the House of Commons who had voted for the third reading of the Bill, as well as to those peers who had voted against Lord Lyndhurst's amendment, and such other noblemen and gentlemen as had lent their aid to the cause. In acknowledging the honour conferred upon him Earl Grey paid befitting tribute to the City's influence in the commercial world, its loyalty to the constitution, and its love of freedom "never more conspicuously manifested" than during recent events.[832]A book containing the autographs of the principal guests, among whom was the Duke of Sussex, is preserved in the Guildhall library, as well as a medal struck in commemoration of the passing of the Bill.[833]

A retrospect.

With this signal triumph of the people, to which the city of London had contributed so much, the present work is brought to a close. No good end would be served by entering the domain of contemporary politics. Enough has been set out in these pages to convince the impartial reader that the city of London is no mean city; that it possesses a record equal, if not indeed superior, to that of any other city in the Universe, ancient or modern, and that its wealth and influence have ever been devoted to the cause of religious, social and political freedom. Notwithstanding anything its detractors may say, the City has not only marched with the age, it has for the most part been a leader of public opinion, and has shown itself in advance of theage. It is to three notable aldermen of the city, viz., Oliver, Crosby, and Wilkes, be it remembered, that the country is indebted for the liberty of the press, and the freedom of reporting Parliamentary debates, so long jealously withheld. Had it not been for the determined attitude of these aldermen the country might have waited still longer for Parliament to be brought to realise that its proceedings are (so to speak) public property. It was Wilkes, again, and his brother aldermen who made a successful stand against the pernicious, if lawful, custom of pressing men for the king's service, the result being that whilst the rest of the kingdom was over-run with press-gangs, the city of London was quit of them, or if any ventured to seize the person of a citizen, they were soon made to surrender their prey.

Enfranchisement of Jews.

If other evidence, beyond what appears in these pages, were wanting in proof of the enlightened policy pursued by the Corporation of London, it will be found in the fact that Jews were enfranchised and admitted into the city's council and to all municipal offices long before they gained admission into the council of the nation. In December, 1830, the Common Council passed a Bill for extending the Freedom of the City to all natural born subjects, not professing the Christian religion but in other respects qualified, upon their taking the Freeman's oath according to the forms of their own religion.[834]Five years later David Salomons, a Jew, was admitted to the shrievalty. In 1847 he was elected alderman, and in 1855 became lord mayor. In the meanwhile, repeated attempts had been made to get Parliament to pass a Bill for altering the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, in such a manner thatJews might be relieved of the necessity of making a declaration "upon the true faith of a Christian." The House of Commons had again and again passed Bills to this effect, but they had always been rejected by the Lords, who steadily refused to give their assent to the admission of Jews, notwithstanding the entreaties of the city of London.[835]The election of Alderman Salomons to the mayoralty was regarded by the livery of London as "a triumph to liberal principles," and as affording a prospect "of the ultimate triumph of the cause of toleration by the admission of the members of the Jewish persuasion to the legislature, and the highest offices of the State."[836]Their hopes were now destined to be soon realised. A compromise was at last effected, and three years later (23 July, 1858), a Bill was passed allowing either House by a resolution to modify the form of oath required from its members.

Baron Rothschild, M.P., for the City.

For years the City had been content to suffer for its principles. Ever since 1847 it had continued to return a Jew to Parliament, in the person of Baron Lionel Rothschild, in spite of the fact that he was not allowed to take his seat. As soon however as the Bill became law, the House of Commons passed the necessary resolution, and on the 26th April the Baron took his seat, and the City recovered its full representation in Parliament. Both Alderman Salomons and Baron Rothschild commemorated their respective victories by endowing scholarships in the City of London School, open to candidates of every religious persuasion; and a like scholarship was founded by acommittee known as the "Committee of the Jewish Commemoration Fund."[837]

The City's finances.

The city of London was, as we have seen, known in earliest times as the king's "Chamber," and the Chamberlain was the king's officer. The City in fact served as the purse of the nation, until such time as the establishment of the Bank of England did away with the necessity of direct applications to the Corporation for loans, to enable the government of the kingdom to be carried on. Like the nation itself, the City has had its times of pecuniary distress, and nothing but the most careful nursing of its estate has enabled it to tide over its difficulties. More especially was this the case at the close of the civil war, and again, for some years after the Great Fire, as well as at the commencement of the reign of Queen Anne.

The City's public spirit.

The City has not wasted its substance. Large sums have been expended upon local improvements, upon the erection of markets, upon bridges, not forgetting that latest marvel of engineering skill, the Tower Bridge, upon the City's schools, upon the erection of the Guildhall library with its adjacent Museum and Art Gallery, as well as upon the establishment and maintenance of one of the most successful Schools of Music ever known in this country. At the close of the year 1882, the Corporation had, within a comparatively recent period, expended nearly six and a half millions, out of its own funds, upon improvements within the city and liberties—improvements which benefited the inhabitants of the metropolis generally no less than the citizensthemselves.[838]Nor has the Corporation stayed its hand at the city's boundaries. During the short period of ten years preceding 1882, a sum of more than £300,000 was expended out of the city's cash for providing open spaces for the people, including Epping Forest, Wanstead Park, West Ham Park, and Burnham Beeches, but irrespective of the later acquisitions of Coulsdon and other adjacent commons in the county of Surrey, since dedicated to the public.[839]An area exceeding 6,000 acres in all, has thus been preserved for posterity and placed beyond risk of purprestures and encroachments.

The City and the Metropolitan Board of Works.

From the time when the Metropolitan Board of Works was first established in 1855, down to its disestablishment in 1889, the Corporation contributed large sums of money to assist that body in carrying out the stupendous work of the Thames Embankment, a work of which Londoners may well be proud, and were engaged jointly with the Board in freeing from toll the bridges of Staines, Walton, Hampton Court, Kingston and Kew, on the Thames, as well as Tottenham Mills and Chingford bridges on the Lea.

Abolition of coal and wine dues, 1889.

Since the abolition of the coal and wine dues in 1889, the whole of which had been devoted to carrying out improvements, erecting public buildings, and freeing bridges, in and near the metropolis,[840]the work of the Corporation, as well as of the London County Council(the successor to the Metropolitan Board of Works), in this direction has been sorely crippled. It was popularly supposed that the coal dues affected the price of coal and gas, and that as soon as the dues were abolished the price of these commodities would at once go down. The result has proved to be far otherwise. An income of more than half a million sterling, produced in such a way as to afford the minimum of burden to the taxpayer, and expended in such a way as to produce the maximum of benefit to the whole of the metropolis, has been lost to the City and the London County Council, whilst the consumer not only pays the same price as before for his coal and gas (the middle-man pocketing the tax), but finds himself saddled with an increased rate.

The City as Port sanitary authority.

One more remark and we have done. As conservators of the river Thames, the Corporation did much to improve its navigation, but in 1857 the conservancy was taken away from the City and became vested in a board. In 1872, however, the Corporation became the sanitary authority of the Port of London under somewhat remarkable circumstances. When the Public Health Bill of that year was framed, the Local Government Board long hesitated as to whom the duty of acting as the sanitary authority of the Port of London should be committed. At the last moment the Corporation stept in and volunteered to undertake the duty free of expense. The government readily accepted the offer, and to this patriotic act on the part of the municipality as well as to the energy of its executive officers, it is largely due that this vast metropolis enjoys comparative immunity fromcholera and zymotic diseases and that the city itself, besides being the best paved and the best lighted, is also the most healthy city in the civilised world.

END OF VOL III.

FOOTNOTES:[789]Journal 72, fo. 70.[790]Journal 101, fos. 174-177, 180.[791]Journal 102, fos. 152-153.[792]Journal 104, fos. 196b-198b. Journal 106, fos. 236-237, 239b-241b.[793]Journal 102, fos. 377-377b.[794]Journal 102, fos. 376-376b.[795]Journal 104, fo. 201. Repertory 234, fo. 743.[796]Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 274-280, 283-284.[797]Journal 104, fos. 321-322, 323.[798]Id., fos. 364b-366.[799]Repertory 235, fo. 13.[800]Journal 104, fo. 374.[801]The petition to the commons was presented on the 16th Nov.—the day that the Duke of Wellington resigned; that to the lords on the 25th.—Journal House of Commons, lxxxvi, pt. 1, 87; Journal House of Lords, lxiii, 128.[802]Journal 105, fo. 133.[803]Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 295-299.[804]Journal 105, fos. 258-259b.[805]Repertory 235, fos. 376, 377.[806]Annual Register lxxiii, 154.[807]Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 304-306.[808]Journal 105, fos. 376-377, 379b-380, 387b-389.[809]Journal 105, fos. 389b-391b.[810]Id., fo. 392.[811]Common Hall Book, No. 10, fo. 312.[812]Annual Register lxxiii, 281, 282.[813]Id., lxxiii, 291-294.[814]Repertory 235, fos. 711-714.[815]Annual Register lxxiii, 296, 297.[816]On Michaelmas-day the livery returned Key and Alderman Thorp. The Court of Aldermen selected Thorp, but he declined to take office. At a subsequent election the livery again returned Key and with him Alderman Thompson. The Court of Aldermen thereupon called upon Thompson, but he also declined to serve, and a third election had to take place. Again Key was returned, together with Alderman Kelly, and the Court of Aldermen finding the livery bent on having their own way, selected Key.—Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 308-310, 313-320.[817]Journal 106, fo. 1.[818]Repertory 236, fos. 4, 5.[819]Common Hall Book, No. 10, fo. 320.[820]Journal 106, fos. 245b-248.[821]Annual Register lxxiv, 155.[822]Journal 106, fos. 275-276.[823]Id., fo. 276b.[824]Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 327-332.[825]Id., fos. 332-333.[826]Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 328-329.[827]Journal 106, fos. 280b-283.[828]Journal 106, fos. 326b-328. Annual Register lxxiv, 175, 185.[829]Journal 106, fos. 328-328b.[830]Journal 106, fos. 377-377b.[831]Just a twelvemonth had elapsed since the freedom had been conferred on Lord John Russell (9 July, 1831), for undertaking the introduction of the Reform Bill. Ten years later (1841), he was returned as one of the members for the city, and continued to represent it until his elevation to the peerage.[832]Journal 106, fos. 378-379b. Journal 107, fos. 119b-129b.[833]For description of this medal and of other medals struck from time to time by order of the Corporation, seeNumismata Londinensia, edited with descriptive notes by Mr. Charles Welch, F.S.A., the Guildhall Librarian, (London, 1894).[834]Journal 105, fos. 5-6.[835]Journal 126, fo. 31. Journal 127, fo. 345. Journal 129, fo. 379.[836]Common Hall Book, No. 10, fo. 637.[837]Hust. Roll, 372 (2), 373 (3), (4).[838]See prefatory note to returns made by the Chamberlain pursuant to an order of the Court of Common Council, 26 Oct., 1882. (Printed.)[839]Chamberlain's returns (Sup.).—"Expenditure for benefit of metropolis, etc." pp. 12, 13.[840]For a list of metropolitan improvements and public works carried out by means of these dues, see "Ten years' growth of the City of London"—being a report of local government and taxation committee of the Corporation (1891), James Salmon, Esq., Chairman, pp. 130-139.

[789]Journal 72, fo. 70.

[790]Journal 101, fos. 174-177, 180.

[791]Journal 102, fos. 152-153.

[792]Journal 104, fos. 196b-198b. Journal 106, fos. 236-237, 239b-241b.

[793]Journal 102, fos. 377-377b.

[794]Journal 102, fos. 376-376b.

[795]Journal 104, fo. 201. Repertory 234, fo. 743.

[796]Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 274-280, 283-284.

[797]Journal 104, fos. 321-322, 323.

[798]Id., fos. 364b-366.

[799]Repertory 235, fo. 13.

[800]Journal 104, fo. 374.

[801]The petition to the commons was presented on the 16th Nov.—the day that the Duke of Wellington resigned; that to the lords on the 25th.—Journal House of Commons, lxxxvi, pt. 1, 87; Journal House of Lords, lxiii, 128.

[802]Journal 105, fo. 133.

[803]Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 295-299.

[804]Journal 105, fos. 258-259b.

[805]Repertory 235, fos. 376, 377.

[806]Annual Register lxxiii, 154.

[807]Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 304-306.

[808]Journal 105, fos. 376-377, 379b-380, 387b-389.

[809]Journal 105, fos. 389b-391b.

[810]Id., fo. 392.

[811]Common Hall Book, No. 10, fo. 312.

[812]Annual Register lxxiii, 281, 282.

[813]Id., lxxiii, 291-294.

[814]Repertory 235, fos. 711-714.

[815]Annual Register lxxiii, 296, 297.

[816]On Michaelmas-day the livery returned Key and Alderman Thorp. The Court of Aldermen selected Thorp, but he declined to take office. At a subsequent election the livery again returned Key and with him Alderman Thompson. The Court of Aldermen thereupon called upon Thompson, but he also declined to serve, and a third election had to take place. Again Key was returned, together with Alderman Kelly, and the Court of Aldermen finding the livery bent on having their own way, selected Key.—Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 308-310, 313-320.

[817]Journal 106, fo. 1.

[818]Repertory 236, fos. 4, 5.

[819]Common Hall Book, No. 10, fo. 320.

[820]Journal 106, fos. 245b-248.

[821]Annual Register lxxiv, 155.

[822]Journal 106, fos. 275-276.

[823]Id., fo. 276b.

[824]Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 327-332.

[825]Id., fos. 332-333.

[826]Common Hall Book, No. 10, fos. 328-329.

[827]Journal 106, fos. 280b-283.

[828]Journal 106, fos. 326b-328. Annual Register lxxiv, 175, 185.

[829]Journal 106, fos. 328-328b.

[830]Journal 106, fos. 377-377b.

[831]Just a twelvemonth had elapsed since the freedom had been conferred on Lord John Russell (9 July, 1831), for undertaking the introduction of the Reform Bill. Ten years later (1841), he was returned as one of the members for the city, and continued to represent it until his elevation to the peerage.

[832]Journal 106, fos. 378-379b. Journal 107, fos. 119b-129b.

[833]For description of this medal and of other medals struck from time to time by order of the Corporation, seeNumismata Londinensia, edited with descriptive notes by Mr. Charles Welch, F.S.A., the Guildhall Librarian, (London, 1894).

[834]Journal 105, fos. 5-6.

[835]Journal 126, fo. 31. Journal 127, fo. 345. Journal 129, fo. 379.

[836]Common Hall Book, No. 10, fo. 637.

[837]Hust. Roll, 372 (2), 373 (3), (4).

[838]See prefatory note to returns made by the Chamberlain pursuant to an order of the Court of Common Council, 26 Oct., 1882. (Printed.)

[839]Chamberlain's returns (Sup.).—"Expenditure for benefit of metropolis, etc." pp. 12, 13.

[840]For a list of metropolitan improvements and public works carried out by means of these dues, see "Ten years' growth of the City of London"—being a report of local government and taxation committee of the Corporation (1891), James Salmon, Esq., Chairman, pp. 130-139.

Back to Index Next