Now that the war was over, a period of tranquillity, prosperity and retrenchment was eagerly looked for. The country therefore experienced bitter disappointment when, on the resumption of the parliamentary session in February (1816), the government declared its intention of continuing to levy the income or property tax (which, from the first, had been avowedly a war tax) although the assessment was to be reduced by one-half. The citizens were among the first to express their indignation at such a proceeding. The Common Council and the livery passed a number of resolutions against the continuance of a tax that was at once inquisitorial, unjust and vexatious, and both bodies presented petitions to parliament against its renewal.[718] The Common Council submitted to the House that having patiently endured great burdens and privations during a war of unexampled difficulty they had naturally expected that on the return of peace "they should have been relieved from the burthens of war establishments and war taxes, that at least the most obnoxious and oppressive of them would have been removed, and they confidently hoped that by such reductions in the public expenditure with the necessary reformations and the abolishing of all unnecessary places, pensions and sinecures, there would have been no pretence for the continuance of a tax subversive of freedom and destructive to the peace and happiness of the people." The livery for their part reminded the House that the first imposition of the tax was accompanied by "the most unequivocal and solemn declaration that the same should be withdrawn immediately after the termination of the then existing hostilities," and they expressed the utmost surprise and indignation at the government proposing to continue the oppressive and odious tax now that peace had been restored. As for the proposed reduction from ten to five per cent. the change so far from being likely to render the tax less vexatious would produce the opposite effect, and would, in their opinion, "be the occasion of the most degrading and inquisitorial proceedings, worse, if possible, than have been experienced under the former pressure of this heavy burden." The outcry of the city was quickly taken up by the country, and such a flood of petitions against the renewal of the tax poured in that the government had to give way and the tax was abandoned.

At the opening of the session the Prince Regent had congratulated the country upon the prosperity of the revenue and of all branches of trade and manufacture.[719] As a matter of fact both the commercial and agricultural interests of the country were in a very bad way. The high prices produced during the latter part of the war by the continental system, which virtually excluded foreign competition, had been most disastrous to agriculture by encouraging a bad system of farming, whilst they inflicted the greatest hardship upon all but the wealthiest class. In 1811 the price of a quartern loaf—as set from time to time by the Court of Aldermen, according to the custom of the city,[720] "within the city and the liberties thereof, and the weekly Bills of mortality, and within ten miles of the Royal Exchange"—had risen to such a height that the Common Council presented an address to the Regent (18 Dec.) praying him to take measures for re-opening commercial intercourse with foreign, and especially neutral, nations. To this the Regent replied that nothing should be wanting on his part towards restoring commercial intercourse between this country and other nations "to the footing on which it has been usually conducted, even in the midst of war."[721] The average price of the quartern loaf, from this period until the autumn of 1813, when the country was blessed with a rich harvest, may be set down at 1s. 6d. It then began to fall rapidly. Flour, however, kept up in price for some time owing to the dryness of the summer, which prevented many mills near London from working, whilst several of the mills which could work "were engaged in answering the demands of government for the army abroad, and the prisoners of war confined in this country."[722]

No sooner had the price of wheat fallen than a Corn Law Bill was introduced into Parliament, in the interests of the landed gentry, to raise it again. The Bill was brought in on the 1st March (1815), and rapidly passed the Commons, in spite of protests from the Common Council, as well as the livery of London, who objected to the landowner, who had benefited by the war, being made richer at the expense of the tradesman and merchant, whose burdens the war had so much increased.[723] On the 21st the Bill passed the Lords, and only awaited the Regent's assent to become law. Determined to make one more effort the Common Council presented an address to his royal highness begging him to withhold his assent.[724] They complained of the "precipitancy" with which the Bill had been passed, and of the utter disregard of public feeling and opinion which both Houses—composed as they were of landed proprietors, to whom the war had been a source of emolument—had throughout displayed. The Bill had been passed (they repeated) in the interest of landowners, who already enjoyed sufficient immunities, whereas the manufacturer and the merchant, who had done so much to make England what she was, had to suffer from foreign competition and the recent introduction of machinery. The Bill, if passed, would keep up the price of food, and so drive the manufacturer and artisan to foreign parts, and transfer the skill, industry and capital of the kingdom to other nations. They prayed his highness, therefore, to exercise his prerogative of refusing his assent to the Bill. This he refused, however, to do, and the Bill became law. As to the merits or demerits of free-trade, opinions are still divided; but for thirty years after the passing of the first Corn Law the City never lost an opportunity of declaring its opposition to the principle involved,[725] and never rested until in 1846 the first steps were taken for the abolition of all corn duties. However much others have benefited by their repeal, one cannot shut one's eyes to the fact that to the agricultural class the result has been little short of disastrous.

Unfortunately the depression was not confined to agriculture, as the Common Council took an early opportunity of pointing out to Parliament in their petition against the renewal of the income tax (8 Feb.): "Your petitioners are deeply sensible"—they told the House of Commons—"of the depressed state of the agricultural interests and of the ruinous effect of such a burthen thereon, they nevertheless beg to state that the manufacturing and trading interests are equally depressed and equally borne down with the weight of taxation."[726]

As time went on matters became worse, and in August the livery resolved to present another address to the Regent, calling his attention to the prevalent distress, which they characterised as "unparalleled in the history of our country," and which they declared to be "the natural result of a corrupt system of administration," as well as of the profligate waste of public money during the late war. An address was accordingly drawn up (21 Aug.) praying his highness to lose no time in recommending to the serious consideration of Parliament (1) the distressed state of the country; (2) the prompt abolition of all useless places and pensions; (3) the immediate and effectual reduction of the standing army; (4) a system of the most rigid economy in every public department, and last, but not least, (5) such a reform of Parliament as should restore and secure to the people their ancient constitutional rights. This address they ordered to be presented to the Prince Regent "seated on his throne." The address was never presented, for the reason that the Regent refused to receive it in any other way than at a levÉe or through the medium of his secretary of state. The livery therefore had once more to console themselves with passing a number of resolutions after the usual manner.[727]

The streets of the city, meanwhile, swarmed not only with artisans out of work, but, what was worse, with discharged soldiers and sailors. A large proportion of the last mentioned class were foreign seamen. At the close of the war the government had taken steps to send to their respective countries all foreign seamen who had served on British vessels. Many of them, however, had either declined the government offer, or, having accepted it and obtained a passage home, had come to England with the view of entering the English merchant service or obtaining some other employment in this country. It was in vain that the lord mayor (Matthew Wood)[728] applied to the foreign consuls to send them home. The answer was that they had "forfeited all claim on their native country and violated the allegiance they owed to it by entering the service of Great Britain." The consequence was that great numbers of these unfortunate men wandered about the city in an utterly destitute condition. Oftentimes when opportunity offered for sending some of them to their own country their consuls could not find them. The lord mayor, who was in communication both with Lord Sidmouth and Lord Melville, suggested the advisability of mooring an old vessel in the Thames for the reception of foreign seamen until they could be sent home. Lord Melville, as first lord of the admiralty, signified his approval of the plan and promised to supply a suitable vessel. In the meanwhile, matters daily grew worse. The lord mayor complained to Lord Sidmouth (16 Nov.) that he had frequently been engaged from nine in the morning until six in the evening attending to destitute cases:—"I have had before me two hundred in a day, of whom the greater number have come from Wapping and the out parishes, and not one in twenty has slept in London." If only the magistrates (he declared) would examine into the cases of their own districts, "it would divide the labour and prevent the daily assemblage of from one to two hundred of these poor creatures around the Mansion House, some of whom linger about it all night." In conclusion he begged to draw his lordship's attention once more to the situation of the foreign seamen who were found on the bridges and in the streets "literally starving," and to ask that the government should do something to relieve the City of the heavy expense which their presence entailed. The only reply which the secretary of state vouchsafed to this appeal was a non possumus. The government had done all they could do, and relief could only be looked for at the hands of the foreign consuls, whose duty it was to provide for their own poor.[729]

Moved at the sad spectacle which met them on every side, the livery of London again met in Common Hall on the 29th November. They felt that it was useless to attempt to get an address received by the Regent in the manner they deemed proper; so they again passed resolutions urging all counties, corporate bodies, towns, wards and parishes throughout the kingdom to lay their grievances at the foot of the throne and before Parliament in a firm, temperate, and peaceable manner, with the view of eventually obtaining that economical and parliamentary reform they had so long and so anxiously desired.[730]

In the meanwhile a series of riots had taken place in various parts of the country. In agricultural districts ricks had been fired, and in manufacturing towns machinery had been wantonly destroyed. In December, a riot known as the "Spa Fields Riot" broke out, but was repressed without much difficulty, thanks to the courage of the lord mayor. The first intimation that Matthew Wood received that anything was wrong, was about mid-day on Monday, the 2nd December. He was then told that a mob some thousands strong was approaching the city by way of Aldersgate Street; that a man had already been shot in a gun-maker's shop in Skinner Street, and that the shop had been cleared of a large quantity of arms. What subsequently took place is best told in Matthew Wood's own report[731] to his brother aldermen:—"I immediately signified my intention of going out to meet them and instantly Sir James Shaw and Mr. White offered their services. On enquiring for Police Officers, only two were to be found. We hurried to Guildhall, where we met with only three more, and attended by these five we advanced by the back streets in the hope of reaching the top of Cheapside before the Mob; in Lad Lane we were told that they had already entered Cheapside in great force with Colors, and the firing was distinctly heard by us, we returned therefore immediately with all imaginable speed by the way of Princes Street into Cornhill, with the view of heading them in that direction; in this however we were again foiled, for in reaching the West end of Cornhill, we saw them pressing [sic] the front of the Exchange. We followed them close, and seeing the head of their Column crossing into Sweeting's Alley we rushed thro' the Royal Exchange in order to take them in front and we succeeded. We met them on the North of the Royal Exchange near the Old Stock Exchange, on seeing me they cheered, we immediately attacked them, upon which they began to seperate in all directions and some laid down their arms. Sir James Shaw intrepidly seized the Flag and its Bearer, Mr. White seized one man and I another. The Mob were now seen flying in all directions: about this time Mr. Favell and Mr. Hick joined us, a man with a tricolored Cockade in his hat (Hooper) came up to me with a desire to explain. I made him go before me into the Exchange which he did without resistance. I had him in the centre when two fellows levelled their Musketts at me. I said, 'fire away, you Rascals.' One of them fired. I then gave Hooper into the Custody of the Officers, who found in his pockets two Horse Pistols, one loaded with Ball, the other with Slugs. A cry that the mob had rallied was heard just as we were making arrangements for securing the Prisoners. I ordered the gates of the Exchange to be shut, which we accomplished with some difficulty and not before several guns loaded with shot were fired under the gates at our feet, but without any effect. Information being now received that a portion of the Rioters had gone towards the East end of the City, it was determined to follow them, directions having been first given to put the prisoners into the custody of the Master of Lloyd's, with whom Sir James Shaw also lodged the Standard. I proceeded accompanied by Sir James and a few Constables up Cornhill and Leadenhall Street, but here we were told, the Mob had wholly dispersed; which induced us to return to the Mansion House, where I found Sir William Curtis, who in his zeal for the Public Service, had lost sight of all personal ailments, and had come, ill as he was, to offer me his best services, by this time also the Dragoons had reached the City. Mr. Alderman Atkins who had been sitting in the Justice Room for me also joined us, and it being suggested, that it would be proper that the different Wards should collect as many of their respectable Inhabitants as possible, to be sworn in Special Constables, I immediately gave directions to that effect. Sir James Shaw and Mr. Alderman Atkins tendered their Services to convey my wishes to Lloyd's and the Stock Exchange and these Gentlemen informed me that the proposition was received and accepted at each of these places by the Gentlemen with cheers. These Gentlemen next proceeded to the Bank where they saw the Governor, and had the satisfaction to learn he had anticipated their wishes; a division of the Bank Corps being then actually under arms. From the Bank they proceeded to the India House and met with several of the Directors in attendance who immediately gave orders for 500 of their men to be selected as a Guard on their warehouses, who were soon after sworn in Constables by Mr. Alderman Atkins. When these Gentlemen returned to the Mansion House there were assembled Sir John Eamer, Sir John Perring, Sir William Leighton, Sir Charles Flower, Alderman J.J. Smith, Alderman Scholey, Alderman Birch, Alderman Magnay, Alderman Heygate, Alderman Cox and Sheriffs Bridges and Kirby with their Under-Sheriffs. About 3 o'clock information was brought me, that the Mob had broken into the Warehouses of Messrs. Branden and C^o. and Mr. Rea's and had taken from each a quantity of arms, and almost at the same moment I received intelligence that the plunderers had been met and dispersed by the Dragoons, who had made some Prisoners, and recovered most of the arms. During the absence of Sir James Shaw and Mr. Alderman Atkins Mr. White of Bishopsgate Street had arrived with a Troop of Light Dragoons which he had fetched from the Light Horse Stables, Grays Inn Lane, and Mr. Goldham having been dispatched with a few of them to reconnoitre, now returned with a Coach loaded with Musketts, Swords, Blunderbusses, Pikes, Halbuts, and a brass Cannon which had been taken from the Mob in the Minories by the Life Guardsmen and three Prisoners were sent into Aldgate Watchouse and committed to the care of a Constable, who by a shameful dereliction of his duty suffered them to escape. Mr. M^c Lean of Brunswick Square, who had not long left the Mansion House, returned about four o'Clock and informed me, that, the Meeting in the Fields had broken up, and that, there were 15,000 people coming down Holborn and passing to Fleet Market. I determined to go and meet them; Sir James Shaw and Mr. M^c Lean tendered their Services, when taking some Police Officers some Special Constables and a Detachment of Dragoons with us we moved on in a quick pace by the North side of St. Paul's Church Yard where we met about 2,000 persons, but seeing they were without arms of any kind and perfectly peaceable, we allowed them to pass on. We proceeded Westward and nearly to the middle of Fleet Street when meeting another party of Dragoons, who informed us everything was quiet in that Quarter we returned to the Mansion House, I having first directed a party of the Horse accompanied with Police Officers to make the Circuit of the Prisons and to report to me when they had so done. The City was quiet from this time. About 12 o'Clock at Night some papers taken by the Constable out of the Pocket of the Man who shot Mr. Platt were shown to me, by which I learned that Hooper was connected with Preston the Secretary of the Spa Fields Meeting. These papers state that subscriptions towards defraying the expences of erecting Hustings, Printing &c., will be received by J. Hooper No. 9 Graystock Place Fetter Lane signed Preston Secretary. About one in morning accompanied by Mr. Sheriff Kirby, Mr. Under-Sheriff Kearsey and others with some Constables, I went to No. 9 Graystock Place and made the Householder come down, who proved to be Preston the Secretary. We searched the House and found in it very few papers—one an Hymn, and another a letter of exhortation on the subject of 'England expects every Man to do his duty.' There was likewise a small quantity of Tricolored Ribbon. Preston had two daughters and there were only two Beds on the floor in the same room, the whole house in a most wretched condition—with scarsely a chair; in the room used by Hooper for the reception of subscriptions there was no other furniture but a table. Preston said Hooper did not lodge there nor did he know where he lived. It is supposed Watson Jun^r. was the Person who fired the Pistol at Mr. Platt, as Hooper says he did not see Watson for some time after they left the Fields, and it appears that he went into the Shop alone. The Officer was induced to let him escape through the entreaties of Mr. Beckwith's family who were apprehensive should he be detained that the house would be pulled down. I have no doubt had the Mob not been prevented it was their intention to have collected a great number of fire arms and then to have returned to Spa Fields and from thence to Carlton House. Hooper admits that they intended to go to Carlton House, but not with fire arms. Hooper said that Watson Jun^r. gave him the Pistols on Sunday night at Preston's House and in his presence said that if they were opposed by the Civil power, they were to use them."

The lord mayor closed his narrative with a handsome acknowledgment of the services rendered by his brother aldermen, the special constables and others, whilst he expressed a desire more particularly to call the attention of the Court to the conduct of Sir James Shaw, "whose zeal, activity, coolness and undaunted courage," had rendered him such valuable assistance throughout the day.

On the 9th December—just one week after the riot—the Common Council presented an address to the Regent praying for a reformation of abuses, a speedy meeting of Parliament, and a more equitable system of representation. The address was received with "surprise and regret." His highness expressed his opinion, shared as he said, by a large portion of his subjects, that the prevailing distress was the result of "unavoidable causes." He was confident that the good sense, public spirit, and loyalty of the nation would prove superior to the attempts that had been made to "irritate and mislead" his subjects. And he declared his readiness to meet Parliament at the time appointed and not before.[732]

When it came to recording the Regent's "most gracious" answer on the Journal of the Common Council, an amendment was made and carried, to leave out the words "most gracious." The Council went further than this. It passed a resolution expressing its own "surprise and regret," that his highness should have been advised to return such an answer at such a time; that he should have imputed to those who sought only a reformation of abuses, a desire to "irritate and mislead" the people, and that he should have attributed to "unavoidable causes" what was in reality due to reckless public expenditure, sanctioned by a corrupt Parliament.[733]

The general discontent vented itself by a personal attack on the Regent as he drove from Westminster after opening Parliament in January (1817), and one of the windows of his carriage was broken by a missile. The City at once expressed its indignation at the outrage and offered addresses congratulating the prince on his escape.[734]

Parliament had not sat many days before the Common Council and the livery presented strongly-worded petitions to both Houses for Reform. The Common Council pointed out—as an example of one of the most glaring anomalies—that Cornwall alone returned more borough members than fifteen other counties together including Middlesex, and more than eleven counties even including county members,[735] whilst the livery referred all the evils which the country was suffering—"the prodigious amount of the National Debt, the enormous and unconstitutional military establishments, the profusion of sinecure places and pensions, and a long course of lavish expenditure of the public money"—to one source, viz., "the corrupt, dependent, and inadequate representation of the people in Parliament." They disclaimed all wild and visionary plans of Reform. All they desired was "to see the House of Commons in conformity with pure constitutional principles, a fair and honest organ of the public voice exercising a controuling power over the servants of the Crown, and not an instrument in their hands to oppress the people."[736]

It was to no purpose. The outrage on the Regent frightened the ministers, and instead of following the advice offered by the City and appeasing the public by showing a willingness to correct abuses, they proceeded to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act and to pursue a cruel system of repression, which only served to increase the evil.[737]

Not only were seditious actions proceeded against but seditious writings. A quiet and inoffensive bookseller of Old Bailey, named Hone, was prosecuted on three several charges for which he was put on trial three several days. The charges were professedly for having published pamphlets of a blasphemous character, but the persistency with which they were pressed after a first and second acquittal, sufficiently showed that the prosecution had been undertaken from political and not from any religious motives, and the City did not hesitate to tell Parliament as much.[738] They declared that they had viewed with indignation and horror the vindictive cruelty with which ministers had exercised their power since the suspension of the Act. Numerous individuals (they said) had been torn from their wives and families, dragged to distant prisons and kept in irons, and afterwards released without being brought to trial, or even knowing the nature of the charges against them. The country had been flooded with spies and informers in the pay of the government, and these inhuman wretches had endeavoured to excite simple and deluded men into acts of outrage and treason. The petitioners did not disguise their belief that "the groundless alarms excited by ministers were solely for the purpose of stifling complaints and protecting abuses."

When the Habeas Corpus Act was again allowed to come into force (29 Jan., 1818), after nearly a year's suspension,[739] the ministers were anxious to cover their recent proceedings under a Bill of Indemnity. A sealed bag of papers was laid upon the table of the House which the government demanded to be referred to a secret committee, but as this committee was virtually nominated by the government itself, the citizens of London lost no time in declaring that they for their part, would have no confidence in any report such a committee might think fit to make.[740]

The City had its revenge in the following June, when parliament was hurriedly dissolved and a new election took place. Three of the old city members,—Sir William Curtis, Sir James Shaw, and John Atkins,—all of them aldermen with ministerial proclivities, were rejected, and four liberals were returned, the best known being Matthew Wood, who had sat in the last parliament on the withdrawal of Harvey Combe, and Robert Waithman, afterwards an alderman. In the country the elections were attended with the bitterest party strife, but as the representation then stood, no great change was possible, and the ministers found themselves still in possession of a large majority.

Although the harvest of 1817 had been a good one, and commercial activity had succeeded a period of extraordinary depression, the year 1818 was marked with great distress among artisans, owing to overproduction. As is usually the case at such times, demagogues were at hand urging the sufferers to revolutionary measures. Among them was the Rev. Joseph Harrison, a schoolmaster at Stockport, who, after making a violent speech in that town on the 28th June (1819), was arrested on a warrant at a mass meeting held in Smithfield, on the 21st July.[741]

Another of these demagogues was Henry Hunt, commonly known as "Orator" Hunt, who had offered himself as a candidate for Westminster at the last general election, and figured in the Spa Fields commotion. He was a man, however, more ready to stir up others to deeds of violence than risk his own skin. An attempt to arrest him at a meeting which he was about to address in St. Peter's Fields, near Manchester, led to five or six being killed by the military, and to a number of others being wounded. The affair, which was caused by magisterial blundering, came to be known as the "Manchester massacre" or "Peterloo," and proved a formidable weapon against the government. Hunt was taken, but liberated on bail, and on the 13th September was conducted in great triumph from Islington to the Crown and Anchor Tavern, in the Strand.[742]

The Common Council expressed much sympathy with the sufferers, whose only fault had been to assemble for the purpose of lawfully and peacefully discussing public grievances, and they petitioned the Regent for a full and immediate enquiry into the outrage and for the punishment of the authors. They assured his highness that he had been deceived by false representations, otherwise he would never have been induced to express approval of the conduct of the abettors and perpetrators of the late atrocities.[743] The Prince in reply flatly told the citizens they knew nothing about the real state of the case, and this "most gracious" answer was ordered to be entered in the Journal of the Court.[744]

The passing of a series of suppressory enactments, known as "The Six Acts," at an autumn session, gave the Common Council another opportunity for recommending parliamentary reform. It at the same time suggested—as reformers of the present day will do well to remember—the extension of the municipal form of government as a better panacea for existing evils than more drastic measures.[745] The Court of Aldermen, on the other hand, kept silence. They had, however, already passed a number of resolutions upholding the magistracy in putting down seditious meetings, and calling upon the labouring classes to have confidence in themselves, and not to be led by agitators, but to wait patiently until the present difficulties—"springing alone from the termination of a protracted war"—should pass away.[746]

The city itself presented signs of uneasiness. On Michaelmas-day, when the election of a lord mayor took place, a great commotion had been raised in Common Hall by sheriff Parkins, alderman Waithman, "Orator" Hunt and others, who wished to introduce violent resolutions against the government. The sheriff made himself especially obnoxious to the outgoing lord mayor (Atkins), chiefly, it appears, on account of the Court of Aldermen having refused to recognise him (Parkins) as the senior sheriff. His conduct in Common Hall, as well as the conduct of Waithman and certain others, was deemed so bad by the Court of Aldermen that legal proceedings were ordered to be taken against them.[747] The Common Council expressed disapproval at any proceedings being taken, and recommended their withdrawal. The Court at the same time directed the City Chamberlain not to pay any costs of the proceedings.[748] The Court of Aldermen were not unnaturally indignant at this,[749] but declined to withdraw from their position, and eventually a judgment was obtained in the King's Bench, which completely justified the position they had taken up. It was laid down by the judges that when a Common Hall has been summoned for a particular purpose, the livery have no right to introduce matter for consideration distinct from that for which they were assembled. The defendants in this case, however, were exonerated on the ground that they had been misled by an opinion given by Glynn, the City's Recorder in 1773, as to their rights.[750]

In the meantime, sheriff Parkins had continued to make himself as obnoxious as he could. He refused to attend at church on Michaelmas-day, and on the following day, when he should have accompanied his fellow sheriff, to be presented at Westminster to the Barons of the Exchequer, he wrote a rude letter to the mayor, excusing himself joining the procession on the score that he was busily engaged in his duties at the Old Bailey, and could not be "at two places one and the same time." Later in the day, he presented himself at Westminster, but without any state, and declined to invite the Barons of the Exchequer to the entertainment usually provided by the sheriffs on such occasions. He, in fact, gave no entertainment at all. He ought to have accompanied the mayor to the Court of Aldermen on the 8th October, but he again excused himself, on the plea of a headache, which he had the coolness to attribute to "the incessant noise and dreadful screams" at the last Common Hall. The mayor complained to the Court of Aldermen, and the sheriff was called upon to explain his conduct at the next Court.[751] When the Court met, Parkins read a long statement, which for sheer impudence will bear comparison with some productions of Wilkes or Junius, whilst lacking their cleverness. The reason he gave for not having accompanied the lord mayor to Westminster was that he did "not choose to divide with the lord mayor those marks of popular feeling which everywhere follow the track of the city state carriage during the present mayoralty." The lord mayor and the other sheriff had made the best part of the journey to Westminster by water, as was then the custom, but Parkins had reverted to the more ancient custom of riding thither on horseback.[752] It was true (he said) that he was not accompanied by any member of his company, but that was because "it would have been neither decorous nor prudent to have set on foot or even on horseback any rival procession, since it might have been deemed by the lord mayor a demonstration of hostility against his own supremacy," and so on and so on. His whole defence was after the same manner, but all that the Court of Aldermen did was to refer his conduct to a Committee of Privileges (12 Oct.), and there the matter appears to have ended.[753]

On the evening of Saturday, the 29th January, (1820) George III passed away, and on Sunday morning his death was notified to the lord mayor. A special Court of Aldermen was immediately summoned to sit at the Mansion House, when the mayor laid before them two letters from Lord Sidmouth, one informing him of the king's decease, and the other desiring his attendance at Carlton House, at one o'clock that afternoon. He also laid before the Court another letter which he had subsequently received. This was a letter from the Clerk of the Privy Council, stating that the lords of the Council would meet at one o'clock, at Carlton House, and that the lord mayor and Court of Aldermen might attend, if they thought proper. Thereupon the lord mayor, the aldermen, and the high officers of the city proceeded in state (the black sword being borne before the mayor) to Carlton House, where they heard and subscribed the proclamation of King George IV. On their return to the Mansion House, the York herald delivered a copy of the ceremonial to be observed the next day, when the king should be proclaimed. Upon the arrival of the procession the following day at Temple Bar, the lord mayor took up his position in his state coach immediately before the archbishop of Canterbury; the aldermen, sheriffs, chamberlain, common serjeant, town clerk and city officers immediately after the lords of the Privy Council. The proclamation was publicly read at Carlton House and Charing Cross and at three different places within the City's jurisdiction, viz.: at the corner of Chancery Lane, the corner of Wood Street, Cheapside, and at the Royal Exchange.[754]

When sheriff Parkins and his brother sheriff, Rothwell, attended at Carlton Palace to learn when it would be convenient for the king to receive addresses from the City, they found his majesty much indisposed. Monday, the 28th February, was fixed for receiving the addresses of the Courts of Aldermen and Common Council, but an intimation was given to the sheriffs (privately, it appears) that the state of the king's health would require the addresses to be presented in a room adjoining his majesty's bedroom by a small deputation from each Court. When Rothwell, the senior sheriff, communicated the result of their mission to the aldermen and the Common Council, Parkins again made himself obnoxious, declaring that he had heard nothing about the addresses being presented by small deputations, and that as a matter of fact "his majesty did not appear to him to be so unwell as he had been led to expect from the various reports he had heard." No notice was taken of this exhibition of bad taste, and both Courts agreed to present their addresses by deputation. To each of them the king made gracious replies, promising that the welfare and prosperity of the City and the maintenance of its rights and liberties should be objects of his constant care.[755]

The coronation was originally fixed for Tuesday, the 1st August, but was subsequently postponed to Thursday, the 19th July, 1821.[756] The City lost no time in sending in its customary claim of services; and the masters and prime wardens of the twelve principal livery companies were invited, as usual, to assist the lord mayor in his duties at the coronation banquet.[757] These services were now performed for the last time, the coronation banquet and all ceremonial in connexion therewith in Westminster Hall being dispensed with, by royal proclamation, at the accession of William IV.[758]

The ceremony was somewhat marred by an injudicious attempt of the unhappy queen to force her way into the abbey. Whatever may have been the extent of her folly or her guilt no one can question the misfortune of Queen Caroline. From the first moment of their meeting she was treated by her husband with scant courtesy and was soon forced to quit his side and lead a life of retirement at Blackheath. A watch was set on her movements and her conduct made the subject of a private enquiry by the lords. The City was no less indignant than the princess herself at such a proceeding. The livery presented her with an address of sympathy,[759] and at the close of the enquiry the Common Council congratulated her upon having escaped from a "foul and atrocious conspiracy against her life and honour."[760] The Court of Aldermen, however, once more held aloof. This was in 1813. In the following year she withdrew disgusted to the continent and there remained until her husband succeeded to the throne. Again the livery and the Common Council presented addresses and testified their attachment to one whom most people looked upon as an injured woman, who had in vain challenged her accusers to appear before a public and impartial tribunal.[761] Her wish was now to be gratified.

Another secret enquiry into her conduct was held by the lords, at the king's command, and upon evidence thus scraped together and unsupported by oath a Bill of Pains and Penalties was introduced into the House of Lords for depriving the queen of her title and dissolving her marriage. The Common Council entered a strong protest and appealed to both Houses to reject the Bill,[762] but in vain. The queen was put on her defence, and after a protracted trial succeeded with the help of her learned counsel—Brougham, Denman and Lushington—in placing her conduct in such a light that the Bill had to be abandoned.

The news of the queen's triumph was received with the wildest delight, and for three nights in succession London was illuminated. Addresses began to flow in upon her in such quantities that a special day of the week had to be set apart for their reception.[763] The Common Council assured her that they had never entertained the slightest doubt as to what would be the result of a trial unconstitutionally instituted and unfairly carried on; and expressed a hope that she would continue to reside among them.[764] The Freedom of the City was voted to counsel engaged in her defence.[765]

In acknowledging the City's address the queen referred to her late victory as a triumph for the people. "If my enemies had prevailed"—she said—"the people who are now feared would have been despised, their oppression would have been indefinitely increased." She declared that it was to the sympathy and support of the people and of the Press that she was chiefly indebted for her escape from a conspiracy such as had never before threatened an individual, and although she doubted whether her presence in the country was conducive to the national welfare, as seemed to be generally supposed, she expressed herself as being always ready to conform to the will of the community at large:—"The people have made many sacrifices for me, and I will live for the people."[766]

The Court of Aldermen, as a body, had rigidly withheld their support from the unfortunate queen. Nevertheless, there were two members of the Court who thoroughly believed in her innocence, and who rendered her every assistance in their power. These were Matthew Wood, in whose house in South Audley Street she first found shelter on her return from abroad, and Robert Waithman. Matthew Wood continued to attend her at Brandenburgh House, where she kept her court, and where he dined with her the day that the Bill against her was thrown out. The motley character of her attendants elicited a satirical poem from Theodore Hook, in which the alderman comes in for his share of ridicule in the following lines:—

It was Matthew Wood whom the queen employed to write to the Corporation, whilst her trial was still pending, asking that body to accept her portrait in testimony of her attachment and gratitude to "the first city in the world" for the zeal they had manifested in her cause, and it was Waithman who laid the letter before the Common Council. The offer was graciously accepted, and Queen Caroline's picture, as well as that of her deceased daughter, the Princess Charlotte—a subsequent gift—are preserved in the Guildhall Art Gallery.[768]

An intimation which the Common Council received from the gentleman acting as the queen's vice-chamberlain that she proposed to attend the usual service held at St. Paul's on Wednesday, the 29th November, was received with mixed feelings. It was feared that her appearance in the city might cause inconvenience, and perhaps lead to riot. Nevertheless a special committee was appointed to give her a suitable reception.[769] A similar foreboding was felt by the Court of Aldermen as soon as they heard of the queen's intention, and a motion was made expressing regret; but before any vote could be taken on the matter, the Court was abruptly broken up by Wood and Waithman leaving.[770] On the 27th, the Court again met, when communications were read from the Dean of St. Paul's, and from Lord Sidmouth, touching the preparations to be made for her majesty's reception in the Cathedral, and the precautions to be taken against injury being done by accident or otherwise within the sacred precinct or in the public streets. The lord mayor was promised the assistance of the military if necessary. Again, a motion was made expressive of regret at the queen's proposal, but with no better success than at the previous Court. Alderman Wood again got up and left the Court so as to reduce the number present to less than a quorum, and Alderman Waithman immediately moved a count out.[771] Fortunately the day passed off without any mishap. One of the chief grievances which the queen had been made to suffer had been the omission of her name from the Liturgy. On this occasion she desired that "the particular thanksgiving, which at the request of any parishioner, it is customary to offer up" might be offered on her behalf, but the officiating minister refused on the ground that the rubric directed that "those may be named, who have been previously prayed for, but that the queen not having been prayed for, could not be named in the thanksgiving." After all was over, the queen communicated her thanks to the lord mayor and the committee for the trouble they had taken, and expressed herself as particularly obliged to his lordship for not yielding to alarm, and for declining all military assistance.[772]

The queen's trial served only to increase the City's dissatisfaction with the ministers, and the Common Council once more urged their dismissal (9 Dec.). In their address to the king they referred "with pain and reluctance" to the late proceedings against the queen—proceedings which (they said) had drawn forth "the reprobation of the great body of the people"—and they expressed indignation at the flagrant outrage that had been committed on the moral and religious feelings of the nation.[773]

It is not to be supposed that the king would receive such an address very graciously. Indeed, he acknowledged that he received it "with the most painful feelings," and he vouchsafed no further answer than to tell the citizens that whatever might be their motives in presenting the address, it served no other purpose than to inflame the passions and mislead the judgment of the less enlightened of his subjects, and to aggravate the difficulties with which he had to contend.[774]

Very different had been the reception accorded the previous day (8 Dec.) to an address from the Court of Aldermen, in which they informed the king of their resolution to defend the monarchy and other branches of the constitution, at that time so bitterly attacked. The subject of the queen's trial was not mentioned, although an attempt had been made to introduce it into the address by some members of the Court. This "loyal and dutiful" address was graciously received with the king's "warmest thanks."[775]

Early in the following year (Jan., 1821) the Common Council petitioned both Houses for the restoration of the queen's name in the Liturgy, and for making her a proper provision to enable her to support her rights and dignities. It at the same time demanded an enquiry into the manner in which the queen's prosecution had been brought about.[776] As regards a provision to be made for the queen, she had previously declined to accept any at the hands of the ministry.[777] The Commons now voted her an annuity of £50,000,[778] which she accepted but did not long enjoy, for in the following August she died.

The circumstances attending her funeral were of a most disgraceful character. She had expressed a wish to be buried in her own country, and this wish was carried out. The citizens were extremely anxious to pay a last token of respect in the event of her corpse being brought through the city to Harwich, the port of embarkation, and the Remembrancer waited upon Lord Liverpool for the purpose of notifying to him the resolutions passed by the Common Council to that effect. As in Chatham's case, so in the case of this unfortunate queen, the wishes of the citizens were ignored. After some delay they were informed that the funeral arrangements were already completed, and had been laid before the king, and that it was not intended that the procession should pass through the city.[779] The people, nevertheless, decided otherwise, and succeeded in gaining the day. This was not accomplished, however, without bloodshed. In order to insure the funeral procession passing through the city, the roads not leading in that direction were blocked and the pavement taken up. At Knightsbridge the mob came into collision with the military quartered in the barracks there. Stones and mud were freely thrown, and the guards were tempted at last to fire on the mob, killing two of their number. After the procession had passed through the city, with the lord mayor at its head, it was allowed to continue its course without further opposition. This took place on Tuesday, the 14th August.[780]

On the 26th, when the funeral procession of the two men shot by the military had to pass in front of Knightsbridge barracks, another disgraceful scene occurred. Waithman, who was sheriff at the time, fearing lest the sight of soldiers outside the barracks might infuriate the people, had taken the precaution of asking the officers in command to keep their men within the gates until the procession had gone by, but the only answer he got was that "the sheriff might be d—d, they would not make their men prisoners for him." In the course of the day Waithman himself was struck. This led to a long correspondence with Lord Bathurst, one of the principal secretaries of state, but the sheriff failed to get any redress. The Common Council instituted an enquiry, and upheld his action.[781] The Court of Aldermen ignored the whole affair, but one of their number, viz., Sir William Curtis, a member for the City, made a violent speech in the House against the Common Council for having dared to institute an enquiry. The alderman himself was a member of the General Purposes Committee to which the matter had been referred, but did not attend its meetings. The Common Council voted his speech a gross and injurious reflection upon the members of the Corporation and an unfounded calumny upon the committee.[782]

The citizens appreciated too well the blessings of freedom not to sympathise with the struggles of others to obtain it, and they looked askance at the Holy Alliance which had been formed with the view of dictating to the rest of the world. In their eyes "national independence is to states what liberty is to individuals," and that being so the Common Council readily voted two sums of £1,000 to assist Spain and Greece in throwing off their respective yokes.[783] In 1823 the relations between the City and Spain, then threatened by France, were of such a friendly nature that a proposal was actually made to set up, in the centre of Moorfields, a statue of Don Rafael Del Riego, a patriotic Spanish general, who had lost his life in the cause.[784] In the following year (1824) the City again raised its voice against the pretensions of the Holy Alliance, and opposed the renewal of the Alien Act, mainly on the ground that its renewal would appear to countenance the action of the allies "against the independence of nations and the rights and liberties of mankind."[785]

A revival of commerce, which commenced in 1821, was succeeded in 1825 by an era of wild speculation such as had not been seen since the days of the South Sea Bubble. The civic authorities protested against the reckless formation of Joint Stock Companies, but in vain.[786] Before the end of the year a crash came, firms and companies began to break, credit was shaken, trade depressed, and a run on banks took place, resulting in many of them stopping payment altogether. In six weeks between sixty and seventy banks are said to have stopped payment, of which six or seven were London houses. The distress which ensued was widespread, so widespread indeed that it extended to Scotland, and brought to grief that "wizard of the North," whose writings have delighted, and continue to delight, so many thousands, both young and old—Sir Walter Scott. In the city of London the Spitalfield weavers were reduced to such straits that the Corporation had to come to their assistance with a grant of £500.[787] Although the worst was over by the end of 1825, bankruptcies were frequent during the following year, whilst the country was much disturbed by riots and attacks on all kinds of machinery, which the artisan foolishly regarded as the chief cause of all the misery. When Venables, the lord mayor, went out of office (Nov., 1826) and the Common Council passed the usual vote of thanks, they expressly referred to the decision, energy and judgment he had evinced "during a recent period of commercial embarrassment," and the prompt measures he had taken for relieving distress and restoring confidence.[788]