(M908)

The funeral did not take place until the 6th March (1695). In antic.i.p.ation of that event the Court of Aldermen had some time since (18 Jan.) appointed a committee to consider of the right and t.i.tle of the lord mayor, aldermen and sheriffs of the city to their mourning and their places in the funeral procession, as also of the mourning due to the several officers of the city. Four days later (22 Jan.) the committee reported(1813) to the effect that they had found from the records of the city that it had been the custom for the lord mayor, aldermen, recorder, sheriffs and the princ.i.p.al and other officers of the city to have mourning allowed them by the Crown at the public interments of kings and queens, but as to the places and precedency of the lord mayor and aldermen on those occasions the committee had only found one instance of a funeral procession, and that was at the funeral of Henry VII, when it appeared that the aldermen walked "next after the knights and before the great chaplains of dignitys and the knights of the garter being noe lords." The lord mayor (the report went on to say) was not named in the procession, but at the ma.s.s and offering at the interment it appeared that the lord mayor, with his mace in hand, offered next after the lord chamberlain, and the aldermen who had been mayors offered next to the knights of the garter and before the knights of the body, after whom came those aldermen who had not been lord mayor.(1814) The committee concluded their report by recommending that a deputation should wait upon the Privy Council and a.s.sert the right of the Court of Aldermen to mourning. The representation thereupon made had the desired effect and the usual mourning was allowed by warrant (29 Jan.).(1815) The citizens marked their respect for the late queen by shutting up their shops on the day of the funeral.(1816)

(M909)

The session of 1695 of William's first parliament was signalised by the discovery of a system of wholesale corruption. That every man had his price was scarcely less true in William's day than it was in the later age of Sir Robert Walpole. The discovery of one delinquent guilty of receiving money for services, real or supposed, quickly led to another, until suspicion turned upon the City of London itself. A rumour rapidly gained ground to the effect that the funds of the City as well as those of the East India Company had been largely employed in winning the favour of men in power, and the name of Sir John Trevor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, was mentioned among others.

(M910)

On the 7th March the House appointed a committee to investigate the matter, with power to send for persons and papers.(1817) On the 12th the committee reported to the House that they had discovered an order of a committee appointed by the Corporation for the purpose of seeing the Orphans' Bill through parliament, dated the 12th February, 1694, authorising the payment of 1,000 guineas to the Speaker, Sir John Trevor, as soon as the Bill should pa.s.s. This order, they said, was signed by every member of the committee except Sir James Houblon and Mr. Deputy Ayres, and was endorsed to the effect that the money had been delivered and paid to the Hon. Sir John Trevor on the 22nd June, 1694, in the presence of Sir Robert Clayton and Sir James Houblon, brother of Sir John.(1818) When summoned to account for his having refused to sign the order of the committee whilst allowing himself to witness the actual payment of the money to the Speaker, Sir James excused himself by saying that he had accompanied Sir Robert Clayton, at the latter's request, professedly for the purpose of thanking the Speaker for his pains about the Orphans' Bill; that this being done, the Chamberlain, who had gone with them, pulled out a note or bill which he handed to the Speaker, but as to the nature of the note or bill Houblon declared himself to have been ignorant until subsequently informed by the Chamberlain. Other members of the Corporation Committee also gave evidence as to the warrant for payment of the money having been originally made out with a blank s.p.a.ce left for the name of the payee. The report further declared that sums of money had been paid to Paul G.o.drell, clerk of the House of Commons, to the city solicitor, the solicitor-general and the chairman of the Corporation Committee in respect of the Orphans' Bill, whilst the orphans themselves had been prevailed upon to give security for the payment of five per cent.

on their whole property to certain other parties who professed to be able to render valuable services in the event of the Bill being pa.s.sed.(1819)

(M911)

By the time that the reading of the committee's report to the House was finished it was growing dusk, and candles were called for. A resolution was then moved and put to the house by Trevor himself, that the Speaker, by receiving a gratuity of 1,000 guineas from the city of London after pa.s.sing of the Orphans' Bill, had been guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour. The resolution was pa.s.sed, and four days later (16 March) Trevor was expelled the House.(1820)

(M912)

A month later (18 April) the House of Lords were busy investigating the conduct of the Marquis of Normanby in accepting, and of the Corporation of the City in granting, a lease of a certain plot of land lying behind Clarendon House, part of the City's estate known as Conduit Mead. It was shown by oral and doc.u.mentary evidence that a longer lease than usual had recently been granted (Jan., 1695) to the marquis as "a gratification," he being a person of distinction who had shown himself very friendly to the interests of the City and likely to continue so.(1821) Negotiations for a lease had been commenced so far back as January, 1694, "before the Orphans' Bill was on the anvill in the House of Commons."(1822) It was not denied that the City entertained the hope that the marquis would use his interest in expediting the pa.s.sage of the Bill, and that this hope had been realised. On the other hand it was shown that when the marquis learnt that one of the conditions of the lease was that he should "covenant" to procure an Act of Parliament for settling some doubts of t.i.tle to the land conveyed, he at once declared that such a thing was not in his power, but lay with the king, the lords and the commons; nevertheless, he consented to use his best endeavours in that direction. The marquis, it was said, had also been indiscreet enough to divulge certain proceedings of the House of Lords in the matter of the Convex Lights, and this formed the subject of an investigation by the House at the same time as the granting of this lease. After careful consideration the House entirely acquitted his lordship of blame in both cases.(1823)

(M913)

In considering the City's action in respect of the Orphans' Bill we must not forget to take into account the condition of the age. It was one in which peculation and venality were predominant. Nearly every official who was worth the buying could be bought, and the world thought none the worse of him provided that these pecuniary transactions were kept decently veiled. The "gifts and rewards" bestowed by the City with the object of expediting the pa.s.sage of the Orphans' Bill were as nothing compared with the vast sums which the East India Company was reported to have disbursed in order to obtain the confirmation of its charter. It was the practice when Sir Thomas Cook was in power for the directors of the company to sign warrants for any sum that he might require without demanding particulars from him. In seven years (1688-1694) more than 100,000 had been disposed of for the company's "special service," nearly 90,000 of which had been disbursed whilst Cook was governor (1692-1693).(1824)

(M914)

A parliamentary committee endeavoured to obtain some account as to how this large sum of money had been expended, but could learn nothing more than that it had been spent on the "special service" of the company and that a great part of it had been entrusted to Sir Basil Firebrace.(1825) Firebrace denied this, but confessed to having received upwards of 16,000 for which he had accounted to the company. The committee's report proceeded to inform the House that the company had spent considerable sums of money, under the guise of contracts, in buying up the interests of "interlopers" and getting them to join the company. They had found Sir Samuel Dashwood, Sir John Fleet, Sir Thomas Cook (all aldermen of the city), Sir Joseph Herne and John Perry to have been cognisant of these proceedings, but they being members of parliament the committee did not think fit to send for or examine them.(1826) Acting upon the committee's report, the House called upon Sir Thomas Cook (26 March) to give an account of the sum of 87,000 which he had received of the company's money, and upon his refusing committed him to the Tower.(1827) A Bill was within a few days introduced into the House for compelling Cook to make disclosure and rapidly pa.s.sed (6 April).(1828) In the Upper House the Bill met with the strongest denunciation by the Duke of Leeds (who saw in it considerable danger to himself), as also by Cook himself, who was brought from the Tower for the purpose of allowing him to plead against the pa.s.sing of such a Bill. At the Bar of the House the latter earnestly implored the Peers not to pa.s.s the Bill in its present form. Let them pa.s.s a Bill of Indemnity and he would tell them all. The Lords considered his request reasonable, and after a conference with the Lower House it was agreed that the Bill should take the form of an Indemnity Bill, and so it was pa.s.sed (19 April), a joint committee of both Houses being appointed to examine Cook and others.(1829)

(M915)

His examination, which took place in the Exchequer Chamber on the 23rd April, confirmed the committee's previous suspicions.(1830) The sum of 10,000 had been paid (he said) to Sir Basil Firebrace about November, 1693, when the charter of the East India Company had been confirmed, and he had always been under the apprehension that Firebrace had pocketed the money "to recompense his losses in the interloping trade." A further sum of 30,000 had been paid to Firebrace on various contracts. There had been a contract involving the payment of 60,000 on account of procuring a new charter, and another of the value of 40,000 on account of getting the charter sanctioned by an Act of Parliament, but as no Act was pa.s.sed this latter contract fell through. There was a further sum of 30,000 which had been lost to the company on account of certain stock it had agreed to purchase from Firebrace at the price of 150 per cent. at a time when the company's stock was standing at par. Firebrace had always refused to give him any account as to how this money was disposed of, and had declared that "if he were further pressed he would have no more to do in it." Such was the sum and substance of Cook's confession so far as it affected Firebrace.

(M916)

The next day (24 April) Firebrace appeared before the committee. As to the 10,000 he had received from Cook, that was (he said) a gratuity which had been given to him before the granting of the charter. The other sum of 30,000 was due on a contract "for favours and services done." He was positive that both sums were intended "directly for himself and for the use of no other person whatsoever"; that he paid nothing thereout towards procuring either charter or Act, nor had promised to do so. He acknowledged himself to have been very active in his endeavours to gain over interlopers, and to improve the stock of the company, but when pressed by the committee for particulars he asked to be excused giving an immediate answer on the score of ill-health; he had not slept for two nights and was much indisposed.(1831) On the 25th and following day he was well enough to volunteer further evidence incriminating the Duke of Leeds.

He told the committee of an interview he (Firebrace) had had with Sir Thomas Cook, when the latter expressed his apprehension lest the pa.s.sing the East India Company's charter should be opposed by the lord president.

They had then agreed to endeavour to win his lordship's favour by an offer of 5,000 guineas. That sum had been actually left at the duke's house, and it was only returned on the morning the enquiry opened. After the payment of the money both Cook and himself had enjoyed free access to the duke and found him willing to give them his a.s.sistance.(1832)

(M917)

Among others who gave evidence was Child himself, who acknowledged that he had suggested an offer of 50,000 to the king in order to induce his majesty to waive his prerogative and allow the company to be settled by Act of Parliament. William, however, was impervious to a bribe and declined to meddle in the matter.

(M918)

The result of the enquiry was that the Duke of Leeds was ordered to be impeached, whilst Firebrace and Cook were committed to the Tower.(1833) They recovered their liberty in April, 1696, and in July, 1698, Firebrace was created a baronet.(1834)

(M919)

In July, 1702, the rival companies were content to sink their differences, and a union was effected.(1835) Shortly before this took place the Old Company voted the sum of 12,000 as a free gift to Cook for his past services.(1836) Firebrace, who had used his best endeavours to bring about the union, brought an action against the Old Company for compensation for his services, but consented to drop all proceedings on receiving stock in the company to the amount of 10,000.(1837) In 1704 Cook was elected mayor, but the state of his health not allowing him to serve, he was discharged. He died in September, 1709.(1838)

(M920)

On Sunday the 12th May, 1695, William again set out for the continent, and did not return until the 10th October. The great feature of the campaign was the brilliant siege and recovery of the town of Namur, which had been lost to the allied forces three years before. Baulked in a proposed design against the king's person by his unexpected departure, the Jacobites had to content themselves with other measures. On the 10th June, the birthday of the unfortunate Prince of Wales, a number of them met at a tavern in Drury Lane. Excited by wine they sallied forth, with drums beating and colours flying, and insisted on pa.s.sers by drinking the prince's health.

This roused the indignation of the neighbours, who sacked the tavern and put the revellers to flight, one of the ringleaders being seized and afterwards committed to Newgate.(1839) When, in the following August, the whole of London was on the tiptoe of excitement, waiting for news of the fall of Namur, the citizens were suddenly amazed at the sight of a horseman in military uniform riding through the main streets and announcing that William had been killed. That the wish was father to the thought became sufficiently clear to the by-standers when they heard the man declare with pistol in hand and sword drawn that he would kill anyone who denied the truth of his statement. A serious disturbance was avoided by his being incontinently dragged from his horse and carried before the lord mayor, who committed him to prison.(1840)

(M921)

When the king returned in October, with the laurels of victory fresh on his brow, he determined to seize the favourable opportunity for dissolving parliament. The result of the elections for a new parliament-the first triennial parliament under a recent Act-justified the course he had taken.

The citizens, who had been among the first to welcome him on his arrival in London, and whose sheriffs-Edward Wills and Owen Buckingham-he had recently knighted,(1841) instead of returning Tory members, as in the late parliament, returned four Whigs, viz., three aldermen, Sir Robert Clayton, Sir John Fleet and Sir William Ashurst, and one commoner, Thomas Papillon.

The election was strongly contested, a poll being demanded by three other candidates, viz., Sir William Pritchard, Sir Thomas Vernon and Sir William Russell, against the return of Clayton, Ashurst and Papillon. The result of the poll, however, left matters undisturbed.(1842) The contest in Westminster was more severe than in the city, but, like the latter, ended in a victory for the Whigs. Cook, who was still a prisoner in the Tower, again contested Colchester, but lost his seat.(1843) On the 22nd November the Houses met.

(M922)

The king's return was a signal for fresh action on the part of the Jacobites. It was resolved to a.s.sa.s.sinate William on his return from hunting in Richmond Park. The management of the conspiracy was entrusted to Sir George Barclay, a Scotch refugee, who succeeded in getting together a small band of men willing to take part in the desperate enterprise. The plot was, however, discovered, and some of the leading conspirators arrested. On the evening of Sunday the 23rd February (1696) the lord mayor (Sir John Houblon) was summoned to the Privy Council and informed of the narrow escape of the king. He was charged to look well to the safety of the city. On Monday morning all the city trained bands were under arms, and on Tuesday the Common Council voted a congratulatory address to the king upon his escape.(1844)

(M923)

By that time parliament had been informed of what had taken place. The Commons immediately suspended the Habeas Corpus Act and agreed to enter into an a.s.sociation for the defence of their king and country. An instrument was forthwith drawn up whereby each individual member of the House pledged himself to uphold King William and William's government against James and his adherents, and in case his majesty should meet with a violent death to unite with one another in inflicting condign vengeance on his murderers, and in supporting the order of succession to the crown as settled by the Bill of Rights. On Tuesday (25 Feb.) the House was called over; the a.s.sociation engrossed on parchment lay on the table, and every member present went up and signed, those who from sickness or other cause were absent being ordered to sign the doc.u.ment on their first appearance in the House, or publicly declare from their seat in the House their refusal to do so.(1845) The next day the Common Council of the city unanimously resolved to enter into the like a.s.sociation, the livery companies of the city being afterwards called upon by the mayor to do the same.(1846)

(M924)

For weeks and months strict search was made in the city for Papists and suspect persons,(1847) and among them for Sir John Fenwick, for whose arrest a proclamation was issued on the 22nd March.(1848) He was eventually captured whilst making his way to the coast for the purpose of escaping to France, and was committed to Newgate. When a motion was made in November for proceeding against him by Bill of Attainder the sheriffs of London surrendered their charge to the sergeant-at-arms of the House of Commons. After his execution on Tower Hill in January of the following year (1697) some officers of Sheriff Blewet, whose duty it had been to keep watch over Fenwick by night and day whilst lying in Newgate, had to apply to the Court of Aldermen before they could get the sheriff to pay them the money (9 10_s._) due to them for that service.(1849)

(M925)

The discovery of the a.s.sa.s.sination plot had the result of rendering William's seat on the throne more secure than ever, and won for him the unqualified support of parliament. Early in February (1696) a Bill had been brought in to exclude from the House every person who did not possess a certain estate in land. The Bill met with much opposition in commercial circles, and more especially in the city of London,(1850) and the king being unwilling to estrange those merchants and traders who had so often a.s.sisted him, exercised his prerogative and declined to give his a.s.sent to the Bill. Thereupon some violent Tories moved that whoever advised the king to take this course was an enemy to him and the nation; but the House displayed its loyalty by rejecting the motion by an overwhelming majority and ordering the division list to be published.(1851)

(M926)

The City was not behindhand in renewing its a.s.surances of loyalty. The liverymen of the several companies a.s.sembled in the Guildhall for the election of a mayor on Michaelmas-day pa.s.sed a resolution to stand by the king with their lives and fortunes, and desired the city members of parliament to see that a searching enquiry were made into the late conspiracy as the best means of preserving the king's person, establishing the government, and reviving trade and credit.(1852)

(M927)

At the time when this resolution was pa.s.sed the king was expected home from the continent, whither he had gone in May last. During his absence there had occurred a monetary crisis-the first since the establishment of the Bank of England-which, after causing for several months a great amount of distress, was destined to be succeeded by a long period of unbroken prosperity. An Act had recently been pa.s.sed for calling in all clipt money and subst.i.tuting milled money in its stead,(1853) and the crisis was brought about by the old money being called in before the new money was ready for issue. Sat.u.r.day, the 2nd May, was practically the last day clipt money was received by the exchequer. Three days later the stock of milled money in the coffers of the Bank of England at Grocers' Hall had run out, and the governor of the Bank, Sir John Houblon, who happened at the time to be also lord mayor, had to propitiate the numerous claimants for the new money by offering them part payment in the old coin and the rest in the new as soon as it was minted.(1854)

(M928)

Towards the end of July matters became worse. In spite of the extraordinary activity displayed by the Mint authorities, at the Tower and in divers parts of the country, the supply had not equalled the demand, yet a large sum of money was now imperatively demanded for payment of the army on the continent. The king himself had written to say that unless the money was forthcoming his troops were ready to mutiny or desert. Nothing less than a million would satisfy the requirements of the army in Flanders, a like sum was wanted for the navy, whilst half that amount was necessary for the army in England.(1855) How was this enormous sum to be raised? It was thought that the City might vote something towards it, but the Chamberlain declared that any proposal for a loan at that time would with difficulty be carried into execution owing to the scarcity of money.(1856) Some private individuals, however, managed to raise 200,000 for the king, whilst others, like Sir Josiah Child, Charles Duncombe and Sir Joseph Herne, were prepared to stand security for 300,000 more, which the Dutch were ready to advance. After long deliberation the Bank of England agreed (15 Aug.) to advance another 200,000.(1857) These sums sufficed for the more immediate wants of the king, and allowed time for the issue of the new currency.

(M929)

The campaign of 1696 had been carried on in a very desultory way. All parties were anxious for a peace. Towards the end of April, 1697, William once more crossed over to Flanders,(1858) and the French king having for the first time shown a disposition to come to terms, it was arranged that a congress should meet near the Hague. The result of the congress was the conclusion (10 Sept.) of the Peace of Ryswick, whereby Louis consented to acknowledge William's t.i.tle to the throne. The news was received in the city four days later with every demonstration of joy; the Tower guns were discharged, flags hung out, bells set ringing and bonfires lighted.(1859)

(M930)

The Court of Aldermen resolved to give the king a more than ordinary reception on his return. Search was made for precedents as to the manner in which former kings had been received on their return from progresses or from parts beyond the sea, and these precedents, from the time of Edward IV down to that of King Charles II, were duly reported to the court by a committee appointed to make the search.(1860) The committee was next instructed to consider of suitable ways and methods for the reception of his majesty if he should be pleased to pa.s.s through the city, and on this also the committee reported with elaborate detail.(1861) These and other preparations were all made under the apprehension that the king was about to return immediately. Weeks went by and no king appeared. The Court of Aldermen availed themselves of the delay to put the finishing touches to the programme of welcome that was to be accorded him, and to commit into custody any suspicious character they found.(1862) At length, after long and impatient expectation, news came that the king had landed at Margate on the 14th November.(1863) By the following night his majesty reached Greenwich and rested in the handsome building which, at the desire of his beloved queen, had been recently converted from a palace into a hospital for disabled seamen.(1864)

(M931)