WE have now to see the last attempt made by an English king to oppress the city. The accession of the house of Brunswick was popular with the Londoners, and, as I endeavoured to show in my last chapter, the support of the citizens was among the strongest bulwarks of the kingdom against the rebellion of . It was the same in , and both George I. and George II. were very well received at their rare visits to the Guildhall or the Mansion House. Their reigns are chiefly remarkable in the city for the local improvements carried out. The Fleet river was covered over, after a vain attempt to make it a canal in accordance with 's suggestion, as far as Holborn Bridge. The precinct of was finally incorporated with the ward of Farringdon Within, on the verdict of a jury from Hertfordshire, summoned specially for the purpose. This was in , and twenty years later the project for making a new bridge over the took shape, the course of the Fleet became a roadway, and not only was the new bridge named after the , but a Road appeared in Surrey on the opposite bank. A newer bridge at the same spot was opened in by the queen in person, and springs from arches actually

Other great improvements and alterations followed. The completion of St. Paul's, the last of a long series of churches and public buildings which were rebuilt after the great fire, seems to have given leisure and money for other work, and the last year of the life of our second Hanoverian king saw the final removal of the old defences. The plans of Mylne were accepted for Bridge, and the first pile driven with civic ceremony in and in the same month the Court of Common Council empowered a committee to take measures, under an act passed in the previous year, for widening the streets. The gates were pulled down, though some of them were nearly new, and the materials sold, and now the antiquary has to seek diligently for the slightest fragment of the wall which in days gone by had so often saved London. Little of Roman work remained, but here and there were the flat Roman bricks. Of the gothic archways only one had survived, namely, Cripplegate, though it was in wretched condition, and had been repaired and altered several times. had been frequently rebuilt, and subsisted until . But Ludgate, which was also used as a prison, stood more in the way and was pulled down and the materials sold for 148£., all except a statue of queen , which had been set up at one of the frequent rebuildings, and which was removed to Fleet Street. There, somewhat restored, it still stands near St. Dunstan's Church. [2] 

But besides removing the gates a still more serious change was carried out. Old had long been the chief pride of the citizens. Snorro Sturlesen, a foreign visitor, writing in the thirteenth century, observed that the bridge was so wide that two carriages if they met could pass each other. Peter, the curate of St. Mary Colechurch, in Cheap, was a great engineer and architect. He perched his own church on arches to be out of the way of the fine buildings he erected for the canons of St. Thomas. The building of in stone had been preceded by the wooden bridge he made in , a little further to the eastward. Nothing can give a better idea of the size of Peter's piers than the fact the ninth contained a chapel, dedicated, like the hospital of his patrons, to St. Thomas of Canterbury. The chapel was sixty-five feet long, twenty feet wide and forty high; the roof was supported by fourteen clustered columns, and there were eight windows. In a lower chapel or crypt was the grave and monument of Peter himself: and there were two entrances, one from the "street" on the bridge, and one from the river below. At the suppression of chantries, four chaplains belonged to St. Thomas's, . This ninth pier was as nearly as possible in the middle of the bridge, and the chapel looked to the east. There were twenty arches in all, of various sizes, and the rush of water through them, especially at high tides, made the navigation very dangerous.[3]  Peter was thirty-three years carrying out the work, or two years less than the time was employed upon St Paul's.

The houses on were several times destroyed by fire and as often rebuilt, the whole effect

At length in a new bridge was decided on. In July the necessary powers were obtained from parliament, and the work was commenced in the following March. It was completed in , and cost less than half a million, though the approaches, which had to be made through old streets, raised the whole expense to a million and a half. Rennie was the architect and it is allowed by every one that as it stands now is a credit to the city. Instead of the old twenty arches there are but five, and the roadway over them is almost level. Hardly any perceptible obstruction is caused to the tide or stream by the narrow and compact piers. Already it is found insufficient for the traffic, and various proposals have been made for widening it, none of them, so far, of a kind to be recommended. The space between Fishmongers' Hall and St. Magnus' church will not admit of the obvious idea of doubling the present width without the destruction of one or other or, perhaps, both. Yet something must soon be done, for the traffic which consisted even ten years ago of 116,ooo vehicles a week, is increasing; the freeing of Bridge, which had been opened in , and the rebuilding of Bridge have only demonstrated that some way across the river below London is what is needed.

The first two kings of the house of Hanover almost effaced themselves, so far as personal power was concerned. ., with perhaps less capacity than either, was determined to revive the prerogative of the crown so far as he thought he could do it with safety. His accession was marked by the usual addresses of congratulation, and people observed with pleasure that the young king was born an Englishman. George may have thought that this fact, and the total disappearance

The popularity of Pitt, and his great city supporter, Beckford, was transferred for a while vicariously to Wilkes. How far he was worthy of the people's favour, in spite of his winning manners, appears from many anecdotes. Boswell describes the spell he threw over Dr. Johnson, and every one who has heard of him has heard of the social powers of which, in spite of his ugly face and his squint, he boasted, when he said that with half an hour's start he could excel the handsomest man in Europe in winning hearts. The original object of his attacks on Bute was, as he often cynically avowed, the attainment of a pension or an office under government. He had squandered the fortune left him by his father, an honest wine merchant in St. John's Square, Clerkenwell, and is reported to have said of the government that if they did not find employment for him, he was disposed to find it for them. And he succeeded. When, during an enforced absence on the continent, he was asked by Madame de Pompadour, "How far may an Englishman go in abuse of the royal family and the court ?" he replied promptly, "I do not quite know, but I am trying to find out."

The forty-fifth number of the North Briton was one of these attempts. It had national and constitutional results far beyond its merits. It consisted in a criticism on the speech from the throne at the opening of Parliament in , and was considered so scurrilous, that the ministry issued a general warrant for the arrest of all concerned in its production and publication. Forty-eight printers, publishers, and other tradesmen were speedily

During the years that followed Wilkes's popularity increased rather than diminished. The city, it is true, declined to elect him to Parliament, but the voters of returned him at the head of the poll in the hustings at Brentford.[8]  The House of Commons refused to receive him, but he was returned again and again. The lord mayor that year, Samuel Turner, was known to oppose him, and the windows of the Mansion House were broken. For safety in the streets it was necessary that even casual passengers and foreigners should chalk "45 " on their hats. The ministers and the king were furious. Wilkes had been declared an outlaw, and he

The king's popularity was further damaged in the city by an event which took place in . The previous year Wilkes had been elected alderman of Farringdon Without, and William Beckford, who had ruled as lord mayor in , was chosen a second time for the same high office. When, in May , the House of Commons not only refused Wilkes leave to sit, but put in his place a Colonel Luttrel, whom he had defeated at the poll, the called on lord mayor Beckford to take a remonstrance, couched in very moderate terms, to the king. George did not conceal his displeasure, and the lord mayor, now a very old man, addressed him in a short but respectful speech,[9]  in which he pointed out to the king the loyalty

These brave words were received by . with impatience. No reply was vouchsafed, and when shortly afterwards the lord mayor attended at court with an address of formal congratulation on the birth of one of George's numerous children, he was not admitted to the presence chamber until a lord in waiting had ascertained that no speech was to be made.[10]  Although Beckford's boldness was highly applauded by a vast majority of the citizens, it encountered strong criticism at the hands of a large party in the corporation, yet the recorder, Eyre, who had refused to sign the address of remonstrance, was summoned before the and declared incapable of any further interference in civic affairs.[11]  A second address was presented in November, to which the king returned a sullen reply, refusing to comply with the prayer of the petition for a dissolution of Parliament. Brass Crosby, who was now lord mayor, was fully as patriotic and spirited as Beckford, and had to suffer for his opinions. at that time, as is well known, did not permit the publication of the debates. They were reported, chiefly by memory, and printed in various periodicals with fictitious names, the monthly reports in the

At this time, as has been often pointed out,[12]  the House of Commons represented, not the nation but the ministry. There was reason for the exclusion of a man of Wilkes's character: but the adjournment, with the imprisonment of Crosby and Oliver, shows that the temper of the House was not only unreasonable but tyrannical and cowardly. It feared to face Wilkes, but it did not fear to make fresh martyrs to the popular cause, and the result only brought the feeling of the citizens into greater prominence. When the session was over the prisoners were released from the Tower. Some days previously it had been resolved by the Common Council to organise a great demonstration in their honour. Accordingly the members attended on Tower Hill in fifty-three carriages, the artillery company forming a guard of honour, and firing a salute of twenty-one guns. The lord mayor, entering his state coach, proceeded, amid the loudest acclamations, to the Mansion House in solemn procession,[13]  and nothing was omitted that could mark the temper of the city. But . was not to be taught by such demonstrations. The citizens over and over again protested against the policy which was driving the North American provinces into rebellion. To their most respectful addresses on the subject George returned the briefest and most contemptuous replies. The citizens had commenced by addressing

The full drift of the king's action in this matter was well understood. Wilkes did not hesitate in his letter to the lord chamberlain to denounce it as only worthy of the Stuarts, and to recall the fate of that " Tarquin race," as he described them. He concluded with a further appeal in favour of the Americans, and as soon

These events took place towards the end of June, and on the 7th July an address was resolved upon by the corporation, "praying that his majesty would be pleased to suspend hostilities against our fellow subjects in America." This time the king thought it better to receive the lord mayor with due respect, but his reply to the remonstrance was brief and ill-tempered.

The last event of Wilkes's mayoralty was the reception

., as long as his reason remained to him, continued to disregard the remonstrances of the citizens, and learned nothing by his constant experience, as time went on, of the wisdom of the warnings they addressed to him. The Gordon riots in gave him an opportunity of insulting them. The city was occupied by soldiers, who had orders to disarm all persons and detain their arms. The dissatisfaction which followed was so strong that on the opening of Parliament a kind of lame apology had to be made in the speech from the throne. Yet the city remained loyal, and on George's escape from assassination in , and his recovery from the first attack of insanity in the following year, presented to him addresses breathing fervent affection for himself and his dynasty. On St. George's Day, accompanied by both Houses of Parliament, and having been duly received by the lord mayor at Temple Bar, he went to St. Paul's and attended a thanksgiving service. "The more than triumphal entry of a beloved sovereign," we are told, "filled the mind with the most sublime ideas."

John Wilkes lost some of his influence as a popular leader when, in , he accepted the office of chamberlain and resigned his aldermanry. From this time his name appears but seldom in the city annals. As age approached he became more decorous in his habits. At [14] 

The very year of Wilkes' death the king again refused to receive a petition from the livery, presented by the lord mayor and sheriffs, on the ground that he "received addresses on the throne from the city as a corporate body only." Twenty years had made little change in his character. The ministry of the duke of Portland was exceedingly unpopular, not only in the city, but also in , where meetings were held to censure it. The citizens were, however, by no means unanimous. Lord Lauderdale, who had become a "citizen and needlemaker " for the purpose, presented himself as a candidate for the office of sheriff, and expected the support of the popular party. He was, however, disappointed and did not even venture to go to the poll. There was strong rivalry at the time between the livery and the members of the Common Council, but in , when the king again refused to receive a petition from the liverymen, an attempt was made to reconcile their conflicting interests, and the petition, which prayed the king to summon a parliament, was adopted and presented by the . The government of was, on the whole, popular with all classes in the city. The war policy of the great minister was warmly supported. Volunteers swarmed in the streets, and the king was well received when he reviewed them. The death of Nelson and his burial in St. Paul's, the celebration of the " king's jubilee," or the commencement of the fiftieth year of his long reign, and various other events of the kind, form the civic annals of the early part of the nineteenth century. But saw another outbreak of dissatisfaction.

The reigns of the father and his unworthy son exemplified to the full the adage that a good man may be a bad king, and a bad man a good king. Chatham, dying, said of the reign of . that "his majesty succeeded to an empire as great in extent as its reputation was unsullied. Seventeen years ago this people was the terror of the world." England was seldom reduced to so low a level, but better times were in store. The victories of Nelson and of Wellington were achieved under the rule of the younger Pitt, whom . detested, and of Canning, who came into office as the shadow of insanity was beginning to cloud his mind. Thenceforth he lived, indeed, but had wholly disappeared from view for ten long and eventful years before his death in . Many changes were wrought in the city. The great wealth which, as always in time of war, had come to the merchants, was spent, at least partly, in works of public utility. London led the way, for example, in prison reform. The indefatigable John Howard, a native of Hackney, but a Bedfordshire squire, drew attention to the state of prisons in England and on the continent before the middle of the eighteenth century. He endeavoured to bring some kind of system into their management. The wealthy classes were most anxious to do something, but no one knew what to suggest until Howard came forward. It is curious to read his recommendations. Had we left our prisons in the state to which he thought they should be raised, they would perhaps be more deterrent than they are now as places of punishment. What prisons were before his humane endeavours had succeeded can hardly be believed. The fact is, our population had increased, indeed, nearly doubled, while our accommodation for the pauper and criminal classes was at a stand

All the London prisons were bad, but , though it had been several times rebuilt, acquired a preeminent reputation [17]  for unwholesomeness. The calamity of was only one of a number of similar if less fatal outbreaks of fever. Another lord mayor, Winterbottom, died of fever in . We cannot wonder that was unwholesome in the middle of the eighteenth century, since, so far back as there was an entry [18]  made in a letter-book at Guildhall to the effect that the atmosphere of the "heynouse gaol of " is fetid and corrupt. Sir Richard Whittington was lord mayor at the time, and he endeavoured to do something to mitigate the evil. There had been a separate prison for freemen in Ludgate, but Ludgate had been closed, and all kinds of prisoners, including " citizens and other reputable persons," were committed to , and many died "who might have been living if they had remained in Ludgate, abiding in peace there." Three years later, at his death, Whittington left money to effect an improvement, "seeing that every person is sovereignly bound to support and be tender of the lives of men," as it is said in his will. The prison thus improved was in

This old prison subsisted till it was burnt by the Gordon rioters in , the present gaol, which had been founded a few years before, being then in part completed on the southern or Old Bailey side of the gate. The last public act of lord mayor Beckford's life was to lay the foundation-stone of the new buildings. He caught a chill from which at his advanced age he could not rally, and died three weeks later, 21st June, .

In spite of Beckford's and Howard's efforts, continued for many years longer a disgrace to London. Every humane person who saw the condemned cells spoke of them with horror. When Neald, another philanthropist, visited the prison in he reported that half the prisoners, and especially the women, were miserably poor, and scarcely covered with rags. It was the custom to try prisoners on a Friday, so as to give the convicts twenty-four hours longer in the world, as Sunday was not counted a legal day, and the modern

The Gordon rioters made very short work of old . Dr. Johnson describes the scene in one of his letters. The Protestant rioters went about their task very methodically, but were quite unmolested. They were allowed to act "without trepidation, as men lawfully employed in full day. Such," reflects Dr. Johnson, "is the cowardice of a commercial place." The gaol fever was not eradicated by the fire. Thirteen years after his followers had destroyed the old prison Lord George Gordon himself died of gaol fever in , having been imprisoned for a libel.

The benevolent work of Mrs. Fry and other disciples of Howard commenced about this time, and in the coffin was dismissed from the chapel table and some attempt at classifying the prisoners was made. Mrs. Fry taught the women to knit stockings and other articles that by selling them their prison fare might be improved. What it was may be guessed when as late as , a visitor is equally surprised and pleased to find that a regular allowance of food has begun to be made from city funds.

From that day to this improvement has gone steadily forward. The city prison is at Coldbath Fields, and is a

The prison of is interesting as an example of a building designed for a special purpose, and eminently satisfactory from an architectural point of view. There can be no doubt that it is a prison, just as there can be no doubt that St. Paul's is a Christian place of worship. Dance, the architect, deserves the credit of having built a perfectly simple but perfectly suitable facade, the more so as though it is three hundred feet long, it has no windows, except in the central part, which is the gaoler's house. The height is only fifty feet, yet the effect is that of a Norman keep. The statues, removed from the old gate, are somewhat incongruous, but the festoons formed of fetters are, if a little grotesque, extremely effective.

At the coronation of George IV. the lord mayor figured prominently. In the Abbey he stood beside the throne, and at the subsequent banquet he filled the old office of butler and received the ancient fee.[21]  But the popularity which had been accorded to the Prince Regent was not continued to George IV. He had long forfeited the respect of those of his subjects who were most often brought into contact with him, and now sought adulation in Scotland and Ireland. The citizens warmly espoused the cause of queen Caroline. When the divorce bill was proposed, the corporation addressed her with words of sympathy, and when it was finally withdrawn, received her in state when she came to St. Paul's to return

The whole character of the city has changed since that time. The population has declined, the population that is, which lives permanently within the old boundaries. It was reduced to little over a hundred thousand in , and is now only half that number. At the same time the rateable value has increased. Streets of brick have become streets of granite. Houses have become palaces. London at the present day rivals Venice in her prime. True, much of the architectural display is unsatisfactory.

The many advantages which accrue to the suburbs at large from the existence in their midst of a body wealthy enough to try great sanitary experiments, to make expensive inquiries into the food supply, to maintain great public charities, to relieve ratepayers in the administration of justice, are perhaps hardly appreciated at their full value. When the lord mayor is dethroned,[25]  and the money which enables him and his colleagues to do these great things is thrown into the common fund it will be too late to look back with regret to the employment of thousands in such arts as upholstery or cookery, which the reformers profess to despise, but which nevertheless enable many very estimable people to earn their livelihood.

The unwritten constitution of the city has, as we have had occasion to see, varied at different times. I have endeavoured to avoid legal terms as much as possible and have refrained, as far as I could, from descriptions of the various charters which the citizens have received from the crown. In concluding this part of my work, I would venture to point out that a common expression on this subject is erroneous. There is no historical warrant for saying that the liberties of London are founded on royal charters. [26]  On the contrary, the numerous charters, from that of the Conqueror to the Act of and , did not so much grant liberties as define and limit them. The most the Norman could offer the city was its original liberty. Since Magna Charta that liberty had been the birthright of every Englishman, but for centuries it had only existed in the city of London.

There have been several commissions on the subject, but so far nothing has been done to change the old constitution. When most of the municipalities were

Government bills were introduced in , and other years, but were never pressed. Nobody wanted them. The slightest opposition was sufficient to defeat them. Mr. John Stuart Mill had the true republican dislike of anything venerable for its antiquity, and the logician's dislike to anything undefined. During the brief time he sat in parliament probably none of the doctrinaire crotchets he expounded brought him less credit than his persistent attacks on the city. Lord Elcho's bill in was of a different character, but met with a very cool reception, and it is understood that the noble lord, now earl of Wemyss, has changed his views on the subject: or that having been led to investigate the questions involved, he saw the true character of the attack he had been induced to head.

It may be worth while, in conclusion, to place the present "constitution" before the reader. The lord mayor is the principal ruler of the city. He is annually elected from among the aldermen, who, as a rule approach the chair in the order of seniority, but any alderman may be elected; and occasionally, as in the case of Beckford, an alderman who has already served is requested to do so again. He is also usually chosen from among those aldermen only who have been sheriffs. The election is made on the 29th September, Michaelmas Day, by the liverymen, or members free of the city companies. The elected lord mayor is presented to the lord chancellor who expresses the queen's approbation of the choice made by the citizens: and on the 9th November he is sworn at the . He has precedence immediately after the sovereign and before the royal family, within the city. In other places he ranks as an earl. He is lord lieutenant of the city; a judge of "Oyer and Terminer"; a justice of the peace; and at a coronation officiates as chief butler. He draws a salary of 10,000£., and has the use of the Mansion House, and of its magnificent furniture and plate: but it is understood that few lord mayors, if any, in recent years have kept their expenditure within these limits.

There are twenty-six aldermen, elected by the several wards, except Bridge Without, the senior member of the court being alderman of that ward. The electors are those persons entitled to the parliamentary franchise. The aldermen are justices of the peace, and their court forms the city bench of magistrates, and grants licenses and admits brokers. It elects the Recorder and the steward of , and several of the minor officials.

The common council is elected in the several wards; some like Farringdon Without return sixteen members,

[2] Aldgate, which had been rebuilt in 1606, was sold for 177£. 10s. Cripplegate only fetched 9l£. Moorgate had been rebuilt in 1672, Aldersgate about the same time, and a new Bishopsgate had only been finished a few years before its final removal.

[3] It was calculated that of the whole waterway, there about 900 feet at ow water, the piers occupied 700.

[4] I regret to hear that it has been resolved to remove the houses on the Ponte Vecchio.

[5] The views by E. W. Cook, R.A., may be seen at the Guildhall Library.

[6] It was 828£. 6s.

[7] Green, iv. 215.

[8] Vol. ii. chapter xv.

[9] Much doubt has been thrown on this occurrence. Home Took has been credited with the composition of Beckford's speech; and it has even been asserted strongly that Beckford never delivered it. But a subsequent refusal to allow him to speak to the king goes to prove the truth of the story, which I cannot persuade myself to reject.

[10] Beckford's conduct on this occasion may remind the reader of the speech of Fitz-Thomas to a very similar king at St. Paul's in 1265. (See above, chapter v.)

[11] He shortly afterwards resigned, being made chief baron of the Exchequer-no doubt as a reward from the court party for his behaviour in the recordership.

[12] See full account of this affair in Mr. Trevelyan's 'Early Life of Fox.'

[13] The scene is engraved on a magnificent silver vase, which was presented to Brass Crosby, and is still in the possession of his family, who kindly permitted me to inspect it.

[14] Allen, ii. 101.

[15] Howard's 'State of Prisons,' p. 191.

[16] Howard states his opinion that the number of prisoners who died of gaol fever was greater than the number of those who were executed.- P. 18.

[17] Howard mentions Newgate, the Fleet, Ludgate (a new prison so-called in Bishopsgate Street ), Poultry and Wood Street Compters, Bridewell, New Clerkenwell Prison, Clerkenwell Bridewell, Whitechapel Debtors' Prison, Tower Hamlets Gaol in Wellclose Square (" This prison is at a public-house, kept by an honest Swede"), St. Catherine's, the Savoy, Tothill Fields Bridewell, Westminster Gatehouse , the King's Bench Prison in Southwark, the Marshalsea, the Borough Compter, the new Borough Gaol, and the Surrey Bridewell.

[18] Riley, 'Memorials,' p. 677.

[19] P. 152.

[20] Vol. ii. p. 208. Several other views of gaols and bridewells may be seen in the same book, which was published in 1809. The combination of the artists was very fortunate.

[21] See above, p. 217.

[22] In 1815 and 1816. He was made a baronet in 1837, and was father of Lord Hatherley, and grandfather of Sir Evelyn Wood.

[23] See above in this chapter for the example of an earl who was a candidate for the shrievalty.

[24] The example of the school board is in point here.

[25] It is obvious that the mayoralty as it is now must be abolished if the Corporation is extended; else we should have a prince among us who would rank next to the queen, and exercise an authority beyond that of any other subject. England could not brook such a monarchy within her own.

[26] Mr. Firth appears to me to fall into this error in several places; but as his views, though influential, are both inconsistent with history and with each other, I need not discuss them here. His opening sentence runs thus:- ' The charters of the City of London form the basis of its constitution." Chap. i. p. I.

[27] On a recent occasion Parliament was applied to for leave to take a day census. Leave was refused; but the same measure being proposed, as it should have been at first, to the Court of Common Council, was passed, and carried into effect.