Like her predecessor on the throne, Queen Anne died on a Sunday. A proclamation was immediately drawn up by the lords spiritual and temporal, assisted by the members of the Privy Council and the lord mayor, aldermen and citizens of London, announcing the accession of Prince George, the Elector of Hanover, and that same afternoon he was duly proclaimed at Temple Bar and elsewhere. The proclamation does not appear on this occasion to have borne the signature of the lord mayor or any of the aldermen.[1]

Some weeks elapsed before George arrived in England. Meanwhile the Common Council prepared an address which the lords justices, who held the reins of government until the king's arrival, transmitted to his majesty. The address was graciously received, and the king, who knew little or no English, sent word by the lords justices that the City might count upon his support. Both the Common Council and the Court of Aldermen were desirous of presenting addresses to the king in person soon after his arrival.[2]

The 20th September being the day fixed for the king's passage through the city to St. James's Palace great preparations were made to give him a befitting reception. It was decided to adopt the same measures as those taken for the reception of William III in 1697, after the conclusion of the Peace of Ryswick but with this exception, viz., that members of the Common Council should take the place in the procession of those who had either served or fined for sheriff.[3] The earl marshal, however, ruled that the common councilmen of London should neither ride nor march in the procession. The court thereupon appealed to the lords justices, but the result is not recorded.[4] On the day appointed the mayor and aldermen took up their station at the court-house on St. Margaret's Hill in Southwark. Cushions from the Bridge House were borrowed for the occasion, and the open space before the court-house was fenced with rail to prevent crowding.[5] His lordship was provided with a new crimson velvet gown, the city marshal's men with new liveries, and the city trumpeters with new cloaks.[6] The conduits ran with claret furnished by order of the Court of Aldermen. The erection of balcony stands was discouraged for fear of accidents, and for the same reason the firing of guns or padreros under the piazza of the Royal Exchange was forbidden.[7] At St. Margaret's Hill the king was welcomed by the Recorder, who read a congratulatory address on behalf of the citizens, after which the procession moved on towards the city, the Recorder taking up his position immediately in front of the mayor,[8] who rode bareheaded with the city sword in his hand.

Three days later (23 Sept.) the whole of the Common Council proceeded to St. James' to present their congratulations to the king on his safe arrival, and to assure him of their loyalty.[9] This assurance was opportune, for the country was being flooded with pamphlets advocating the claim of Prince James Edward, better known as the Pretender, to the throne, and a reward had been offered for the capture of the prince should he attempt to set foot in any of his majesty's dominions.[10] When Humphreys entered on his mayoralty in the following October he made himself especially active in putting a stop to the spread of seditious literature in the city, and for his services in this respect was heartily thanked by Secretary Townsend.[11]

On the 20th October the king was crowned,[12] and on the 29th, according to custom, he attended the lord mayor's banquet. The lord mayor was called upon to contribute the sum of £300, and each of the sheriffs the sum of £150 towards defraying the cost of the entertainment. The rest of the expenses were paid out of the Chamber.[13] So pleased was the king with the entertainment that he conferred a baronetcy upon the lord mayor. He also bestowed the sum of £1,000 for the relief of poor debtors.[14]

By the end of the year all immediate danger appeared to have passed away, and Thursday, the 20th January, 1715, was appointed to be kept as a day of solemn thanksgiving for the king's peaceful accession.[15] Once more the majestic but gloomy walls of St. Paul's contained a brilliant assembly of worshippers. King George attended the service accompanied by the royal family, and there, too, were the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs of the city seated in their accustomed places in the lower gallery on the south side of the altar, their wives and ladies being accommodated in the opposite gallery.[16]

In the meanwhile the statutory period of six months—during which the parliament existing at the time of the demise of the crown was to continue to sit—had elapsed, and the last parliament of Queen Anne had been dissolved (13 Jan.), a new one being summoned to meet in March. Riots such as had occurred at previous elections were strongly deprecated by royal proclamation (11 Jan.), and a reward of £500 was offered for the discovery of the printer or publisher of a paper intituled "English advice to the freeholders of England," which had been freely circulated for the purpose of advocating the Pretender's claims.[17] The elections, which were hotly contested, resulted in the Whigs—the party already in power—obtaining a large majority. The City returned two aldermen, viz.: Sir John Ward, who had sat in the parliament of 1708 in the Tory interest, and Sir Thomas Scawen;[18] and two commoners, viz.: Robert Heysham and Peter Godfrey, of whom little is known. As delegates of the City, they were to carry out the City's instructions given to them under twenty-one heads. They were more particularly to cause an enquiry to be made as to the manner in which the Peace of Utrecht had been brought about.[19]

Similar instructions were drawn up by electors in other parts of the country, and so well were they carried out that as soon as the Houses met preparations were made to impeach Harley, Bolingbroke and the Duke of Ormond, for the part they had taken in the secret agreements made with the French during the negotiations for peace. Bolingbroke and Ormond immediately took fright and fled to France, where the former entered the service of the Pretender as secretary of state. Oxford, who alone stayed at home and faced the storm, was forthwith committed to the Tower.

Such high-handed proceedings on the part of the triumphant Whigs led to a Tory re-action. In spite of all precautions[20] riots broke out in the city on the 28th May, when the king's birthday was being kept with bonfires and illuminations. The next day (29 May), being the anniversary of the restoration of Charles II, there were more bonfires, and those who refused to light up their houses had their windows broken. A patrol of life guards was insulted and made to join in the cry "High Church and Ormond!" A print of King William III was publicly burnt in Smithfield, and the mob carried everything before them until stopt in Cheapside by ward constables and dispersed.[21]

The Jacobites took advantage of the general disaffection that prevailed to push forward the conspiracy which had been set on foot at the close of the last reign. Ormond had up to the moment of his flight been busily engaged in organising it in England, while Bolingbroke had been no less busy in endeavouring to obtain the assistance of France. On the 20th July the king announced to the new parliament that he had received information of a projected invasion by the Pretender, which was abetted and encouraged by disaffected persons in this country.[22] Three days later (23 July) a similar announcement was made to the lord mayor by letter from secretary Townshend.

Notwithstanding the recent riots to which the aggressive policy of the whigs had given rise, the respectable citizen remained true Hanoverian and staunch supporter of the established church. The municipal body were proud of the part they had taken in bringing about the "glorious" Revolution, and in later years took occasion more than once to remind George the Third that the House of Hanover owed its accession to the crown of England in no small measure to the citizens of London. As soon as the secretary's letter was communicated to the Common Council, they immediately drew up a loyal address, in which they assured the king that they entertained the utmost abhorrence and detestation of all who encouraged either openly or secretly the hopes of the Pretender, and promised their adherence to his majesty's person and government against the Pretender and all other enemies to the king at home and abroad.[23]

An Act known in those days as the Proclamation Act, but better known at the present day as the Riot Act, investing magistrates with the power of compelling any number of persons exceeding twelve to disperse on pain of being held guilty of felony without benefit of clergy was passed (20 July, 1715),[24] whilst another Act authorising the appointment of commissioners for tendering the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, as well as the abjuration oath to all suspected persons, was passed a month later (20 Aug).[25] Pursuant to this last Act, commissioners were afterwards (5 Dec.) appointed for the purpose of administering the oaths in each city ward. The names of recusants were to be returned to the next quarter sessions and there enrolled.[26] Nor were the municipal authorities idle. The anniversary of the king's coronation (20 Oct.) was to have been celebrated in the city by a solemn procession with "effigies of several persons," and money had been collected for the purpose of defraying expenses. The mayor, however, hearing of this, issued a precept to the effect that although the promoters of the scheme might well have intended thereby to show their affection to his majesty's person and government "yet at this time, when the nation is alarmed by a rebellion, it is not thought convenient to be permitted, lest under that pretence many disaffected persons might gather together and raise tumults to the endangering of the public peace." The constables were accordingly instructed to prevent any meeting for the purpose, and to prevent all bonfires and illuminations.[27]

These precautionary measures were taken not a whit too soon. The Earl of Mar, who had undertaken the organization of an insurrection in Scotland in favour of the Pretender, had already made himself complete master of that country as far as the Forth. He was, however, soon afterwards (13 Nov.) defeated by the Earl of Argyle at Sheriffmuir near Stirling, and although the Pretender himself appeared in Scotland before the close of the year, not another blow was struck, and in the following February (1716) Prince James stole back to France, leaving his army to shift for itself.

The rebellion being thus put down, the Common Council unanimously resolved (11 May, 1716) to present another address to the king, in which after offering their congratulations upon the failure of the rebels to depose and murder his majesty, and to subvert the Church and State, they declared their resolution (1) as friends to monarchy to promote true zeal and loyalty towards his majesty's person, (2) as members of the Church of England to act up to its principles by submitting to the powers that be, and (3) by all possible means to prevent discord and support the Protestant succession. To this the king returned a gracious answer, and expressed his conviction that the example set by the City would have a good effect upon the nation.[28]

The Council at the same time resolved to set up a statue of the king at the Royal Exchange as well as his picture in the Guildhall. The royal assent having been asked and obtained, Sir Godfrey Kneller was sent for to paint the portrait. Considerable delay took place in the execution of the work,[29] but the picture was at last completed and is still believed to grace the walls of the members' reading room at the Guildhall, although in 1779 it was reported to be so much decayed and torn as to be incapable of repair.[30] The statue, if ever set up at the Royal Exchange, probably shared the fate of other statues erected there, and was destroyed in the fire of 1838.

Thursday, the 7th June (1716), was ordered by royal proclamation (8 May) to be kept as a day of public thanksgiving for the suppression of the rebellion. A sermon was preached at St. Paul's on the occasion. The members of the livery companies were desired to attend in their best gowns and hoods, at nine o'clock in the morning; this early hour being probably fixed so as not unduly to interfere with the business of the day.[31]

One of the immediate effects of the rebellion was the repeal of the Triennial Act (passed Dec., 1694), limiting the duration of parliament to three years. According to the provisions of this Act a new parliament would have to be elected in 1718. The Whigs were afraid, however, to face the country and risk the return of a Jacobite majority. The ministers therefore proposed and parliament agreed that the existing parliament should continue for a term of seven instead of three years—a somewhat arbitrary proceeding on their part and only to be justified by the exigency of the time. The Septennial Act[32] was only intended as a temporary measure, but it has been found to work so well that it continues to this day to regulate the duration of parliaments, notwithstanding repeated efforts made by the City in general and by Alderman Sawbridge in particular to get it repealed.

A few weeks later, parliament was prorogued (26 June, 1716) and the king paid a visit—often repeated during his reign—to his beloved Hanover, leaving his son, the Prince of Wales, as guardian of the realm and his lieutenant. Between father and son there was never any love lost, there was a sort of hereditary family quarrel, which in this case was brought to a climax in November of the following year over the christening of a babe. The court became split up into two distinct parts. The prince was ordered to quit St. James's and those who paid court to the prince and princess were for ever banished from the king's presence.[33]

After remaining a prisoner in the Tower for nearly two years, the Earl of Oxford was at length, at his own request, brought to trial. The 13th June (1717) was originally fixed as the day on which he was to appear at Westminster Hall, but this was afterwards changed to the 24th by desire of the House of Commons, who wished to put off the trial as long as possible. The lord mayor and sheriffs being directed by the House of Lords to take precautions for guarding the city's gates and preventing an unnecessary concourse of people resorting to Westminster, it was resolved to place double watch in the ward of Farringdon Without during the trial "as was done in the tryal of my Lord Winton and the like cases."[34] Fortunately for the earl, a dispute arose between the two houses on a question of procedure. The Commons were glad of the opportunity of backing out and declined to appear as his accusers, and the Lords thereupon ordered his discharge.[35]

For many years past the Corporation Act of 1661, had not been strictly enforced in the city. Such negligence laid the citizens open to pains and penalties. It was therefore deemed advisable towards the end of the next year (1718) to address the king on the subject and a petition was drawn up by the Court of Aldermen setting forth the apprehension of the petitioners of being "disquieted in the execution of their offices by pretence of not subscribing a declaration against the Solemn League and Covenant at the time of their admission into their respective offices" according to the Statute. Such subscription they submitted had been generally disused, and the Act in that particular, disregarded. Nevertheless, the petitioners had behaved themselves in their offices with all duty and affection to his majesty and the government. They humbly prayed therefore that His Majesty would take such order as should effectually quiet their minds and enable them "to proceed with cheerfulness in the execution of their respective duties."[36] This petition was received very graciously by the king, who looked upon it as a mark of the City's trust and confidence in him. "I shall be glad"—he said—"not only for your sakes, but my own, if any defects which may touch the rights of my good subjects are discovered in my time, since that will furnish me with means of giving you and all my people an indisputable proof of my tenderness for their privileges, and how unwilling I shall ever be to take advantage of their mistakes."[37] His Majesty's assurance thus given was quickly followed by the passing of an Act for the purpose of relieving the City of London and other boroughs of any disabilities for their neglect in subscribing the prescribed declaration.[38]

The reign of George I was marked not only with repeated disputes between the Court of Aldermen and the Common Council, but also with disputes over different municipal elections, until in 1725 matters were to a certain extent accommodated by the passing of the Election Act, 11 George I, c. 18. It had been the custom of the City, whenever the ruling of an alderman at a wardmote had been disputed, to defend the alderman's action when brought before a court of law at the City's expense. The legality of this proceeding was now questioned. In December, 1717, when the annual elections for the Common Council came on, there had been a disputed election in Tower Ward, and the ruling of Alderman Sir Charles Peers had been called in question by Peter Bolton and Edward Bridgen, two unsuccessful candidates. The dispute engaged the attention of the Common Council and the law courts for a whole twelvemonth, the expenses of the aldermen being defrayed by the City. In February, 1719, it reached the House of Lords, but before the matter came on for hearing a compromise was effected, the City agreeing to pay taxed costs.

The reason for this sudden change of attitude on the part of the City is doubtless to be found in a resolution of the House of Lords (17 Feb., 1719) to appoint a committee to examine and report what sums of money the City had expended out of its own chamber on this and similar causes, and what jurisdiction the Common Council exercised over elections of its members. The committee was authorized to carry its investigations as far back as they deemed proper, and to send for persons, papers and records. On the 17th April the committee made its report to the House. The Town Clerk and the City Chamberlain had attended the committee with the necessary warrants and minutes of proceedings, and it had been found that a sum of £2,827 10s. had been paid out of the City's cash for carrying on causes and suits at law relating to the elections of Aldermen and Common Councilmen since the 8th November, 1711.[39] As regards the claim of the Common Council to hear and determine matters in connection with elections of its own members, the committee found that it was based upon a resolution of the Court of the 9th January, 1641,[40] which resolution had been disclaimed (with many others) by Act of Common Council of 1683.[41]

The report having been read, the House passed a resolution to the effect that in maintaining suits at law between citizen and citizen in cases of disputed elections, the Common Council had "abused their trust, and been guilty of great partiality, and of a gross mismanagement of the city treasure, and a violation of the freedom of elections in the city."

So scathing an indictment against the City was not allowed to pass unchallenged. Sixteen peers entered a vigorous protest on the several grounds: (1) that no evidence had been taken on oath, and that without such evidence they conceived that so heavy a censure ought not to be passed on any individual, much less on so important a body as the Common Council of the city, which had done good service on pressing occasions; (2) that the Common Council had not had due notice given them; (3) that the resolution of the House might be construed as prejudging matters which might come before the House judicially; and lastly (4) that had the Common Council been heard they might have shown that the money had been expended in defence of their ancient rights and privileges, and in order to prevent any encroachment thereon.[42] That the dissentient Lords had reason on their side there can be little doubt. Nevertheless, some writers[43] whilst setting out in full the committee's report, as well as the returns made by the Chamberlain of money expended by the City on election suits, and the resolution of the House thereon, have entirely ignored the fact that a solemn protest was made against such resolution, and the reasons which urged the dissentients to make such protest.

In the meantime another disputed election had taken place. This time it concerned an alderman. The mayor had reported the case to the Court of Aldermen the day that the Lords appointed their committee to investigate the City's law costs. The case was shortly this. On the 9th January a wardmote had been held at Cordwainers' Hall, for the purpose of electing an alderman for the ward of Bread Street, in the place of Sir Richard Hoare, deceased. The show of hands for the respective candidates—Robert Baylis and Richard Brocas, both of them members of the Grocers' Company—had been so equal that the mayor had been unable to declare which had the majority. A poll had therefore been demanded, the result being declared by the mayor to be in favour of Brocas, and thereupon a scrutiny had taken place, with the same result.[44] The whole question turned upon the qualification of certain voters. Did they or did they not pay Scot, and in what did "paying Scot" consist? The matter having been argued before the Court of Aldermen by counsel on behalf of each candidate, the Court came to the conclusion that paying Scot was "a general contribution to all public taxes," and at the same time declared Baylis to be duly elected.[45] The Common Council then attempted to interfere, but the Court of Aldermen would brook no invasion of their rights,[46] and although litigation continued well into the next year (1720) Baylis retained his seat in the Court.

On Lord Mayor's day (29 Oct.) 1720, an incident occurred worthy of a passing notice. From particulars laid before the Court of Aldermen (10 Jan., 1721) by a committee appointed to investigate the matter,[47] it appears that when the members of the Court of Aldermen were riding in their coaches towards the Three Cranes on the banks of the river, thence to attend the new lord mayor (Sir John Fryer) in his barge to Westminster, a certain ensign in the Second Regiment of the Guards—Thomas Hockenhull or Hocknell by name—who was in charge of a detachment of soldiers on their way to the Tower, thought fit to break through the aldermen's procession, and to bring Sir John Ward's coach to a sudden standstill, his horses being struck over the head by the soldiers' muskets. The affront was too serious to be passed over, and Sir John reported the matter to Secretary Craggs, who forwarded the alderman's letter to the Secretary at War, and at the same time expressed regret that such an incident should have happened.[48] Later on the officer himself appeared before the Court of Aldermen bearing a letter from Sir George Treby to Alderman Ward to the effect that the officer had already received a reprimand, and would (he hoped) make a suitable apology. A written apology was read to the Court of Aldermen in which Hockenhull pleaded ignorance as to whose coach it was that had been stopped, and endeavoured to throw the blame on two of his soldiers, who he declared to be "a little in liquor." The officer being called in offered to make submission and to beg pardon, but the Court was not in the humour to accept his apology, and so the matter rested until the following January (1721), when upon Sir George Treby's intercession and Hockenhull's submission the Court agreed to pass the matter over. The Secretary at War was at the same time desired "that for the future the route for the Guards marching to and from the Tower may be as usual through Watling Street, and not through the high streets of this city."

Sir John Fryer had been elected mayor at one of the most critical times in the history either of London or the kingdom, for his election took place just at the time of the bursting of the great South Sea bubble. The South Sea Company had been formed in 1711 by Harley, with the view of carrying on such trade with Spanish America as Spain might be willing to allow in the treaty which was then expected. When the Treaty of Utrecht was concluded Spain was found to have conceded the right of trading with America, but only to a limited extent. Nevertheless the idea got abroad that the company was possessed of a very valuable monopoly, and that the trade with Spanish America would enrich all who took part in it. Accordingly the shares of the company were eagerly bought, and in a few years the institution began to rival the Bank of England itself. Early in 1720, when a scheme was propounded for lessening the National Debt, the company was in a position to outbid the Bank in buying up government annuities, and holders of such annuities were found only too ready to exchange them for shares in the company. The company next invited the public to subscribe new capital, and upwards of £5,000,000 were subscribed in an incredibly short space of time. The wildest speculation prevailed. Bogus companies sprang up in all directions, and no matter how ridiculous the purpose might be for which they were avowedly started, they always found subscribers. Men of all ranks, ages, and professions, nay! women also flocked to Threadneedle Street (where stood the South Sea House) or to Change Alley, and the very streets were blocked with desks and clerks, and converted into counting-houses. The whole nation suddenly became stock-jobbers. Swift, writing of the ruin worked by the mad speculation of the day, thus characterises Change Alley, the centre of all the mischief:

The South Sea Company continued to maintain its pre-eminent position, and the value of its shares continued to rise until, in August, a £100 share was worth £1,000.

At last it brought about its own ruin in a way little anticipated. In an evil hour the directors commenced proceedings against the unlicensed, and therefore illegal, companies which had interfered with the great company's more legitimate business. The result was disastrous. One fraud after another was exposed. The nation suddenly recovered its senses. A panic arose as bubble after bubble burst. By the end of September, South Sea stock had fallen from £1,000 to £150, and at last, after an abortive effort to obtain assistance from the Bank of England, this biggest bubble of all collapsed, bringing thousands to beggary. Even the Bank of England itself experienced difficulty in maintaining its credit during the panic, and was compelled once more to resort to stratagem. Payments were made in silver, and chiefly to persons who were in league with the bank, and who no sooner received their money than they brought it back. The money had of course to be re-counted, and by this means time was gained, and time at such a crisis, and to such an institution, meant literally money. On Michaelmas-day the Bank according to the custom prevailing was closed, and when it opened again, the public alarm had subsided.[49]

A few—a very few—of those who had speculated in South Sea stock kept their heads, and got out before the bubble burst. Among these was Thomas Guy, the founder of Guy's Hospital, at that time carrying on business as a bookseller at the corner of Lombard Street and Cornhill—the "lucky corner." He made a large fortune by buying stock at a low price and selling before the crash came, and right good use did he make of his money, for at his death he endowed the hospital called by his name with a sum exceeding £200,000.

As is not unusual in such cases, there was a universal endeavour to fasten the guilt upon others than the rash speculators themselves. An outcry was raised, not only against the directors of the company, but also against the ministry. Nothing would suffice but a Parliamentary enquiry into the affairs of the company. This was granted, and early in the following year the Lords commenced an open investigation, whilst the Commons appointed a committee of secrecy. The Lords had scarcely entered upon their investigation before it was discovered that the secretary of the company had made his escape to the continent. Thereupon the Commons gave orders for all ports to be watched in order to prevent the directors of the company following his example. Any director holding office under Government was dismissed. Two members of the House, who were also directors, were expelled the House and taken into custody. These were Jacob Sawbridge, the grandfather of Alderman John Sawbridge, of whom we shall hear more later on, and Sir Theodore Janssen, the father of Stephen Theodore Janssen who, after serving the City in Parliament and in the Mayoralty chair, became the City's Chamberlain. Other directors were also taken into custody and their papers seized.

Jacob Sawbridge was a member of the firm of Turner, Caswall and Company, commonly known as the Sword-blade Company, carrying on business as goldsmiths in Birchin Lane. Sir George Caswall, one of the partners, was member for Leominster, and was serving as Sheriff the year of the South Sea Bubble. His firm had acted as cashiers of the South Sea Company, and like many similar firms of goldsmiths, had advanced large sums upon the company's stock. The committee of secrecy appointed by the House of Commons soon discovered that Sir George had been guilty of tampering with the firm's books in order to shield Charles Stanhope. For this he was expelled the House and committed to the Tower, whilst his firm was made to surrender its illgotten gains to the extent of a quarter of a million sterling.[50]

All the directors were forced to send in inventories of their respective estates to the Parliamentary Committee. These were confiscated for the benefit of their dupes, their owners being allowed some small portion of their former wealth to keep them from starvation. Peculation and dishonesty were not confined to the city. Peers of the realm and cabinet ministers were charged with receiving large bribes either in money or stock. The Earl of Sunderland, first commissioner of the Treasury, was reported by the committee of investigation to have received £50,000 stock without any consideration whatsoever, and although the House of Commons refused to find him guilty,[51] the Earl felt compelled to give up his post. Craggs, who was Secretary of State, and Aislabie, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to mention others, were convicted by the House of receiving similar bribes.[52] Craggs died of an attack of small-pox, pending the enquiry, but he left a large estate, and this was confiscated for the relief of sufferers. Aislabie was expelled the House, and committed to the Tower. Among the directors who were thus made to feel the heavy hand of Parliament was Edward Gibbon, grandfather of the great historian of the "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." Out of an estate of £60,000, Parliament allowed him to retain no more than £10,000. That the action of Parliament towards the directors was afterwards condemned by the historian as arbitrary and unjust, and only to be excused by the most imperious necessity, need not therefore cause surprise.[53]

The city fathers, on the other hand, upheld the action of Parliament, and urged it to take further measures to alleviate the prevalent distress by presenting to the House the following petition (3 April)[54]:—

"Your peticoners think it their duty most humbly to represent to this Hono^ble House the present state of the City of London (so considerable a part of the kingdom) now filled with numberless objects of grief and compassion (the sad effects of the mismanagem^ts avarice and fatal contrivances of the late Directors of the South Sea Company, their aiders, abettors and confederates in the destruccÕn of their country.)

"Nor is it the case of this great city alone your peticoners lament, but the general decay of trade manufactures and of public creditt, whereof this Hono^ble House have been alwaies so extreamly tender, as also of the honour of the British name and nacÕn.

"Your peticoners beg leave to return their most humble thanks to this Hono^ble House for the great pains they have taken to releive the unhappy sufferers by compelling the offenders to make restitucÕn as likewise for their continued applicacÕn to lay open this whole scene of guilt, notwithstanding the industrious artificers of such sharers in the common plunder as have endeavoured to obstruct the deteccÕn of fraud and corrupcÕn, and your peticoners doubt not but the same fortitude, impartiality and public spirit wherewith this Hono^ble House have hitherto acted will still animate them in pursuit of those truly great and noble ends.

"We are too sensible"—the petitioners went on to say—"of the load of public debts not to wish that all proper methods may be taken to lessen them, and it is an infinite concern to us that the paiment of a great summe towards them (which was expected from the success of the late scheme) is now rendered extreamly difficult, if not impracticable, and yet is a cloud hanging over the heads of the present unfortunate Proprietors of the South Sea Company, and a great damp to public credit.

"We will not presume," they said in conclusion, "to mention in what manner releif may be given in this arduous affair, but humbly submit it to the serious consideracÕn of this Hono^ble House."

This petition was followed by others in the same strain from different parts of the country, and conduced to the passing of a Bill which, besides appropriating the sum of £2,000,000 out of the private property of the directors for the relief of sufferers, remitted a sum of £7,000,000 due by the Company to the Government, and made an equitable division of the remainder of the Company's capital among the proprietors.[55]

These measures were greatly, if not exclusively, due to Walpole, the great financier of the day, and one of the few who had not allowed themselves to become involved in the affairs of the South Sea Company. The recent disclosures led to his becoming first lord of the treasury, and chancellor of the exchequer, with his brother-in-law Townshend as secretary of state. In March, 1722, the first septennial Parliament came to an end, and again the Whigs were returned by an overwhelming majority.[56] Walpole thus found himself absolute master of the field, and this position he continued to maintain for twenty years.

In the meanwhile the birth of an heir[57] to the Pretender (1721) had raised the hopes of the Jacobites, who were only waiting for a fitting opportunity to renew their attack upon the House of Hanover. The confusion which followed the bursting of the South Sea Bubble seemed to afford them the opportunity they desired. Again the aid of France was invoked. Not only did the Regent refuse assistance, however, but he informed the English minister in Paris of the conspiracy that was on foot. Thus it was that on the 8th May (1722) Townshend informed the Lord Mayor (Sir William Stewart) by letter[58] that the king had the best of grounds for believing that another plot was being prepared in favour of the Pretender, but that as the plot was unsupported by any foreign power, and the king had been forewarned, there would be little to fear. At the same time the king looked to the mayor and his fellow magistrates to secure the city.

The letter being the next day brought to the notice of the Court of Aldermen, that body prepared a loyal address to the king and presented it to him the same evening.[59] In acknowledging the address the king assured the deputation that his interests and the interests of the City were inseparable, that he would do all in his power to maintain public credit and protect the City's privileges and estate as well as uphold the religion, laws and liberties of the kingdom. An order was issued the same day by the Privy Council for putting into execution the laws against papists, reputed papists and non-jurors, as well as against riots and tumults.[60] In addition to this the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended for a whole year, the longest time on record, and throughout the summer troops were kept encamped ready for any emergency. Some of the chief conspirators in England, among them being Atterbury, Bishop of Rochester, were placed under arrest. Had not the conspiracy been timely discovered and precautions taken the whole kingdom "and particularly the City of London"—as George told the new parliament when, after frequent prorogations, it met in October—might have become involved in blood and confusion.[61] As matters turned out, the conspiracy proved a complete failure.

Whilst Walpole continued to pursue his policy of peace and increased in influence year by year, the City found itself constantly involved in disputed elections. At one time it was an election of an alderman, at another a member of the Common Council, at another an election of a sheriff. At length matters arrived at such a pitch that a petition from the citizens at large was presented to the House of Commons (16 Dec., 1724)[62] setting forth that, at elections by the liverymen of the city, numbers of people voted who had no right to vote; that at wardmote elections non-freemen claimed the right to vote on the ground that they contributed to the charges of their respective wards, refusing at the same time to qualify as voters by taking up the freedom of the city because they would thereby restrict their right of testamentary disposition of their estate;[63] that the Court of Aldermen had decided (as we have just seen) that payment of scot was a general contribution to all the public taxes and charges upon the city and inhabitants thereof—a decision which had not met with the favour of the Common Council, and that thus fresh causes of dissension between these two bodies had recently arisen. The petitioners prayed therefore "the relief of the House for preserving the liberties and peace and quieting the minds of the citizens and for punishing all intruders upon their rights and privileges, and settling their elections upon a just and lasting foundation." In answer to this prayer the House gave leave for the introduction of a Bill "for regulating elections within the City of London, and for preserving the peace, good order and government of the said City."

After the Bill had been brought in (27 Jan., 1725), two petitions were laid before the House; one purporting to come from "the major part of the Aldermen of the city," the other from the Common Council.[64] The former, which was in favour of the Bill, had been previously submitted to the Court of Aldermen; but upon the question being proposed that the petition should be the petition of the Court, the lord mayor (Sir George Merttins) declined to put the question on the ground that it would not be consistent with his honour to let his name be inserted in that petition, when already a petition had been presented to parliament in the name of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Commons in Common Council assembled.[65] The aldermen's petition drew attention more particularly to a clause in the Bill touching the right of passing Acts or By-laws by the Common Council. It declared that the right of the aldermen to veto such proceedings had never been questioned until the time of the civil war, and not afterwards until quite recently; it further stated that the aldermen had lately (20 Feb., 1724), by their recorder, proposed to the Common Council a settlement of all disputes by reference either to the judges of the High Court or the parliament; but the offer had been declined.[66]

The petition of the Common Council was against the Bill as being destructive to many of the rights and privileges which they and their fellow citizens enjoyed by ancient charters.[67] The Bill passed its second reading on the 6th of February, after which both parties were heard by counsel. When the Bill was before the committee, several petitions against it were presented from Livery Companies of the city. On the 19th March it was read a third time and passed the Commons.[68] In the passage of the Bill through the Lower House it had been strenuously opposed by three out of the four members for the city, viz: Francis Child, Richard Lockwood and John Barnard. For their services in this respect the Common Council passed (22 March) them a formal vote of thanks. The Court at the same time prepared to oppose the Bill in the Lords.[69]

When the Bill was carried up to the Lords, petitions from "the major part of the aldermen" and from the Common Council were again presented, as well as another petition subscribed by certain freemen who objected to parts of the Bill.[70] The passage of the Bill through the Upper House was nevertheless expeditious; on the 1st April it was read a second time and committed, and on the 13th, it was passed with some amendments, but not without a protest being formally entered by dissentient lords.[71] On the 20th the Bill received the royal assent.

There are three clauses in the Act of special interest. First, the clause (No. ix), which prescribes the nature of the charges embraced in the term "payment of scot;" secondly, the clause (No. xv), which confirms to the Aldermen of the city their right to negative Acts of the Common Council;[72] and thirdly, the clause (No. xvii) abolishing the custom of the City restraining citizens and freemen from disposing of the whole of their personal estates by will.

Just when the reign of George I was drawing to an unexpected close, it seemed as if England was on the point of becoming involved in a European War. The emperor and the king of Spain had laid aside their quarrels and become united in a confederacy against France and England. Unless Gibraltar were ceded by England, another invasion of the Pretender might be shortly expected. The citizens were highly incensed at the thought of their trade being periodically put in jeopardy by Jacobite risings, and they hastened to assure the king once more of their determination to sacrifice their lives and fortunes in defence of the constitution both in church and state against all enemies whatsoever.[73] Thanks to the pacific tendencies of Walpole and the diplomatic skill of Townshend, hostilities were averted, and George was able to set out for his customary visit to Hanover, where he had been in the habit of spending a portion of each year. Before his journey was completed, however, he was seized with apoplexy and died in his coach, near OsnabrÜck (11 June).