London and the Kingdom Volume II Part 40

(M953)

After a brief stay in England, where he had arrived at the opening of the new year (1706), Marlborough again crossed over to Holland before the spring. A few weeks only elapsed before he gained fresh laurels by another signal defeat of the French at the little village of Ramillies (12 May, o.s.).(1915) On the 24th May the Common Council voted an address to the queen congratulating her majesty on the victory.(1916) The 27th June was set apart as a day of public thanksgiving, for which the City made the usual preparations.(1917) But seeing that these gala days followed so closely on one another the Court of Aldermen resolved that the new crimson velvet gown with which the lord mayor was furnished on these occasions at the City's expense should no longer be appropriated by him, but should be carefully laid up by the hall keeper for future use.(1918) At the humble request of the lord mayor (Sir Thomas Rawlinson) her majesty graciously consented to bestow the trophies and colours recently taken in Flanders upon the City to the intent that they might be hung up in the Guildhall.

It was not, however, until the 19th December, when the Duke of Marlborough was sumptuously entertained at Vintners' Hall, that twenty-six standards and sixty-three colours, taken at Ramillies, were brought into the city in great state, there to be displayed on the walls of the Guildhall.(1919)

(M954)

These successes were not achieved without great expenditure of blood and money. At the close of the previous year (1705) the lord mayor had received an order under the royal sign manual requiring him and the Court of Aldermen to forthwith impress 1,000 men-such as had no visible means of subsistence-for service by land or sea,(1920) whilst in the following March (1706) it was found necessary to open a subscription at Mercers'

Chapel for furnis.h.i.+ng Prince Eugene with 250,000 to a.s.sist him in carrying on the campaign in Italy. Notwithstanding the depressed state of the Corporation finances, the city abounded in wealth, and by the close of the first day no less than 160,000 of the whole loan had been underwritten, Sir Gilbert Heathcote, Sir William Scawen, Sir James Bateman and Sir Henry Furnese making themselves each responsible for the sum of 4,000.(1921) With the pecuniary a.s.sistance thus afforded him, and with the reinforcements which Marlborough despatched to him from Holland, the prince was enabled to raise the siege of Turin (7 Sept., 1706).

(M955)

It was not long before the crimson velvet gown was again brought into requisition. So great success had attended the allied armies in 1706 that the queen ordered another day of public thanksgiving to be kept on the last day of the year, when she paid another solemn visit to St. Paul's, accompanied by both Houses of Parliament. Strange to say the records of the Court of Aldermen are absolutely silent as to the preparations made for the occasion, but from another source we know them to have been on the same scale as formerly, and we may depend upon it that the crimson velvet gown was there.(1922)

(M956)

The city was at this time in great danger from the pa.s.sage of large quant.i.ties of gunpowder through the streets on its way to the Tower. One can realise the immense risk which the merchant and trader ran in pursuing his regular vocation when one reads that on the 10th July (1706) a cart with iron-bound wheels and laden with twenty-five barrels of gunpowder had been overturned on Fish Street Hill and the gunpowder scattered. Nor was this the only accident that had occurred; the wonder is that the entire city had not been blown up long since, seeing that gunpowder was a commodity dealt in by grocers! The Common Council took the matter up and made a representation to the queen.(1923) Next year a Bill was introduced into the House of Commons by Sir Gilbert Heathcote and Samuel Shepheard, two of the city members, for preventing the dangers arising from bringing or laying up quant.i.ties of gunpowder within the city and liberties, but before the Lords and Commons could come to an agreement parliament was prorogued (24 April, 1707).(1924) The munic.i.p.al authorities were not content to let matters rest here, but prepared a pet.i.tion to parliament for leave to bring in another Bill. The pet.i.tion was ordered to lie on the table (24 Feb., 1708),(1925) and in the meantime the citizens had to be satisfied with an undertaking already given by powder-makers not to carry any gunpowder to any wharf or stairs within half a mile of London Bridge.(1926)

(M957)

The Articles of Union between England and Scotland having, after prolonged discussion, been ratified by both the English and Scottish parliaments and received the formal a.s.sent of the Crown, a day of public thanksgiving (1 May, 1707) was ordered to be observed for the happy conclusion of the treaty between the two kingdoms. A proclamation had previously been issued (29 April) const.i.tuting the existing Houses of Lords and Commons the first parliament of Great Britain for and on the part of England, whilst sixteen peers and forty-five commoners were to be elected to represent Scotland in the same parliament. The first meeting was to take place at Westminster on the 23rd October.(1927) Meanwhile addresses of congratulation to the queen arrived from various parts of the kingdom; but in consequence of the Article of Union declaring the Presbyterian form to be the true Protestant religion, no such address came from the University of Oxford. It was otherwise with the city of London, where Presbyterianism had always been in favour. On the 9th May the Common Council voted an address to her majesty congratulating her upon the happy union of the two kingdoms, a blessing which Heaven (they declared) had reserved for her to accomplish, who was the true and sincere lover of piety, unity and concord.(1928)

(M958)

The Londoners entertained sincere affection for Queen Anne, and lost no opportunity of showing their loyalty. Such an opportunity presented itself in the spring of the following year (1708), when Scotland was threatened by a French invasion in favour of the Pretender. The citizens hastened to a.s.sure her that the French preparations inspired them-her majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects-with no terror. The repeated tenders of their lives and fortunes were (she was asked to believe) not empty words, but they would be ready when occasion offered to demonstrate to the world their unfeigned loyalty in support of her majesty and the maintenance of the Protestant succession against the Pretender and all other enemies at home and abroad.(1929)

(M959)

Not satisfied with mere a.s.surances of support, parliament proceeded to pa.s.s a Bill "for the better security of her majesty's person," by virtue of which the oath of abjuration was to be administered to all suspected persons, and those who refused it were to be at once treated as convict recusants. The Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, and the House of Commons engaged to make good any extra expense her majesty might be put to by reason of this threatened invasion.(1930) On Tuesday, the 30th March, a letter from the Privy Council was read before the Court of Aldermen in which the magistrates of the city were commanded to meet as soon as possible for the purpose of tendering the oath, according to the provisions of the recent Act. The court thereupon gave orders for precepts to be immediately issued to the deputies and common councilmen of the several wards requiring them to return a list in writing under their hands to the town clerk of all disaffected or dangerous persons found in their wards. The returns were to be made before the end of the week.(1931) This could have been no easy matter considering the number of particulars that were to be set out in the return according to the terms of the precept.

The deputy and common councilmen of each ward were called upon to distinguish (1) all Papists or reputed Papists, (2) all such as preached in or frequented Jacobite meetings, (3) all non-jurors, _i.e._, such as had refused to take the oaths appointed to be taken in place of the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, (4) all such as were found guilty of casting aspersions upon her majesty and the government, (5) all persons suspected of holding correspondence with her majesty's enemies abroad, and lastly (6) all spreaders of false and seditious reports. The christian names and surnames of each and all of these, together with their place of abode, were to be returned in less than a week in order that they might be summoned and have the oath tendered to them.(1932)

(M960)

On the 1st April parliament was prorogued; a fortnight later it was dissolved and writs for a new parliament were sent out on the 26th, returnable on the following 8th July.(1933) Although the Whigs again obtained a majority in the country, and although they succeeded before the end of the year in ousting all Tories from the ministry, they were losing ground in the city of London. In November last Withers, the lord mayor, had obtained Clayton's seat (on the latter's decease) in the Tory interest as already mentioned.(1934) He was again returned after a close contest with Sir Samuel Stanier, and with him another Tory in the person of John Ward, who subsequently became an alderman and sat in the first parliament of George I. The other two seats were retained by the Whigs, Ashurst and Heathcote.(1935)

(M961)

Before the elections were over news arrived of another victory gained by Marlborough. The French had been utterly defeated at Oudenarde (30 June, o.s.).(1936) The fact that the Common Council allowed some weeks to slip by before voting a congratulatory address to the queen(1937) may possibly be accounted for by the growing strength of the Tory party in the city, with whom the war was never in favour. The victory was followed before the close of the year by the capture of Lille, one of the strongest fortresses in Flanders, and the recovery of Bruges and Ghent, which had fallen into the hands of the French general, Vendome.(1938)

(M962)

The general joy which succeeded the victory of Oudenarde was damped by the somewhat sudden death of Prince George of Denmark, the queen's husband.

For some time past the prince had been suffering from asthma, but it was not until Monday, the 25th October, that graver symptoms appeared.(1939) On that day he was attacked with dropsy and haemorrhage, and the Court of Aldermen thought so seriously of the attack that three days later (28 Oct.) they instructed the City Remembrancer to repair daily to Kensington to enquire after the prince's health.(1940) That same afternoon, however, the prince died, and the City's address, presented to the queen a month later, whilst congratulating her on her victories abroad, condoled with her majesty on the loss she had sustained at home.(1941) The sad event happening so close upon lord mayor's day, when Sir Charles Duncombe was to be sworn into office, the customary pageant on such occasions was foregone, the mayor-elect contenting himself with driving to Westminster Hall attended only by some of his brother aldermen.(1942)

(M963)

After a futile attempt to arrange terms for a cessation of hostilities both parties again took the field. Tournay having been reduced by the allies under Marlborough and Eugene, they next proceeded to threaten Mons.

In order to protect this stronghold Villars, the French marshal, entrenched himself at Malplaquet. From this post, however, the allies succeeded in driving him after a "very b.l.o.o.d.y battle," in which the victors lost more men than the defeated (31 Aug., o.s.).(1943) The citizens of London, in an address to the queen, expressed their delight at the prospect of the French king being soon compelled to accept terms.(1944) Tuesday, the 22nd November, was ordered to be observed as a day of public thanksgiving for the victory of "Blaregnies," by which name the battle of Malplaquet was sometimes known.(1945)

(M964)

Before another campaign was opened the ascendancy of the Whigs had pa.s.sed away. They had rendered themselves the more obnoxious to the citizens by the pa.s.sing of an Act for the naturalization of foreign Protestants,(1946) the result of which had been to overcrowd the city with needy foreigners at a time when there was a great scarcity of provisions. A cry was raised that the price of corn and bread was being enhanced by the action of forestallers, and the lord mayor was instructed by letter from Sunderland (3 Oct., 1709) to put the law in force against all engrossers, forestallers and regraters of corn. The mayor in reply a.s.sured the secretary of state that there were no such engrossers in the city, but that the present dearness was caused by the exportation of large quant.i.ties of corn and grain to foreign countries. The city authorities had, moreover, been informed that wheat was selling in the north of England at 40_s._ a quarter and less. They therefore suggested that government should furnish a sufficient convoy for the purpose of bringing it to London.(1947) The representation as to the evils arising from exportation of corn had the desired effect, for a Bill was shortly afterwards pa.s.sed limiting such importation,(1948) whilst another Bill was pa.s.sed for regulating the a.s.size of bread.(1949)

(M965) (M966)

The bitter feeling against the Whigs engendered by their overbearing and dictatorial conduct whenever in power was increased by a sermon preached at St. Paul's on the 5th November before the lord mayor and aldermen by Dr. Sacheverell, a high church Tory. Taking for his text the words of the Apostle, "In perils among false brethren" (2 Cor., xi, 26), the preacher advocated in its entirety the doctrine of non-resistance, condemned every sort of toleration, and attacked with much bitterness the Dissenters. Sir Samuel Garrard, who had but recently entered on his duties as lord mayor (having been elected in place of Sir Jeffery Jeffreys, who had been excused from office on the ground of ill-health),(1950) was himself also a high Tory, and as such was greatly pleased with the sentiments put forth by Sacheverell. He congratulated the preacher on his sermon, and is said to have expressed a hope that it would be printed. If so, it would appear to betoken some doubt in his mind as to his brother aldermen consenting to print such a polemical discourse. As a rule all sermons preached on state occasions before the mayor and aldermen were ordered by the court to be printed as a matter of course, the sum of forty s.h.i.+llings being voted towards the expense. Two sermons recently preached before them, one at St.

Paul's and the other in the church of St. Lawrence Jewry, were so ordered (8 Nov.) to be printed by the court; but when on the same day the question was put to them that Dr. Sacheverell should be desired to print his sermon it was negatived.(1951) Sacheverell took no notice of this rebuff, but printed the sermon on his own responsibility and at his own expense, with a prefatory dedication to the mayor.(1952) The sermon was immensely popular with the high church party, and a large number of copies were circulated, much to the disgust of the Whigs.

(M967)

At length the ministry resolved to take proceedings against the author. On the 13th December a complaint was made to the House of Commons of this sermon, as well as of another sermon of similar character which had been preached by Sacheverell before the judges at the last summer a.s.sizes at Derby. After some debate the House resolved that both these sermons were "malicious, scandalous and seditious libels highly reflecting upon her majesty and her government, the late happy revolution, and the Protestant succession as by law established," and ordered that Dr. Henry Sacheverell and Henry Clements, his publisher, should attend at the Bar of the House the next day.

(M968)

Accordingly the next day (14 Dec.) the doctor and the bookseller appeared.

Sacheverell owned that he was the author of the two discourses, and gave an account of what had taken place between himself and the lord mayor; but whilst expressing his regret at having incurred the displeasure of the House, he showed no contrition for the doctrines he had promulgated. The lord mayor, who was present in the House in his capacity as member for Agmondesham, was thereupon asked if he had given any orders for causing the sermon preached at St. Paul's to be printed, but he denied having done so.(1953) The doctor being called upon to retire, the House resolved to impeach him of high crimes and misdemeanours and in the meantime committed him to the custody of the sergeant-at-arms. Application was made a few days later for bail to be allowed, but this the House refused.(1954) It was, however, subsequently granted by the Lords, but at a very high amount, viz., Sacheverell himself in 6,000 and two sureties in 3,000 respectively. One of these sureties was no other than the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, of which Sacheverell was a member.(1955)

(M969)

It was originally intended that the trial should take place at the Bar of the House of Lords, but as the Commons insisted upon being present as a committee of the whole House, the Lords appointed Westminster Hall to be the place of trial and instructed Sir Christopher Wren to make the necessary preparations as speedily as possible.(1956) The trial commenced on the 27th February and continued for three weeks. Day after day as Sacheverell pa.s.sed from his lodgings in the Temple to Westminster Hall and home again his coach was besieged by crowds striving to kiss his hand and shouting "Sacheverell and the Church for ever!" So again when the queen, impelled by curiosity, attended the trial, as she did on more than one occasion, shouts were raised as she pa.s.sed on her way of "G.o.d bless your majesty and the Church! we hope your majesty is for Dr. Sacheverell!" Had the mob confined itself to this kind of demonstration little harm had been done. Unfortunately it allowed itself to be carried away by excitement and took to attacking meeting-houses and damaging the property of Dissenters.(1957) The arguments on both sides having at last been concluded, the Lords, by a narrow majority, p.r.o.nounced Sacheverell guilty.

They did not venture, however, to proceed against him with any greater severity than to order his sermons to be burnt at the Exchange by the common hangman, in the presence of the lord mayor and sheriffs, and to prohibit him from preaching for the next three years.(1958) Such a sentence was virtually a victory for the Tories and a defeat of the Whigs.

Lord mayor Garrard contrived to escape the humiliation of presiding over the burning of a sermon of which he in his heart approved, and this part of the sentence was carried out in his absence under the supervision of the sheriffs.(1959) The verdict was welcomed in the city with illuminations and bonfires, accompanied with some little tumult and disorder. The queen complained to the Court of Aldermen by letter, and thereupon the court appointed a committee to investigate the recent riots (27 March, 1710). The result was that the ringleaders were arrested and bound over to the sessions.(1960) The streets were flooded with republican pamphlets which the House ordered to be burnt by the common hangman.(1961) Addresses were sent in from all parts of the country, some in favour of the existing parliament, but the majority advocated a speedy dissolution.(1962) The Common Council voted an address (but only by a small majority) in which her majesty was a.s.sured of the City's hatred of all "anti-monarchical principles," its continued loyalty to her person and government, its zeal for the Church of England, its tender regard for liberty of conscience and its resolution to maintain the Protestant succession. The address concluded by saying that in obedience to her majesty's commands the civic authorities would do their utmost care to prevent and suppress riotous a.s.semblies.(1963) The address, together with one from the lieutenancy of London, was presented to the queen on the 13th April.(1964)

(M970)

The queen seized the opportunity afforded her by this outburst of Tory enthusiasm to get rid of the Whig ministry. For some time past she had been anxious to free herself from Marlborough and the domineering influence of his wife. During the trial of Sacheverell Marlborough had been on the continent. In view of the approaching struggle between Whigs and Tories, both parties preferred to be relieved of his presence. To this end Sir Gilbert Heathcote, one of the Whig members for the city, had moved an address to her majesty (16 Feb.) praying she would order the duke to Holland, "where his presence will be equally necessary to a.s.sist at the negotiations of peace and to hasten the preparations for an early campaign."(1965) The address, having received the unanimous a.s.sent of both Houses, was graciously received by the queen, and Marlborough had set out.

In his absence the queen proceeded cautiously to effect her object. One by one the Whigs were removed from office and their places filled up by Tories. Sunderland was the first to go, the seals being transferred to Lord Dartmouth. It was feared in commercial circles that his dismissal betokened a general change of ministry and that a panic would follow. The queen, however, a.s.sured Sir Gilbert Heathcote, at that time governor of the Bank of England, that she had no immediate intention of making further changes, but that if any were made she would take care that they should not be prejudicial to the bank or to the common cause.(1966) Notwithstanding the a.s.surances thus given, less than two months elapsed before G.o.dolphin was made to follow Sunderland. After this many of the Whig ministers resigned, whilst others waited to be turned out.

(M971) (M972)

A few weeks after the dismissal of G.o.dolphin the queen insisted on dissolving parliament, and writs were issued (27 Sept.) for a new House to meet in November.(1967) Harley, who was the queen's chief adviser, having failed in an attempt to form a coalition of Tories and moderate Whigs, placed all his hopes in the result of a general election. Every effort was made to get a Tory majority returned, and with success. Bishop Burnet, whose Whiggish proclivities are apparent in every page of his history, took no pains to disguise his opinions as to the way the elections were generally carried out, and more particularly in the city of London. "While the poll was taken in London," he writes,(1968) "a new commission for the lieutenancy of the city was sent in, by which a great change was made; Tories were put in and Whigs were left out; in a word, the practice and violence now used in elections went far beyond anything that I have ever known in England." If freedom of election was to count for anything, the worthy bishop entertained grave doubts as to the new parliament being a representative parliament at all. Only one of the old members was returned by the city, viz., Sir William Withers. With him were elected another alderman of the city, viz., Sir Richard h.o.a.re, who had been defeated in the Tory interest at the last election, Sir George Newland and John Ca.s.s,(1969) who afterwards became an alderman, and who, at his decease, left money for the foundation of a school in the parish of St. Botoph, Aldgate.

(M973)

The new House of Commons being strongly Tory, Harley and St. John found themselves compelled to form a purely Tory ministry. On the 27th the queen delivered a speech in person, reflecting, as was supposed, the policy of the new ministry. To carry on the war with the utmost vigour was, she declared, the surest way of procuring a safe and honourable peace for England and her allies, and in February of the following year (1711) Marlborough was despatched for the avowed purpose of carrying this policy into execution, the Commons being called upon to furnish supplies. Yet in the midst of all this Harley commenced opening secret negotiations for a peace with France, regardless of the interests of England's allies. By September (1711) these negotiations had so far progressed that preliminaries for a peace were actually signed, but for fear lest the favourable terms obtained for England should provoke the jealousy of the Dutch a garbled edition of the treaty was specially prepared for the edification of our allies. Such was the political morality of the age!

(M974)

The High Church party being in power, the queen took the opportunity of enlisting their support for a project she had much at heart. For some time past the want of new churches in the fast increasing suburbs of London had engaged the attention of convocation, by whom the matter had been represented to the queen. Her majesty now commended "so good and pious a work" to the attention of the Commons, a commendation which received additional force from the presentation of pet.i.tions from ministers of various parishes in and around London for a.s.sistance in carrying out repairs. The Commons showed considerable zeal in the matter, declaring, in their reply to her majesty's address, that neither the long expensive war in which they were engaged nor the pressure of heavy debts should hinder them from granting whatever was necessary.(1970) A Bill was accordingly brought in (18 May) for the purpose of building fifty new churches, computing 4,750 souls to each church, as well as for providing annual sums of money to be expended on the completion of Westminster Abbey and Greenwich Hospital. The cost was to be defrayed by a further duty on coal.

By the 28th May the Bill pa.s.sed the Commons.(1971)

(M975)

In June (1711) parliament was prorogued and did not meet again before December. A compromise was then effected which reflected little credit upon either of the political parties, but secured the pa.s.sing of the Occasional Conformity Bill, a Bill on which the queen and the high Tories had set their hearts, but which had already been defeated twice by the Lords. The object of the Bill was to inflict penalties upon those Dissenters who, having qualified themselves to sit as common councilmen or as officers in corporations or elsewhere by receiving the Sacrament, afterwards betook themselves to places of wors.h.i.+p where the Book of Common Prayer was not used, and where neither the queen nor the Princess Sophia were prayed for.(1972)

(M976)

In September (1711) party spirit ran high in the city, the occasion being the election of an alderman for the ward of Broad Street in the place of Sir Joseph Woolfe, deceased. No less than four candidates were nominated by each side, two out of each four being already aldermen. The Tory or Church party were represented by Sir William Withers and William Lewen, aldermen, Sir George Newland and Sir Robert Dunkley, commoners. The Whigs or Dissenters advocated Sir John Houblon and Sir Samuel Stanier, aldermen, Sir John Scott and Gerrard Conyers, commoners. The wardmote was held at Drapers' Hall, and was presided over by Sir Gilbert Heathcote, the mayor, a strong Whig. It appears from a newspaper of the day(1973) that although the mayor caused the Act of Common Council, setting forth the qualifications of persons who had a right to vote on the occasion, to be read at the wardmote, he refused to make proclamation that those who were not qualified should depart from the hall. The result was that a large number of foreigners and other unqualified persons voted. The lord mayor having declared the show of hands to be in favour of the four Whig candidates, a poll was demanded, which reversed the mayor's decision. A scrutiny was next asked for and allowed, but the mayor steadily refused to express any opinion as to who of the voters were qualified and who were disqualified without first consulting counsel. The result of the scrutiny was declared (27 Oct.) by the mayor to be in favour of all four Whig candidates, and on the following day he made a report to that effect to the Court of Aldermen, who thereupon elected Gerrard Conyers alderman of the ward. The mayor's decision, however, was challenged, and a motion was made in the Queen's Bench for setting it aside as being manifestly wrong and not in accordance with the number of lawful votes. After Heathcote's year of office had expired the a.s.sistance of the Common Council was invoked in support of the rights of electors against such arbitrary proceedings as had recently taken place. The court agreed to the necessary legal expenses being defrayed by the Chamber.(1974)