This sum, however, proved altogether inadequate for the purpose, so that by the end of August the queen was compelled to send for the mayor and aldermen and ask for 200,000 more. The mayor promised to summon a Common Council at an early date to consider the matter, and to further her majesty"s wishes to the best of his power.(1757) A court accordingly met on Tuesday the 6th September and agreed to raise the money, as usual, by subscriptions in the wards and from the livery companies,(1758) and within a very few days the mayor was able to signify to the queen the City"s compliance with her wishes, and to inform her that 70,000 had been already subscribed.(1759)
(M888)
On the 18th October William once more set foot in England, and at seven o"clock in the evening of the 20th he pa.s.sed through the city-the houses of which were illuminated and the bells set ringing-to Kensington. Two days later (22 Oct.) the mayor and aldermen went in state to wait upon his majesty to congratulate him upon his safe return, and to ask him to favour them with his presence on the coming lord mayor"s day, when Sir John Fleet entered on his year of office.(1760) The king accepted the City"s invitation and conferred the honour of knighthood upon Salathiel Lovell, who in June last had been chosen recorder on the occasion of Sir George Treby being appointed chief justice of the common pleas.(1761)
(M889)
The entertainment, which was given at the expense of the aldermen and not charged in any way to the city"s Chamber,(1762) was made the occasion by the king of suggesting another city loan of 200,000, making the third loan of the kind within the year, besides another loan of 100,000. The king"s wishes were laid before the next Common Council (2 Nov.) and met with a ready response.(1763) Before leaving the Guildhall his majesty conferred the honour of knighthood upon Alderman Gore, Alderman Houblon, Leonard Robinson, the city chamberlain, and others.(1764)
(M890)
Scarcely had William turned his back on England in the spring of the following year (1693) in order to prosecute the war with France before the Common Council was asked (25 April) to advance another sum of 200,000 upon the credit of a recent Act of Parliament authorising the raising of a million of money for military purposes.(1765) The money, which was wanted for the purpose of paying the wages of seamen and for refitting the fleet, was immediately voted.
(M891) (M892)
The same ill-success followed the arms of the allied forces this year on the continent as in previous years. But the fall of Mons in 1691, of Namur in 1692, and the b.l.o.o.d.y field of Landen this year were far less disastrous in their effect to the Londoner than the damage inflicted on the Turkey fleet of merchantmen in Lagos Bay. For months the fleet, valued at several millions, had been waiting to be convoyed to the Mediterranean, and so great had been the delay in providing it with a sufficiently strong escort that the city merchant had already lost much of the profit he had looked to derive from the voyage. When at length a convoy was provided it was on the understanding that the greater part of the force should withdraw as soon as the most critical point of the voyage should be pa.s.sed, leaving but barely twenty sail, under Rooke, to accompany the merchantmen through the Straits of Gibraltar. It was in vain that Rooke protested. The danger was the more hazardous inasmuch as no one could say where the French fleet was lying. Nevertheless, on the 5th June the main fleet parted company and returned to the Channel, leaving Rooke, with only seventeen men-of-war, to look to his charge as best he could. As time went on and no news could be got of the movements of the French fleet the underwriters in the city got more and more nervous.(1766) The end is well known. At Lagos the English admiral found his pa.s.sage blocked by the French fleet. A sharp fight ensued, during which many merchantmen succeeded in making good their escape, others were burnt or sunk. "Never within the memory of man," wrote Macaulay, "had there been in the city a day of more gloom and agitation than that on which the news of the encounter in the Bay of Lagos arrived.
Many traders, an eye-witness said, went away from the Royal Exchange as pale as if they had received sentence of death." The Turkey merchants in their distress sent a deputation to the queen.(1767) The deputation met with a kind reception, and was a.s.sured by Somers, on the queen"s behalf, of her majesty"s deep sympathy. An enquiry, he said, had already been set on foot as to the cause of the recent disaster, and care would be taken to prevent its recurrence.
(M893)
On the 15th August, after voting a loan of 300,000 to her majesty for payment of the forces in Flanders, the Common Council prepared an address to the queen, in which they expressed their deep sense of the infinite goodness of G.o.d in preserving the king through all the perils of war, and thanked her for the sympathy she had displayed with the ruined merchants and for the steps she had taken for the better protection of trade in future. To this address a clause was added at the next meeting of the court (17 Aug.) referring to their cheerful readiness to advance a further sum of money for her majesty"s necessities, and a.s.suring her of their firm resolution to continue upon all occasions to support her authority and government against all persons to the uttermost of their power.(1768)
(M894)
In October the Court of Aldermen invited her majesty to dinner on lord mayor"s day-the day on which Sir William Ashurst entered into office. On this occasion it was agreed that the mayor and sheriffs should bear the whole expense of the entertainment, without the aid of the aldermen.(1769) Ashurst appears to have been unpopular with his brother aldermen. On the feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.), when the usual court was held for swearing in the new lord mayor, no less than ten aldermen absented themselves. Whether this was intended for a studied insult or was the result of mere negligence does not appear. But, however that may be, the court marked its sense of their conduct by fining six of the delinquents 100 marks a-piece, whilst it took time to consider the case of the other four, they being members of parliament.(1770)
(M895)
The 29th October falling on Sunday, the lord mayor"s banquet took place on the following Monday at the hall of the Grocers" Company,(1771) but the queen was unable to attend as she had gone to meet the king, who had landed at Harwich on Sunday afternoon.(1772) On the 2nd November the mayor and aldermen attended at Whitehall to offer their congratulations upon his safe return. His success, said the city"s Recorder, addressing his majesty, had not answered the expectations and hopes of his subjects, nevertheless they were a.s.sured that G.o.d, who had protected him in so many dangers, would in His own good time work a deliverance. The king received them very graciously, gave each his hand to kiss, and conferred the honour of knighthood upon Thomas Abney, one of the sheriffs.(1773)
CHAPTER x.x.xIII.
(M896)
Soon after parliament resumed its sittings (7 Nov., 1693) the attention of the Commons was drawn to a high-handed act done by the wealthy and autocratic company known as the East India Company. For nearly a century that body of merchants had enjoyed a monopoly of trade with the East Indies and had frustrated all attempts of "interlopers" to share their privileges. It had received its first charter at the hands of Queen Elizabeth on the 31st December, 1600, but it was not until after the Restoration, when its privileges were confirmed by another charter, that it began to enter upon a career of such unexampled prosperity as to become at once an object of envy and fear. The management of the company"s affairs rested in the hands of a small number of proprietors, the leading spirit for many years being Sir Josiah Child, one of the merchant princes of the city. With him was a.s.sociated, at least for a time, Thomas Papillon, the zealous Whig. He had become a member of the company as early as 1657, and for many years took an active part in its management. He was one of the directors from 1663 to 1670; was re-appointed in 1675, but lost his seat on the board the following year, as also did Child, through the intervention of Charles the Second, who disliked their Whiggish principles. After a short interval both of them recovered their positions, and in 1680 and 1681 Papillon was deputy governor.(1774) When Child turned courtier and threw over his old colleagues, Papillon and other Whig shareholders sold their stock and severed their connection with the company. Their places on the directorate were filled up by others who were devoted to Child and his policy, and thenceforth Child became the autocrat of the company. "The treasures of the company were absolutely at his disposal.... A present of ten thousand guineas was graciously received from him by Charles. Ten thousand more were accepted by James, who readily consented to become a holder of stock.... Of what the dictator expended no account was asked by his colleagues."(1775) His policy was so far successful as to obtain a decision in favour of the company"s privileges from Jeffreys and a renewal of its charter from James. Just at a time when the prospects of the company looked brightest a sudden change of fortune was occasioned by the Revolution and the subsequent accession of the Whigs to power. The outcry raised by the general merchants of the city against the company became louder than ever, not so much on account of the company being in possession of a monopoly as because it was ruled by a single individual, and his rule, while benefiting himself and his creatures, was prejudicial to the public welfare. To this outcry Papillon, who had now returned from exile, added his voice and thereby subjected himself to a charge of inconsistency.
(M897)
There was but one remedy for the existing evil in the opinion of the majority, and that was to form a new company from which Child should be excluded. Without waiting for an Act of Parliament many traders in the city formed themselves into an a.s.sociation which, although unrecognised by law, acquired the designation of the New Company, and commenced to carry on its business at the hall of the Skinners" Company in Dowgate. For years the city was kept in a ferment by the rivalry existing between the Old and the New Company, between Leadenhall Street and Skinners" Hall, the former being supported by the Tories, the latter by the Whigs.
(M898)
The sanction and a.s.sistance of parliament was sought for by both companies. The majority of the Commons were in favour of a compromise.
They would have retained the Old Company, but wished to remodel it and to incorporate with it the members of the New Company. Such a proceeding, however, Child would not listen to, and his obstinacy so provoked the House that in February, 1692, it presented an address to the king praying him to dissolve the Old Company and to grant a charter to a New Company on such terms as to his majesty"s wisdom might seem fit. The king replied that it was a matter of very great importance to the trade of the kingdom; that he could not be expected to give an immediate answer, but he would consider the matter and give an answer shortly.(1776) The company sought to avert the impending danger by offering the king the sum of 200,000 by way of loan for three years without any interest.(1777) A twelvemonth later (Feb., 1693) the Commons again pet.i.tioned the king to dissolve the Old Company upon three years" warning;(1778) but in spite of these attacks the company contrived to obtain a confirmation of its monopoly under the Great Seal in the following October.(1779) This was only obtained by a lavish distribution of money.
(M899)
In the meantime the management of the Old Company"s affairs had been placed ostensibly in the hands of Sir Thomas Cook,(1780) an alderman of London and member for Colchester, although there is reason for believing that Child still continued to be the actual manager.
(M900)
Within a few days of the order of the Privy Council for sealing the company"s charter, and before the king, whose return from the continent was daily expected, could give it his sanction,(1781) the directors, in the moment of victory, committed an act of incredible rashness which led to serious consequences. A number of city merchants had recently chartered a vessel named "Redbridge" and placed on board a valuable cargo. Her papers showed her to be bound for a Spanish port, but suspicion pointed to her being intended for a voyage to the East Indies in contravention of the company"s charter. Acting on this surmise, the company procured an order from the Privy Council to have the vessel stopt, and stopt she accordingly was from the 21st October until the following 9th November, each day"s delay in sailing inflicting heavy expense on the owners. Such high-handed proceedings of the Company might create little excitement if carried out on the high seas and at a distance from home, but in the port of London they were not to be tolerated. The owners of the "Redbridge" laid their grievance before the Commons (30 Dec.).(1782) They pointed out that the conduct of the East India Company was "greatly prejudicial to all foreign trade and navigation in general, and more particularly to the pet.i.tioners, who by the present laws of the kingdom can have no reparation." They prayed, therefore, that the like inconveniences might be prevented for the future. Their pet.i.tion was referred to a committee of the whole House, together with other pet.i.tions against the company, as well as the company"s charters. In due course the committee, with Papillon in the chair, reported that the stopping of the "Redbridge" was "a grievance, a discouragement to trade and contrary to the known laws of the kingdom,"(1783) and further that, in the opinion of the Common Hall, "all the subjects of England have equal right to trade to the East Indies unless prohibited by Act of Parliament." This resolution was accepted by the House without a division,(1784) and for some years at least there nominally existed free trade with India.(1785)
(M901)
Between March, 1689, and February, 1691, little appears to have been done towards solving the difficulty of the claims of the City orphans. Another committee was appointed at the expiration of that time to consider the matter, and in November, 1691, the committee reported to the Common Council. They recommended that certain rents of the value of 8,000 per annum should be set aside towards the payment of four per cent. per annum for the immediate relief of the orphans, and that parliament should be asked to authorise the raising of a sum of 24,000 to be vested in the Corporation for the satisfaction of debts to existing orphans, and for security of the money of orphans that should be paid into the Chamber in future. The recommendation of the committee was accepted by the court (20 Nov.), and three days later a draft pet.i.tion to parliament was read and approved.(1786) The pet.i.tion set forth that in the troublous times during and after the reign of Charles I the City lost divers large sums of money, and that by reason of this, as well as of the destruction of the greatest part of their estate in the great fire and their losses consequent on the illegal judgment on the _Quo Warranto_, their debts to the orphans had amounted to a sum far larger than the City was able to pay without the a.s.sistance of parliament. It proceeded to lay before the House the scheme proposed by the committee, and prayed the House to a.s.sist the pet.i.tioners to raise a sufficient sum for an annual payment to be made in lieu of the said debts, or such other provision for the same as the House might think fit. On the 27th November leave was granted to bring in a Bill, and on the 3rd December a Bill was brought in and read the first time, but nothing further appears to have come of it.(1787) On the 6th August, 1692, a committee was appointed to consider the question how best the City"s revenues might be improved with the view to the easier discharge of orphans" claims. The committee showed itself very active, meeting at least once and often twice a week. Nevertheless it was not until the 2nd November it was in a position to make a report to the Common Council.(1788) What was thought of the committee"s recommendations is not recorded, but a few days later (11 Nov.) we find the court resolving to present a pet.i.tion to parliament in precisely the same terms as their former pet.i.tion.(1789)
(M902)
The matter was allowed to drag on until the 17th February of the next year (1693), when a committee was appointed by the House to prepare and bring in another Bill. A Bill was accordingly brought in on the 20th, read the first time on the 21st, read the second time on the 22nd and committed.
Before the Bill pa.s.sed through committee the City desired to be heard by counsel against the Bill on the ground that it divested the City of all its revenues, deprived it of much of its ancient and necessary jurisdiction, and would not answer the ends proposed.(1790) In March progress was reported, but before anything further could be done the House was prorogued.(1791)
(M903)
When the House re-a.s.sembled in November (1693) the City again presented a pet.i.tion in terms similar to their former pet.i.tions. The pet.i.tion having been referred to a committee of the whole House that committee reported (17 Feb., 1694) to the following effect,(1792) viz., that (1) a rent-charge of 8,000 per annum should be set aside out of the City"s revenues towards payment of interest due to orphans, (2) that the City should be permitted to raise a sum not exceeding 2,000 per annum upon personal estates in the city to satisfy the orphans" debts, (3) that the patentees of a new kind of gla.s.s light known as convex lights(1793) should contribute an annual sum of 600, (4) that an additional duty of 4_d._ per chaldron should be imposed upon coal entering the port of London and 6_d._ per chaldron on coals imported into the city for a term of fifty years commencing from the determination of the duty already existing in respect of re-building St. Paul"s, (5) that an additional duty of 4_s._ should be laid on every tun of wine entering the port of London, (6) that the improvements about to be made in the water supply of the city(1794) should also contribute, and lastly (7) that every person bound apprentice in the city should contribute 2_s._6_d._, and every person made free of the city 5_s._ towards the same object.
(M904)
A Bill(1795) was subsequently introduced embodying these resolutions, but with an additional proviso that when the tax of 6_d._ per chaldron on coals, to be imposed for a term of fifty years, should cease the City"s lands should be charged with an annual sum of 6,000 over and above the rent-charge of 8,000 previously mentioned. The Bill was read the first and second time on the 22nd February, and the third time on the 12th March. A few days later (21 March) it pa.s.sed the Lords without amendment, and on the 23rd received the royal a.s.sent.(1796)
(M905)
On the 6th March (1694) the lord keeper came to the Guildhall, accompanied by the lords of the treasury, to ask the Common Council for a loan of 200,000, upon security of the land tax, for naval and military purposes.
The court at once a.s.sented, and before the end of the month the whole amount had been paid into the exchequer.(1797) The money was raised in the usual way from the inhabitants of each ward and from the livery companies.
The Corporation itself was by no means well off, and encouragement was given to anyone who could suggest a means whereby the City"s revenues could be increased.(1798) Recourse was had, among other things, to nominating for sheriff the least suitable men for the office, and such as would prefer paying the fine to serving. In no other way can one reasonably account for the fact that the fines for refusing to undertake the office of sheriff amounted for this year (1694) to over 5,000.(1799)
(M906)
This loan was but as a drop in the ocean compared with the necessities of the times. The estimates for the year 1694 were enormous. The army, which was already the largest standing force that England had ever seen, was to receive a large increase, whilst considerable sums of money were required for payment of arrears, no less than for the future expenses, of the navy.
Notwithstanding the renewal of the land tax, the imposition of a poll-tax, the revival of stamp duties, and the raising of a million of money by a lottery loan, there yet remained a large deficit before the estimated revenue of the year balanced the estimated expenditure. At this juncture Charles Montague, poet, politician and _savant_, took up a scheme propounded to government three years before by William Paterson, an enterprising if not always successful Scotsman, but allowed to drop. This scheme was none other than the formation of a national bank. The idea was not altogether a new one. Before the close of the reign of Charles II several plans of the kind had been suggested, some being in favour of establishing such a bank under the immediate direction of the Crown, whilst others were of opinion that its management should be entrusted to the Corporation of the city. It was now proposed to raise the sum of 1,200,000 for the use of the government by way of loan at eight per cent.
interest, the subscribers being incorporated by the name of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The matter was introduced into parliament for the first time on the 28th March, in the shape of a Bill for granting their majesties certain tonnage duties on wine, ale and other liquors.(1800) Although it was not easy to recognise in the terms of the Bill the germ of "the greatest commercial inst.i.tution that the world had ever seen,"(1801) it met with considerable opposition in the House, and still more outside. With their recent experience of the evils arising from a rich and powerful body like the East India Company, men were cautious in allowing a Corporation to be erected in their midst which, as many feared, would absorb the wealth of the nation,(1802) and might render the Crown independent of parliament and people. This last consideration was not unimportant, and, in order to avert the possibility of such a danger, a clause was inserted in the Bill forbidding under the severest penalties the new Corporation advancing money to the Crown without the authority of parliament.(1803) Subject to this and other conditions the Bill pa.s.sed the Commons, and on the 24th April was agreed to by the Lords.(1804)
At the head of the Commission, issued under the Great Seal for the establishment of the new bank, stood the name of the lord mayor, Sir William Ashurst; and out of the twenty-four original directors at least four rose to be chief magistrate of the city, whilst others are known to have taken an active part in the affairs of the munic.i.p.ality.(1805) In the city the undertaking met with a success beyond all expectation. The very first day (21 June) that the subscription lists were opened at Mercers"
Hall nearly 300,000 was received, and within a week that amount was doubled. Sir John Houblon, who succeeded to the mayoralty the following year, and became the first Governor of the Bank, subscribed 10,000, the largest amount any one individual was allowed by the terms of the charter to subscribe before the first day of July. The same amount was subscribed by the lords of the treasury on behalf of the queen. By mid-day of the 2nd July the whole of the money (1,200,000) had been subscribed and the books closed.(1806) The Great Seal was put to the bank charter, and business was commenced in the hall of the Grocers" Company.
Hitherto, as we have seen, the city of London had always acted (as indeed it claimed to be) as the king"s Chamber, and the occupier of the throne of England for the time being had never hesitated to draw upon this Chamber whenever he was in need of money. The mode of procedure was nearly always the same. The lords of the treasury would appear some morning before the Common Council, and after a few words of explanation as to the necessities of the time, would ask for a loan, offering in most cases (we are bound to confess) undeniable security. Supposing that the Council agreed to raise the required loan, which it nearly always did, the mayor for the time being was usually instructed to issue his precept to the aldermen to collect subscriptions within their several wards, whilst other precepts were (in later times at least) sent to the master or wardens of the livery companies to do the same among the members of their companies. There were times, also, when the companies were called upon to subscribe in proportion to their a.s.sessment for supplying the city with corn in times of distress.(1807) Times were now changed. Instead of applying to the City for an advance in case of need, the king thenceforth drew what he required from the Bank of England. During the remainder of his reign William only applied twice to the City for a loan: once, towards the close of 1696, when he required money for the army and navy, and again in 1697, when it was necessary to pay off his continental allies and lay up the navy after the peace of Ryswick (10 Sept.).(1808) The City, in its corporate capacity, was no longer to be the purse of the nation.
(M907)
In December of this year (1694)-soon after his return from an unsuccessful campaign-William suffered an irreparable loss by the death of the queen.
The old adage touching an ill wind received a curious exemplification at Queen Mary"s death, for although that event sent down the stock of the Bank of England three per cent., it benefited the East India Company by causing a rapid rise in the price of muslin, a commodity of which we are told that company happened to possess a large quant.i.ty.(1809) The Court of Aldermen put themselves into mourning,(1810) whilst the Common Council voted an address of condolence to the king and ordered statues ("effigies") of both king and queen to be erected at the Royal Exchange.(1811) The king followed the advice given to him by the city fathers not to suffer too much "resentment" over his recent loss, and diverted himself by practising shooting on horseback in Richmond Park whilst his dead wife was still above ground.(1812)