In November (1826) a new Parliament met. Of the old city members only one—viz., Matthew Wood, the popular alderman—retained his seat. He was joined by two other aldermen, one of them being the no less popular Waithman, and a commoner. The questions most pressing were Catholic Emancipation and Parliamentary Reform. The latter had been long urged by the City. As regards the emancipation of Catholics, the City had at one time shown considerable opposition. In 1790, the Common Council expressed itself as anxious to strengthen the hands of those friends of the established church who had twice successfully opposed in Parliament the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts—a necessary preliminary to Catholic emancipation—and had called upon the city members and those of the Common Council who had seats in Parliament, to resist any future attempt that might be made in the same direction.[789] Since that time the citizens had changed their minds, and we find them now (May, 1827), passing resolutions against the iniquity of making the solemn ordinance of the Lord's Supper "a qualification and passport for power," and congratulating the king upon his having placed Canning, a notorious friend of Catholic emancipation, in power.[790]

Canning unfortunately died before he was able to accomplish anything in this direction, and his successor, Goderich was deficient in moral backbone; but early in 1828 the Duke of Wellington became Prime Minister, and upon a motion made by Lord John Russell, a Bill was introduced for the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts. A simple declaration that an applicant for office would not compromise the Established Church, was to be substituted for the old sacramental test. During the passage of the Bill through the Lords, the City endeavoured to get certain amendments introduced, for the purpose chiefly of protecting members of the Common Council from incurring penalties and forfeitures imposed by the Bill, but in this they failed.[791] The Bill passed, and a great step towards Catholic emancipation was thus gained. The same principle which prompted the City to urge the repeal of these Acts, also prompted them in later years to petition Parliament, and themselves to pass resolutions in favour of the abolition of unnecessary oaths.[792]

Renewed activity on the part of the Catholic Association in Ireland, and the return of O'Connell for County Clare, hastened Catholic emancipation. The question was taken up by Peel, hitherto an anti-Catholic. He succeeded in winning over the Duke of Wellington, and the latter at last persuaded the king to promise some concession at the opening of Parliament on the 5th February, 1829. The City voted Peel the Freedom in a gold box and thanked the Duke of Wellington.[793] The Common Council at the same time presented addresses to both Houses praying them to support the measures about to be introduced.[794] A Bill, giving effect to the intentions of the Government, was brought in on the 5th March. The king who had reluctantly consented to its introduction resisted to the last, but was compelled to give way, and on the 14th April the Bill became law.

The other pressing question of the day, viz., Parliamentary Reform, awaited settlement under a new king and a new Parliament. On the 26th June, 1830, George IV died, and his eldest surviving brother, the Duke of Clarence, was welcomed by the City as his successor under the title of William IV. The City—both Aldermen and Common Council—lost no time in presenting the usual congratulatory addresses,[795] but not a word was said on the subject that was about to move the country from one end to the other. A month later (28th July) the livery prepared a long address, in which, disclaiming "the fulsome strains of unmeaning flattery," such as they declared had been poured into the royal ear "from more than one body of men in the city of London already," they respectfully but firmly laid before the new king a representation of what they believed to be the true state of affairs. The chief grievance of the country, they said, lay in the fact that the great body of the people who paid taxes, had no control whatever over those who falsely called themselves the representatives of the people; and they expressed their long-confirmed and deep-rooted conviction that this and all other evils had arisen from the people not being properly represented in the House of Commons. Notwithstanding former rebuffs they desired that their address should be received by the king on his throne. As this could not be—although the king expressed his willingness to receive it at the next levÉe, or through the secretary of state—the address was not presented at all.[796]

The accession of a new king necessitated the dissolution of Parliament and fresh elections. These took place amid great excitement, for already the country was agitating by means of political unions for Parliamentary reform. At their close it was found that the Government, although losing many seats, still retained a majority. No change was made in the city members.

When parliament met on the 2nd November, the country was on the tip-toe of expectation as to what the ministry would do. Would the Duke of Wellington continue to ignore the manifest will of the nation or would he give way? He did the first. He not only declared that the country was satisfied with the existing state of things, but he pledged himself to oppose any measure of Parliamentary reform that might be proposed by others. Here was a distinct challenge to the reformers, a challenge which they were not slow to take up. That same night Brougham, who had been returned to Parliament for Yorkshire, free of expense, gave notice that on the 16th, he would bring forward a motion for reform. Before that day arrived the ministry had resigned.

In the meanwhile, the new king had received a cordial invitation to dine at the Guildhall on any day most convenient, and his majesty had graciously accepted the invitation, and had named the 9th November, lord mayor's day.[797] He chose that day for the reason probably that it was customary for a new sovereign to honour the citizens with his presence on the first lord mayor's day after his accession. Extensive preparations had already been made to give the king a befitting reception, when on the 7th November, Sir Robert Peel informed the outgoing mayor by letter, that his majesty had been advised to forego his visit to the city, for fear lest his presence might give occasion to riot and tumult, and endanger the property and lives of his subjects. The fact was, that the lord mayor elect (Sir John Key) had, on his own responsibility, written to the Duke of Wellington warning him of danger. A copy of his letter was read before the Common Council on the 8th, when exception was taken to it as being "indiscreet and unauthorised." After considerable debate, a resolution was at length drawn up to the effect that in the opinion of the court "neither riot nor commotion was to be apprehended had his majesty and his royal consort ... condescended to honour the city of London with their presence; and that had evil disposed and disaffected persons made attempts to excite commotion or disturbance on that occasion, the most perfect reliance might have been placed on the good feeling and spontaneous exertions of the great mass of the population of London to co-operate with the civil power in effectually suppressing such attempts and preserving the public tranquility."[798] This was all very well. Nevertheless, in spite of all precautions taken by the civic authorities, and although the king and his ministers, who had given so much offence by opposing the popular will, refrained from entering the city, an affray actually took place at Temple Bar, in which one of the city marshals was severely wounded in the head.[799]

On the 15th November, the day that the Wellington ministry received its coup de grace, a Common Council was summoned to sit at the Mansion House, in order to consider Brougham's motion, which was to be made in parliament the following day. It then passed the following resolutions:—[800]

"Resolved that this court, as the representative body of the citizens of London, having at various times expressed its opinion of the propriety and necessity of a revision of the present state of the representation of the commons in parliament, is called upon in an especial manner at the present moment (after the declaration of the first minister of the crown, that the representation is satisfactory to the country), to make a renewed avowal of its conviction that the House of Commons as at present constituted is as far from being satisfactory to the country as it is from being a real representation of the people.

"Resolved that the power now exercised by various peers and other interested persons of returning a large portion of the members, is wholly incompatible with the true end and design of a House of Commons, which in principle and in practice, ought to be a representation not of a private, but of general interests, an effectual control upon taxation and the public expenditure, and the organ by which the commons of the realm may fully exercise that share in the legislature to which, by the constitution they are entitled.

"Resolved that petitions founded upon these resolutions, be forthwith presented to both Houses of Parliament, praying them to institute a full and faithful inquiry into the state of the representation with the view to the remedying of such defects therein as time and various encroachments have produced, so as to give real effect to the essential principles of the constitution, namely, that members of parliament shall be freely chosen, that peers shall not interfere in elections, and that in the House of Commons, the king may with truth, be said to meet his people in parliament." Before the petitions could be laid before parliament,[801] the ministry had resigned.

The new prime minister was Lord Grey, who, as a young man, had urged the necessity of parliamentary reform as early as 1792. Among those who were content to accept office under the new ministry, although in an inferior capacity, was Lord John Russell, who had also done good service for the cause, and who was now to be entrusted with the task of introducing the long looked for Bill. On the 1st March (1831) the first Reform Bill, which for the last sixty years the City had been anxiously awaiting, and for which it had agitated with all the forces at its command, was at length brought in.

As soon as the provisions of the Bill became known the Common Council, who had hitherto refrained from expressing any opinion upon the nature of the change that had taken place in the ministry, hastened to express their satisfaction to the king at the policy adopted by his new ministers;—"We beg to assure your Majesty that having long entertained a deep and increasing conviction of the necessity of a reform in the representation of the people in the Commons House of Parliament, we have looked forward with the greatest anxiety to the course which your Majesty's ministers would adopt in reference to that important subject; and we now feel ourselves imperatively called upon, humbly and dutifully, to express to your Majesty our entire satisfaction at the principles of the measure that has been introduced, under their sanction, to the Honorable House of Commons."[802] The livery, too, presented an address in much the same terms, although by the provisions of the Bill nonresident liverymen were threatened with exclusion from the franchise. The Bill, they said, afforded a clear proof of the sincerity and honesty of his majesty's ministers, and entitled them to the best thanks and lasting gratitude of the country. They further presented addresses in the same strain to both Houses of Parliament.[803] The Court of Aldermen, on the other hand, were as little enamoured of reform as the Lords, and thought it best to say nothing beyond what they were committed to in the address of the Common Council.

The debate on the first reading lasted seven nights. When the second reading came on the Bill passed, but only by a bare majority. A hostile amendment was subsequently carried in committee by a majority of eight, and thereupon the government withdrew the Bill, and Parliament was dissolved in order that the question might be submitted to the country (22 April). A special Court of Common Council was summoned to meet on the 27th, when the committee which had been recently appointed to watch the proceedings in Parliament relative to the Bill, reported the fact of the dissolution, and recommended the City to place on record its "cordial gratitude" to the king for having thus given the country an opportunity of expressing its wishes. A resolution was thereupon passed to that effect. This was followed by another resolution expressing a fervent hope that at the general election about to take place all minor considerations might give way to the one great duty of promoting the country's welfare, and that only such members would be returned as would unequivocally pledge themselves to support his majesty's ministers in carrying the great question of reform to a successful issue. By so doing they would overthrow "a faction arrayed in hostility against the liberties of their country, and seeking to maintain themselves in the usurpation of a power unknown to the constitution, and no less injurious to the prerogatives of the Crown than distinctive to the legitimate rights of the People."[804] The lord mayor had already received notice that in view of the elections which were to take place in the city on the 29th orders had been given that no troops should enter or be quartered in the city for one day at least previous to the day of election nor until one day at least after the closing of the poll. These steps were taken pursuant to Stat. 8 George II, c. 30, but the Court of Aldermen affected some surprise and the Town Clerk was instructed to ascertain whether similar orders had usually been given on the occasion of previous elections.[805]

The elections, which were carried on amid the greatest excitement, and no little riot and disorder, proved strongly in favour of the reformers. In the city the three aldermen, viz., Wood, Waithman and Thompson, who sat in the last Parliament, were again returned, but William Ward, who had been one of the city's representatives since 1826, was strongly advised not to put up again for fear of some personal violence being offered him,[806] and his seat was taken by Venables, another alderman. The Bill, in a slightly amended form, was again brought in, and eventually passed the Commons (21 Sept.).

The livery of London, as well as the Common Council, had been anxious to petition the Lords to give their assent to the Bill, even before it had left the Commons. The livery, indeed, had drafted their petition two days before the Bill passed the Commons.[807] The Common Council were less precipitate, and waited until the 27th before they drew up their petition.[808] The Court of Aldermen again kept silence. The country waited with anxiety to see what the Lords would do. It had not long to wait. On the first reading the Bill was thrown out by a majority of forty-one (8 Oct.).

The opponents of the measure believed and hoped that the fate of the ministry was now sealed. The day that the Bill was rejected by the Lords another Common Council was summoned for the purpose of taking into consideration what under the circumstances was best to be done. It forthwith resolved to draw up an address to the king expressive of the City's bitter disappointment at the Lords "having turned a deaf ear to the nation's voice, and thrown out the great Bill for consolidating the peace, prosperity and liberties of the people," and of its continued confidence in his majesty's ministers. The address concluded with a solemn warning that unless the country received some assurance that a Bill, similar to that which had been just rejected, would soon be passed, nothing could prevent "the most fearful national commotions."[809]

The king received the address very graciously and thanked the City for its expressions of confidence and loyalty. He assured the citizens of his desire to uphold the just rights of the people, and of his determination to further the promotion of such measures as might seem best calculated for that purpose; and he concluded by recommending those present to use all their influence with their fellow citizens for the purpose of preventing acts of violence and commotion.[810]

The livery were scarcely less prompt in assuring the king of their loyalty, and their confidence in the existing government:—"We venture humbly to represent to your majesty our belief that under the present trying and difficult circumstances, the security of public credit and the preservation of the public peace depend upon their continuance in office." No other ministers, they went on to say, would possess the same esteem and confidence of the country, and they only were in a position to carry the Bill.[811] At the same time they passed a vote of thanks to the ministers "for their honest, firm, and patriotic course of conduct."

The City's prognostications of evil arising out of the Lords' refusal to bow to the will of the nation were fully justified. The streets of London and other large towns became the scenes of disorderly riots. At Derby the houses of those opposed to reform were attacked by the mob and their windows smashed. The ancient castle of Nottingham, once a royal residence, was fired and reduced to a pile of smoking ruins. At Birmingham a meeting was held at which those who were present pledged themselves to pay no taxes if the Reform Bill were again rejected,[812] whilst at Bristol, nearly a whole square was burnt by the mob.[813] The political unions that had sprung up all over the country resolved to increase their strength by the formation of a National Political Union, which should have its head-quarters in London. To this end, a meeting was held in Lincoln's Inn Fields, on the 31st of October, with Sir Francis Burdett in the chair. The proceedings, however, took such a radical turn that before long Burdett withdrew his name from the association. The government, too, became alarmed at the prospect of a meeting announced to be held on the 7th November. Orders were given to swear in special constables, the whole of the recently established (1829) police force was to be held in readiness, and a large body of troops was quartered in the neighbourhood of the capital ready to put down any disturbance that might arise. On the 4th November—three days before the proposed meeting—a royal proclamation was read before the Court of Aldermen calling upon all his majesty's liege subjects to assist the civil magistrates in putting down disturbances as soon as any should appear, and to aid in the preservation of the peace. Thereupon a resolution was passed to the effect that each member of the Court in his respective ward should immediately enroll and swear in a number of special constables to assist the magistracy upon any tumult, riot, outrage or breach of the peace occurring within the city.[814] Thanks to the precautions thus taken, and to the advice given to the leaders of the movement by Lord Melbourne, the meeting was not held.[815]

On the 9th November, Sir John Key, the lord mayor, entered upon his second year of office, having been re-elected by the livery, and forced upon the Court of Aldermen for a second term.[816] The Common Council, as was usual, acknowledged his services of the past year, and more particularly his "vigilant superintendence of the police," which had conduced so much to the peace of the city, with a formal vote of thanks.[817] Two days previously (15 Nov.), when a similar vote had been proposed in the Court of Aldermen, it failed to pass for lack of a quorum,[818] and the matter was allowed to drop. The livery had already tendered him their thanks, not only for the zeal he had displayed in the cause of parliamentary reform, but also for his consenting to undertake another year of office and for upholding the election rights of the livery against the "secret tribunal" of the Court of Aldermen.[819]

On the 12th December (1831) the Bill was again brought in by Lord John Russell and on the 23rd March (1832), it passed the Commons. The second reading of the Bill took place in the Lords on the 14th April, and was carried by a majority of nine; after which both Houses rose for the Easter recess. Before they met again the Common Council had voted Earl Grey and Viscount Althorp, the chancellor of the exchequer, the Freedom of the City, (both of whom graciously acknowledged the compliment), and had drawn up a petition to the Lords, to be presented by the Duke of Sussex, praying them to pass the Bill with the least possible delay.[820]

When, after the recess, the Bill came again before the Lords (7 May), the government found themselves beaten on an amendment introduced by Lord Lyndhurst, who had been chancellor in Wellington's ministry.[821] Grey who had been constantly urged to advise the king to create a sufficient number of new peers to insure the passing of the Bill, now asked him to cut the Gordian knot by the creation of fifty new peers. The king, however, was becoming frightened at the determined attitude of the country, and declined. Thereupon the minister tendered his resignation (9 May).

The news that the ministers had resigned was received with howls of indignation throughout the country. The papers appeared with a black edge of deep mourning. The National Union decreed that whoever should advise a dissolution was an enemy to the country. The day following the resignation of the government a special Court of Common Council met and drew up a petition to the House of Commons, expressing their mortification and disappointment at finding that his majesty had refused his ministers the means of carrying the Bill through the House of Lords. They, too, like the National Union, were of opinion that whoever advised his majesty to withhold from his ministers the means of ensuring the success of the Reform Bill, had proved themselves the enemies of their sovereign, and had "put to imminent hazard the stability of the throne, and the tranquillity and security of the country," and they prayed the House to withhold all supplies until the Bill had passed.[822] The city members and those of the Common Council who had seats in Parliament were urged to support the prayer of the petition, and to decline voting any supplies until the Reform Bill should have been satisfactorily secured, and a joint committee of all the aldermen and commoners of the city was appointed to sit from day to day, to promote the object they had so much at heart.[823]

The next day (11 May), the livery met in Common Hall and drew up an address to the king. The defeat of the Bill, to pass which the electors of the country had specially sent their representatives to Parliament—the defeat of the Bill by a small majority in the House of Lords, had (they said), "spread terror and dismay" among his majesty's subjects, and threatened the credit, the tranquillity, the institutions of the country. At such a crisis the livery of London could not do less than pray his majesty to "adopt such measures as are provided by the constitution" (in other words, create a sufficient number of peers) for the purpose of removing all obstacles to the Bill.[824] Not content with appealing to the king, they called upon the House of Commons to exercise their right, given them for the good and welfare of the nation, and to refuse any further supplies until the Bill should have become law.[825] They, further, passed a number of resolutions upholding the conduct of Lord Grey and his colleagues in the ministry, and condemning those, who like the Duke of Wellington and others, were at that moment attempting "to mislead and delude the people by pretended plans of reform," after defeating "the people's Bill."[826]

For a whole week the country was kept in a state of suspense, anxiously waiting to see whether the Duke of Wellington, who had declared his willingness to accept office and to give his support to a less complete measure of reform, would succeed in forming an administration or not. Whilst negotiations were being carried on the Common Council met (14 May), and drew up a long and strongly-worded address ending with a declaration that they—the lord mayor, aldermen and Common Council of the city of London—would be wanting in their duty to themselves and to posterity, if they did not express their overwhelming sorrow at the resignation of his majesty's late honest ministers, and their serious apprehension that unless Lord Grey and his colleagues were promptly recalled and allowed to pass the Reform Bill unmutilated and unimpaired, the country would witness those "calamities which have affected other nations when struggling to be free."[827] There would, in fact, be a revolution, such as had been witnessed in France at the close of the last century.

When the sheriffs applied for an appointment to be made for the reception of the address, they were put off from time to time. Thereupon, the matter was taken up by the recently appointed joint committee, and on the 18th, they had an interview with Earl Grey, but by that time matters had been accommodated, and there was no longer any occasion for presenting the address. The Duke of Wellington had three days before (15 May), communicated to the king his inability to form a ministry, and on the evening of the 18th, formal announcement was made to both houses that Earl Grey and his colleagues had been recalled and were in a position to carry through the Bill unimpaired in efficiency and without mutilation.[828] The Common Council took an early opportunity of expressing their utmost satisfaction at the turn of affairs, and passed resolutions to that effect, which were ordered to be delivered to the secretary of state, and also to be published in all the morning and evening newspapers.[829]

The question naturally arose whence this confidence of the recalled ministry? Was the House of Lords to be swamped by the creation of a batch of new peers, or had an arrangement been made for securing the withdrawal of the requisite number of opposition peers? The answer was soon forthcoming. When the Bill again came before the lords, the Duke of Wellington left the house, and was followed by about a hundred other peers. The bishops withdrew in a body, and the Bill, with some trifling alterations, which the Commons readily accepted, was passed by a large majority (4 June), and three days later received the royal assent.

The Bill as introduced in December last, had to undergo some alterations in order that the proposed plan of reform might embrace the livery franchise peculiar to the city of London. The necessity of amendments in this direction did not escape the attention of the committee appointed on the 21st April (1831), to watch the course of the Reform Bill and to give support to Earl Grey's ministry; and the day after the Bill had received the royal assent, this committee had the satisfaction of reporting to the Common Council that the most important of the amendments proposed by them had been adopted and introduced in the Act.[830]

The citizens were immensely pleased at the success which, after so long a struggle, had at last attended their efforts to secure a better representation of the people in the House of Commons. The measure was not and could not be final, but it was a step, and a long step in the right direction, and as such, the Common Council resolved that it should be publicly celebrated, and honour given to those to whom honour was due in effecting its accomplishment. An Irish and a Scottish Reform Bill were still before parliament, but as the passing of these measures was looked upon as a foregone conclusion, they were not allowed to stand in the way of the City's proposed celebration of the passing of the English Bill. Earl Grey and Lord Althorp had not yet received the Freedom of the City voted in April last. It was therefore arranged that the Freedom should be conferred upon these ministers with all the pomp and ceremony that befitted the occasion on Wednesday, the 11th July,[831] and that the presentation should be followed by an entertainment at the Guildhall, given to all those members of the House of Commons who had voted for the third reading of the Bill, as well as to those peers who had voted against Lord Lyndhurst's amendment, and such other noblemen and gentlemen as had lent their aid to the cause. In acknowledging the honour conferred upon him Earl Grey paid befitting tribute to the City's influence in the commercial world, its loyalty to the constitution, and its love of freedom "never more conspicuously manifested" than during recent events.[832] A book containing the autographs of the principal guests, among whom was the Duke of Sussex, is preserved in the Guildhall library, as well as a medal struck in commemoration of the passing of the Bill.[833]

With this signal triumph of the people, to which the city of London had contributed so much, the present work is brought to a close. No good end would be served by entering the domain of contemporary politics. Enough has been set out in these pages to convince the impartial reader that the city of London is no mean city; that it possesses a record equal, if not indeed superior, to that of any other city in the Universe, ancient or modern, and that its wealth and influence have ever been devoted to the cause of religious, social and political freedom. Notwithstanding anything its detractors may say, the City has not only marched with the age, it has for the most part been a leader of public opinion, and has shown itself in advance of the age. It is to three notable aldermen of the city, viz., Oliver, Crosby, and Wilkes, be it remembered, that the country is indebted for the liberty of the press, and the freedom of reporting Parliamentary debates, so long jealously withheld. Had it not been for the determined attitude of these aldermen the country might have waited still longer for Parliament to be brought to realise that its proceedings are (so to speak) public property. It was Wilkes, again, and his brother aldermen who made a successful stand against the pernicious, if lawful, custom of pressing men for the king's service, the result being that whilst the rest of the kingdom was over-run with press-gangs, the city of London was quit of them, or if any ventured to seize the person of a citizen, they were soon made to surrender their prey.

If other evidence, beyond what appears in these pages, were wanting in proof of the enlightened policy pursued by the Corporation of London, it will be found in the fact that Jews were enfranchised and admitted into the city's council and to all municipal offices long before they gained admission into the council of the nation. In December, 1830, the Common Council passed a Bill for extending the Freedom of the City to all natural born subjects, not professing the Christian religion but in other respects qualified, upon their taking the Freeman's oath according to the forms of their own religion.[834] Five years later David Salomons, a Jew, was admitted to the shrievalty. In 1847 he was elected alderman, and in 1855 became lord mayor. In the meanwhile, repeated attempts had been made to get Parliament to pass a Bill for altering the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, in such a manner that Jews might be relieved of the necessity of making a declaration "upon the true faith of a Christian." The House of Commons had again and again passed Bills to this effect, but they had always been rejected by the Lords, who steadily refused to give their assent to the admission of Jews, notwithstanding the entreaties of the city of London.[835] The election of Alderman Salomons to the mayoralty was regarded by the livery of London as "a triumph to liberal principles," and as affording a prospect "of the ultimate triumph of the cause of toleration by the admission of the members of the Jewish persuasion to the legislature, and the highest offices of the State."[836] Their hopes were now destined to be soon realised. A compromise was at last effected, and three years later (23 July, 1858), a Bill was passed allowing either House by a resolution to modify the form of oath required from its members.

For years the City had been content to suffer for its principles. Ever since 1847 it had continued to return a Jew to Parliament, in the person of Baron Lionel Rothschild, in spite of the fact that he was not allowed to take his seat. As soon however as the Bill became law, the House of Commons passed the necessary resolution, and on the 26th April the Baron took his seat, and the City recovered its full representation in Parliament. Both Alderman Salomons and Baron Rothschild commemorated their respective victories by endowing scholarships in the City of London School, open to candidates of every religious persuasion; and a like scholarship was founded by a committee known as the "Committee of the Jewish Commemoration Fund."[837]

The city of London was, as we have seen, known in earliest times as the king's "Chamber," and the Chamberlain was the king's officer. The City in fact served as the purse of the nation, until such time as the establishment of the Bank of England did away with the necessity of direct applications to the Corporation for loans, to enable the government of the kingdom to be carried on. Like the nation itself, the City has had its times of pecuniary distress, and nothing but the most careful nursing of its estate has enabled it to tide over its difficulties. More especially was this the case at the close of the civil war, and again, for some years after the Great Fire, as well as at the commencement of the reign of Queen Anne.

The City has not wasted its substance. Large sums have been expended upon local improvements, upon the erection of markets, upon bridges, not forgetting that latest marvel of engineering skill, the Tower Bridge, upon the City's schools, upon the erection of the Guildhall library with its adjacent Museum and Art Gallery, as well as upon the establishment and maintenance of one of the most successful Schools of Music ever known in this country. At the close of the year 1882, the Corporation had, within a comparatively recent period, expended nearly six and a half millions, out of its own funds, upon improvements within the city and liberties—improvements which benefited the inhabitants of the metropolis generally no less than the citizens themselves.[838] Nor has the Corporation stayed its hand at the city's boundaries. During the short period of ten years preceding 1882, a sum of more than £300,000 was expended out of the city's cash for providing open spaces for the people, including Epping Forest, Wanstead Park, West Ham Park, and Burnham Beeches, but irrespective of the later acquisitions of Coulsdon and other adjacent commons in the county of Surrey, since dedicated to the public.[839] An area exceeding 6,000 acres in all, has thus been preserved for posterity and placed beyond risk of purprestures and encroachments.

From the time when the Metropolitan Board of Works was first established in 1855, down to its disestablishment in 1889, the Corporation contributed large sums of money to assist that body in carrying out the stupendous work of the Thames Embankment, a work of which Londoners may well be proud, and were engaged jointly with the Board in freeing from toll the bridges of Staines, Walton, Hampton Court, Kingston and Kew, on the Thames, as well as Tottenham Mills and Chingford bridges on the Lea.

Since the abolition of the coal and wine dues in 1889, the whole of which had been devoted to carrying out improvements, erecting public buildings, and freeing bridges, in and near the metropolis,[840] the work of the Corporation, as well as of the London County Council (the successor to the Metropolitan Board of Works), in this direction has been sorely crippled. It was popularly supposed that the coal dues affected the price of coal and gas, and that as soon as the dues were abolished the price of these commodities would at once go down. The result has proved to be far otherwise. An income of more than half a million sterling, produced in such a way as to afford the minimum of burden to the taxpayer, and expended in such a way as to produce the maximum of benefit to the whole of the metropolis, has been lost to the City and the London County Council, whilst the consumer not only pays the same price as before for his coal and gas (the middle-man pocketing the tax), but finds himself saddled with an increased rate.

One more remark and we have done. As conservators of the river Thames, the Corporation did much to improve its navigation, but in 1857 the conservancy was taken away from the City and became vested in a board. In 1872, however, the Corporation became the sanitary authority of the Port of London under somewhat remarkable circumstances. When the Public Health Bill of that year was framed, the Local Government Board long hesitated as to whom the duty of acting as the sanitary authority of the Port of London should be committed. At the last moment the Corporation stept in and volunteered to undertake the duty free of expense. The government readily accepted the offer, and to this patriotic act on the part of the municipality as well as to the energy of its executive officers, it is largely due that this vast metropolis enjoys comparative immunity from cholera and zymotic diseases and that the city itself, besides being the best paved and the best lighted, is also the most healthy city in the civilised world.

END OF VOL III.