Before the preliminaries of peace became converted into definite treaties, the Shelburne ministry had been forced to give way to a coalition with Fox and North as secretaries of state, and the Duke of Portland as nominal head. The new ministry found little favour with the City, firstly on account of its Stamp Act—imposing a duty upon all receipts for sums of forty shillings and upwards—which the citizens (wrongly, as it turned out) believed would be a hindrance to trade;[514] and secondly on account of Fox's attack on the chartered rights of the East India Company. If Fox's East India Bill were passed, what, they asked, was to become of their own chartered rights and privileges? Every corporation in the kingdom was solemnly warned of the consequences to themselves if the Bill were allowed to pass. "Our property and charter are invaded, look to your own" was the message the Company sent, together with a copy of Fox's Bill, to every borough in the country. The Bill passed the Commons, but when it came before the Lords the king declared himself so strongly against it that it was thrown out, and before the close of the year (1783) the ministers were suddenly and somewhat unceremoniously dismissed. For the first time in history we find the City unanimously supporting the king in the exercise of his prerogative. The Common Council hastened to assure his majesty that his faithful citizens had "lately beheld with infinite concern the progress of a measure which equally tended to encroach on the rights of your majesty's crown, to annihilate the chartered rights of the East India Company, and to raise a new power unknown to this free government and highly inimical to its safety. [As the dangerous measure was warmly supported by your majesty's late ministers, we heartily rejoice in their dismission, and humbly thank your majesty for exerting your prerogative in a manner so salutary and constitutional."] Finally they assured the king that as the prerogatives of his majesty's high office were intended for the good of the people, the citizens of London would always support the constitutional exercise of them to the utmost of their power. In other words, the king might always look to the City for support so long as he was content to exercise his prerogative for the preservation of "parliamentary engagements" and chartered rights.[515] The livery and the Common Council, so long opposed to each other, became allies again, and the former body passed a formal vote of thanks at a special Common Hall (13 Feb., 1784) to the representative body of the City for the address they had carried up to the throne "thereby setting an example to the whole kingdom."[516] Truly, as Macaulay remarks, "the successors of the old Roundheads had turned courtiers." Not content with thanking the Common Council for its attitude in the matter, the livery passed resolutions of their own in support of the just prerogative of the crown, the privileges of Parliament and the rights of the people, whilst they ordered that the city members should be instructed to advance in every way the business of the House, and particularly by the granting of supplies.[517]

Fox's East India Bill had been strongly opposed by Pitt, who at the early age of twenty-three had been Chancellor of the Exchequer and leader of the House of Commons under the Shelburne ministry. It was to this youth that the king now appealed for assistance, and although the task of forming a ministry of any stability was almost beyond hope, Pitt undertook the struggle. As it was useless to look for any support in the Commons he chose his cabinet entirely from the Upper House, reserving for himself the post of First Commissioner of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer. Even before Pitt was able to take his seat as prime minister (a new election being necessary on his accepting office), it was evident that the Opposition intended to show him no pity or favour. It was not until the 12th January (1784)—the day that the House re-assembled after the Christmas recess—that he made his first appearance as prime minister. He came prepared with an India Bill, similar in most respects to that which he afterwards succeeded in carrying, but the Bill was now rejected although by a small majority. For weeks he struggled against the violent attacks of the Opposition, refusing either to resign or to dissolve Parliament until he could take his opponents at a disadvantage.

At length, the nation at large became attracted by the indomitable courage and unflinching honesty of the young minister and began to rally round him. The city of London had been from the outset one of his staunchest supporters. On the 10th February (1784), the Common Council voted him the Freedom of the City and a gold box for his zeal in "supporting the legal prerogative of the crown and the constitutional rights of the people."[518] On the 28th, he was made free of the Grocers' Company and hospitably entertained by them in their hall. There are members of the Grocers' Company still alive who can recall the time when "the immortal memory of William Pitt" was honoured in solemn silence at all public gatherings in Grocers' Hall, and the esteem in which the company continues to hold one of the greatest statesmen that England has ever produced recently manifested itself afresh, when on the 28th February, 1884, the Grocers celebrated the "Pitt Centenary" by a banquet in their hall.

As soon as the minister perceived the attack of the Opposition wearing itself out, and the balance of parties becoming more equal, he seized the opportunity of dissolving Parliament and appealing to the country. One of the first elections to take place was, as usual, that for the City. Without his knowledge or consent Pitt himself was nominated among others; he declined, however, to stand, and was eventually returned for Cambridge University, a seat he continued to hold for the remainder of his life. The result of the City election was that all the old members were returned,[519] although Sawbridge nearly lost his seat in consequence of his attachment to Fox.[520] It soon became evident that the country was with Pitt. No less than 160 of Fox's friends and supporters—"Fox's martyrs," as they were popularly called—lost their seats, and Fox himself had, for a time, to content himself with a seat for a close borough, although he was eventually returned for Westminster, after one of the severest contests ever known.

When the new Parliament met (18 May) three subjects more especially demanded attention. These were the finances of the country, the affairs of the East India Company, and the state of Ireland. The first two were immediately taken in hand. Having in an incredibly short time placed the finance of the country on a firm basis, Pitt again introduced his East India Bill. This Bill, it must be borne in mind, differed essentially from Fox's Bill, which had recently excited such fears in the City, inasmuch as it merely proposed to establish a board of control for political purposes, and did not lay a finger upon the company's material possessions. The chartered rights of the company being left untouched, the directors offered no opposition, the fears of the City for their own chartered rights and possessions were lulled, and the Bill was allowed to pass. The dual system then established proved to work so well that it continued to be the system under which India was governed from that day down to 1858.

In the course of the session Sawbridge brought forward his perennial motion in favour of short parliaments, but although it received the support of Pitt, notwithstanding his deeming it inopportune, the motion was lost.[521] In the following spring (1785) Pitt himself for the third, and, as it proved, for the last, time attempted to carry a measure for parliamentary reform, but this, too, was defeated, and, strange to say, by the same majority as Sawbridge's motion.[522] The Common Council had previously passed a resolution urging every alderman who had a seat in the House to do his utmost to secure shorter parliaments,[523] but it was all in vain, and Pitt, disappointed at his failure, again turned his attention from parliamentary to financial reform.

One of the many schemes which he proposed for filling the exchequer was a tax on retail shops. As soon as the proposal got wind the City was at once up in arms, and a committee was appointed (14 May, 1785) to confer with Pitt on the matter. Upon the citizens objecting that they would have to bear nearly the whole burden of the tax, they were told they could recoup themselves by raising the price of their goods to the consumer.[524] Disappointed in this quarter, they resolved to lay their case before Parliament; and accordingly a petition was drawn up, which set forth that the citizens of London had always been ready and willing to bear their fair share of the necessary burdens of the state, but that the tax now proposed was partial, unjust and oppressive to trade; that the inhabitants and traders of the city were already overburdened with taxation; that London and Middlesex paid 80 parts out of 513, or more than one-sixth of the whole Land Tax annually raised in the kingdom; and that, finally, it was a grave mistake to suppose that a tax on trade eventually fell on the consumers, for the price of every commodity was regulated by supply and demand.[525] This petition was laid before the House on the 19th May, but with little effect, and on the 30th the Bill passed the Commons[526] in spite of the strong protest against it made by the city members, who received the thanks of the Common Council for their spirited and manly opposition to a tax "universally condemned for its partiality and injustice."[527]

No sooner was the Bill passed than a committee of shopkeepers was formed to get it repealed, and in this they were assisted by the committee appointed by the Common Council on the 14th May. The costs incurred by the latter committee were to be discharged to the extent of £300 out of the City's Chamber.[528] In November (1785), the Common Council instructed their committee to prepare a petition to Parliament for a repeal of the obnoxious Act. This was accordingly done and the petition duly laid before the House, but with no better success than before (27 Jan., 1786).[529] In the meantime a split had occurred among the commissioners whose duty it was to carry out the provisions of the Act. Some of them had duly qualified themselves for the purpose, whilst others had not, and so long as disagreement continued among the executive officers, the City shop-keeper ran the risk of incurring a double assessment.[530] Early in 1787, the agitation was renewed, and the mayor was asked to allow of a meeting of the discontents in the Guildhall on the evening of Friday, the 19th January. The mayor was willing enough, but the Court of Aldermen were afraid of a disturbance and the meeting was put off.[531] A fortnight later (31 Jan.) the Common Council resolved to present another petition to Parliament for the repeal of the Act. Further experience, they assured the House, had confirmed their opinion of the partiality and oppression of the Act, and of the impossibility of shifting the burden upon the consumer.[532] The petition was presented the following day, but the House remained obdurate.[533] The shopkeepers passed a vote of thanks to the Common Council for the pains they had taken in the matter.[534] For another two years the City agitated for the repeal of the tax, receiving the support of Fox, among others,[535] but all their efforts proved futile, until in April, 1789, they were at last crowned with success and the Act was repealed.[536]

The Shop Tax was not the only point in Pitt's financial schemes which tended to bring him into direct opposition to the City, as we shall shorty see; but as a whole his schemes were eminently successful, and not the least successful of them all was his commercial treaty with France. Duties were lowered in each country on the productions of the other and both England and France were the better for the change, but the treaty as originally drafted threatened unfortunately to diminish the revenues of the city of London. Pitt's attention having been drawn to the matter, a proviso was inserted in a subsequent convention signed at Versailles (15 Jan., 1787) whereby the City's rights were safeguarded.[537] The convention was followed in October by a joint declaration whereby England and France mutually agreed to discontinue warlike operations.[538]

The year 1788 witnessed the first steps taken in Parliament for the abolition of the slave trade. Wilberforce a prominent leader in the movement succeeded in winning over Pitt to the cause, and the City threw its influence into the scale. On the 4th February, the Common Council petitioned the House to take the matter into its consideration.[539] Little however was done beyond the introduction of a temporary measure for improving the sanitary condition of vessels employed in the slave traffic. The Bill passed the Commons, but underwent such a change in the House of Lords that it became practically useless. In 1789, and again in 1790, Wilberforce urged the Commons to abolish the slave trade in its entirety, and in 1792, Pitt supported the proposal in a speech which surpassed all his previous oratorical efforts. It was to no purpose. The Liverpool merchants, whose interests in the nefarious traffic were enormous, succeeded in frustrating every attempt to put it down. At last, even the city of London refused to petition Parliament any further on the matter.[540]

In the meanwhile an event had occurred which for the moment threatened to overthrow the ministry. In November, 1788, the king who had previously shown signs of mental derangement became so seriously ill that a regency seemed inevitable. That the Prince of Wales ought to be Regent all parties were agreed, but whether he should be allowed to take upon himself the regency as a matter of right, or whether he should accept it at the hands of Parliament and with such limitations as Parliament might think fit to create, opinions differed. Pitt was strongly in favour of upholding the authority of Parliament in the matter and introduced a Regency Bill. The Bill passed the Commons, but before it passed the Lords the king unexpectedly recovered, and further proceedings were stayed. For having thus maintained "the important right of the Lords and Commons of this realm to provide the means for supplying the defect of the personal exercise of the royal authority arising from his majesty's indisposition," the Common Council passed a vote of thanks to Pitt and his supporters, which the minister duly acknowledged;[541] but when it was proposed to present an address to the prince condoling with him on the king's illness, and congratulating him upon his being invested with the government "by the united wisdom of the two Houses," a debate of three hours ensued and the motion was eventually lost.[542]

It speaks well for the prince that he not only bore the City no ill-will, but was careful to forward to the city Chamberlain the sum of £1,000 for the poor of the city, who were suffering from the inclemency of the season, as he feared that his father's illness might prevent the king sending his usual annual gift. The Common Council were touched with the prince's thoughtful act of charity, and sent to Carlton House to thank him. His highness took the opportunity of assuring them that no one was more sensible than himself of the attention of the City, and no one would be more ready to show regard "towards the most respectable city in Europe."[543]

Towards the end of February (1789) the king was himself again. The news of his recovery was a cause of sincere joy to the city of London, as well as to the nation at large, however disappointing to those who had built their hopes upon a regency. On the night of the 10th March the whole of London was illuminated. From one extremity of the town to the other and far out into the surrounding suburbs there was one blaze of light. Two days later the Common Council prepared congratulatory addresses to the king and queen. These were presented to their majesties at Kew on the Thursday, the 19th March, and were graciously received, the City on this occasion, in compliance with the king's wishes, who was still far from strong, waiving their right to present the address to him on the throne.[544]

A solemn thanksgiving service was held at St. Paul's on Thursday, the 23rd April—St. George's day—and was attended by the king and queen, the royal family, the members of both Houses and great officers of state, as well as by the lord mayor, the aldermen, the sheriffs and members of the Common Council. In carrying out the preparations for the king's reception in the city everything was done with the view of sparing the king all unnecessary exertions.[545] The Earl of Salisbury, in his capacity as lord chamberlain, suggested that if the lord mayor and sheriffs and those aldermen who represented the city in Parliament were to meet the king at Temple Bar and conduct him to St. Paul's it would be more agreeable to his majesty than the attendance of a greater number of persons. For the same reason it was decided that no more than four members of the Common Council should attend. The formal presentation to the king of the City's sword at Temple Bar and of its re-delivery into the hands of William Gill, the lord mayor, was made the subject of a large oil painting, mounted on a screen of six panels, by Ralph Dodd.[546]

As soon as the king's health allowed of Parliament resuming its ordinary course of business Pitt consented to remit the Shop Tax, which had caused so much bad feeling in the city. Scarcely was this done, however, before he again gave umbrage to the citizens by a proposal to transfer the duty on tobacco from the customs to the excise. Walpole had endeavoured to carry out a similar change in 1733, but the opposition he met with was so overpowering that he was obliged to give way. Pitt was more successful. The City withstood his Bill, as it had withstood Walpole's, but in spite of all opposition Pitt's Bill passed, and all subsequent efforts to get it repealed proved futile.[547]

The king's illness had interrupted negotiations that had been opened for the withdrawal of the guard of soldiers that had been accustomed ever since the Gordon riots, to pass through the city daily for the purpose of protecting the Bank of England. In 1787 a citizen had complained to the Court of Aldermen of his having been pushed off the footway by soldiers of the guard passing to the Bank on the evening of the 5th July; and the Court had thereupon instructed the lord mayor to request the secretary at war to give such directions as he might think proper that the guard might in future march in single file and not two abreast as they hitherto had done.[548]

The secretary at war (Sir George Yonge) had replied that the lord mayor's suggestion would be likely to lead to great inconvenience; that he undertook to promise that the officers of the guards would for their part endeavour to conduct their detachments on the march in a quiet, decent and soldier-like manner, but that from representations that had been made to him by officers commanding the guards as to the treatment the detachments sometimes met with in their passage through the city, he felt bound to ask the lord mayor to take such steps as he might deem fit to prevent any cause of complaint arising in future on either side.[549] This letter had been referred to a committee, with instructions to report their opinion as to the best way of affording sufficient protection to the Bank and at the same time of avoiding the inconveniences complained of. The committee showed no haste in the matter, and it was not until the following May (1788) that they reported in favour of furnishing the Bank with a guard of the city's militia, in place of the detachment of foot guards. The Court of Aldermen on receiving this report wished to know what the directors of the Bank of England thought of the suggestion,[550] but all the answer they got was that if the existing mode of protecting the Bank were discontinued, the directors would not "put the city to the trouble of providing any other." The Court scarcely knew how to treat this answer. At length, after several adjournments, it resolved (21 Oct.) that the lord mayor should write to the secretary at war and request that the guard at the Bank should be withdrawn.[551] Four days later Sir George Yonge informed the lord mayor by letter that the matter had been referred to his majesty's ministers, that the directors of the Bank had been desired to attend Lord Sydney on the subject, and that further information would be given as soon as the king's pleasure should be known.[552]

The king's severe illness served as an excuse for letting the matter drop, and nothing more was done until January, 1790, when Pickett, the lord mayor, on his own responsibility and without any authority from the Court of Aldermen, wrote to Grenville, then secretary of state (having previously solicited an interview with Sir George Yonge), desiring to know the king's pleasure as to the removal of the Bank guard. Grenville replied by asking the lord mayor to specify on what grounds his application was made, and whether the resolution of the Court of Aldermen of the 21st October, 1788 (referred to in his letter), was based on "any legal right or exemption claimed by the City."[553] The secretary was told in reply that no reasons were assigned for the resolution of the Court of Aldermen, nor had any been desired by the late secretary of state when approached on the subject; but the lord mayor volunteered some reasons of his own (27 Jan). He apprehended that "the unnecessary introduction of the military into the civil government of this nation" was unconstitutional. The Bank guard was originally adopted at the time of an extraordinary crisis. It was no longer needed, or if needed, could be more constitutionally furnished by the city's militia. The introduction of the regulars was considered an infringement of the ancient privileges of the City,[554] and their presence was an annoyance to his majesty's peaceable and commercial subjects. This answer of the lord mayor seemed far from satisfactory to the secretary of state as it ignored the question whether the City claimed any privilege. As soon as the mayor satisfied him on this point, he promised to take an early opportunity of consulting the king. The correspondence having been laid before the Court of Aldermen, the Court showed a disposition to let the matter rest. The mayor, however, wrote another letter to Grenville (notwithstanding the Court's request that he should do nothing more without instructions from them), intimating that he would still have to press the withdrawal of the guard as "unconstitutional, unnecessary, and offensive," but its only effect was to draw forth a formal acknowledgment of its receipt by the secretary of state, and there the matter was allowed to drop.[555]

Just at a time when there seemed a fair prospect of the country enjoying a long spell of prosperity the whole of the civilised world was moved by the outbreak of the French Revolution. Englishmen were at first disposed to look upon the movement with interest, if not with approval, as of a nation struggling to be free. But in course of time the sparks of sedition crossed the channel, and it became necessary to suppress by royal proclamation (21 May, 1792) the numerous pamphlets with which the country was flooded. Fox was one of the few statesmen who still believed in the honesty of purpose underlying the revolution, and he signified publicly his disapproval of the proclamation. The City supported the king, however, and its example was widely followed by other corporate bodies throughout the kingdom.[556]

Pitt had hoped to save England by preserving a strict neutrality, and for a time he was successful, although frequently urged to declare war. The massacres of September (1792) rendered his peace policy almost hopeless by the shock they gave to English public opinion. The streets of London swarmed with French refugees, and subscriptions had to be opened for their relief.[557] How imminent was the danger which threatened England was brought home to the citizens by the appearance of a placard—headed A House to let—affixed to Newgate Prison, and bearing these words:—"Peaceable possession will be given by the present tenants on or before the first day of January, 1793, being the commencement of the first year of liberty in Great Britain. The Republic of France having rooted out despotism, their glorious example and eventful success against tyranny render such infamous bastiles no longer necessary."[558]

With the spirit of revolution thus rife in the city the new lord mayor (Sir James Sanderson) had his hands full. He proved himself, however, equal to the occasion, and the Common Council thanked him (29 Nov.) for his pains in suppressing seditious meetings,[559] and promised him every assistance in the work of carrying into execution his majesty's late proclamation. The council at the same time passed a series of resolutions touching the duty of every corporation and every freeman to suppress seditious assemblies, and to bring to justice every disturber of the peace, and gave orders to the aldermen and common councilmen of each ward to take steps for the preservation of tranquility and for securing obedience to the law. These resolutions were to be printed in all the public papers of the United Kingdom.[560] The officers and men of the London militia had already received orders to be ready at short notice to be under arms for the purpose of suppressing riot and tumult.[561]

In anticipation of war being sooner or later declared by one side or the other the Common Council resolved on the 10th January (1793) to offer bounties for seamen for a term not exceeding one month from that date.[562] Before that month expired the blow had fallen. Instead of England declaring war France took the initiative, and after sending her king to the scaffold declared war against England (1 Feb.). The citizens immediately extended their bounties for another month,[563] and pledged themselves to stand by the king and constitution.[564] They furthermore contributed the sum of £500 to the fund that was being raised by merchants of the city for privateering purposes.[565]

In the course of the spring a British force, under the command of the Duke of York, landed at Ostend, and having joined the imperial army under the Prince of Saxe-Coburg, contributed in no small measure to the success achieved against the French during the earlier part of the campaign. Later on the Duke of York attempted the siege of Dunkirk, but was compelled to retire. A ward committee was appointed in the City for the purpose of raising subscriptions for providing the troops with warm clothing and other necessaries during the winter, and the Common Council voted the sum of £500 for the same purpose.[566] Subscriptions came in from various parts of the country. Some towns, like Wigan and Hereford, sent clothing, but most of them sent cash. The result was that the City was able to despatch to the army a large number of greatcoats, trousers, shoes, stockings, shirts, mittens and other articles of apparel to the value of nearly £4,000. An offer made by the Grocers' Company to furnish the troops with a supply of "porter" was declined by the committee with thanks, as it appeared to them that "the advantage thereof could only be partial and temporary at best."[567] The Duke of York, writing from Ghent (10 Jan., 1794) to acknowledge the gift, paid a high tribute to the patience and courage of the troops under his command.[568]

The campaign of 1794 proved disastrous to the allies, and before the end of the year the Duke of York resigned his command. The want of success on the continent was in part compensated by Howe's victory over the French at sea. The French had resolved to dispute the sovereignty of the seas, and had prepared a fleet at Brest. In course of time Howe fell in with it, and on the 1st June a general engagement took place, in which the enemy, although far superior to the English fleet in weight of metal, was completely worsted. For this victory Howe received the thanks of Parliament and of the City, and also the Freedom of the latter in a gold box.[569] The City, moreover, voted a sum of £500 for the relief of those wounded in the engagement, and of the widows and children of those who had been killed. Howe acknowledged the honour conferred upon him and the liberality and benevolence of the City towards those who had served under him in most gracious terms.[570] Success also attended our arms in the West Indies, where Admiral Sir John Jervis and Lieutenant-General Sir Charles Grey captured Martinique and other French islands. For these exploits the Common Council voted both gallant officers the Freedom of the City and gold boxes,[571] and presented a congratulatory address to the king.[572]

In the meantime (17 April) proceedings had been taken to raise a regiment of infantry and a troop of cavalry to be called "The Loyal London Volunteers." Their chief duty was to be the defence of the city, but they were to be ready to enter the service of the government whenever occasion might require. A committee was nominated to raise subscriptions, and an Act of Parliament was passed for placing the Militia of the City on a better footing.[573] Scarcely was this done before riots again broke out, and on the 20th August the mayor (Paul le Mesurier) had to send for the Honourable Artillery Company for the protection of houses where recruits were being enlisted for the army. The military remained on duty all night in the neighbourhood of Whitecross Street, and effectually checked the rioters in the wanton destruction of property. The next night they were again on duty, this time in Shoe Lane, where they succeeded in dispelling a mob. For these services they were not only thanked by the mayor, but, more formally, by the Common Council, the latter body extending its acknowledgments to the light horse volunteers, as well as to the Military Association at Grocers' Hall, for their respective services during the crisis.[574]

To add to the City's troubles a famine was threatening, and on the last day of the year (1794) the lord mayor received instructions to confer with the Duke of Portland (he had recently joined the ministry) as to the best means of averting the calamity.[575] In the course of the next twelvemonth the City voted two sums of £1,000 for the relief of the poor.[576] There was even some talk of discontinuing all Corporation dinners for one whole year, in order that the money thus saved might be devoted to the poor; but the civic fathers had not the courage to adopt such a self-denying ordinance, although they consented to a compromise. They agreed that no committee should dine at the City's expense between the 16th July and the 1st October.[577] More than this they could not do.

In the hope of affording some relief the Lords of the Council proposed to put a stop to the use of fine flour for baking purposes, and to substitute a coarse but wholesome bread known as "standard wheaten bread" for the better class of bread. Their lordships themselves set an excellent example by signing a document pledging themselves and their families to use no other bread than standard wheaten bread until the following 1st October (by which time the harvest would have been gathered in), and to avoid as far as possible the use of flour in other articles of food. They further expressed a hope that their example might be generally followed. There was a difficulty, however, in adopting the standard wheaten bread in the city, where the assise of bread was regularly set by the mayor and aldermen. One reason against it was that its price as fixed by Statute was so low that bakers could not afford to make it, and penalties were attached to its sale at a higher price. The Lords of the Council were asked if they would indemnify bakers against such penalties if they infringed the Statute? They replied that this was beyond their power, but they suggested that the City might well make good any loss the trade might sustain, out of public subscriptions.[578]

The scarcity of wheat and the prospect of a bad harvest in 1795, had already predisposed the citizens for a cessation of hostilities abroad. As early as the 23rd January, 1795, a special Common Hall had been summoned by request, and a petition to the House of Commons had been drawn up praying the House to disclaim all right of interference in the internal concerns of France, and to take such measures as it should seem fit to bring about a speedy peace. The war, they said, ought never to have been entered upon and was based on a wrong principle.[579] The Common Council were more reserved, and, whilst assuring the king of their support, expressed a desire for such a peace only as could be procured with dignity and honour.[580]

As the year wore on and distress increased, the cry for peace became more general, and the government resolved upon an Autumn Session. Matters indeed had become so serious that when the king drove down to Westminster to open Parliament he was assailed on all sides with cries of "bread, bread! peace, peace!" and his carriage window was broken by a pebble or bullet. On his return he was again met with similar shouts, and he escaped with difficulty to Buckingham Palace. The Common Council at once offered their congratulations on his providential escape, and expressed their horror at the attack that had been made upon him. They at the same time embraced the opportunity, thus afforded, of thanking him for the declaration he had made of giving "the fullest and speediest effect to a negotiation for a general peace," whenever the condition of affairs in France would allow of it.[581] In consequence of this ebullition of public feeling, Pitt introduced and passed two Bills, commonly known as the Sedition and Treason Bills. The severity of these Bills was thought by many to be unreasonable, and brought much obloquy upon the minister; but the necessity of some such steps being taken to put down sedition was acknowledged by the Common Council.[582]

In December (1795), Pitt brought a royal message to Parliament declaring that the establishment of a new constitution (viz., the Directory) in France offered facilities for negotiations,[583] and in the following March (1796), overtures were made through the British envoy in Switzerland. They were, however, ungraciously received, and matters remained as they were until the following October, when the king notified his intention to the new Parliament of despatching a minister to Paris for the purpose of re-opening negotiations. By a certain section of the Common Council the news was received with anything but favour, and they would gladly have seen Pitt dismissed. The majority, however, preferred to present a loyal address to the king, assuring him that in the event of the negotiations failing he might depend upon the City for future support in any crisis that might arise. The king thanked the City.[584] As was feared, the negotiations again proved fruitless. France was all the while preparing to make a descent on Ireland, and as soon as these preparations were complete, the British ambassador was abruptly ordered to quit Paris (19 Dec.).

Thanks to the minister at the head of affairs the crisis did not find England unprepared. Fresh levies had already been made, both for the army and the navy; supplementary corps of militia had been raised, and plans laid for forming bodies of irregular infantry and cavalry. One thing only was wanting, and that was money. In order to raise this, Pitt at first thought of introducing a Bill to compel all persons enjoying a certain amount of income to subscribe one-fourth for the service of the country. On second thoughts, however, he preferred to trust to the patriotic spirit of the nation. He believed that many would be found ready to contribute even a larger proportion of their income if only an example were set by the Bank of England and the Corporation of London. The sum required was large, being no less than £18,000,000, and the terms he had to offer were scarcely remunerative. On the last day of November he addressed a letter to the governor of the Bank of England, desiring him to lay the proposal before the directors, and at the same time expressing a hope that they might "not be disinclined to take the lead in a measure which must have the most beneficial effect on public credit and the most evident tendency to accelerate the restoration of peace on secure and honourable terms."[585]

The next day (1 Dec.) he wrote to the lord mayor, urging him to lay the matter before the Common Council;—"The repeated proofs which the citizens of London have given of their zeal and public spirit leave me no doubt that if it appears likely to promote the interests of the country at this important crisis, it will receive their cheerful support in their individual capacity, as well as that of the corporate body and of the different public companies. It is unnecessary for me to state the effect which such an example would produce throughout the kingdom." To this the mayor (Brook Watson) replied that previous to the receipt of the letter he had been desired by a number of members to call a Common Council as soon as possible to consider the grant of an aid to government at the present crisis, and that he had in consequence summoned a court for the following Monday (5 Dec.).[586]

For once the Corporation found themselves left in the lurch. Long before the time named for the Common Council to consider Pitt's proposal the directors of the Bank of England had met, public subscriptions had been invited, and the whole loan of eighteen millions had been subscribed. Here is an account by a contemporary writer of the scene witnessed in the Bank on Thursday, the 1st December, and two following days[587];—"At ten o'clock this morning [1 Dec.] the parlour doors were opened, before which time the lobby was crowded. Numbers could not get near the books at all; while others, to testify their zeal, called to the persons at the books then signing to put down their names for them, as they were fearful of being shut out. At about twenty minutes past eleven the subscription was declared to be completely full, and hundreds in the room were reluctantly obliged to go away. By the post innumerable orders came from the country for subscriptions to be put down, scarcely one of which could be executed. And long after the subscription was closed persons continued coming, and were obliged to depart disappointed. It is a curious fact, and well worth stating, that the subscription completely filled in fifteen hours and twenty minutes: two hours on Thursday, six ditto on Friday, six ditto on Saturday and one ditto and twenty minutes on Monday—fifteen hours and twenty minutes." The directors of the Bank subscribed one million in their corporate capacity and £400,000 individually. The Common Council finding themselves left out in the cold, scarcely knew what to do. At first a somewhat pompous proposal was made for a committee to "prepare a plan for assisting the exigencies of the state in the present conjuncture." This, however, fell through, and the court finally contented itself with voting a sum of £100,000 towards the loan.[588]

Pitt's method of disposing of public money, when he got it, was not always approved by the citizens, more especially when it went to subsidise foreign mercenaries, without any authority from Parliament. Here, again, the livery and the Common Council entertained opposite views, and whilst the former called upon the city members to move or support a motion for censuring the ministry for sending money to the Emperor of Germany during the sitting of Parliament without the consent of Parliament,[589] the latter gave public testimony of their opinion that such payments as had been made to the Emperor had been beneficial to the country.[590]

The constant drain of gold to the continent under Pitt's administration again began to affect the Bank of England as it had formerly done in 1793. On the previous occasion the difficulty had been got over by the issue of Exchequer Bills. Since that time the financial state of the country had been going from bad to worse. A run on country banks set in, resulting in demands being made on the Bank of England, which threatened to exhaust its reserve. At this crisis the Bank applied to the government. Pitt, with his usual promptitude, summoned a council, although it was Sunday (26 Feb., 1797), and a proclamation was issued suspending cash payments until Parliament should decide what should be done. The next day a meeting of the leading merchants of the city was held at the Mansion House under the presidency of the lord mayor. They at once grasped the situation, and unanimously consented to accept bank-notes as legal tender.[591] The Order in Council was subsequently approved by Parliament, and though intended only as a temporary expedient, the Act then passed continued in operation for twenty-two years, the resumption of cash payments not taking place until May, 1819.

At a time when England seemed on the verge of bankruptcy, she seemed also likely to lose her supremacy at sea. A plan was set on foot for a junction of the French and Spanish fleets, whereby an overwhelming force might be brought into the English Channel and an invasion rendered comparatively easy. Both the king and the citizens expressed the greatest confidence in the navy,[592] although there were not wanting signs of discontent among the seamen. Fortunately the Spanish fleet was intercepted by Sir John Jervis off Cape St. Vincent; the British sailors forgot their grievances in the presence of the enemy, and a signal victory was won (14 Feb.), for which Jervis received the thanks of the City and a sword of honour, whilst Nelson and others serving under him were voted the Freedom and gold boxes.[593]

Although the Common Council—i.e., the City in its corporate capacity—were satisfied that the king had done all that was possible to procure an honourable peace, the livery were far from content. Again, they drew up an address to the king demanding the instant dismissal of his ministers, and once more they made an attempt to get their address received by the king on the throne. The king, however, stood out, and all that the livery could do was to pass resolutions in their Common Hall to the effect that they had always possessed the privilege they claimed, and that it had never been questioned "except under the corrupt and infamous administration" of those who were responsible for the American war.[594]

All immediate danger from the foreign enemy being over, the crews of the Channel Fleet at Portsmouth broke out into open mutiny. Their grievances were real, and as soon as they were assured of a remedy they returned to their duty. No sooner was one mutiny quelled, however, than another broke out at the Nore and threatened danger to London. The two movements were entirely distinct, and the sailors at Spithead expressed their strong disapproval of the conduct of their fellow seamen at the Nore. The danger was none the less. The Common Council resolved (6 June) to form ward associations for the defence of the city, but only one association, viz., the "Cornhill Military Association," appears to have been actually formed, and that comprised no more than fifty-three members.[595]

The mutiny soon spread to the fleet off the Texel where Admiral Duncan was stationed for the purpose of preventing a junction between the French and the Dutch. Many of the ships sailed away to join the fleet at the Nore and Duncan was left in great straits. Nevertheless he still continued to make a show of force, and after the suppression of the mutiny, had the satisfaction of defeating the Dutch fleet off Camperdown (11 Oct.), and so putting an end to another projected invasion of Ireland. The Common Council presented a congratulatory address to the king; passed votes of thanks and presented swords of honour to Duncan and Sir Richard Onslow, and contributed £500 for the relief of the wounded and the widows and orphans of those who had fallen.[596]

Three such naval victories as those achieved by Howe, Jervis, and Duncan, deserved a solemn service of thanksgiving at St. Paul's, and on Saturday, the 25th November, the lord mayor received orders from the Duke of Portland to prepare for the king's reception in the city.[597] Tuesday, the 19th December, was the day fixed for the ceremony, and on that day the king and queen, the royal family, the cabinet and foreign ministers, the two Houses of Parliament, and a large body of naval officers and seamen came in solemn procession to the city, being met at Temple Bar by the mayor, sheriffs, and a deputation of the Common Council.[598] The gallant Duncan received an ovation, but Pitt was so grossly insulted on his way to the city that after the ceremony, instead of returning in his own carriage as he came, he betook himself to some friends in Doctors Commons and there dined, being afterwards conveyed home under military escort.[599]

The occasion caused a re-opening of the question as to the command of the London militia. Was the command vested in the lord mayor or in the Court of Lieutenancy?[600] The latter body had claimed to have the disposition of troops brought into the city to keep order on thanksgiving day. The lord mayor conceived such a claim to be opposed to his own prerogative, and he at once communicated with the Duke of York desiring his royal highness to order up the regiment of militia then quartered at Greenwich, and to place it for the day under his (the mayor's) command, and that had accordingly been done.[601] The question whether the lord mayor, for the time being, could on his own individual responsibility, and without consulting the Court of Lieutenancy, call out the London militia except in cases of emergency, was afterwards submitted to the law officers of the City, and they unanimously pronounced an opinion in favour of the lord mayor's contention.[602]

Except for the naval victories of Jervis and Duncan the year 1797 had been one of the darkest in the nation's history. The war had lasted over four years, and although it had already added a hundred and thirty-five millions to the National Debt, Pitt found it necessary early in 1798 to make another appeal to the country for a voluntary loan. Determined not to be behindhand again, the Common Council at once resolved (13 Feb.) to subscribe £10,000; but the money had to be borrowed.[603] A third invasion was threatening under the command of Napoleon Bonaparte himself. The Duke of York sent for the lord mayor to learn what military associations had been formed in the city, and was disappointed to find that only one existed (viz., the Cornhill Military Association just mentioned), and even that had threatened to dissolve itself when it found the rest of the city wards doing nothing. It now resolved, however, to put itself into active training. In April Secretary Dundas wrote more than once to the lord mayor urging the necessity of forming as many military associations as possible. The municipal authorities and the Court of Lieutenancy buried their differences, and vied with each other in inspiring the inhabitants of the city with military ardour. The Phoenix Fire Office offered its firemen for military training, and every effort was made to bring the militia regiments up to their full strength.[604]

Instead of making a descent on England Bonaparte sailed to Egypt, seizing Malta on his way, and there he was forced to remain, owing to the destruction of his transports by Nelson at the battle of the Nile (1 Aug.). Nelson, a freeman of the City, presented to the Corporation the French admiral's (Blanquet) sword, which lies in the Guildhall Museum.[605] The Corporation, on their part, presented Nelson with a sword of honour, and Captain Berry with the Freedom of the City in a gold box. They also passed a vote of thanks to the officers and men engaged in the action, and contributed the sum of £500 for the relief of the widows and orphans of those who had fallen.[606] The City further proposed to erect a suitable memorial of Nelson's victory. Several suggestions were offered. Copley recommended pictures to hang in the Council Chamber opposite his siege of Gibraltar, others were in favour of sculpture.[607] All suggestions were set aside, however, when it became known that a national memorial, in the shape of a Grand Naval Pillar, or Rostra, to be set up on Portsdown Hill, was proposed, and subscriptions invited. The Common Council at once resolved to subscribe 100 guineas to the fund.[608] Contributions, however, came in so slowly that the idea of a national monument had to be abandoned, and subscriptions were returned, the City's 100 guineas being paid over to the Marine Society by order of the Common Council.[609] On the 17th January (1799) the Honourable Mrs. Damer, a daughter of General Conway, and a clever artist, offered to execute a bust of Nelson for the Corporation, either in bronze or marble, in commemoration of his recent victory. The offer was gracefully made and no less gracefully accepted;[610] and the City's Art Gallery is enriched by an admirable specimen of that lady's handiwork.[611]

Soon after Parliament met in November (1798) Pitt introduced his financial scheme for the coming year. The principal feature of this scheme was a Bill for imposing a tax upon all the leading branches of income. The tax was professedly of a temporary character and was to be employed solely to meet the exigencies of the war. Some little opposition was made to the Bill both before and after it passed, as well in the city as in Parliament. The Common Council objected to it on the ground that it drew no distinction between the precarious and fluctuating income arising from labour, trade and professions and the more settled income arising from landed and funded property. They were afraid also that unless the assessors were bound to secrecy a man's credit might be unduly prejudiced.[612] In spite of all opposition the Bill passed the Commons by a large majority on the last day of the year, and early in 1799 was accepted by the Lords.

In the meantime the situation of Bonaparte and the French army—shut up as they were in Egypt—had become very critical. To complete his scheme of Eastern conquest Bonaparte had marched into Syria. After capturing Joppa, where he massacred his prisoners, he advanced to Acre, the key of Syria. There he was met by Sir Sidney Smith, who succeeded in throwing himself into the town, and at length compelled him to raise the siege (21 May).[613] For his extraordinary gallantry in defending the fortress Sir Sidney was accorded the thanks of the City and a sword of honour.[614]

On the 21st June (1799) the king himself came to the City, accompanied by the Dukes of York, Gloucester, Kent and Cumberland, and officers of the Life Guards, for the purpose of reviewing the several volunteer corps of the City, drawn up in Bridge Street, Blackfriars, at St. Paul's, the Bank, the Royal Exchange and on Tower Hill. The royal party were met on the south side of Blackfriars Bridge, where the City's jurisdiction commenced, by the mayor, sheriffs and city marshals on horseback, followed by the grenadiers of the East Regiment of London militia. The ceremony of delivering the City's sword into the king's hands having been gone through, the inspection of the regiments took place. The royal party afterwards repaired to Finsbury to hold an inspection of the Artillery Company in their own ground;[615] and in Sun Street, the limit of the City's jurisdiction, the mayor took leave by lowering the sword. The Duke of Portland was subsequently commissioned by the king to express to the mayor the gratification the visit had given his majesty.[616]

Pitt, in the meanwhile, though failing in health, had succeeded in forming a new coalition, and in August (1799), the whole of the Dutch fleet fell into the hands of Sir Ralph Abercromby and Admiral Mitchell. A series of reverses, however, quickly followed, and before the end of November the allied forces, English and Russians, were glad to accept terms and quit Holland. Some members of the Common Council were for presenting a strongly worded address to the king demanding an enquiry into the cause of the failure of the expedition, and the punishment of the authors, but the motion was eventually allowed to drop.[617] The Council had previously congratulated the king upon the capture of the Dutch fleet.[618]

As soon as Bonaparte heard of the new coalition that had been formed against him he hurried to Paris, leaving his army behind him in Egypt to shift for itself. Soon after his arrival he succeeded in putting an end to the Directory, and in getting himself appointed First Consul. He was now practically supreme, and on his own responsibility made overtures to England for peace. These overtures were declined, to the great disappointment of the livery of London, who again petitioned Parliament against the prolongation of the war, which had been undertaken, they said, for no other purpose than for restoring the Bourbon family to the throne.[619]

The disaffection that had so long manifested itself in Ireland led at last to the passing of an Act of Union. The subject was brought before Parliament by the king on the 2nd April (1800). A Bill was subsequently introduced and read a first time on the 17th June. On the 24th it passed the Commons.[620]

The assent of the Irish Parliament was necessary for the scheme to take effect. This occasioned some difficulty, but by a wholesale system of bribery and corruption, such as was only too common in those days, it was at last obtained, and it was agreed that the union of Great Britain and Ireland should commence from the 1st January, 1801. Thenceforth there was to be but one Parliament for the two countries.

In the meantime distress in England had been increasing to an alarming extent owing to the bad harvests and the consequent scarcity of wheat. At the commencement of the year (1800), the price of flour had risen to such an extent that the Court of Aldermen resolved to enforce the consumption of the standard wheaten bread according to the Statute (13 Geo. III, c. 62).[621] As time went on matters became worse. In September the city was threatened with riot. On the night of Saturday the 13th, the following placard was stuck upon the Monument[622]:—

"Bread will be sixpence the quartern loaf if the people will assemble at the Corn Market on Monday.

"Fellow countrymen.

"How long will ye quietly and cowardly suffer yourselves to be thus imposed upon and half starved by a set of mercenary slaves and government hirelings; can you still suffer them to proceed in their extensive monopolies and your families are crying for food? No, let them exist not a day longer. Ye are the sovereignty. Rouse then from your lethargy and meet at the Corn Market, Monday."

As soon as the attention of the lord mayor (Harvey Combe) was drawn to the placard, he forthwith took steps to put down any disturbance that might arise. The city constables were posted in the neighbourhood of the Corn Market. The West Regiment of the city militia was held ready for action under the command of Alderman Newnham, at their head-quarters in the Old Bailey, whilst the South-East Division of Loyal London Volunteers under the command of Alderman Curtis took up its station at Fishmongers' Hall. The fact of inflammatory papers having appeared posted on the Monument, and the steps he had thus taken to prevent disturbance, were duly reported by the mayor to the Duke of Portland, who signified his approval of the chief magistrate's conduct.[623] At eleven o'clock on Monday morning word was brought to the lord mayor that a crowd had collected at the Corn Market in Mark Lane, and that business was impeded. He immediately set out, accompanied by Alderman Hibbert, for Mark Lane. At the Corn Market they were joined by Sir William Leighton and Sheriff Flower. Finding a large number of people assembled who had no business in the Corn Market, his lordship ascended the staircase and proceeded to address the assembly, entreating them to go home, as that was the best way of getting rid of their grievance. Thereupon he was met with loud cries of "bread, bread, give us bread, and don't starve us!" On the whole, the mob appeared fairly good tempered and cheered the mayor as he left for the Mansion House. In the afternoon, however, his presence was again required, and the Riot Act had to be read. Still nothing very serious occurred; one man suspected of being connected with the corn trade received rough treatment at the hands of the mob, and a few rioters were committed by the mayor to the Compter for attacking the city marshal with bludgeons, but matters soon quieted down and the mayor again returned to the Mansion House to write a report of the day's doings to the Duke of Portland as before. Whilst thus occupied, he was again sent for. This was at half-past six in the evening. As the mob were at that time beginning to display signs of mischief, he sent to Colonel Newnham to have his men ready at a moment's warning, whilst he drew the volunteers from Fishmongers' Hall, and with their assistance succeeded in clearing the whole of Mark Lane and guarding its approaches. The East India Volunteers, the Bishopsgate Volunteers, and the Portsoken also rendered assistance. In the course of the evening the Loyal London Volunteers were relieved by the militia; but nothing serious happened, and at one o'clock in the morning the troops were withdrawn.

On Tuesday (16 Sept.) the lord mayor gave a full account of all that had taken place to the Court of Aldermen, and informed that body that he had caused advertisements to be published offering a reward of £100 for the apprehension and conviction of the person or persons who had written or caused to be stuck up the inflammatory placards on the Monument.[624] At the suggestion of the Duke of Portland the amount of the reward was afterwards raised to £500.[625] The Court of Aldermen passed a vote of thanks to the mayor for what he had done. They also placed on record their opinion that, but for business in the Corn Market being hindered by the mob, the price of wheat and flour would have experienced a greater fall than it actually had done on the 15th, and further, that as nothing would more tend to the reduction of the existing high price of the principal articles of food than the affording protection to dealers bringing corn and other commodities to the market, the Court was resolved at once and by force (if necessary) to put down any attempt to impede the regular business of the markets of the metropolis.[626]

Whilst the mayor was presiding over the Court of Aldermen a letter was placed in his hands from the Duke of Portland, informing him that the duke had instructed Colonel Herries, commanding the London and Westminster light horse volunteers, to lose no time in placing his services at the lord mayor's disposal. The duke at the same time seemed to suggest that the lord mayor had been somewhat remiss in apprehending the ringleaders in yesterday's disturbances.[627] The mayor sent a reply that evening. He thanked the duke for his offer of assistance; but he had no occasion for it, as the city was perfectly quiet. As to his grace's suggestion that the arrest of some of the ringleaders might have been useful, the mayor begged to inform him that four of them had been arrested, and had been committed for trial. If his grace thought that their prosecution by the crown would be more efficacious than by the city, he would forward the minutes of evidence that had been taken. The letter concluded by an assurance that at the time of writing (5 p.m.) the mayor had not the smallest intimation of any disorder in any part of the city.[628]

Notwithstanding the apparent tranquillity of the city, the mayor received notice three hours later that a mob had gathered in Bishopsgate Street and was threatening the premises of Messrs. Wood, Fossick and Wood. In anticipation of some further outbreak he had already massed troops in Drapers' Hall Gardens and at the Royal Exchange, whilst he had given orders to Colonel le Mesurier to hold the Artillery Company in readiness in the Artillery House. The colonel thought fit to disobey orders—to the mayor's great indignation—and on his own responsibility marched 150 men to Bishopsgate Street, and sent orders for a party of the light horse to follow him. The troops continued to parade the streets until nearly one o'clock in the morning, when all fear of a disturbance having passed away, they were withdrawn for the night, and the mayor went home to write another report to the Duke of Portland.[629] Disturbances continued to occur in different parts of the city between Wednesday, the 17th September, and the following Saturday, but they were not of a serious kind, the damage being chiefly confined to the breaking of street lamps.[630] After Saturday the streets resumed their wonted appearance, and business was carried on at Smithfield and the Corn Market as usual.

The lord mayor of London for the time being has, as we have seen, always jealously guarded his right to the supreme control over all military forces within his jurisdiction. Harvey Combe was no exception. When the colonel commanding the Artillery Company ventured to disobey his orders during the recent riots Combe was justly indignant. He was more indignant when, a few weeks later, the military associations were called out without his orders on information of a likelihood of a riot sent by the Duke of Portland to the police officers of the city, and not to himself; and he laid the matter before the Common Council in the following speech,[631] delivered on the 14th October:—

"Gentlemen of the Common Council,

"After the disturbances which existed within this city a month ago it is very natural for everyone to be alarmed by the appearance of the least symptom of their return. I have the satisfaction to state to this Court that from the time I had the honor to sit here last [27 Sept.] to the present moment I have not received the slightest information of that tendency, nor has any one person expressed to me an apprehension on that head. I should not have thought it necessary to have made this declaration had it not been that a considerable agitation prevailed in the city yesterday because the police officers round the city had ordered out various military associations to assist the civil power in consequence of information received from the Secretary of State that riots were expected—no such information was given to me."

The same day that the lord mayor thus addressed the Common Council the Court resolved to present an humble address to the king praying him to hasten the meeting of Parliament in order to consider the enormously high price of provisions. To this the king replied that he was always desirous of recurring to the advice and assistance of Parliament on any public emergency, and that previous to receiving the City's petition he had already given directions for convening Parliament for the despatch of business. This was scarcely the reply the City looked for, and it gave rise to much debate in the Common Council. When the usual motion was made and question put that his majesty's gracious answer should be entered in the Journal of the Court, an amendment was moved reflecting upon the character of the answer received as one disrespectful to the Court and regardless of the extreme sufferings and distress of his majesty's subjects. This amendment was, however, negatived.[632] When Parliament at last met, the question of remedial measures was at once referred to select committees of both Houses. Nevertheless, the high price of bread continued to exercise the minds of the civic authorities for some time to come.[633]

Early in the following year (1801), Pitt resigned. It had been his intention to introduce a Bill into Parliament—the first united Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland—for the full emancipation of Roman Catholics, and thereby to fulfil a pledge he had given before the Union was effected. The king, however, displayed so much opposition to the proposal, that Pitt could not do otherwise than send in his resignation, which the king reluctantly accepted. The excitement caused by recent events brought on a recurrence of the king's insanity, and measures were taken for appointing a regent on the terms formerly insisted on by Pitt. The king's illness, however, again proved to be only of a temporary character, and when he recovered, the Common Council who had recently presented him with a congratulatory address on the Union,[634] deemed it best to take no notice either of his illness or recovery.[635]

The new ministry, with Addington, the late Speaker, at its head, was fortunate so far as the war was concerned. In March (1801) an expedition under Sir Ralph Abercromby landed in Egypt and succeeded in defeating the French army left there by Bonaparte. Abercromby was killed, but General Hutchinson, who succeeded him, continued to act with vigour, and was backed up by Admiral Lord Keith. The Common Council voted (23 July) a sum of £500 towards the relief of the widows and orphans of those who had perished in the expedition.[636] A month later the town of Alexandria capitulated, and the French army was allowed to evacuate Egypt. For these services the Freedom of the City was conferred on Keith and Hutchinson, and the thanks of the Common Council voted to the officers and men of the army and navy under their command, as well as to Sir Sidney Smith, who had recently been mixed up in the El Arish Treaty.[637]

At sea the British government was no less successful. A few days after the battle of Alexandria it became necessary to despatch a fleet to the Baltic in order to break up a Northern confederacy formed between Russia, Sweden, and Denmark, which threatened the interests of this country. The fleet was placed under the command of Sir Hyde Parker. Thanks to Nelson's insubordination in declining to obey the Admiral's signal to discontinue action, the battle of Copenhagen was won. The Common Council voted another sum of £500 for the relief of the wounded and the widows and orphans of those who had died in the action, but Nelson's name is not even mentioned.[638]

Defeated in Egypt, and thwarted in her Northern policy, France was now willing to accede to terms, and on the night of the 1st October, Lord Hawkesbury, foreign secretary, was able to inform the lord mayor by letter that preliminaries of peace had been signed that evening. On the 10th, he wrote again informing the mayor that the preliminaries had been ratified.[639] The news caused immense satisfaction. Some time, however, was still to elapse before the final ratification took place. Negotiations to this end were carried on at Amiens, and although a number of outstanding questions were still left unsettled, peace was finally concluded on the 27th March, 1802, and proclaimed in the city on the 29th April, amid general rejoicing.[640] The termination (as it was thought to be) of a war which left the British navy "more proudly pre-eminent" than the termination of any former war, called forth another of that long series of loyal addresses which the citizens found it their duty to present to the king in the course of his long and eventful reign.[641]