The extension of the sphere of war owing to the French alliance with America brought great difficulties to the ministry. A powerful fleet under Keppel was sent into the Channel, and in July engaged the French fleet off Ushant, but the action was indecisive, and both fleets retired, the one to Brest, and the other to Plymouth. Keppel had signalled Sir Hugh Palliser, his second in command, to bear up with his squadron, and renew the action, but Palliser's ship was much crippled, and he was either unable or unwilling to comply. Mutual recriminations followed, and as both admirals were in Parliament and political adversaries, Keppel being in Opposition, whilst Palliser was a Lord of the Admiralty, the charges led to a fierce Parliamentary war, and eventually Keppel had to submit to a court martial. The trial took place at Portsmouth, and lasted over a month. The result was anxiously awaited by the City and the country. At length, late in the evening of the 11th February (1779), a courier brought the news that Keppel had been honourably acquitted. The whole of London was at once one blaze of illuminations. Palliser had to make his escape out of Portsmouth for fear of violence, and a house in Pall Mall once occupied by him was completely gutted by the mob and its contents burnt in St. James's Square. The gates of the Admiralty were taken off their hinges. Lord Sandwich had his windows smashed, so had Lord North, and greater damage would have been done but for the interference of the military.

The next day (12 Feb.) the Common Council passed a vote of thanks to Keppel "for his spirited behaviour on the 27th of July last in his attack on the French fleet, for his glorious and gallant efforts to renew the engagement in the afternoon of that day, efforts rendered unsuccessful thro' the want of obedience to his orders by the Vice-Admiral of the Blue."[435] They further voted him the Freedom of the City in a box of heart of oak, in testimony of the respect and gratitude which they entertained of his long and faithful services to his country.[436] That night the illuminations were repeated, but stringent measures were taken to prevent tumult.[437] The vote of thanks was conveyed to the admiral without delay, but circumstances prevented the Freedom being conferred on him until the following December. On the first occasion, Keppel was entertained with a few of his most intimate friends at the London Tavern;[438] on the second the admiral entertained a deputation from the Common Council at his own house in Audley Square. He and Lord Howe had by that time become so disgusted with the government that they had signified their intention of withdrawing their services from the navy so long as the ministers remained in power;[439] but he assured his guests that his zeal for the public good had in no wise abated, notwithstanding his withdrawal from the command of the fleet.[440] The friendly attitude of the City towards Keppel could not have been otherwise than distasteful to the king who looked upon "poor" Palliser as an ill-used man, and had even suggested his appointment to the command of the North American fleet until the recent affair had blown over.[441]

The situation in which ministers found themselves was daily becoming more difficult, when Spain rendered it worse by allying herself (June, 1779) with France and America against Great Britain. North had again and again intimated his readiness to resign, but the king would not hear of it, and the minister yielded to his master's stronger will and consented to remain in office against his own convictions. With this increase of danger Parliament again rallied round the throne, and voted loyal addresses. At the same time the leading Whig lords protested against the affairs of the country being left in the hands of a ministry that had proved itself so incapable;—"In such a situation a change of system appears to us to be our indispensable duty to advise."[442] This too was the opinion of a large body of citizens, but the Common Council declined to hamper the king with another address on the subject.[443]

The country for the most part was in favour of prosecuting the war with vigour, notwithstanding the addition of a fresh enemy. At the same time there was increasing dissatisfaction at the national expenditure and the excessive use of court influence over Parliament. The Opposition took advantage of this feeling, and in December motions were brought before the House of Lords in favour of economical reform. These were rejected, and the further consideration of the matter was postponed until the 8th February (1780). The Common Council sympathised with the Dukes of Devonshire, Grafton, Manchester, Portland and other Whig lords in their endeavours to promote reform, and passed them a vote of thanks. The Corporation was convinced that the cause of all the existing trouble lay in the "enormous and undue influence of the crown," and promised them support. Each of the lords wrote to acknowledge the vote of thanks, and their answers were given a wide circulation.[444]

Before the question came on again the country had become thoroughly roused. Committees of Association—as they were called—sprang up in all directions, their object being to impress upon Parliament the necessity of economy and the abolition of sinecures. Petitions flowed in from all parts. Yorkshire took the lead, but was closely followed by London.[445] The day that the City's petition was laid before the House (11 Feb.) Burke introduced a Bill for carrying out economical reform, but the measure had to be abandoned owing to the opposition it met with in committee.[446]

Although Burke's Bill had failed to pass, the movement continued to gain force both in and out of Parliament, and on the 6th April Dunning moved his famous resolution that "it is the opinion of this committee that the influence of the crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished." This resolution, with but a slight variation, was, after a hot debate, carried by a majority of eighteen.[447] It was followed by two other resolutions in the same direction, one (moved also by Dunning) to the effect that it was competent for the House to reform the Civil List, the other (moved by Thomas Pitt) that it was the duty of the House to remedy the abuses mentioned in the petitions. Both were carried, and the movers were accorded the thanks of the City (which they in due course acknowledged[448]), but when it came to taking further action on these resolutions the House raised so many objections that all thought of carrying them into effect had to be abandoned.

As time went on the Committees of Association, not content with their legitimate work—the work for which they were originally established—viz., economical reform, took upon themselves to push parliamentary reform, a matter on which the country was not as yet agreed. The City approved of their action, having long been anxious to see a recurrence to short parliaments and a change made in the mode of representation, but in other places the new departure caused alarm. In Wiltshire, Lord Shelburne's county, the Association had been disavowed[449] owing to its recent action, and his lordship had in consequence written a letter to the county upholding the Association. Soon after this Shelburne was wounded in a duel, and upon his recovery the City took the opportunity of sending him a letter of congratulation, and at the same time of testifying their appreciation of his letter to the county of Wilts;—"The noble and manly proof which your lordship has given in your letter to the county of Wilts of your decided concurrence in the undoubted right of the people to short parliaments and the necessity of a more equal representation cannot but increase our regard, esteem and confidence; and your lordship in your further prosecution of those great constitutional objects may depend on the most firm and determined support of the city of London."[450]

The earl in reply assured the Common Council that the support of the City of London was the most honourable incentive he was capable of feeling, as well as the strongest preservative against despondency. As regards the proposals for shortening the duration of parliaments and a more equitable representation, which the counties, cities and boroughs of England were combining to obtain, they would certainly meet his zealous concurrence whenever they should appear "to be the public sense." Without wishing to influence others, he was bound at so critical a juncture to confess that his own opinion was in favour of both proposals.[451]

The day that the earl's answer was read before the Common Council (13 April) a Form of Association was submitted for their approval. It followed the lines of the Yorkshire Association, and subject to certain alterations it was recommended for acceptance by the City of London.[452] The main point was that subscribers to the form pledged themselves to support only those parliamentary candidates who were in favour (1) of cutting down public expenditure, (2) of shortening the duration of parliaments, and (3) of establishing greater equality in parliamentary representation by allowing the several counties of Great Britain to elect in a due proportion 100 members at least in addition to their present number. The Common Council at once approved of the form, and ordered the Town Clerk to subscribe to it in the name of the Corporation. The citizens were to be recommended also to subscribe to it as being the best plan for effecting the objects in view. The Court at the same time deemed it opportune to place on record the passage in Chatham's letter to Lord Temple of the 17th April, 1771, in which the writer signified his approval of shorter parliaments and more equal representation, and this was accordingly entered on their Journal.[453]

Scarcely had the ministry managed to escape from Dunning's attack before they were threatened by a new danger. This time they did not stand alone; the strife of parties ceased in the presence of a common danger. For some time past an agitation had been set on foot against a Bill which Sir George Savile had carried in 1778, for the relief of Catholics from some of the hardships inflicted upon them by law. The cry of "No Popery" had been raised, and in March last a motion had been made in the Common Council against any proceedings in Parliament calculated to favour Papists. The consideration of the motion was adjourned, and did not come on again until the 31st May, when the court came to a resolution that the passing of any Acts of Parliament in favour of Papists, or the repealing of any Acts against Popery, was repugnant to the true interests of the country. It, at the same time, directed the City's representatives in Parliament to support any movement for the repeal of Savile's Act, so far as it related "to the establishment of seminaries for the education of youth, and the purchasing of lands within the realm."[454] Protestant associations were formed in different parts of the country, and on all sides a cry was raised against catholic emancipation.

The chief leader of the movement was the crack-brained fanatic, Lord George Gordon, who led a mob some thousands strong, wearing blue cockades, through the city to Westminster with a petition which he desired to lay before the House of Commons. A motion that the petition should be brought up was seconded by Alderman Bull. This took place on Friday, the 2nd June. Whilst Lord George was thus engaged, the mob clamoured to be admitted into the House and would have forced an entrance, but for the arrival of a party of horse and foot guards. Foiled in their attempt to intimidate the House, the mob dispersed in various directions, and proceeded to sack and burn the Roman Catholic chapels attached to the Sardinian and Bavarian embassies, standing in Duke Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields, and Warwick Street, Golden Square, and having so far wreaked their vengeance they retired to rest for the night.[455]

Matters were not allowed to rest here. On Saturday afternoon (3 June), Kennet, the lord mayor, received a letter from Lord Stormont, secretary of state, forewarning him of the likelihood of tumults arising within his jurisdiction and strongly recommending him to take the necessary steps for preserving the peace. The day passed off quietly, however. A few people gathered in Ropemakers Alley, Little Moorfields, where stood a Roman Catholic chapel, but no disturbance took place. On Sunday afternoon (4 June) matters took a turn for the worse, and the mayor, being informed that a very great concourse of people had assembled in Moorfields in a riotous manner, and was threatening the chapel, at once sent for the marshals and their men and instructed them to procure as many constables as possible, and disperse the mob. In the evening the mayor himself went to the scene of riot, and stayed there until three o'clock in the morning. In the course of the night he received another and more urgent letter from Lord Stormont;—"I cannot but hope, and trust from your lordship's known zeal and activity that every effectual legal method will be used by you to preserve the public peace by guarding it against those dangers to which it stands exposed." The mayor was quick to grasp the situation. There were not nearly sufficient constables procurable to put down the riot, and those that were present declined to exert themselves to save the property of Roman Catholics. Kennet therefore took the only course open to him, and sent to the Tower for military assistance. The commander, however, was slow to give the aid required, and could be prevailed upon to send no more than 73 men, all told, and even these were sent in detachments. The force was utterly inadequate to cope with the crowd, but fortunately the mob were by this time ready to listen to the appeals of the mayor and aldermen, and quiet was at length restored. The mayor went home to seek a much needed rest, leaving one of the sheriffs on the spot in case of emergency. On Monday morning (5 June) a fresh riot broke out, and the mayor sent again to the Tower. A detachment of horse and foot was despatched to his assistance, but by the time it arrived the chapel and several houses adjoining had been burnt and destroyed.[456] The principal object of attack outside the city was Savile House in Leicester Fields, the house of Sir George Savile himself, the indirect author of all the mischief, and this was sacked by the mob.

Upon hearing of this fresh outbreak the secretaries of state, Lords Stormont and Hillsborough, wrote a joint letter to the mayor expressing concern and surprise that houses in the city should be demolished in broad daylight, and—as they were informed—"without the least interposition of the civic magistrates to preserve the public peace."[457] This was scarcely true. The mayor, aldermen and sheriffs appear to have done their duty, but they experienced no little difficulty in getting the marshalmen and constables—who were no friends to the Catholics, and had no real wish to save them from the mob—to do theirs. One marshalman, in fact, openly refused to obey the summons that was sent him, declaring that he would not go to protect any such Popish rascals, and for this he was suspended from office.[458] The mayor, in reply, justified himself (and with reason) by laying the blame upon the commanding officer at the Tower, who had failed to supply him with the requisite assistance. Lord Stormont accepted the mayor's explanation, and immediately sent copies of his letter to the field officer of the guards with directions to send to the city forthwith a detachment of foot guards and light dragoons, as well as to the commanding officer at the Tower, directing him to supply the lord mayor with such assistance as he might require.[459]

On Tuesday morning (6 June) a Court of Aldermen sat, and the mayor reported all that had taken place since the previous Saturday. He was recommended to take the most effectual methods he could devise for preventing further tumult, and the Court promised to defray all expenses.[460] During the day the city was quiet, but at night the rioters split themselves up into various parties, and whilst one party was engaged in sacking and burning Lord Mansfield's house in Bloomsbury Square, another attacked the house of Sir John Fielding, and others broke into old Newgate and Clerkenwell prisons, and set free the prisoners.

Writing to Lord North late that night the king expressed surprise that Lord Gordon was still allowed to be at large, and complained of the "great supineness of the civil magistrates," whereby the rioters received encouragement;—"I fear without more vigour that this will not subside; indeed, unless exemplary punishment is procured, it will remain a lasting disgrace, and will be a precedent for future commotions."[461] The fact was that many justices of the peace had run away, and it was with the greatest difficulty that a magistrate was found to read the Riot Act in Bloomsbury, and when found it was too late to save Lord Mansfield's house.

Early next morning (7 June) the mayor despatched a letter to the secretaries of state asking for more troops, and at half-past two o'clock a reply was sent that he should have such additional force as could be spared. In the meanwhile he was urged to take every possible measure for protecting the Bank of England, which there was reason to believe was about to be attacked.[462] On receipt of this letter the mayor summoned a Common Council to meet that evening at six o'clock. It was at once resolved to direct the sheriffs to raise the posse comitatus. The services of the Military Association were offered and readily accepted. Many officers of the City's militia volunteered for duty, and they were desired to place themselves at the disposal of the sheriffs, who were instructed more particularly to protect the Mansion House, the Guildhall and the Bank of England.[463] The measures were not taken a whit too soon. Two attempts were made on the Bank, but in each case the rioters were repulsed. The King's Bench and Fleet prisons were fired; and as many as thirty-six fires, all blazing at one time and in different quarters of the city, might be seen from one spot. Houses were pillaged in all directions. In Broad Street the Artillery Company and the London Association were ordered to fire on the mob, and several were killed.[464] The streets were flooded in many places with raw spirits from wrecked distilleries, and as many (if not more) perished from excessive drink as from the firing of the military, although by an order of Lord Amherst, the adjutant-general, the latter were authorised to act without waiting for directions from the civil magistrates.[465] The return of the number of killed and wounded during the disturbances was 458.[466]

In the meanwhile troops had arrived in London from their various quarters in the country, and were encamped in the public parks. Their presence served to intimidate the rioters and order began to be restored. Before the Common Council of Wednesday evening broke up, it resolved to petition Parliament for a repeal of Savile's Act, and the next day (8 June) the petition was drawn up. It set out, in effect, that since the Act made in the 11th and 12th years of King William III, entitled "an Act for the further preventing the growth of Popery," the Papists had experienced no persecution, and the state had enjoyed perfect tranquility, and that the repealing of part of the Act had occasioned much discontent and produced dangerous tumults. The petitioners therefore prayed that the repealing Act should be itself repealed as being in their opinion "the most probable means of immediately quieting the minds of the people." The sheriffs and the remembrancer were instructed to present the petition to the House of Commons without delay, but rather than listen to a debate for a repeal of the Act, of which General Conway had given notice, the House suddenly adjourned until the 19th.[467]

On Friday morning (9 June) the Lords of the Council issued a warrant for the arrest of the arch-mover in the recent troubles, and before nightfall Lord George Gordon was lodged in the Tower. Their lordships at the same time directed the lord mayor to make diligent search for all idle and disorderly persons, and to commit them for trial. All guns, pistols, and other offensive weapons were to be seized. A difficulty arose as to where to keep prisoners or those awaiting trial, now that Newgate and the other prisons were no longer serviceable. The mayor suggested the Tower, but the Lords of the Council would not hear of such a thing. They recommended him to commit his prisoners to some of the city halls or other public buildings, as he might deem most fit, and they (the lords) would furnish a sufficient force to guard these temporary prisons. The Court of Aldermen lost no time in carrying out the instructions thus given.[468] That evening the mayor was desired to meet the Lords of the Council at the Cockpit, Whitehall. What took place at the interview does not appear to be recorded.[469]

A proposal to form an armed association of householders for future protection, brought the City into variance with the military authorities. No sooner was the proposal set on foot than Colonel Twistleton who was in command of the troops in the city, informed the adjutant-general of it. The latter at once signified his disapproval on the ground that "no person can bear arms in this country but under officers having the king's commission," and he instructed Colonel Twistleton (13 June) to see that all arms in the hands of persons who were not of the City militia, or authorised by the king to be armed, were given up. The existing London Association which had been on duty since the beginning of the riots, on learning this order, flatly refused to surrender their arms, on the ground that by the articles of the Bill of Rights, all his majesty's Protestant subjects were permitted to have arms for their defence suitable to their condition and as allowed by law.[470] The Court of Aldermen could not understand this interference of the military in the City's affairs, and directed the lord mayor to apply to Colonel Twistleton for a copy of the orders under which he acted in the city. Thereupon that officer produced the original orders of the 7th June, signed by the adjutant-general.

This did not satisfy the Aldermen, and by their directions the lord mayor addressed a letter to Earl Bathurst, the president of the Council (14 June), informing him that in pursuance to his orders they had made diligent search for disorderly persons implicated in the late riots, and had "taken to their assistance the house-keepers in each district, who have armed themselves" under the directions of the Court for the purpose of supporting the civil magistrate, but the Court's attention having been drawn to Lord Amherst's letters to Colonel Twistleton, they desired some explanation, as those letters militated against former orders from the Lords of the Council. The Court further desired to know whether Lord Amherst's order of the 7th June was to continue in force.[471]

In reply to this letter, the President of the Council explained that Lord Amherst's letters had been misunderstood, "for when he speaks of the arms in the hands of the city militia or other persons authorised by the king to be armed, he certainly includes the arms in the hands of the citizens and house-keepers, who by virtue of an order of the Court of Lieutenancy are required to keep them in their houses." As regards the order of the adjutant-general of the 7th June, he was of opinion that it had better remain in force so long as the presence of the military in the city was necessary for the preservation of peace. His letter concluded with a warning lest the armed house-keepers should expose themselves to the military, who in a tumult would have difficulty in distinguishing them from the rioters.[472]

This reply being deemed unsatisfactory, the lord mayor wrote a second letter (17 June) pointing out that Lord Amherst's orders to Colonel Twistleton, of the 13th, would, if literally executed, disarm those very persons without whose assistance it would have been impossible for the civic authorities to have executed the Order of Council of the 9th instant. This (he explains) is what was meant in his former letter, when he said that Lord Amherst's letters militated against the orders first received from the Lords of the Council, and the Court of Aldermen now desired him to submit to his lordship's consideration "whether some further explanation might not be necessary to prevent a construction which would leave the civil magistrate without power to act at all, for want of necessary support."[473]

The lord mayor's letter having been submitted to the Lords of the Council, the President replied, three days later (20 June), that in the opinion of their lordships the matter had been fully explained in his letter of the 15th. With regard, however, to the alleged impracticability of executing the Orders of Council of the 9th instant without the assistance of the inhabitants of the several wards who had armed themselves, the Council was of opinion that in times of danger "a reasonable number of inhabitants, armed according to the nature and circumstances of the case, may attend the peace-officers, as assistants to them, for the preservation of the public peace, until the danger be over." He concluded by reminding the aldermen that the privilege enjoyed by subjects of carrying arms under the Bill of Rights (to which they had referred in the mayor's last letter) did not extend to mustering and arraying armed bodies without the king's permission.[474] The next day (21 June) the Duke of Richmond moved in the Lords that the adjutant-general's orders contravened the Bill of Rights, but the motion was negatived without a division.[475]

Still the Court of Aldermen were far from being satisfied. They foresaw that difficulties were likely to arise in the execution of their duty if the military were to be allowed to act independently. They desired, therefore, the lord mayor once more to address the President of the Council with the view of getting the order of the adjutant-general respecting the military acting without previous directions from the civil magistrates, withdrawn. Accordingly on the 24th June Kennet wrote again to this effect,[476] but the only answer vouchsafed to this was the passing of a Bill of Indemnity for the acts of the military.[477] It was useless, therefore, for the Court of Aldermen to proceed further in the matter, and they had the wisdom to ignore a series of propositions which one of their number introduced later on (18 July) touching the rights of the citizens to bear arms and the noninterference of the military powers.[478]

When Parliament resumed its sitting on the 19th Wilkes, who had displayed great zeal during the riots, not only made an attack on the lord mayor for not having taken proper precautions to prevent their occurrence in the city, but he declared that the petition drawn up and approved by the Common Council on the 8th had been improperly procured, having been moved in the Court after many of the members had gone home under the impression that business was over. He next proceeded to attack his former friend and colleague, Alderman Bull, who (he said) had not only omitted to take steps to quell the rioters, but had allowed the constables of his wards to "wear the ensigns of riot in their hats," and had been seen leaving the House of Commons arm-in-arm with Lord George Gordon himself. Bull could only reply that it was true that constables of his ward had worn the cockades, but he had made four of them remove them.[479] Permission was eventually given for bringing in a Bill for securing the Protestant religion.

On the 8th July a motion was made in the Common Council for presenting an address to the king "expressing the grateful thanks of this Court for his majesty's care and attention to the citizens of London in granting them such aid as became necessary to subdue the late dangerous riots, they being too formidable for the control of the civil authority." To this the previous question was moved and lost, and the original motion was at length carried, but when it came to nominating four aldermen and eight commoners to draw up the address, there were not found sufficient aldermen present, and the matter had to be postponed.[480] It was eventually passed on the 24th, and presented on the 28th, when the king made a suitable reply.[481]

The riots over, and the ringleaders (all except Lord George Gordon himself) brought to justice, it remained to pay the costs. To make good all the damages involved much time and expenditure. The new gaol at Newgate on which so much money had been spent, and which was approaching completion at the outbreak of the riots, was completely "gutted," only the external walls being left standing. The keeper's house was demolished, and much damage done to the neighbouring Sessions House. For all this the City sent in claims for compensation,[482] and in course of time succeeded in getting from Parliament three several sums of £10,000 to assist in defraying the expense of rebuilding Newgate.[483] The cost of maintaining the military force quartered in the city during the riots was no slight one, and had to be provided for by the Common Council. One ward alone, that of Farringdon Within, sent in a bill exceeding £350 for victuals supplied to a party of light horse quartered at the Oxford Arms in Warwick Lane, and the Sessions House, to a detachment of foot guards quartered in St. Paul's, and several companies of militia at Christchurch, Newgate.[484] There were, moreover, legal expenses incurred by the City in defending actions brought against the sheriffs by various inhabitants of the city for damage done to houses.[485]

Whilst the riots brought a respite to Parliament from the importunity of associations, their suppression brought temporary support to the king, who embraced the opportunity of dissolving Parliament before the court party lost ground.[486] Parliament was accordingly prorogued on the 8th July, and on the 1st September, was dissolved, another being summoned to meet on the last day of October. Only two of the old city members were re-elected. These were Bull and Hayley. The places of Sawbridge and Oliver were taken by two other aldermen, namely, Kirkman—who commanded the light horse volunteers during the riots—and Nathaniel Newnham. Sawbridge, however, recovered his seat upon Kirkman's death, which occurred within a few days after his election. A year later (Sept., 1781) Hayley died, and Lord George Gordon, whom a jury had recently acquitted of high treason, made some show of contesting the seat. He soon, however, discovered that the City would have none of him, and withdrew before the election came on. The seat was won, after a severe contest, by Sir Watkin Lewes the outgoing lord mayor.[487]

The late riots had somewhat cooled the ardour of the associations. Many of them, according to Walpole,[488] had been formed chiefly with a view to the coming Parliamentary elections, and now that these were over, the various committees became less active. The City's Committee of Correspondence was dissolved, and the civic authorities after some wavering refused to allow country associations the use of the Guildhall for fear of renewed disturbances.[489]

The news of the capitulation of Cornwallis and his army at Yorktown which reached London on Sunday, the 25th November (1781), induced the livery to urge the king once more to put an end to the war. A Common Hall was summoned by special request to meet on Thursday, the 6th December. Alderman Bull being too ill to attend and to consult his constituents as he wished, contented himself with addressing a letter to the "Gentlemen of the Livery" calling upon them to continue to be an example to the nation, as they always had been. With their assistance he hoped to see a change effected which should put an end to the evils from which the country was suffering. This letter having been read to the livery they proceeded to consider the terms of a new remonstrance, which was produced ready cut and dried. After expressing concern at the king's recent speech in Parliament, declaring his intention to persevere in a system of measures which had already proved so disastrous, the document plainly told the king that he had been deluded by his ministers, and the consequences of that delusion had been the almost total extinction of trade and commerce, and the annihilation of public and private credit. "Your majesty's fleets"—it went on to say—"have lost their wonted superiority. Your armies have been captured. Your dominions have been lost." The petitioners expressed a desire publicly to declare not only to the king, but to Europe and to America itself, their abhorence of the continuation of the unnatural and unfortunate war, which could only tend to the alienation of the American colonies with whom they still hoped to live on terms of intercourse and friendship so necessary to the commercial prosperity of the kingdom; and they concluded by imploring his majesty to dismiss his present advisers as a pledge to the world of his determination to abandon a system incompatible with the interests of his crown and the happiness of his people.[490]

The remonstrance was ordered to be presented by the lord mayor, the city members, the Court of Aldermen [not the Common Council], the sheriffs and ten of the livery—the number permitted by Stat. 13, Chas. II, c. 5—attended by the Recorder and city officers; and notwithstanding all previous objections on the part of the king it was resolved that the sheriffs should enquire when his Majesty would be pleased to receive it on the throne. The result was such as might have been, and no doubt was, expected. When those "fellows in fur,"[491] as George called the sheriffs, attended at court to deliver their message, the king told them he would consider the matter, and would let them know; and in due course Lord Hertford addressed (10 Dec.) the following letter to the mayor:—"It is well known to be the settled custom for the King to receive upon the Throne an address from the City of London only in their corporate capacity, and the same was signified by a letter written by me, in obedience to His Majesty's command, on the eleventh of April, 1775, to the then Lord Mayor. In consequence thereof I am commanded by His Majesty to acquaint you that His Majesty will receive at the levÉe on Friday the 14th inst. the Address, Petition and Remonstrance of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Livery in Common Hall assembled. I have, etc." To this the mayor replied by referring the lord chamberlain to Wilkes's letter of the 2nd May, 1775, as to the question of custom. With regard to the present address, petition and remonstrance he contented himself with representing to his lordship that as the resolution of the livery was that it should be presented to the king on the throne, the persons directed by the said resolution to present it could not dispense therewith by presenting it in any other mode.[492] The remonstrance was in consequence never presented, although Walpole believed it to have been presented at the levÉe.[493]

Thus baulked in their design the livery proceeded at another special Common Hall (31 Jan., 1782) to pass a number of resolutions condemning the king's advisers and maintaining the necessity of shorter parliaments and fairer representation. They declared that the Committee of Correspondence appointed by the Common Council in February, 1780 (and since abolished) had "proved themselves firm friends to the people," and they resolved to appoint a similar committee from among themselves, and to petition the Common Council to grant the use of their new council chamber[494] to the committee for the purpose of occasionally meeting therein.[495] When the petition was laid before the Court on the 5th February it was refused, but in the following April it was granted, and the Committee of Correspondence was permitted to meet in the council chamber, or in any other part of the Guildhall that might be most convenient.[496]

The ministry was now fast tottering to its fall. On the 22nd February General Conway moved the House of Commons to address the king for the purpose of restoring peace and giving up all thoughts of subduing America by force. After prolonged debate the motion was lost by one vote only.[497] Five days later (27 Feb.) the City agreed to a petition to the House imploring the Commons to interpose and prevent the continuation of the war,[498] and that same day the attack was renewed by Conway, who moved that the use of force to put down the colonies was impracticable. This time he was more successful.

His motion was carried by a majority of nineteen,[499] and a few weeks later (20 March) North resigned.

Much to his annoyance, the king found himself compelled to place the Opposition in office, with Rockingham as prime minister and Fox and Shelburne as secretaries of state, and to consent to negotiations for peace being opened on the basis of an acknowledgment of American independence. As soon as the change of government had taken place the Common Council presented a loyal address to the king expressing their warmest thanks for having complied with the wishes of the people and taken into his confidence men who were respected by the country for their constitutional principles. They trusted that with the assistance of these new advisers, and with the blessing of Providence, the dignity of the crown would be restored, and prosperity and unity promoted throughout the king's dominions. The king thanked the City for their address, and assured them that the dignity of the crown, the union of his people and the interests and prosperity of his dominions must ever be the principal objects of his care.[500]

The new ministers were pledged to do something towards purifying Parliament, and accordingly they carried a measure disqualifying contractors from sitting in the House of Commons, unless their contract should have been made at a public bidding. It was thought that government contractors might be too easily moved to support the party that happened to be in power. Alderman Harley, who sat with Sir George Cornewall for the county of Hereford, was one of those whom the Bill affected, inasmuch as he held a contract for supplying the army in Canada, Nova Scotia, Carolina, New York and the West Indies with money. He rose from his seat in the House and boldly defended himself. He had never (he said) asked for the contract; he was not in the habit of asking favours of ministers; "he got his contract in consequence of an address which the late Lord Suffolk intended to have moved to the king, that his majesty would be pleased to confer upon him some mark of his favour ... he was afterwards offered a pension which he would not accept, saying at the same time that he had rather have something in the way of his profession; on this he got the gold contract, which he fulfilled for twelve years with the fairest character, and he now felt himself hurt indeed that he should be treated as if he were a criminal, in being forced to give up a valuable branch of his business, or renounce the honour, which he held so high, of sitting in Parliament."[501] The measure was carried on the 1st May. As Harley retained his seat, and continued to hold it until 1802, it is presumed he gave up his contract. On the 7th, William Pitt, the second son of the late Earl Chatham—who had already displayed such oratorical powers in defence of Burke's economical reform Bill that Burke himself, no less delighted than surprised, had declared him to be not a chip of the old block, but "the old block itself"[502]—moved for a committee to examine into the state of the representation of the country. The motion was rejected by only a majority of twenty, the closest division that the reformers ever achieved until 1831, the eve of their ultimate success.

The ministers now turned their attention to a reform of another kind. On the same day that Pitt made his motion in the House, Lord Shelburne, one of the secretaries of state, sent a letter to the lord mayor enclosing copies of a plan for augmenting the home force, and of a circular thereon he had sent to the chief magistrates of principal towns. His majesty (the letter said) expected that "his faithful citizens of London" would set an example to the rest of the kingdom, as they had so often done before, in gathering forces for the protection of their sovereign and their country; the more so, as the city of London had greater interests at stake. The Common Council not only voted (17 May) a sum of £5,000 to put the City militia on a proper footing, but resolved to invite subscriptions in the several wards of the city, and to send copies of Shelburne's letter to all the chartered and trading companies of the city.[503] The matter had already (9 May) been laid before the Court of Aldermen, and the lord mayor had been requested to wait upon Lord Shelburne, to thank him for the letter, and to assure him that the Court would at once proceed to accomplish his majesty's wish "and to do justice to his majesty's most gratifying sentiments of the exemplary loyalty and zeal of his faithful citizens of London."[504]

On the 18th May, news arrived that the French fleet under De Grasse had been defeated by Rodney in the West Indies (12 April). The City presented a congratulatory address to the king, who in reply (5 June) assured his "good city of London" of his constant attention to their commerce and happiness.[505] Rodney who had previously been in disgrace was now raised to the Peerage; but a proposal to entertain him at a public banquet at the City's expense fell through.[506] In October, however, the Common Council unanimously passed a vote of thanks to him for the service he had rendered to the commercial interests of the City, and the committee appointed to convey the same entertained him and his friends at a banquet given at the London Tavern—[507]an event which Horace Walpole had cause to remember, for the windows of his house in Berkeley Square were smashed by the mob which accompanied Rodney home from the City.[508]

In the meantime the British navy suffered a severe loss by the capsizing of the Royal George off Spithead. The vessel was reckoned the finest ship in the navy. The unfortunate circumstances, which carried her to the bottom with 800 souls, including Kempenfelt, the admiral, who was at the time writing in his cabin, have been immortalised in Cowper's well known lines:—

It was, possibly, this loss which prompted the Common Council to consider the question of raising a sum of money (the Corporation itself contributing £10,000) for the purpose of presenting the king with a man-of-war, to be called the "City of London." It will be remembered that in 1665, when the ship "London" suddenly blew up on her way up to the Hope from Chatham, the City made good the loss then sustained by the navy. It was proposed now to follow the precedent then set, but after several adjournments the proposal was allowed to drop.[509]

In September Lord Howe set sail to relieve Gibraltar, which had endured a siege of three years and more. It was defended by General Elliot, afterwards raised to the peerage as Lord Heathfield, and the sufferings of the garrison had at times been terrible. When Shelburne succeeded to the premiership, on the death of Rockingham in July, negotiations for a peace with America and her allies were far advanced, but before a peace was signed France and Spain were anxious above all things to regain Gibraltar. Accordingly on the 13th September a tremendous attack was made on the fortress by the combined fleets. The forts replied with red hot shot, and eventually succeeded in destroying the floating batteries. Just when these were silenced Lord Howe appeared in the bay, and the combined fleet, not venturing to attack him, withdrew. The siege had attracted the eyes of all Europe, and in February (1783) the Common Council appointed a committee to consider the most suitable mode to be adopted by the City to express their respect to Elliot and Howe and the officers of the army and navy employed in "the glorious defence and relief of Gibraltar."

Two artists were consulted on the matter, namely, West and Copley. The former was of opinion that it would be better to have two pictures instead of one, inasmuch as the defence of the Rock by Elliot and the relief by Howe were two distinct subjects. Copley, on the other hand, thought that both subjects could be treated in one picture of sufficient size to fill one of the side windows of the Common Council Chamber. The cost of such a picture he estimated at £1,500, but rather than lose the commission he was prepared to paint it for 1,000 guineas. His offer was in course of time accepted,[510] and his picture now adorns one entire wall of the Guildhall Art Gallery.[511]

This great success, following so close upon Rodney's victory in the West Indies, convinced the allies that England was not by any means so prostrate as her failures in America had led them to believe, and they now showed a disposition to negotiate. Accordingly in January (1783) preliminaries of peace were signed at Paris. A provisional treaty had already been concluded with America, by which the independence of the United States was formally acknowledged. The news was received in the city with the greatest joy, and the Common Council congratulated the king on his having paid "final attention" to the petitions of his faithful citizens and people. They took the opportunity of expressing their firm conviction that the commercial interests of this country and of North America were inseparably united—a sentiment with which the king declared in his reply that he entirely concurred—and hoped that the stipulations of the treaty would restore commercial intercourse between the two countries.[512] The preliminaries of both treaties were converted into definitive treaties on the 3rd September, and on the 6th October the peace was proclaimed in the city of London in the same manner as at the proclamation of peace with France on the 22nd March, 1763.[513]