London and the Kingdom - Volume II
author: Reginald R. Sharpe
source date: 1894
edition published: April 5, 2007
language: en; la; fr
availability: Public Domain This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License online at www.gutenberg.org/license

London and the Kingdom

A HISTORY DERIVED MAINLY FROM THE ARCHIVES AT GUILDHALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON.

By Reginald R. Sharpe, D.C.L.,

RECORDS CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK OF THE CITY OF LONDON; EDITOR OF "CALENDAR OF WILLS ENROLLED IN THE COURT OF HUSTING," ETC.

IN THREE VOLUMES.

Vol II

PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE CORPORATION UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE LIBRARY COMMITTEE.

LONDON LONGMANS, GREEN & Co. and New York: 15 East 16th Street. 1894.

Contents

CHAPTER XIX.

[The accession of James, 24 March, 1603.]

The proclamation announcing James VI of Scotland to be "by law, by lineal succession and undoubted right," heir to the throne of England, now that Elizabeth was dead, illustrates again the ancient right of the citizens of London to a voice in electing a successor to the crown. The document not only acknowledges the assistance received by the lords of the realm from the lord mayor, aldermen and citizens of London in determining the succession, but at the very head of the signatories to the proclamation stands the name of "Robert Lee, Maior," precedence being allowed him over the primate and other lords spiritual and temporal. [Journal 26, fo. 73.]

[Correspondence between the king and the City.]

Whatever failings the new king may have had, he possessed sufficient shrewdness to know the value of the favour of the City, which he hastened to acknowledge with "thankfull mynde" within a few days of his accession. [Letter to the mayor, etc., of London, 28 March.—Journal 26, fo. 75b.] A reply was sent to the king's letter the following day, signed by the mayor and aldermen, in which, after expressing their twofold feelings of sorrow and joy—sorrow at losing a mother in the late queen and joy at gaining a father in the person of the new king—they declared they had used all their powers to advance his just claim to the crown, and would preserve the city of London, the king's Chamber, against every enemy at home or abroad. He was invited to notify his wishes to them through their secretary or remembrancer, "Mr. Doctor Fletcher," whom they sent as their special messenger. [Letter dated 29th March.—Journal 26, fo. 76. The Court of Aldermen allowed Fletcher forty marks towards the expenses of his journey.—Repertory 26, pt. i, fo. 119b.] The king returned for answer, that although he had been already aware of the City's forwardness in joining with the nobility in proclaiming him rightful successor to the crown, he was pleased to learn from their trusty messenger that the citizens had advocated his cause not only from the consciousness of its being a just one, but also because they were assured of his zeal for the preservation of religion. [Letter dated Newcastle, 11th April, 1603.—Journal 26, fo. 80. See Appendix.] This was one of James's mystifying remarks which he was accustomed to throw out in order to raise the hopes of the Catholics, who questioned his title to the crown, whilst affording no cause for alarm or discontent among the Protestants.

[James leaves Edinburgh for London, 5 April.]

On the 5th April James left Edinburgh for London, where every precaution was taken to prevent disturbance by ridding the streets of rogues, vagabonds and "masterless" men. [Journal 26, fos. 78b, 82, 82b, 88.] He proceeded southward by easy stages, accompanied by a long retinue of Scotsmen, until he reached Theobald's, at that time the mansion house of Sir Robert Cecil, but soon to become a royal hunting-lodge. On the 19th the mayor issued his precept to the livery companies to prepare a certain number of members to accompany the mayor in his attendance upon the king, who was shortly expected in the city. It was intended that not only the mayor and aldermen but also the full number of 500 of the "best and gravest" citizens should wait upon his majesty on horseback, clothed in coats of velvet with velvet sleeves and adorned with chains of gold, and each accompanied by "one comlie person, well apparelled in his doublet and hose," on foot. In a word, the cavalcade was to be furnished on a more sumptuous scale than had yet been seen within the memory of man. [Journal 26, fo. 81b.] The Court of Aldermen in the meantime appointed a committee to consider what suits were "fitt to be made to the Kinges most excellent Maiestye for ye good of this Cittie and the enlarging of the libertyes and priviledge of the same." [Repertory 26, pt. i, fo. 131b.]

[The citizens ride forth to meet him, 7 May.]

After resting a few days at Theobald's, James set out (7 May) for the last stage of his journey. At Stamford Hill he was met by the mayor and aldermen and a deputation from the livery companies. At every stopping-place on his journey from Scotland he had lavishly bestowed knighthoods.[^1] On the 11th May he entered the Tower of London, having come from Whitehall by water for fear of the plague which was ravaging the city.

[^1: It is computed that more than 230 knights were created by James on his passage from Edinburgh to the Tower. The lord mayor (Lee) was knighted at Greenwich on the 22nd May. At the king's coronation, which took place in July, all the aldermen of the city who were not already knights were knighted at Whitehall.—Nichols, "Progresses of King James I," i, 113n, 120, 234.]

[The plague of 1603.]

The coronation ceremony was hurried over owing to the presence of the plague. Only the mayor, the aldermen and twelve of the principal citizens were permitted to attend, and much labour bestowed on preparations for the event was consequently lost. [Howes's Chron., p. 827; Journal 26, fos. 74, 114b, 116b; Repertory 26, pt. i, fo. 171.] The civic authorities did their utmost to stay the sickness and alleviate distress. The streets were ordered to be kept better cleansed. Infected houses were marked with papers bearing the words "Lord have mercy upon us," and when these were torn down a red painted cross, fourteen inches in length and breadth, and not so easily effaced, was added. [Journal 26, fo. 98.] Persons stricken with the plague were forbidden to leave their houses. A master who had been inhuman enough to turn out into the street a domestic servant who had fallen a victim to the prevailing disorder was ordered by the Court of Aldermen to take her back again into his house, [Repertory 26, pt. ii, fo. 361.] a circumstance which seems to point to the pest-house or hospital being already overcrowded. Instructions were given for seeing that the graves of those who died of the plague were sufficiently covered with earth, and that the number of mourners attending funerals should be as far as possible limited. Women whose duty it was to search the bodies of the dead, as well as all those who were brought into contact with the sick, were forbidden to go abroad unless they carried before them a red rod three feet in length in order to give notice to passers by. It was a common belief that infection was carried about by stray dogs. To those, therefore, who killed dogs found in the streets without an owner a reward was given.[^2] The sufferings of the afflicted were alleviated, as far as circumstances permitted, by money subscribed by the livery companies, which were further called upon to forego their customary banquets in order to relieve the poor. [Journal 28, fos. 116, 126, 126b.] The plague was accompanied, as was usually the case, with a scarcity of corn, and again the assistance of the companies was invoked.[^3]

[^2: Journal 26, fos. 103b, 122b, 124b, 125b, 127; Repertory 26, pt. i, fo. 149b. In May of the following year the king himself lost two beagles, which had strayed and probably been killed.—Journal 26, fo. 211b. In 1611 the queen also lost her dog, and a liberal reward was offered for its recovery. The animal was described as being "lowe and thicke, of a meene coulor, and his taile turninge up to the middle of his backe."—Journal 28. fo. 284.]

[^3: Journal 28, fos. 145, 145b. The Merchant Taylors contributed the largest quantity (936 qrs.): they were followed by the Grocers (874 qrs.), the Mercers (820 qrs.), the Goldsmiths (809 qrs.), next to which came the Drapers (768 qrs.) and the Haberdashers (724 qrs.).]

[The king's public passage through the city, 15 Mar., 1604.]

By the end of the year (1603) the city was almost free of the plague, and in the following March (1604) James determined to make his first public entry into London. A sum of £400 was raised by the livery companies [The amount at which each company was assessed will be found printed from the City's Records in Nichols' "Progresses of King James I," i, 400, 401.] for furnishing pageants and stands for the occasion, and steps were taken to remove from the streets everything that might be offensive to the king's eye or ear. Thursday, the 15th March, was the day fixed for his entry, and from the preceding Wednesday until the following Friday no refuse of any kind was to be thrown into the street. [Journal 26, fos. 163, 164, 178, 179b.] It was further ordered that no church bells should be rung before seven o'clock in the evening of the eventful day, lest the noise should prove offensive and hinder his majesty from hearing the speeches that were to be made. [Journal 26, fo. 178b.] When all was over and the pageants were about to be taken down, the Court of Aldermen, with the frugal mind of men of business, ordered the master and wardens of the Company of Painter Stainers to examine the painters' work bestowed on them, and report whether, in their opinion, such work had been well and honestly executed, and what amount of remuneration the workmen deserved. [Journal 26, fos. 186, 188; Repertory 26, pt. ii, fo. 311.] It is said that the Recorder, Sir Henry Montagu, welcomed the king on this occasion with a speech, wishing him on behalf of the city "a golden reigne," and that a cup of gold was presented to the king, the queen and the young prince who accompanied them respectively; [Nichols, "Progresses of King James I," i, 360, 361.] but no record of the speech or gifts appears in the City's archives.

[Catholic plots against the king, June, 1603.]

One of the first questions James had to decide on his accession to the throne was that of religious toleration; and his settlement of the question was anxiously looked for as well by the Puritans as the Catholics. The fear lest the policy which the king should advocate might prove adverse to their interests determined the Catholics to resort to strong measures, and the life of James was threatened by a series of plots, as that of Elizabeth had been before him. Among these was a plan for seizing the king at Greenwich on Midsummer-day, 1603. The plan was laid by a secular priest named William Watson, who had previously sounded James as to his probable attitude to the Catholics if he came to the throne, Sir Griffin Markham, a Catholic gentleman, who for private reasons was discontented with the government, and one Antony Copley. News of the plot having reached the government, the conspirators fled for their lives. Proclamations were issued for their capture, [Journal 26, fos. 111, 117b, 118b.] in which details were given of their personal appearance. Thus Watson was described as a man of the lowest sort about thirty-six years of age, "he lookethe a squinte and is verie purblynde," and had formerly worn a long beard which he was believed to have cut off; whilst Sir Griffin Markham is credited with having a large broad face of a "bleake" complexion, a big nose, and a hand maimed by a bullet. His brethren "have all verie greate noses." Copley's description is not given, but we have that of another conspirator, William Clarke, a priest, whose hair is represented as having been "betwixte redd and yeallowe." The whole party was subsequently taken, one after another, and their examination disclosed traces of another conspiracy, the object of which was to place Arabella Stuart on the throne.

The discovery of Watson's conspiracy—generally known as the "Bye" or "Surprise" Plot—so alarmed the king that he lost no time in making known his intention to exact no longer the recusancy fines. The result was such as might be expected. The Puritans were disgusted, whilst the number of recusants increased to such an alarming extent that in February, 1604, the king took the extreme measure of ordering the expulsion of all Jesuits and Seminary priests from the country before the 19th March, [Id., fo. 174.] the day fixed for the meeting of parliament.

[The first parliament of James, Mar., 1604.]

As soon as parliament met a crisis was felt to be at hand; the new king and the Commons were for the first time to measure their strength. The city's representatives are duly recorded. [Return to writ of parliament, 31 Jan.—Journal 26, fo. 171.] At the head of them was Sir Henry Billingsley, [For particulars of his life, see Remembrancia (Analytical Index), p. 2n.] a former mayor, Sir Henry Montague, [Id. p. 23n.] recently appointed Recorder of the city upon the king's own recommendation, Nicholas Fuller, of whom little is known beyond the fact that he came from Berkshire and married the daughter of Nicholas Backhouse, [Id., p. 176n.] alderman and grocer, and Richard Gore, a merchant tailor.

[Proposed union of England and Scotland.]

With his customary self-complacency and patronising air James told the assembled Commons that he had brought them two gifts, the one peace abroad,[^4] and the other the union of England with Scotland under the title of Great Britain, [James assumed the title of King of Great Britain by proclamation dated 20 Oct., 1604.—Journal 26, fo. 271.] and he expressed no little surprise and indignation when he found that neither one nor the other was acceptable. The question of the union of the two kingdoms, seeing that it involved some political difficulties necessary of solution, was referred to a commission. [King's writ of proclamation of the union to the mayor and sheriffs of London, dated 22 Oct., 1604.—Id., Ibid.] James showed his displeasure at the want of compliance displayed by the Commons by refusing to accept a scheme of commutation of his rights of purveyance and wardship, which had now grown so burdensome.

[^4: Peace with Spain, for which negotiations had been entered into as soon as James came to the throne, was concluded in the summer of this year (18 Aug.), but was not acceptable to the nation at large, and much less to the citizens of London. "I can assure your mightiness," wrote the State's Ambassador, Caron, "that no promulgation was ever received in London with more coolness—yes, with more sadness.... The people were admonished to make bonfires, but you may be very sure not a bonfire was to be seen."—Motley, "United Netherlands," iv, 223, 224. For payments made by the city chamberlain to heralds on the occasion of proclamation of the peace, see Repertory 26, pt. ii, fo. 436.]

[Attempt to put down purveyance.]

The abuse of purveyance, more especially, had become a standing grievance to the burgesses of London as well as of other cities and towns, in spite of attempted remedies by statute or charter.[^5] An offer of £50,000 a year was made to the king by way of commuting any shred of right he might still have to purveyance after thirty-six statutes had pronounced it altogether illegal. This, however, he refused, and the matter was allowed to drop. Two years later, almost to the day (23 April, 1606), the king endeavoured so far to remedy the evil as to issue a proclamation against exactions and illegal acts of his purveyors, [Journal 27, fo. 36.] and yet scarcely a month elapsed before the lord mayor had occasion to call the attention of the lords of the council to the great inconvenience caused in the city by their recent demand for 200 carts with two horses to each, together with the lord mayor's own barge, for the purpose of conveying his majesty's effects to Greenwich. As for the barge, the mayor wrote that the lord chamberlain sometimes borrowed it for conveying the king's guard, and it might haply be required again for the same purpose, "but for carringe anie stuffe or lugedge whereby it maie receave hurt it was never yet required," and he hoped their lordships would see the matter in that light. [Remembrancia, ii, 262 (Analytical Index, p. 409).]

[^5: The first charter of Edward III, granted to the citizens of London (6 March, 1327) with the assent of parliament, expressly forbade the king's purveyors taking goods contrary to the will and pleasure of the citizens, except for cash; and no prisage of wines was thenceforth to be taken under any consideration.—Cf. Stat. 4, Edw. III, c. 3; 5, Edw. III, c. 2; 25, Edw. III, c. 1; 36, Edw. III, c. 2.]

[The House of Commons and Free Trade.]

Another important matter which occupied the attention of the House at this session—although no reference to it appears in the City's records of the day—was the introduction of Free Trade, to the prejudice of the chartered rights of various trading companies. The citizens of London were deeply interested in the bill which was introduced for this purpose, for although it little affected the livery companies, it touched very closely the interests of those companies which were incorporated for the purpose of trading with foreign countries, such as that of the Merchant Adventurers, the Levant Company, the Russia Company, and others. These companies had been formed at a time when few individuals were sufficiently wealthy to bear the risk of distant enterprises. Not every citizen was a Whitington or a Gresham. The risk incurred by these associations in undertaking voyages to distant countries was compensated by the advantage gained by the enjoyment of a monopoly of the trade with those countries by charter from the Crown. At the outset there had been no cry raised against monopolies of this kind, but as time wore on and the merchant navy increased, as it did in the last reign with extraordinary rapidity, a feeling of jealousy grew up on the part of shipowners who were not members of one or other of these chartered companies. By the beginning of the seventeenth century dissatisfaction with the privileges of these trading companies had become so general that appeals were made to the Privy Council. These being without effect, the whole matter was referred to a parliamentary committee. No pains were spared to get at the root of the grievance. The committee were attended by "a great concourse of clothiers and merchants of all parts of the realm and especially of London." [Journal House of Commons, 21 May, 1604, i, 218.] Counsel was heard in favour of the bill which had been drafted for the purpose of throwing open foreign trade to all merchants alike, and the bill was supported by all the merchants attending the committee with the exception of the merchants of London, who were represented on the occasion by the principal aldermen of the city. The free traders urged the natural right of every one to the free exercise of his own industry and the example set by other nations. They declared that the passing of the bill would lead to the more even distribution of wealth, [The fact that the custom dues of London amounted to £110,000 a year, whereas those of the rest of the kingdom amounted to only £17,000, was adduced in support of their case.] the greater increase of shipping, and the augmentation of the revenues of the Crown. The upholders of the companies, on the other hand, could find no better arguments in their favour than that no company could be a monopoly inasmuch as a monopoly was something granted exclusively to a single individual, and that if the existence of the companies was determined, apprenticeship would cease and difficulties arise in collecting the king's customs! After three days' debate on the third reading the bill passed the Commons by a large majority. [Journal House of Commons, i, 218.] It met, however, with so much opposition in the House of Lords that it was eventually dropt.

[The Speaker and Commons entertained at Merchant Taylors' Hall, 3 July, 1604.]

A quarrel afterwards arose between the king and the Commons on financial and ecclesiastical questions, and matters being brought to a deadlock, the House was adjourned (7 July). A few days before the adjournment the Speaker and over a hundred members held "a friendly and loving meeting" at Merchant Taylors' Hall, before departing to their country homes. The king contributed a buck and a hogshead of wine towards the entertainment, which proved so popular that thirty more guests appeared on the scene than was originally intended. The "Solemn Feast" was further graced by a "marchpane"—(a confection of bitter almonds and sugar)—representing the House of Commons sitting. [Journal House of Commons, 3 July, i. 251, 252.]

[Prince Henry becomes a Merchant Taylor, 17 July, 1607.]

Three years later (17 July, 1607) the king himself honoured the company with his presence at dinner in their hall. The Merchant Taylors would gladly have welcomed him as one of their number and admitted him to the honorary freedom of their company, but James had already been made free of the company of Clothworkers. His son, Prince Henry, who was present at the entertainment, declared himself willing to accept the freedom, and made those of his suite who were not already members of some other company follow his example.[^6]

[^6: The Merchant Taylors displayed no little jealousy at the Clothworkers having forestalled them; and as the mayor for the time being—Sir John Watts—happened to be a Clothworker, it was thought that he would do his best to prevent Prince Henry also from joining the Merchant Taylors. They accordingly declined to invite the mayor and aldermen to the banquet.—Clode's "Memorials of the Merchant Taylors' Company," pp. 147-160.]

[A City loan of £15,000, Aug., 1604.]

In August (1604) the king sent to borrow £20,000 from the City, a sum which was afterwards, at the City's earnest request, reduced to £15,000. The money was to be levied by order of the court of Common Council (23 Aug.) on the companies, according to rates agreed upon at the time of the loan of £20,000 to the late queen in 1598, [Journal 26, fos. 241b, 243b; Cf. Letter Book BB, fos. 288, 289b.] and it was to be delivered to Sir Thomas Lowe, the treasurer of the fund, by the 5th September. Some of the companies, however, proved remiss in paying their quota. [Letter Book BB, fo. 259b.]

[The gunpowder plot, 1604-1605.]

The action of James in expelling the Jesuits and Seminary priests had in the meantime so incensed the Catholics that a plot was set on foot for blowing up the king, the lords and commons, with gunpowder, as soon as parliament should re-assemble. In May (1604) a house had been hired by a Catholic named Robert Catesby, through which access might be gained to the basement of the parliament-house. The party-wall, however, proved exceptionally thick, and more than a year elapsed before the necessary mining operations were complete. Catesby was assisted in his work by a Spaniard named Guy Fawkes, who assumed the name of John Johnson. In the spring of 1605 the exasperation of the Catholics was increased by James again imposing the recusancy fines, and the little band of plotters increased in numbers, although never allowed to become large. The design of the conspirators was rendered more easy of execution by the discovery that a cellar reaching under the parliament-house was to be let. This was hired by one of the plotters, and a large quantity of gunpowder was safely deposited there and carefully concealed. After several adjournments parliament was summoned to assemble on the 5th November. On the eve of its meeting Fawkes entered the cellar with a lantern, ready to fire the train in the morning. One of the conspirators, however, Tresham by name, had given his friends some hint of the impending danger. Fawkes was seized and committed to the Tower, where he was subjected to the most horrible torture by the king's orders. [The king to the lords commissioners [for the plot], 6 Nov.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1603-1610), p. 241. The "gentler tortoures" were to be applied first, "et sic per gradus ad ima tenditur."] The rest of the conspirators, with the exception of Winter, took immediate flight. Hue and cry was raised, [Journal 27, fos. 3b, 7.] and a personal description of the leaders for their better identification was scattered throughout the country. Winter was described as "a man of meane stature, rather lowe than otherwise, square made, somewhat stouping, neere fortie yeares of age, his haire and beard browne, his beard not much and his haire short"; Stephen Littleton, another conspirator, as "a verye tall man, swarthy of complexion, of browne coloured haire, no beard or litle, about thirty yeares of age"; and Thomas Percy, another, as "a tall man, with a great broad beard, a good face, the colour of his beard and head mingled with white heares, but stoupeth somewhat in the shoulders, well coloured in the face, long-footed, small legged." [Id., fos. 2b, 5b, 6.]

On the 8th November the mayor issued his precept for bonfires to be lighted that evening in the principal streets of the city in token of joy and thanksgiving for the deliverance of the king and parliament from this "most horrible treason." [Journal 27, fo. 4.] A week later (16 Nov.) another precept was addressed to the alderman of each ward to furnish an extra watch, as those who had been engaged in safe-guarding the city had found the work too much for them "since the troubles begonne." [Journal 27, fo. 5; Cf. fos. 14b, 15, 19.] A diligent search was subsequently ordered to be made in every cellar and vault for any illegal store of gunpowder. [Id., fo. 8b.] Fawkes and such of his fellow-conspirators as were taken alive were brought to trial at Westminster, in January (1606), and executed, some in St. Paul's Churchyard and others before the parliament-house, their quarters being afterwards placed on the city's gates, whilst their heads were stuck up on London bridge. [Howes's Chron., p. 881.] Pending their trial a double watch was kept in the city and fresh halberds issued. [Journal 27, fo. 19.]

Three Jesuits were implicated in the plot, their names being John Gerrard, Oswald Greenway, and Henry Garnet. Gerrard and Greenway effected their escape, but Garnet was captured after having suffered much deprivation whilst in hiding, and was brought to trial at the Guildhall. Gerrard is described as tall and well set up, but his complexion "swart or blackish, his face large, his cheeks sticking out and somewhat hollow underneath," his hair long unless recently cut, his beard cut close, "saving littell mustachoes and a littell tuft under his lower lippe," his age about forty. Equally precise descriptions are given of Greenway and Garnet; the former being represented as of "meane stature, somewhat grosse," his hair black, his beard bushy and brown, his forehead broad, and his age about the same as that of Gerrard; whilst Garnet is described as an older man, between fifty and sixty years of age, of fair complexion, full face and grisly hair, with a high forehead, and corpulent. [Journal 27, fo. 17.] At his trial, which took place on the 28th March, Garnet denied all knowledge of the plot save what he had heard under the seal of confession. He was nevertheless convicted and executed (3 May) in St. Paul's Churchyard. [Howes's Chron., p. 882.]

[Rumour of the king being assassinated 22 March, 1606.]

Notwithstanding the capture and execution of the chief actors in the late conspiracy, some time elapsed before the nation recovered from the shock, and every idle rumour of mishap to the king soon became exaggerated as it flew from one end of the kingdom to the other. Thus it was that the citizens of London awoke on the morning of Saturday, the 22nd March, to learn that the king was reported to have been killed with a poisoned dagger whilst engaged in his favourite pursuit of hunting. The alarm thus raised was with difficulty laid to rest by the following precept [Journal 27, fo. 30b.]:—

By ye Mayor.

"Where rumor hath this morninge bine dispersed abroad within this cittie and ells where neere about the same that his maties person was in very greate dainger for asmuch I have even now receaved intelligence from the lords of his maties most honorable pryvye counsell that his matie god be thancked is in saftie, and that I should presently make knowne the same to all his lovinge subiects which by theis presents I doe.

God save ye kinge."

On the 10th June James signed a proclamation ordering all Priests, Jesuits, Seminaries and such like to depart the kingdom before the first day of August. Any priest presenting himself to the officer of a sea-port, and acknowledging his profession, would be forwarded on his way across the sea, with the exception of Gerrard and Greenway, or Greenwell. [Journal 27, fo. 48b.]

[Visit of the king of Denmark to England, July, 1606.]

In July of this year (1606) the king of Denmark arrived in England on a visit to his brother-in-law, king James. The mayor, being informed by the lords of the council that the Danish fleet was already in the Thames, summoned a Common Council (17 July) to consider what steps should be taken to give the royal visitor a befitting reception in the city. A committee was thereupon appointed to make the necessary preparations. [Id., fo. 73.] They had but a fortnight before them for contriving a pageant, cleansing the streets, setting up rails and executing the thousand little things which always require to be done on such occasions. The sum of £1,000 was raised by the livery companies, [Id., fos. 73b, 75.] and each alderman was directed to see that the inhabitants of his ward hung out suitable tapestry from houses on the line of procession. The distinguished visitor was presented with a gold cup taken from the king's jewel-house in the Tower. It weighed 62-3/4 ozs., and the City paid for it at the rate of £3 10s. per ounce. [Repertory 27, fo. 252b.] There was but one thing to mar the general rejoicing in the city, and that was the presence of the plague. This necessitated special precautions being taken to prevent the spread of infection, and an additional number of wardens were appointed to take their stand, halberd in hand, at the doors of infected houses on the day of the king's visit to prevent anyone going in or coming out. [Journal 27, fo. 75b.]

[The city's water supply.]

That the chief cause of the city being so often visited by epidemics in former days was the lack of a plentiful supply of wholesome water will scarcely be denied. When we consider with what rapidity the population of the city increased, more especially under the Tudors, the short-sighted policy of a government which forbade the erection of new buildings within three miles of the city's gates, [Proclamation, 7 July, 22 Eliz. (1580).—Journal 21, fo. 54.] and drove so many families to find shelter under one roof within the limited area of the city proper, in spite of proclamations to the contrary, [Remembrancia (Index), s.v. "Buildings."] the want of any organised system of drainage, and the scanty supply of water—we can only marvel that the city was ever free from epidemics.

In 1543 the municipal authorities obtained statutory powers to amend decayed conduits and erect new ones, as well as to bring water to the city from Hampstead, [Stat. 35 Henry VIII, c. 10.] and from that time they appear to have taken a more active interest in the water supply. They made periodical visits to the various conduits, and more especially the conduit-head at Marylebone, where a banqueting-house was erected for their convenience. Nevertheless they preferred encouraging private individuals (and these not infrequently foreigners) in attempts to improve the city's water supply, as necessity arose, to undertaking the work themselves in their corporate capacity. In 1570 the City acquired parliamentary powers to break soil for the purpose of conveying water from the river Lea, "otherwise called Ware River," at any time within the next ten years, [Stat. 13 Eliz., c. 18.] but these powers were allowed to lapse by default. In 1581 Peter Morice, a Dutchman, obtained permission to set up a water-mill in the Thames at London Bridge, and by some mechanical contrivance—a "most artificial forcier"—succeeded in conveying water as far as Leadenhall and Gracechurch. The civic authorities were so pleased with the result of his first efforts that they assisted him with a loan of £1,000 to perfect his work. [Journal 21, fo. 251; Journal 22, fos. 47, 53b. The Common Sergeant of the city, Bernard Randolph, also rendered him pecuniary assistance.—Remembrancia (Index), p. 553.] Ten years later (1591) the famous Italian engineer—of "fire-ship" fame—Frederico Gianibelli obtained the consent of the Court of Aldermen to erect new water-works at Tyburn for the purpose of providing the city with a better supply. [Repertory 22, fos. 270, 281, 376b.] In 1593 Beavis Bulmer, another foreigner (to judge from his name), obtained a lease for 500 years permitting him to set up an engine at Broken Wharf for the purpose of supplying water to the inhabitants of the city. The Court of Aldermen granted him the use of the green-yard at Leadenhall for putting together his engine, whilst the court of Common Council advanced him the sum of £1,000 on easy terms. [Repertory 22, fos. 270, 281, 376b.] Soon after the granting of Bulmer's lease the Common Council conceded to Henry Shaw a right to convey water from Fogwell pond, Smithfield, and to supply it to anyone willing to pay him for it, for a similar term of 500 years. [Journal 23, fos. 209, 210.]

[Hugh Middleton and the New River Company, 1609-1613.]

At length a scheme was started at the opening of the seventeenth century which not only proved itself equal to the task of supplying the ever-increasing population of London with an adequate supply of water, but was destined in after years to render its undertakers rich "beyond the dreams of avarice." The New River Company, the original shares of which are of almost fabulous value at the present day, had its commencement in an Act of Parliament (3 James I, c. 18) which empowered the mayor, commonalty and citizens of London and their successors at any time to make an open trench[^7] for the purpose of bringing a fresh stream of running water to the north parts of the city from springs at Chadwell and Amwell, co. Herts. Whilst showing themselves ready and anxious to render the city more healthy and less subject to epidemics by cleansing the city's ditches of all filth and draining Finsbury and the Moorfields, [Journal 27, fos. 54, 77, 89b, 144b, 396; Journal 28, fos. 16b, 81.] the civic authorities were appalled at the enormity of their own proposals, and hesitated to carry out what at that time appeared to be an engineering task of stupendous difficulty. Three years elapsed and nothing was done. Offers were made by various individuals to execute the work for them, but these were declined. [Journal 27, fo. 89; Repertory 27, fos. 312, 269b.] At length, on the 28th March, 1609, Hugh Middleton, a goldsmith of London, but of Welsh extraction, declared himself ready to undertake the work and to complete it within four years. His offer was accepted, and an agreement was drawn up and executed on the 21st April.[^8]

[^7: The bill was introduced into parliament on the 30 Jan., 1606, and passed the Commons on the 30 May.—Journal House of Commons, i, 261, 310. By Stat. 4 Jas. I, c. 12, the former Act was so far amended as to allow the City to convey water underground.]

[^8: Journal 27, fo. 377b. Another agreement was subsequently drawn up bearing date the 28 March, 1611, and this being executed by Middleton the former agreement was ordered to be cancelled.—Repertory 30, fo. 100.]

[Opposition to Middleton's work.]

Notwithstanding the lords of the council having been desired by the lord mayor to instruct the Justices of the Peace of Hertfordshire and Middlesex to assist Middleton and his men in carrying out their work, [The lord mayor to the lords of the council, 10 July, 1609.—Remembrancia, ii, 347 (Index, pp. 554-555).] the undertaking met with great opposition. Among the various objections raised to the New River scheme was one to the effect that the municipal authorities had done nothing in the business themselves, but had by Act of Common Council irrevocably conveyed their whole interest in fee simple to Middleton, who was carrying out the work "for his own private benefit." To this objection answer was made that if the mayor and citizens would not adventure upon so uncertain a work Middleton deserved the greater commendation in adventuring his money and labour for the good of the city, and if the city was benefited and the country not prejudiced Middleton deserved all that he gained. [See Paper containing "objections against the river," with answers.—Cal. State Papers Dom., vol. lxxviii, No. 106.] A bill was introduced into parliament to repeal the Acts authorising the construction of the New River, and a committee appointed (20 June, 1610) to survey the damages caused or likely to be caused by the work, [Journal House of Commons, i, 442, 445.] and report thereon to the House. "Much ado there is also in the House," wrote a contemporary to his friend, ["Mr. Beaulieu to Mr. Trumbull, resident at Brussells," 9 May, 1610.—Winwood's Memorials, iii, 160.] "about the work undertaken and far advanced already by Middleton, of the cutting of a river and bringing it to London from ten or twelve miles off, through the grounds of many men who, for their particular interest, do strongly oppose themselves to it, and are like (as 'tis said) to overthrow it all." The bill was opposed by the City. A deputation consisting of two aldermen, the Town Clerk and the City Remembrancer was appointed (25 May, 1610) to wait upon Sir John Herbert, one of the principal Secretaries of State, Sir Julius Cæsar, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other influential members of parliament, for the purpose of entreating them to use their efforts to prevent the repeal of the statutes on the ground that the stream of fresh water which would thereby be brought to the north parts of the city would tend to the preservation of health; that the work had already been carried ten miles, and that Middleton had already expended more than £3,000 in carrying it out. [Repertory 29, fo. 231.]

[Pecuniary assistance granted to Middleton by James, May, 1612.]

Middleton was eventually allowed to proceed with his work, but the delay that had taken place made it necessary for him to apply to the Common Council for an extension of time within which to complete it. The City readily consented to grant him an extension of five years (27 Feb., 1611). [Journal 28, fo. 176b.] No application for pecuniary assistance however appears to have been made to the City at this or any other time whilst the work was in progress by Middleton, although he lacked funds and was compelled in the following year to seek the assistance of James himself. The king was familiar with Middleton and his undertaking, for the New River was carried past his own hunting-lodge of Theobalds. In May (1612) he agreed to pay half the cost of the whole work on condition that Middleton would convey to him one-half of the property. Middleton could not do otherwise than accept the king's offer, and in the following August executed a deed conveying thirty-six shares to James.[^9]

[^9: These "king's shares," as they were called to distinguish them from "adventurers' shares," were sold by Charles I in 1636 for an annuity of £500, entered on the company's books and paid yearly as the "king's clog." Both classes of shares have become so valuable that they have been subjected to frequent sub-division. At a sale by auction, which took place in London, 15 Nov., 1893, an undivided adventurers' share fetched £94,900.]

[The New River opened, 29 Sept., 1613.]

With royalty at his back Middleton was enabled to complete his undertaking, and the New River was opened with befitting ceremony on the very day (29 Sept., 1613) that Thomas,[^10] his elder brother, was elected to the mayoralty chair for the ensuing year.

[^10: Alderman of Queenhithe and Coleman Street Wards; Sheriff 1603. From 1624 to 1626 was one of the representatives of the city in parliament. His brother Robert had sat for the same constituency in the parliament of 1614.—Repertory 26, pt. i, fo. 146b; Repertory 31, pt. ii, fo. 282b; Parliamentary Return 1879 (Appendix), p. xxxix.]

[Compulsory use of the New River water, 1616.]

Even then the whole enterprise might have failed had not pressure been brought to bear to make the inhabitants of the city use the New River water to the exclusion of other supplies. In 1616, three years after the New River had been opened, the lords of the council wrote (23 Dec.) to the mayor and aldermen informing them that it was the king's wish that, inasmuch as few persons used the new supply, the city authorities should see that all such houses as could conveniently use it should be made to use it, for it was not to be supposed, said they, that two Acts of Parliament and an Act of Common Council affecting the health and safety of the city should be passed to no other purpose than to injure those who undertook so useful a work on the part of the city. [Remembrancia (Index), p. 557.] So again, in the following year (1617), when the brewers of London wished to erect waterworks on their own account at Dowgate, they were stopped by order of the Privy Council, and told to take their water from the New River, which had been made at great expense, "was of great consequence to his majesty's service, and deserved all due encouragement." [Id., p. 558.] Even the civic authorities themselves were forbidden (11 April, 1634) to improve the supply from Tyburn, on which they had already expended much money, for fear of injuring the interests of the shareholders of the New River Company, [Id., p. 559.] who had but recently received their first dividend. [The first dividend was paid in 1633.—Smiles, "Lives of the Engineers," pp. 130, 131.]

[A City loan of £3,000 to Middleton, Sept., 1614.]

Soon after the completion of the New River, Middleton applied to the City for a loan. The whole of his own capital had been sunk in his vast undertaking, and he required an advance of £3,000. The loan was granted (8 Sept., 1614) for three years at six per cent., security being given by his brother Thomas, the lord mayor, Robert, another brother, and Robert Bateman. [Repertory 31, pt. ii, fo. 396.]

[Middleton created a baronet, Oct., 1622.]

In 1622 (19 Oct.) James conferred on Middleton a baronetcy—a new hereditary title recently established for supplying the king with money to put down the Irish rebellion.[^11] Middleton, however, appears to have been too poor to pay the sum of £1,000 or so for which the new title was purchasable; at any rate the money was not exacted. [Cal. State Papers Dom. (1619-1623), p. 455.] A baronet in the city of London (by the way) enjoyed the special privilege of exemption from serving as sheriff. "It was unfit," wrote James to the lord mayor (11 Nov., 1613), "that a gentleman called to the quality of a baronet should be afterwards called to be sheriff," and he declared that he would have "no such precedent." [Remembrancia, iii, 114, viii, 3 (Index, pp. 462-465).]

[^11: In 1611 "James offered the title of baronet to all who would pay the exchequer £1,080 in three annual payments, being the sum required for the pay of a hundred foot-soldiers for three years."—Gardiner, "Hist. of Eng. (1613-1616)," i, 560.]

[The City votes Middleton a gold chain, Nov., 1623.]

A year after Middleton had been created a baronet the Court of Aldermen voted him (13 Nov., 1623) a gold chain of the value of 200 marks in recognition of his services in supplying the city with water, and thereby preventing the spread of disastrous fires. Only the night before (12 Nov.) "a very terrible and fearful fire" had broken out, destroying many houses, and among them that of Sir William Cockaine, in Broad Street, and causing damage to the extent of £40,000 and more; ["Court and Times of James I," ii, 433.] and the Court of Aldermen, in recording their vote, testified to the great danger which would have threatened the city had not a plentiful supply of water, thanks to Middleton, been at hand. [Repertory 38, fo. 12; Letter Book II, fo. 51.] The chain was set with diamonds and had the City's arms by way of pendant. Middleton himself being a goldsmith of repute was allowed to supervise the making of it. [Letter Book II, fo. 51b.]

[Death of Middleton, 10 Dec, 1631.]

All this time the City's loan to Middleton remained outstanding, and indeed it remained unrepaid at the time of his death in December, 1631, a circumstance which shows that the greatest engineer of the age died worse off than many believe. After considerable hesitation the Court of Aldermen instructed the City Solicitor to recover the money by suing on Middleton's bond. [Repertory 47, fos. 45b, 58, 89b, 105b, 300b.]

[Grant of £1,000 to Lady Middleton, 1634.]

If other evidence were wanting to show that Middleton died in reduced circumstances there is the fact that his widow was compelled, soon after her husband's death, to seek satisfaction from the City for losses sustained by his estate by means of "many breaches made in the pipes of water and otherwise upon occasion of divers great fires." After considering the matter for close upon two years the Common Council at length agreed (2 Oct., 1634) to raise a sum of £1,000 for her by assessment on the wards, but hesitated whether to pay the money to Lady Middleton for her own use or as executrix only of the will of her late husband, "to be distributed according to the custome of this Citty whereof he dyed a Freeman." The court added this condition to the gift, viz.: that the City should be allowed to set up cocks in connection with the New River pipes in each ward, to be used in cases of fire, in place of cutting the pipes, as had been the custom on such occasions. [Journal 36, fos. 37, 292, 292b.] In 1635 Middleton's loan remained still owing to the City, and the £1,000 promised to his widow was not yet collected. On the 12th May Lady Middleton petitioned the Court of Aldermen to allow the £1,000 to be accepted in part payment of her late husband's debt and she would endeavour forthwith to discharge the remainder. To this the court acceded. [Repertory 49, fo. 195b.]

[The New River Company petition the City for an immediate grant of all that had been conveyed to Middleton. 10 June, 1726.]

In 1726 the New River Company petitioned the Common Council for a direct conveyance to be made to the company of all the statutory rights and privileges the City had originally made over to Middleton. The reason given for this request was that the company found themselves obliged at the time to prosecute a number of trespassers, and that it had been advised by counsel that in order to get a verdict in the company's favour it would have to prove its title, "through all times and through all the mean conveyances," from the passing of the original Act of Parliament to the present time. The company represented that such a proceeding would involve enormous difficulty, but this difficulty could be got over if the City would consent to give an immediate grant to the company of all that they had formerly conveyed to Middleton, and upon the same terms. The matter, urged the company, was one that affected the interests of the City, for unless the offenders were punished the water of the New River would continue to be intercepted before it reached the city. The petition was referred to the City Lands Committee for consideration. [Journal 57, fos. 143b, 144.]

[The plantation of Ulster.]

Just at the time when the City was meditating a transfer of their powers under the New River Acts to Middleton, a scheme was being set on foot for colonising a vast tract of land in the north of Ireland, which, after the flight of the earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnel in 1607, was declared to be confiscated to the Crown. In October, 1608, commissioners had been appointed to draw up a plan for the proposed colonisation, or, as it was called, the "Plantation of Ulster," and by the following January (1609) their reports were sent in. [Report of Commissioners, 20 Dec., 1608; Second Report, Jan., 1609.—Cal. State Papers Ireland (1608-1610), pp. 117, 139.] The next step was the formulating of orders and conditions to be observed by the undertakers of the plantation, and by the end of January these were ready, although they do not appear to have been published before the following March. ["Orders and Conditions of the Ulster Plantation."—Cal. State Papers Ireland (1608-1610), p. 139. Chichester to the Privy Council, 10 Mar., 1609.—Id., p. 157.] The object of promulgating these orders and conditions was to attract persons to take a share in the work of the plantation, not so much with the view of benefiting themselves as of doing service to the Crown and commonwealth. Whatever attraction the scheme as put forth in this Collection of Orders and Conditions—often referred to in subsequent proceedings as the "printed book"—may have had for others, it had none for the Londoner. [See the City's Petition to the House of Commons, in Jan., 1641.—Journal 39, fo. 164.] The city merchant and trader required to be assured of some substantial benefit to be gained by himself before he would embark in any such undertaking, and in order to give him this assurance he was asked to consider a long list of "motives and reasons to induce the City of London to undertake plantation in the north of Ireland." [Cal. State Papers Ireland (1608-1610), pp. 207-210.]

[Motives and reasons to encourage the City to take part in the plantation, 28 May, 1609.]

In this document, bearing date the 28th May, 1609, the king offered to make over to the city of London the city of Derry and another place near the castle of Coleraine with adjacent territory, and with exceptional advantages as to custom dues and admiralty jurisdiction. As an inducement to accept the king's offer the citizens were assured that the country was well watered and suitable for breeding cattle; it grew hemp and flax better than elsewhere; it was well stocked with game and had excellent sea and river fisheries, and it contained such abundance of provisions as not only to supply the plantation, but also assist towards the relief of the London poor. Besides these advantages the city, which was so overcrowded "that one tradesman was scarcely able to live by another," would have an opportunity of getting rid of some of its surplus population, and at the same time render itself less liable to infectious diseases. If the citizens wanted a precedent for what they were now called upon to undertake, they were invited to look at what Bristol had done for Dublin in the reign of Henry II. The plantation of Dublin by Bristol, which reflected "eternal commendation" on the latter city, had done much towards civilising and securing that part of Ireland, and it was greatly to be hoped that the precedent so set would now be followed by London, more especially as the advantages to be gained were far greater.

[The matter laid before a special Court of Aldermen, 1 July, 1609.]

A goodly prospect indeed; but still the enterprise failed to commend itself to the Londoner. A month went by and nothing was done. At length, on Saturday, the 1st July, the matter was brought direct to the attention of a special Court of Aldermen and "divers selected comoners" of the city by the lords of the council. Again the citizens were assured that by taking a part in the work of the plantation they would not only be doing a work acceptable unto God but one which would be at once honourable and profitable to themselves.

[Referred to the livery companies.]

The project was received with favour to the extent that it was resolved to invite the livery companies to consider the matter, and to appoint committees to make suggestions to the court in writing by the following Wednesday (5 July), [Repertory 29, fo. 52b.] and precepts to the companies were issued accordingly. The reply sent by the companies appears to have been considered unsatisfactory, for on the following Saturday (8 July) the mayor issued another precept rebuking them for the attitude taken up by their representatives, who had not, in his opinion, paid sufficient attention to the matter nor fully realised the motives and reasons which had been propounded. He bade them reconsider the matter and send their representatives to the Guildhall on Friday, 14th July, with "such reasons and demands as are fit to be remembered, required or considered of in the undertaking of so great and honourable an action" set down in writing.[^12] Accordingly, on the 14th, the committees of the various companies appeared before the Court of Aldermen with their answer in writing, and a deputation was nominated to carry their answer to the lords and to hear anything more that they might have to say on the matter. [Repertory 29, fo. 60b. The answer of the companies is not entered, a blank space being left.]

[^12: Journal 27, fo. 386b. The following were the companies to whom, in addition to the twelve principal companies, the precept was sent:—Dyers, Leathersellers, Pewterers, Cutlers, Whitebakers, Tallow Chandlers, Armourers, Girdlers, Saddlers, Barber-Surgeons, Plumbers, Innholders, Coopers, Joiners, Weavers, Woodmongers, Scriveners, Stationers and Embroiderers.]

The lords of the council being angry with the companies for sending in their answer before a conference had been held with them, the Recorder was instructed to inform them that the companies had acted under a mistake, and intended nothing undutiful in what they had done, and a deputation was again nominated to confer with their lordships. [Repertory 29, fo. 61b.] This was on Tuesday, the 18th July.

[A conference with the lords of the council.]

Before the end of the week "a full and large conference" took place, and the lords of the council so satisfied the representatives of the companies of the profitable nature of the undertaking that they were encouraged to become adventurers. It was an understood thing between the parties that the citizens should send their own representatives over to Ireland to view the property, and if the undertaking proved to be otherwise than had been represented, and unprofitable, they were to be at liberty to withdraw from it altogether. The result of the conference was signified to the masters and wardens of the several companies on Monday, the 24th July, by precept of the mayor, who enjoined them to call together their companies on the following Wednesday, and after explaining the whole matter to them, to learn from each individual member what amount he was prepared to contribute towards the furtherance of so "famous a project," and to cause the same to be entered in a book "to the intent his majesty may be informed of the readiness of this city in a matter of such great consequence." A note was to be made of any who refused to contribute, and those who failed to attend the summons were to be fined. No time was to be lost, for the lords of the council expected a return of the amount to be contributed by the companies by Friday (28 July). [Journal 27, fo. 387b.]

[Commissioners appointed by the City to view the plantation, 1 Aug., 1609.]

On Sunday, the 30th July, a deputation of aldermen and commoners again waited on the lords of the council, and received permission to elect four wise, grave and discreet citizens to cross over to Ireland and view the proposed plantation. On Tuesday (1 Aug.) the Common Council nominated John Broad, goldsmith, Hugh Hamersley, haberdasher, Robert Treswell, painter-stainer, and John Rowley, draper, to be the City's commissioners for the purpose. [Journal 27, fo. 398. John "Mun," or "Muns," mercer, was afterwards substituted for Hugh Hamersley.]

[The system of deception practised on them.]

The lords of the council anticipated the arrival of the City's agents in Ireland by directing Sir Thomas Philips to accompany them in their travels, and by sending instructions to Sir Arthur Chichester, the deputy, to see that they were well supplied with necessaries and were assisted in every way. The latter was more particularly instructed to use great care in the selection of discreet persons to conduct and accompany them, men who from their experience and understanding might be able, "both by discourse and reason, to controule whatsoever any man shall reporte either out of ignorance or malice, and to give the undertakors satisfaccon when they shalbe mistaken or not well informed of any particular." [Two letters from the lords of the council to Sir Arthur Chichester, 3 Aug., 1609.—Philadelphia Papers (Transcripts, Public Record Office), vol. i, pp. 498-501.] The conductors were to take care to lead the Londoners by the best roads, and to lodge them on their journeys where they might, if possible, receive English entertainment in Englishmen's houses. The lords of the council at the same time forwarded to Sir Arthur Chichester a copy of the "Project," and desired him to see that those who conducted the City's agents were "well prepared before-hand to confirme and strengthen every part thereof by demonstracon as they may plainly apprehend and conceive the commodities to be of good use and profit." On the other hand, matters of distaste, such as fear of the Irish, of the soldiers, of cess and such like must not be so much as named. These could be set right afterwards and were only matters of discipline and order. Lastly, if the Londoners should happen to express a wish respecting anything, "whether it be the fishing, the admirallty, or any other particuler wch may serve for a motyve to enduce them," the same was to be conceded at once, and no private interests, whether of Sir Arthur Chichester himself or any other individual, were to be allowed to stand in the way.

These instructions were carried out to the letter, and the City's representatives, as soon as they set foot in Ireland, were treated right royally. Sir John Davys, one of the king's commissioners engaged in surveying the country, wrote home on the 28th August [Sir John Davys to Salisbury, 28 Aug., 1609.—Cal. State Papers Ireland (1608-1610), pp. 280-281.]: "The Londoners are now come, and exceeding welcome to us. Wee all use our best rhetorick to persuade them to go on wth their plantation, wch will assure the whole island to the crowne of England forever. They like and praise the cuntrey very much, specially the Banne and the river of Loghfoyle." He goes on to say that one of the City's agents had fallen sick, and would have returned, but the lord-deputy and the rest had used every means to comfort and retain him, "lest this accident shold discourage his fellow cittizens." In other respects, too, they saw the country at its best, for they arrived at a time when the Irish were flocking in and making their submission in far better fashion than they had done for years. So pleased were they with what they saw that they assured Sir Arthur Chichester that the City would certainly undertake the plantation upon the report they were about to make. The deputy on his part assured them that if the Londoners did not undertake the work they would be enemies to themselves. He suggested that they should send home to the lord mayor some samples of the commodities of the country. The suggestion was adopted, and he obtained for them some raw hides, tallow, salmon, herrings, eels, pipe-staves, beef and the like at a cheap rate. He also procured them some iron ore and promised to furnish them with samples of lead and copper. [Sir Arthur Chichester to Salisbury, 18 Sept., 1609.—Cal. State Papers Ireland (1608-1610), pp. 285-287.]

[Report of commissioners, 28 Nov., 1609.]

By November the City's agents had returned to London. On the 28th they appeared before the Court of Aldermen and presented their report, together with an answer made by Sir Arthur Chichester to certain questions they had put to him on doubtful points, and also a map or "plott" of the country they had viewed. The court in the first place authorised the Chamberlain to re-imburse them the sum of £100 which they had found it necessary to borrow to supplement the allowance of £300 originally allowed for their expenses by the court; [Repertory 29, fos. 137b, 138. The Chamberlain having paid over to them. £415 9s., the court subsequently ordered the bridge-masters to repay the chamberlain that amount.—Id., fo. 149b.] and in the next gave orders for all the documents to be enrolled by the Remembrancer "in a faier booke, wherein the letters and other things comytted to his charge and care are recorded and entred," and also in the Journal by the Clerk of the Orphans. [These directions unfortunately appear to have been neglected in both cases, for the report does not appear either in the Journal or Remembrancia.] The viewers' report came before the court of Common Council on the 2nd December, when it was openly read and referred to a committee specially appointed. [Journal 28, fo. 16.]

[The City's proposal to undertake the plantation and to raise the sum of £15,000 for the purpose, 15 Dec., 1609.]

On Friday, the 15th, the committee were ready with their report. They had met five times, and had held long debate and consultation on the various matters incident to "so great a business," and on each and all of these they had something to say. As to the financial part of the undertaking they were of opinion that the Common Council should pass an Act for raising a sum of £15,000, and no more, upon the members of the wealthier livery companies, by poll, the inferior companies being spared. The report having been approved by the court a deputation was appointed to wait upon the Privy Council with the City's answer on the following Sunday (17 December). [Id., fos. 19-20b.]

[The City's offer to raise £15,000 rejected as insufficient.]

When the lords of the council came to consider the City's proposals they found much to their liking, but the clause which restricted the amount of money to be furnished by the City to £15,000, and no more, was "much distasted" by them, seeing that that sum would scarcely suffice to buy up private interests, let alone the work of plantation. The City's offer in this respect was therefore rejected, and the Common Council had therefore to increase its offer to £20,000. [Id., fo. 24.]

[The sum of £20,000 levied on livery companies according to corn assessment.]

Early in the following year (8 Jan., 1610) a committee was appointed, including the four commissioners who had viewed the plantation, to confer with commissioners appointed by the Privy Council as to the best means of carrying out the work. In the meantime the sum of £5,000, or one-fourth part of the £20,000 required, was to be immediately levied on the principal companies according to their corn assessment.[^13] Some of the companies complained of the unfairness of assessing them according to the existing corn rate, inasmuch as a great change had taken place since that rate had been made: "Divers companies are decayed and others growne to bee of greater liability, so as particuler men of some companies are now exceedinglie overcharged and others greatelye favoured." It was too late to make any alteration in the payment of the first two instalments, as the plantation was to commence in the summer, [Journal 28, fos. 53, 53b.] but a new assessment for corn was made in July with the view of making the rate more equitable. [Id., fos. 103, 113-114b.]

[^13: Another sum of £5,000 was levied in the following March, another in August, and the remainder in March, 1611. The Merchant Taylors, being assessed at 936 quarters of corn, were called upon to contribute £1,872 towards the £20,000 by instalments of £468; the Grocers (the next highest in the corn assessment) £1,748, the Mercers £1,640, and so on in a descending scale to the Bowyers, the Fletchers, the Woolmen and the Musicians, each of whom subscribed respectively £10.—Journal 28, fos. 24, 32, 32b.]

[The "Articles" of the plantation signed, 28 Jan., 1610.]

On the 28th January (1610) the committee appointed by the court of Common Council came to terms with the Privy Council, and a special agreement was signed by both parties embodying all the essential conditions of the plantation in twenty-seven articles. A period of seven years was allowed the City to make such other reasonable demands as time might show to be needful.[^14]

[^14: Cal. State Papers Ireland (1608-1610), pp. 136, 137, 359-362. An abstract of the articles is printed in "a concise view ... of the Irish Society" (pp. 9-13); where, however, the date of signing the agreement is given as Jan., 1609, this date being in accordance with the Old Style.]

[The formation of the "Irish Society."]

The articles were read at the Common Council held two days later (30 Jan.), when it was decided to form a company in the city of London for the purpose of carrying out the plantation, the company to consist of a governor, a deputy-governor and twenty-four assistants, of whom the Recorder of the city was to be one. The governor and five of the assistants were to be aldermen of the city, the rest commoners. [Journal 28, fos. 46-49b.] On the 4th February the lords of the council informed Sir Arthur Chichester that the "noble and worthy work of the plantation in Ulster undertaken by the city" was concluded, and the articles signed. The city had chosen a governor and a council of assistants for the more orderly disposition of their affairs. They had also elected John Rowley to be their agent, and he and others would shortly set out for Ireland. The lords commended him to the deputy's care, and he was instructed to see that they were furnished with a sufficient number of labourers for felling timber, digging stone and burning lime. Sir Arthur's services in forwarding a work which the king had so much at heart would not go, they assured him, unrewarded. [Lords of the council to Sir Arthur Chichester, 4 Feb., 1610.—Cal. State Papers Ireland (1608-1610), p. 378.]

[The City forced to surrender 2,000 acres of their Irish estate, July, 1610.]

The articles of the plantation had not long been signed before the government broke faith with the City, and the latter were asked to forego no less than 2,000 acres of land agreed to be assigned to them. This iniquitous proposal on the part of the king's commissioners was laid before a special court of Common Council (7 June, 1610) by Alderman Cockaine, the governor of the Irish Society. After long deliberation the court decided to stand upon their rights, and rejected the proposal. Six weeks later (22 July) they saw fit to change their minds, and they agreed to surrender the 2,000 acres whilst refusing to accede to other demands. [Journal 28, fos. 90, 115.]

[Difficulties experienced in raising the £20,000 for the plantation.]

It was no easy task the City had undertaken. Great difficulty was experienced in getting the companies to pay up their quota of the £20,000 to be raised for the purpose of the plantation. The wardens of the Mercers, the Clothworkers and other companies were committed to prison by order of the Court of Aldermen for refusing or failing to pay the sums at which their respective companies had been assessed. [Repertory 29, fos. 219b, 235b, 250b, 253b, 254.] The masters or wardens of the companies were not so much to blame as the individual members of the companies who refused to pay. Thus, a sum of £200 due from Sir John Spencer, the rich Clothworker, remained unpaid at his death. It was eventually paid by his son-in-law, Lord Compton, after much solicitation. [Remembrancia (Index), p. 172.] Even when the money was got in there was a difficulty in forwarding it to its destination, so infested was the Irish coast with pirates who lay in wait for the money sent by the City for the works at Coleraine. [Chichester to Salisbury, 27 June, 1610.—Cal. State Papers Ireland (1608-1610), p. 473.]

[The companies to take up allotment of Irish estate, Jan., 1611.]

Early in the following year (31 Jan., 1611) the livery companies were called upon to certify to the Irish Society, within one week, whether or no they were willing to accept an allotment of the Irish estate proportionate to the money by them advanced, and to cultivate and plant the same at their own cost and charges, according to the "printed book" of the plantation, or leave the letting and disposing thereof to the governor and committees. They were warned that, in any case, they would still have to contribute towards the charge of building houses and fortifications and freeing of tithes. [Journal 28, fos. 159b, 163.] In response to the mayor's precept eight of the principal companies of the city, viz., the Mercers, Grocers, Drapers, Fishmongers, Goldsmiths, Salters, Ironmongers and Vintners, and ten of the inferior companies, viz., the Dyers, Pewterers, Founders, Whitebakers, Broderers, Armourers, Tilers and Bricklayers, Blacksmiths, Weavers and Woodmongers, signified their willingness to accept a proportionate part of the land (27 Feb.). The remainder of the companies preferred to leave the lands alone, but they were allowed to come in afterwards if they saw reason to change their mind. [Id., fo. 176.]

[A further sum of £10,000 to be raised for the plantation, July, 1611.]

By July (1611) nearly the whole of the £20,000 had been expended. The Common Council thereupon resolved that a further sum of £10,000 should be levied on the companies at the same rate as the last two payments. A day was appointed for the companies to send in a written notice whether they agreed to contribute to this fresh sum or were ready to forfeit the money they had already subscribed and lose all their right in the plantation. [Journal 28, fos. 239b, 240.]. £5,000 was to be ready by the 10th August. The remainder was not demanded until July, 1612. [Id., fo. 323.]

[The Irish Society incorporated, 29 March, 1613.]

Hitherto the agreement between the lords of the council and the citizens of London had been carried out by one side only. The City had found the money wherewith to carry out the work of the plantation, but as yet not an acre of land had been assigned. It is not surprising, therefore, that when the Grocers' Company were called upon to contribute their quota to the £5,000 demanded in July, 1612, they desired the lord mayor not to press the matter until the assurance of the lands and other hereditaments for which money had been formerly disbursed should have been obtained from his majesty. [Minutes of the Grocers' Company, 24 July, 1612.] At length, on the 29th March, 1613, the Irish Society received its charter of incorporation.

[Another £10,000 demanded of the companies, 30 April, 1613.]

Notwithstanding the great difficulty experienced in getting in the last £5,000—as much as £3,667 10s. being still outstanding in October, 1612 [Journal 28, fo. 344b.]—the Common Council found itself under the unpleasant necessity of asking the companies for another £10,000 within a few weeks of the incorporation of the Irish Society. Not only had the whole of the £30,000 formerly subscribed been expended, but the Irish Society had borrowed £3,000 from the Chamber of London. [Journal 29, fo. 49.] The money was to be raised by the end of May.

[The Londoners charged with remissness in carrying out the work of the plantation.]

James had already begun to show impatience—even before the granting of the charter of incorporation to the Irish Society—at the little progress made in the work of the plantation. At the close of the last year (21 Dec., 1612) he had himself written to Sir Arthur Chichester directing him to send home an account of what the Londoners had done; for, notwithstanding their pretence of great expenditure, there was, so he was informed, little outward show for it. [Cal. State Papers Ireland (1611-1614), p. 310.] Fault was found with them, not only for failing to build houses according to the articles of agreement, but for their humane treatment of the "mere Irish," instead of driving them forth to perish in the narrow districts set apart for them. [Cal. State Papers Ireland (1611-1614), pp. 228-229, 270.]

[Two special commissioners sent to Ireland, June, 1613.]

On Midsummer-day (1613) Sir Henry Montague, the Recorder, and Sir William Cockaine, the governor of the Irish Society, signified to the Common Council that it was the king's wish that the walls and fortifications of Derry should be at once taken in hand. The court agreed to lose no time in carrying out the king's wishes, and further resolved to despatch "some great and worthy magistrate," as well as "some commoner of special countenance and credit," to take an exact notice, view and account of the whole work of the plantation, and of all works done and to be done, and, in a word, to do all that they deemed necessary for the good of the plantation. The choice of the court fell upon Alderman George Smithes and Matthias Springham, a Merchant Taylor. [Journal 29, fo. 74b, 75.]

[Their report submitted to the Common Council, 8 Nov., 1613.]

These two proceeded to Ireland, and, having viewed the plantation, sent home from Dublin a detailed report of all they had seen and done. [The report was dated Dublin, 15 Oct.—Journal 29, fos. 116b-118.] The report was submitted to the Common Council on the 8th November (1613). Among other things they had taken great pains to make an equal division of the land as far as was possible into twelve parts, with the view of distributing it among the livery companies as proposed, and a "plott" of the division was laid before the court. But they were of opinion that the city of Londonderry and its land of 4,000 acres, and the town of Coleraine with its 3,000 acres, its ferries and fisheries, could not be conveniently divided, but the rents and profits of them might be divided among the several companies. As to the fortification of Derry, the commissioners had consulted ten military experts on the matter and plans had been drafted; but it was necessary to gather material before the wall could be commenced, and this the commissioners recommended should be taken in hand at once.

[Allotment of the Irish estate among the companies, 17 Dec., 1613.]

On the 17th December lots were publicly drawn to decide the particular lands which each of the twelve principal companies, combined with several of the inferior companies in such a way as to make their total contributions to amount, as far as might be, to one-twelth of the whole sum (£40,000) contributed, should hold. [Journal 29, fos. 178b-186.] The companies at once took possession of their property so far as they could do so; but livery of seisin was not and could not be made to them until James had granted (30 Sep., 1615), both to the Irish Society and to the companies, a licence in mortmain. This licence was expressly granted "to the end that they might be the better encouraged and enabled to proceed and finish the same plantation, and in future times reap some gains and benefits of their great travails and expenses bestowed therein." [Skinners' Company and the Irish Society (House of Lords, p. 12).] It may be inferred from this that James had little expectation that the undertakers would reap much gain or profit from their enterprise notwithstanding former professions. For some years to come there was no gain, little or great. No sooner had the allotment of land to the companies taken place than they were called upon to raise a further sum of £5,000, [17 Dec, 1613.—Journal 29, fo. 186. The money was to be forthcoming before 1 Feb., 1614.] and at the end of another twelve months a further sum of £7,500, making in all a sum total of £52,500 which they had subscribed towards the plantation. [11 Jan., 1615.—Journal 29, fo. 299. £5,000 was to be raised by the end of the month, and the residue (£2,500) before the 1st day of May.] It was not until 1623 that the profits of the plantation began to exceed the costs and the Irish Society was in a position to pay a dividend. [Skinners' Company and the Irish Society (Appendix to case before House of Lords, p. 13).]

[The right of the companies to sell their Irish estate questioned.]

[The select Parliamentary Committee of 1890.]

In years gone by, when some of the companies sold their Irish estate, there was no question as to their power of alienation or their absolute right to the proceeds of the sale, but of late years a cry has been raised that the companies held their estates in a fiduciary capacity, and that they could not legally alienate their Irish property without accounting for the proceeds of the sale as public trustees. It had got abroad that those companies who had not already parted with their Irish estates—as the Haberdashers had done as far back as the year 1675, and the Merchant Taylors, the Goldsmiths and the Vintners, between the years 1728 and 1737—were meditating a sale. In response to the cry thus raised a select Parliamentary Committee was appointed to enquire "as to the Terms of the Charters or other Instruments by which their Estates in Ireland were granted to the Irish Society and to the London companies, and as to the Trusts and Obligations (if any) attaching to the Ownership of such Estates." Any trust or obligation in connection with the tenure of these estates would naturally be comprised within the four corners of the charters and instruments mentioned in the order of reference just cited, but these the committee practically ignored, on the ground that the task of pronouncing with decisive authority upon their legal construction could only be performed by a judicial tribunal. [Report of Select Committee on Irish Society and the London Companies (Irish estates), 4 May, 1891, p. iii.] We have it, however, on the authority of so sound a lawyer as the late Sir George Jessel, that the companies are ordinary owners of their Irish estates in fee simple, subject only to the reservations expressly contained in the conveyance to them.[^15]

[^15: One of the articles (No. 10) of the plantation expressly stated that after five years the undertakers should be at liberty to alien to all persons except the "mere Irish" and such persons as refused to take the oath prescribed for the undertakers.—Skinners' Company and the Irish Society (Appendix to case before House of Lords, p. 147).]

CHAPTER XX.

[The plantation of Virginia, 1609.]

Contemporaneously with the plantation of Ulster, another and more distant enterprise of somewhat similar character was being carried out in America; and to this, as to every great public undertaking, the citizens of London must need be called to lend their assistance. A company formed in 1606, and composed, in part at least, of London merchants, the object of which was the colonisation of Virginia, had proved a failure after a hopeless struggle for three years. It was therefore determined to reconstruct the company on a different basis and to make an entirely fresh start.

[Application to the City for assistance.]

In the spring of 1609 the company wrote to Sir Humphrey Weld,[^16] then mayor of London, for assistance in financing the undertaking, urging him at the same time to diminish the risk of pestilence and famine in the city by removing the surplus population to Virginia. For the sake of convenience they purposed to issue no bills of adventure for less than £12 10s., but if his lordship were to make any "ceasement" (assessment) or raise subscriptions from the best disposed and most able of the companies, the council and company of the plantation would be willing to give bills of adventure to the masters and wardens for the general use and behoof of each company, or in the case of subscription by the wards to the alderman and deputy of each ward for the benefit of the ward. Should the emigrants "demaund what may be theire present mayntenaunce, what maye be theire future hopes?" they might be told that the company was for the present prepared to offer them "meate, drinke and clothing, with an howse, orchard and garden for the meanest family, and a possession of lands to them and their posterity." Any alderman of the city subscribing £50 would be reckoned as an original member of the council of the company, and take equal share of the profits with the rest; their deputies, too, would be admitted to the same privileges on payment of half that sum.

[^16: The letter is not entered on the City's Records, but it will be found printed in the late Mr. Clode's "Memorials of the Merchant Taylors' Company" and in Mr. Brown's "Genesis of the United States," i, 252. The letter does not bear any date, but must have been written before the 16th March, 1609, as on that day the mayor issued his precept to the several companies, enclosing a copy of the letter, and asking them to "make some adventure" in so good and honourable an undertaking.—Journal 27, fo. 346b.]

[Contributions by the livery companies.]

In response to a precept no less than fifty-six companies agreed to take ventures in the plantation. The Grocers subscribed the sum of £487 10s., or more than double the amount subscribed by any other company. The Mercers, the Goldsmiths and the Merchant Taylors contributed respectively the next highest amount, viz., £200; whilst the Drapers and Fishmongers subscribed severally £150, the Stationers £125, the Clothworkers £100, and the Salters £50. In addition to these contributions made by the companies in their corporate capacity other sums were ventured by individual members. [Brown's "Genesis of the United States," ii, 857, seq.] Bills of adventure were thereupon given to the several companies for the money subscribed, entitling them to have rateably "theire full parte of all such lands, tenements and hereditaments" as should from time to time be recovered, planted and inhabited, as also "of all such mines and minerals of gould, silver and other metals or treasure, pearles, precious stones, or any kind of wares or marchaundizes, comodities or profitts whatsoever," as should be obtained or gotten in the voyage. [See bill of adventure granted to the Merchant Taylors' Company, 4 May, 1609 (printed from the company's archives).—Brown, i, 308.]

[The company's new charter, 23 May, 1609.]

With the assistance thus afforded by the citizens of London the Virginia Company had no difficulty in obtaining another charter from the Crown (23 May, 1609). Among the adventurers to whom the charter was granted, and who embraced representatives of every rank, profession and occupation, we find Humphrey Weld, the mayor, whose name immediately follows those of the peers of the realm who shared in the undertaking, and Nicholas Ferrar, skinner, who died in 1620, and gave by will "£300 to the college in Virginia, to be paid when there shall be ten of the infidels' children placed in it, and in the meantime twenty-four pounds by the yeare to be disbursed unto three discreete and godly men in the colonie, which shall honestly bring up three of the infidels' children in Christian religion and some good course to live by." [Brown, i, 208-237; ii, 890.]

[Outbreak of yellow fever among the colonists.]

In the meantime (15 May) seven vessels with emigrants on board had set sail from Woolwich. After frequent delays on the south coast of England they crossed the Atlantic and reached their destination on the 11th August. Yellow fever had unfortunately broken out on board ship during the long voyage, and this, together with the plague, which is generally believed to have been conveyed to Virginia by the fleet, committed great havoc among the early emigrants. [Brown, i, 329.]

[The company again re-constructed, 12 March, 1612.]

It was not long before more money was wanted, and again application was made to the livery companies. The Mercers declined to make any further advance; [Letter from the clerk of the company to Mr. Brown, 18 April, 1885.—"Genesis of the United States," i, 442.] but with the assistance of the other companies the sum of £5,000 was raised, which was afterwards increased to £18,000. [Brown, i, 465-469.] Nevertheless, in spite of every exertion, the company was in the autumn of 1611 on the very verge of ruin, and something had to be done to prevent its utter collapse. It was accordingly again re-constructed, its domains were made to comprise the Bermudas, or Somers Islands, and a third charter granted (12 March, 1612), in which a number of citizens are named as having become adventurers since the last letters patent. [Id., ii, 540-553.]

[A public lottery in aid of the company.]

A special feature of the charter was the authorisation of one or more lottery or lotteries to be held for the benefit of the company, [Art. xvi.] by virtue of which a lottery was soon afterwards opened in London. The chief prize fell to one Thomas Sharplys, or Sharplisse, a tailor of London, who won "four thousand crowns in fair plate." [Baker's Chron., p. 413; Howes's Chron. (ed. 1615), p. 913.] The lucky winner used the same motto on this occasion as was used by the Merchant Taylors' Company in their venture in the lottery of 1569. [Vid. sup., vol. i, p. 507.] The City's records are unaccountably silent on the matter of this lottery, but we learn from other sources that the Grocers' Company adventured the sum of £62 10s. of their common goods and drew a prize of £13 10s. An offer being made to them to accept the prize subject to a rebate of £10, or in lieu thereof "a faire rounde salt with a cover of silver all gilt," weighing over 44 ozs. at 6s. 7d. per oz., amounting to the sum of £14 19s. 1d., the company resolved to accept the salt, "both in respect it would not be so much losse to the company ... and alsoe in regard this company wants salts." The balance of £1 9s. was ordered to be paid out of the common goods of the company. [Extract from Grocers' records.—Brown, ii, 591.] Not only the companies but several of the city parishes had ventures in a small way in the lottery. Thus the vestry of St. Mary Colechurch agreed (7 June) to adventure the sum of £6 of the church stock, whereby the church was the gainer of "twoe spones, price twenty shillinge." [Extract from Vestry Minutes.—Id., ii, 571-572.] The parish of St. Mary Woolchurch adventured a less sum, taking only fifty lots at a shilling apiece, in return for which it got a prize of ten shillings. [Extract from Churchwardens' book.—Id., ii, 572.] That the lottery was not taken up in the way it was hoped it would be is shown by the fact that just before the drawing—which took place in a house at the west end of St. Paul's, and lasted from the 29th June till the 20th July—no less than 60,000 blanks were taken out, in order to increase the number of chances in favour of the adventurers. [Howes's Chron. (ed. 1615), p. 913.]

[The public lottery of 1614.]

Two years later (1614) another lottery for the same purpose was set on foot. On the 1st April the lords of the council addressed a circular letter to the city companies,[^17] enclosing a copy of a pamphlet by Sir Thomas Smith, entitled "A declaration of the present estate of the English in Virginia, with the final resolucon of the Great Lotterye intended for their supply," and exhorting them to do their best to make the lottery a success. The object is there described as a "worthy and Christian enterprise, full of honour and profitt to His Majestie and the whole realme." A copy of this letter was forwarded to the several companies through Sir Thomas Middleton, the mayor, [For the mayor's letter on this occasion, see Brown, ii, 688.] who, as we have already said, was himself a member of the Council of the Virginia Company in 1609. The lotteries, however, found but little favour with the companies, who were actively engaged at the time in managing their recently acquired Irish estates, and had but little money to spare. The Merchant Taylors' Company contented themselves with voting only £50 out of their common stock for the lottery, leaving it to individual members to venture further sums on their own account as each might think fit. [Clode, "Early Hist. of the Merchant Taylors' Company," p. 325.] The Grocers' Company, of which Middleton was a member, voted nothing out of their common stock, but each member was exhorted "for the general advancement of Christianity and good of the commonwealth," to write with his own hands how much he was willing to venture. This was accordingly done (15 April), the lord mayor himself setting the example; but as to the result the company's records fail to give any information. [Brown, ii, 686-688.]

[^17: Neither this letter nor anything else connected with this lottery appears to be entered on the City's Records. The letter will be found printed (whence taken we are not told) in Brown's "Genesis of the United States," ii, 685. The letter is not entered in the Minute Book of the Merchant Taylors' Company, as was the former letter.]

[The Virginia Company and the House of Commons.]

The prospects of the Virginia Company were seriously imperilled by an ill-advised speech made in the House of Commons by the lord mayor inveighing against the importation of tobacco. The Company was already in disgrace with the House, through the indiscretion of Counsel employed to prosecute a petition on its behalf, and all the members of the Company who held seats in the House were desired to withdraw until it should be decided what action should be taken in the matter. Eventually peace was restored by the offending Counsel coming to the Bar of the House and making a humble submission. [Journal House of Commons, i, 487-489; Chamberlain to Carleton, 19 May, 1614.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1611-1618), p. 234.]

[Vagrant children sent to Virginia, 1618-1619.]

In 1618 a scheme was set on foot for taking up vagrant boys and girls that lay begging in the streets of the city, having neither home nor friends, and transporting them to Virginia to be there industriously employed. The scheme came before the Court of Common Council on the 31st July in the form of a petition from a number of citizens. A committee was at once appointed to consider the matter, and on the 24th September they brought in their report. [Journal 30, fos. 374b, 396.] The Virginia Company had agreed to take 100 boys and girls between the ages of eight and sixteen, and to educate and bring them up at the company's charge. The company were prepared, moreover, to give each boy and girl fifty acres of land, to each boy as soon as he was twenty-four years of age, and to each girl at the age of twenty-one or her marriage, whichever should first happen. The charge of fitting out and transporting that number was estimated at £500, which sum the court agreed should be levied on the inhabitants of the city rateably according as each was assessed towards the last poor rate. The young emigrants were soon afterwards shipped to their new home,[^18] and so successfully did the undertaking turn out that in little over a year another application was made to the Common Council (18 Dec., 1619) for another batch of 100 children for shipment to the colony in the following spring. [Journal 31, fo. 122 (125).] It was desired that the new emigrants should be twelve years old and upwards, with an allowance of £3 apiece for their transportation and 40s. apiece for their apparel, "as was formerly graunted." The boys would be put out as apprentices until the age of twenty-one, and the girls likewise until the same age or marriage, after which they would be placed as tenants on the public lands, and be furnished with houses, stock of corn and cattle to begin with, and afterwards enjoy the moiety of all increase and profit. The Common Council being desirous of forwarding "soe worthy and pious a worke" as the plantation, accepted the company's proposal, and directed that a sum of £500 necessary for the purpose should be levied as on the previous occasion.

[^18: Chamberlain, writing to Carleton under date the 14th Oct., mentions the fact of the City shipping to Virginia 100 boys and girls who were starving in the streets.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1611-1618), p. 584.]

[Disagreement between the City and the Virginia Company.]

Some hitch, however, appears to have occurred in connection with the shipment of this second consignment of children. The City and the Virginia Company had fallen out for some reason or other. In a letter written about this time to the lord mayor [Remembrancia, v, 56 (Analytical Index, p. 362).] the company express regret that differences should have arisen between the city and themselves. They assure his lordship that there was no real foundation for these differences, seeing that they had now ratified all, and more than all than had been previously offered and accepted. Everything had been done that was necessary for the shipment of the children. The City had collected the requisite funds and the children had been provided, whilst the company on its part had provided a fair ship, and the Privy Council had "at the city's desire" granted its warrant.[^19] The company therefore trusted that the lord mayor and aldermen would proceed to the speedy ending of differences.

[^19: The company appears to have applied through Sir Edwin Sandys, its new treasurer, for a warrant to "enforce" the transportation of the hundred children to be sent to Virginia at the City's expense, 28 Jan., 1620.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1611-1618), p. 118.]

[Loafers about the court transported to Virginia. 1619.]

The number of emigrants to Virginia was swelled by the transportation of a number of idle fellows who made it their business to follow the king and his court wherever they might happen to be. Early in 1619, when the king was at Newmarket, he took occasion to write to Sir Thomas Smith complaining of the annoyance and desired that they might be sent to Virginia at the next opportunity. [Remembrancia, v, 8 (Analytical Index, p. 361).] Immediately on the receipt of this letter Sir Thomas Smith wrote to Sir Sebastian Hervey, the mayor, forwarding at the same time the king's letter, and asking that the batch of idle court loafers which had already been despatched from Newmarket to London, as well as those to follow, might be lodged for a time in Bridewell, and there set to work until such time as there should be a vessel starting for the colony. [Remembrancia, v, 9.]

[Copland's sermon at Bow Church, 18 April, 1622.]

The Virginia colony—the first of the free colonies of England—soon became firmly established, and the City of London can claim to have had no small share in the work of its establishment. To the enterprising spirit shown by the citizens in their efforts to forward the interests of the colony no better testimony is wanted than a thanksgiving sermon [The sermon is reproduced in "Memoir of Rev. Patrick Copland," by Edward D. Neill (New York, 1871), chap. iii.] preached (18 April, 1622) in the church of St. Mary-le-Bow by Patrick Copland, chaplain to the Virginia Company, in commemoration of the safe arrival of a fleet of nine ships at the close of the previous year. The City of London, the preacher said, had on two occasions sent over 100 persons to Virginia, and the present lord mayor and his brethren the aldermen intended to pursue the same course as previous mayors. "Your cittie," he continued, "aboundeth in people (and long may it doe so); the plantation in Virginia is capable enough to receive them. O, take course to ease your cittie, and to provide well for your people, by sending them over thither, that both they of that colony there and they of your owne cittie here may live to bless your prudent and provident government over them.... Right Worshipfull, I beseech you ponder (as I know you doe) the forlorne estate of many of the best members of your citty, and helpe them, O helpe them out of their misery; what you bestow uppon them in their transportation to Virginia they will repay it at present with their prayers, and when they are able with their purses." [This prophecy was literally fulfilled by the gift of half a million of money for the relief of the poor of London by the late George Peabody, himself a descendant of an emigrant to North Virginia.]

A few months after this sermon had been delivered tidings reached England of a calamity more disastrous than any that had yet befallen the colony. A treacherous attack had been made upon the white men by the Indians, which was only just saved by timely notice from becoming a general massacre. As it was, nearly 350 of the settlers were killed. The Common Council lost no time in testifying its sympathy with the colony in the great loss it had sustained, and voted (19 July) a third sum of £500 towards the transportation of 100 fresh colonists. [Journal 32, fo. 66.]

[The king's financial condition, 1610.]

Ever since his accession to the throne of England the financial condition of James had been going from bad to worse. Besides resorting to antiquated feudal exactions,[^20] he took to levying impositions on articles of commerce. But even these failed to make up the deficiency created in his exchequer by his wanton extravagance, and in 1610 he was obliged to apply to parliament. An attempt to make a composition with the king for feudal dues and to restrict his claim to levy impositions failed, and parliament was hastily dissolved. [Proclamation for dissolution, dated 31 Dec., 1610.—Journal 28, fo. 156.]

[^20: Upon the occasion of Prince Henry coming of age and receiving knighthood in 1609 James demanded an "aid" of the City, and thus ran the risk of offending the citizens for a paltry sum of £1,200.—Journal 27, fo. 357; Journal 29, fo. 304.]

[A City Loan of £100,000, April, 1610.]

In the meanwhile James had applied to the City (April, 1610) for a loan of £100,000. He professed to prefer borrowing the money from the citizens to raising it by privy seals from his subjects generally, and he promised interest at the rate of ten per cent. and security on the customs. The aldermen consented to raise the money "out of aboundance of love ... but not of aboundance of riches or meanes." They and the Recorder divided themselves into nine several companies or divisions, each bound to furnish one-ninth of the whole loan. The king gave his own bond in £150,000 besides bonds of the farmer of the customs as security, and the aldermen set to work to raise the money in as "secret and discreet manner" as they could. [Repertory 29, fos. 207-209b, 220, 225.] The loan did not go far towards discharging the king's liabilities, or those of the late queen, whose debts James had undertaken to repay. Before the end of the year (1610) certain wealthy merchants of the city were summoned to Whitehall to discuss the state of affairs. The king again wanted money, but inasmuch as he confessed himself unable to do more than pay the interest on former loans, leaving the principal to be discharged at some future time, they refused to make any further advances, consenting only not to press for the repayment of outstanding debts. [John More to Ralph Winwood, 15 Dec., 1610.—Winwood's Memorials, iii, 239.] Pursuant to this agreement the citizens, in April, 1611, when the repayment of the loan of £100,000 became due, granted the king another year's respite. [Repertory 30, fo. 108b.] A similar concession was made in 1612; [Remembrancia, iii, 58 (Index, p. 189).] and in 1613 the loan was paid off.[^21]

[^21: "Account of the amount paid for principal and interest on a loan of £100,000 by the citizens of London to his late majesty (James I). The money was lent in Easter Term, 1611 (1610?), and was repaid in April, 1613, £22,500 being paid for interest."—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1625-1626), p. 203.]

[Concessions made to the city by James, 1608-1610.]

The king had a right to look for consideration from the city, for in 1608 he had not only confirmed the liberties and franchises of the citizens by charter, but he had extended the civic jurisdiction, and had created all aldermen who had "passed the chair" Justices of Oyer and Terminer within the city and its liberties. He had, moreover, allowed them to tax non-freemen and strangers and to cause them to contribute in like manner as themselves to all talliages, aids and grants to the king. [Charter dated 24 Sept., 6 James I (preserved at the Guildhall, Box 20).] Two years later—soon after his son Henry had been created Prince of Wales and the city had done him honour by an aquatic display on the river between Richmond and London [A full description of the water-fight, fireworks, etc., which took place on the occasion is printed by Nichols,—"Progresses of James I." ii, 315-323.] he confirmed (16 June, 1610) the privileges granted to them in 1383 by Richard II with the sanction of parliament. [Journal 28, fo. 96.]

[The king's "privy seals," 1611.]

Before the close of 1611 his pecuniary difficulties increased to such an extent that he was driven to scatter broadcast "privy seals" or promissory notes for the purpose of raising money. These were not unfrequently placed in the hands of persons as they came out of church on Sunday evenings, a proceeding that caused no little scandal.[^22]

[^22: "The privy seals begin now to come abroad thick and threefold. On Sunday was seven-night; most of the strangers were greeted with them in form of letters as they came out of church; a course, in my opinion, not so well taken, to be done in view and sight of all the world, which might have been better performed in delivering them to every man privately at home."—Chamberlain to Carleton, 18 Dec., 1611.—"Court and Times of James I," i, 153.]

[The marriage of the Elector Palatine with the Princess Elizabeth, 14 Feb., 1613.]

The marriage of his daughter, the Princess Elizabeth, with Frederick, the Elector Palatine, which was soon to follow, not only involved James in further pecuniary difficulties, but eventually plunged him into a continental war. Although the marriage articles were signed in May, 1612, the Elector did not arrive in England until October, just at the time when Sir John Swinnerton was about to enter on his duties as mayor for the ensuing year. Special precautions were taken to keep order and guard against accident on lord mayor's day [Journal 28, fos. 336b, 345; Repertory 30, fo. 397b.] as soon as it was known that the Elector would attend, and a pageant, entitled Troja nova triumphans, was written expressly for the occasion by Thomas Dekker. [Nichols, "Progresses of James I," ii, 466.] The Elector afterwards attended the banquet, and paid a special compliment to the lady mayoress and her suite. [Chamberlain to Carleton, 4 Nov., 1612.—"Court and Times of James I," i, 202; Cf. Cal. State Papers Dom. (1611-1618), p. 145.] The number of nobles invited was so great that there was scarcely room for the customary representatives from the principal livery companies, and none at all for members of the lesser companies. The latter were asked to take their exclusion in no ill part, as it was a sheer matter of necessity. [Journal 28, fo. 345b.] Before leaving the Elector was presented on behalf of the city with a bason and ewer weighing 234-3/4 ozs., and a "dansk pott chast and cheseld" weighing 513-5/8 ozs., and engraved with the city's arms and the words civitas London, the whole costing £262 15s. 10d. [Repertory 31, pt. i, fo. 1.] There was but one thing to mar the general gaiety, and that was the illness of the Prince of Wales, whose death a week later shed a gloom over the whole of England,[^23] and caused the marriage of his sister, by whom he was especially beloved, to be postponed for a time. [Chamberlain to Carleton, 19 Nov., 1612.—"Court and Times of James I," i, 207.] The ceremony eventually took place on the 14th February, 1613, amid great pomp and splendour, and in the following April the youthful bride and bridegroom left England for Holland.

[^23: On the 8th Nov., the day following the prince's death, the lords of the council directed the mayor to put down all plays, shows, bear-baitings, etc., as being unsuited to the times and a scandal to good government at any time.—Remembrancia, iii, 64 (Index, p. 410).]

[A further search for Recusants, Feb., 1613.]

It was currently reported that many Papists and Recusants had taken the opportunity afforded by the recent court festivities to secrete themselves in London, and Swinnerton, who had already displayed considerable activity in searching for them as soon as he became lord mayor, [Remembrancia, iii, 66, 67 (Index, pp. 131, 132); Journal 29, fo. 3.] was urged to redouble his efforts in that direction by a letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury a few days before the marriage of the princess took place. [Remembrancia, iii, 74 (Index, p. 132).]

[The king and court entertained in Merchant Taylors' Hall, 4 Jan., 1614.]

The close of the year witnessed a marriage of a very different character, viz., the union of the king's favourite, Carr, Earl of Somerset, with Frances Howard, the divorced wife of the Earl of Essex. Murderess and adulteress as she was, she was received at court with every honour; but when the king proposed to sup one night in the city, and to bring his whole court with him (including, of course, the newly-married couple), the lord mayor, Sir Thomas Middleton, demurred, excusing himself on the ground that his house was too small.[^24] This excuse was of no avail, and the supper took place in Merchant Taylors' Hall, the earl and countess being specially invited as well as the entire court. The supper was followed by a masque devised for the occasion by a namesake of the mayor, Thomas Middleton, the dramatic poet. [Repertory 31, pt. ii, fos. 235, 239b. The minutes of the Court of Aldermen relative to the proposed entertainment are printed in Nichols, "Progresses of James I," ii, 731.] The entertainment cost the City nearly £700, [£671 4s. 3d. was the exact sum disbursed by the chamberlain on account of the entertainment.—Repertory 31, pt. ii, fo. 243b.] besides the sum of £50 which the Court of Aldermen directed to be laid out in a present of plate to Somerset. [Repertory 31, pt. ii, fo. 235.] In acknowledgment of the gift the earl presented the mayor and sheriffs with pairs of handsome gloves. [Nichols, "Progresses of James I," vol. ii, p. 726.]

[^24: "The lord mayor was sent for by the king to entertain the new married couple, with their friends and followers; but he making an excuse that his house was too little to receive them, it was not accepted, but word sent back that he might command the biggest hall in the town."—Chamberlain to Carleton, 5 Jan.—"Court and Times of James I," i, 288.]

[The "addled parliament," 1614.]

Financial difficulties, which a fresh issue of "privy seals" to the aldermen for loans of £200 apiece had done little to alleviate,[^25] and which had been aggravated by recent court festivities, at length drove James to run the risk of summoning another parliament. He had learnt from the wire-pullers of the day—or "undertakers" as they were then called—that he could depend upon a majority being returned which would be willing to grant supplies in return for certain concessions. In this he was deceived. No sooner did constituents discover that pressure was being brought to bear in favour of court candidates than they used their best efforts to frustrate such a manifest design to pack parliament. The session was opened on the 5th of April by a speech from the king, in which he set forth his financial difficulties, which the extraordinary charge in connection with his daughter's marriage had helped to increase. He would not bargain for their money, he said, but would leave it entirely to their love what supplies should be granted. In token of his own affection towards his subjects he was ready to make certain concessions, and he entirely disavowed any complicity with the "strange kind of beasts called undertakers." The new parliament, however, stood out like the last and refused to grant supplies until public grievances had been considered. The result was that on the 7th June James dissolved what he had fondly hoped would have proved to be a "parliament of love," but which from its inability to pass a single measure came to be nick-named, "the addled parliament."[^26]

[^25: "Our aldermen have new privy seals for £200 apiece before their old money be paid."—Chamberlain to Carleton, 10 June, 1613.—"Court and Times of James I," i, 244; Cf. Cal. State Papers Dom. (1611-1618), p. 186.]

[^26: "This Meeting or Assembly is to be held a blank parliament, or rather a parley, not leaving so much as the name of a session, but (as the words went) 'Parliamentum inchoatum.'"—Chamberlain to Carleton, 9 Jan.—"Court and Times," i, 322.]

[A City loan of £100,000 declined, July, 1614.]

At his wit's end for money, James had recourse to benevolences. The bishops offered him the value of the best piece of plate in their possession to help him out of his difficulties, and their example induced many of the nobles to open their purses. Application was again made to the City for a loan of £100,000. [Chamberlain to Carleton, 30 June, 1614.—"Court and Times," i, 328; Cal. State Papers Dom. (1611-1618), p. 239; Remembrancia, iii, 152 (Index, p. 190).] This they declined, but made the king a free gift of £10,000, one moiety being paid by the City's Chamber and the other being furnished by the livery companies. [The same to the same. 7 July, 1614.—Cal. State Papers Dom., (1611-1618), p. 242; City's Records, Letter Book EE, fo. 244.]

[Sheriffs' fines.]

It was now that the City began to resort to the practice of recruiting their Chamber by nominating and electing as sheriffs those who were likely to prefer paying a fine to serving—a practice which more especially prevailed during the troublous times of the Stuarts. Nearly a dozen individuals were elected one after another to the office at Midsummer of this year, and one and all declined. Some, like Sir Arthur Ingram, had sufficient influence at court to obtain their discharge without fine, others paid fines varying in amount, which served to fill the City's exchequer. [Repertory 31, pt. ii, fos. 348b, 362, 362b, 369b, 422; Repertory 32, fos. 104b-139b, passim; Letter Book EE, fo. 240b.]

[Peter Proby, sheriff and ex-barber.]

Another reason, however, is given for so many refusals to serve as sheriff just at this time, and that was that men declined to serve sheriff with Peter Proby, who had once been a barber.[^27]

[^27: "On Tuesday last he [Sir Arthur Ingram] was chosen sheriff of London, but hath procured the king's letters to be discharged. They have chosen two or three more, both before and since, and none of them hold. Some say it is because they will not be matched with Peter Proby, who, from being some time secretary Walsingham's barber, was lately chosen alderman, and contrary to expectations took it upon him; which troubles them all, for he is a shrewd nimble-witted fellow."—Chamberlain to Alice Carleton, 30 June, 1614.—"Court and Times of James I." i, 330; Cal. State Papers Dom. (1611-1618), p. 240.]

The shrewd ex-barber soon overcame any feeling of antipathy that may have been entertained towards him on entering upon municipal life. In 1616 he was sent with Mathias Springham to manage the city's Irish estate. [Journal 30, fo. 60.] In 1622 he was elected mayor and in the following year was knighted.

[The city's trained bands, 1614-1618.]

Hitherto it had not been the custom when orders were given for a general muster and survey of the armed forces of the realm to include the city's forces. The city had been for the most part exempt from such orders, except when the necessities of the times demanded that it should be otherwise. In 1614 the lords of the council thought fit to include the city in their order for a general muster, and they wrote (16 Sept.) to the mayor requiring him to cause "a generall view" to be taken of the city's forces, and an enrolment made "of such trayned members as in her late majesty's time were put into companies by the name of the trayned bands." Vacancies among the officers and soldiers were to be filled up, armour and weapons repaired, and the force to be completely equipped and regularly exercised. [Journal 29, fo. 237b.] The letter having been submitted to the Common Council (21 Sept.), it was agreed to raise at once a force of 6,000 men. A tax of a fifteenth was voted to meet the necessary expenses, and a committee was appointed to carry out the resolution of the court. [Journal 29, fos. 239b seq.] On the following day (22 Sept.) the mayor issued his precept to the alderman of every ward stating the number of men required from his ward, and particulars of the kind and quantity of armour his ward was to provide. Appended to the precept was a schedule of the prices at which certain manufacturers in the city were prepared to sell the necessary weapons. [Id., fols. 242b-244.] Jerome Heydon, described as an "iremonger at the lower end of Cheapeside," was ready to sell corslets, comprising "brest, backe, gorgett, taces and headpeece," at 15s.; pikes with steel heads at 2s. 6d.; swords, being Turkey blades, at 7s.; "bastard" muskets at 14s.; great muskets, with rests, at 16s.; a headpiece, lined and stringed, at 2s. 6d., and a bandaleer for 1s. 6d. Henry White and Don Sany Southwell were prepared to do corslets 6d. cheaper, and the same with swords, but their swords are described as only "Irish hilts and belts to them." Their bastard muskets, "with mouldes," could be had for 13s., or 1s. cheaper than those of Jerome Heydon. The Armourers' Company were ready to supply corslets at 15s., but for the same "with pouldrons" they asked 4s. more. The Cutlers' Company would furnish "a very good turky blade and good open hilts" for 6s., thus under-selling the private firms.

[The trained band divided into four regiments, 1616.]

On the 5th May, 1615, the Common Council ordered another fifteenth to be levied on the inhabitants of the city "towards the defrayinge of all maner of charges to be disbursed in and about the trayninge and musteringe of men"; [Journal 29, fos. 329, 349b.] and in the following year the trained bands were divided into four regiments, under the command of Sir Thomas Lowe, Sir Thomas Middleton, Sir John Watts, and Sir John Swinnerton, and quartered in different parts of the city for the purpose of putting down riots. For these measures the mayor, Sir John Jolles, and the aldermen received the thanks of the lords of the council. [Letter dated 17 March, 1616.—Journal 30, fo. 47b; Letter Book FF, fo. 147b.]

[Letter from the lords of the council, 24 April, 1616.]

Yet, notwithstanding the manifest pains taken by civic authorities to carry out the wishes of the lords of the council, the latter within a few weeks again wrote to the mayor, [24 April. The letter was read to the Common Council the 24th May.—Journal 30, fo. 60.] rating him soundly for not having made a return of men and arms with which the city was provided, as previously directed. Their lordships had been informed that the city was altogether unprovided with arms and could not furnish the full number of trained men with weapons at one and the same time, and that there was scarce sufficient match and powder in the whole city to serve for one day's training. They expressed astonishment that the civic authorities, in whom was vested the government of the king's Chamber, should have proved so negligent in a matter so important, and directed them to set up forthwith a magazine of arms for supplying not only the inhabitants of the city, but also those of adjacent counties, with military weapons, and to supply themselves with a store of gunpowder of not less than 100 lasts, by the aid of the city companies, as had been usual in like cases. A certificate was also to be returned without delay to their lordships according to previous orders. The matter was referred by the Common Council to the "committees for martial causes" in the city, with instructions to report thereon to the Court of Aldermen.

[A muster in Finsbury Fields, 6 Aug., 1616.]

After the receipt of this letter considerable activity was shown in the military preparations of the city. A muster and review were ordered to be held on the 6th August in Finsbury Fields, and steps were taken to fill up the muster-roll of every captain to its full strength of 300 men. [Journal 30, fos. 74b, 89.]

[Commission of lieutenancy granted to the City, 30 April, 1617.]

By the spring of the next year (1617) the city authorities had succeeded so far in recovering the confidence and goodwill of the government as to have a royal commission of lieutenancy for the city of London granted to the mayor, Sir John Leman, eight of the aldermen and Antony Benn, the Recorder. [Commission, dated 30 April, 1617.—Journal 30, fo. 233.] The commission was to continue during the king's pleasure, or until notice of its determination should have been given by the Privy Council under their hands and seals.

[The commission withdrawn, May, 1618.]

Matters remained on this footing for a year, when the lords of the council gave notice (17 May, 1618) of the commission having been withdrawn, and at the same time directed the Court of Aldermen to furnish them with a certificate of the number of men enrolled in the trained bands (such as had long since been ordered but had never yet been sent), and to see that all previous orders relative to the magazine of arms and the storage of powder were duly executed. Special directions were given to replace the "calliver" (now become unserviceable) by the musket, and to provide bullets in addition to powder and match. [Journal 30, fos. 374b, 375.] The letter of the lords was read at a Common Council held on the 31st July, when committees were appointed to see to the muster and training of 6,000 men, and to examine what sums of money remained over from the two last fifteenths levied for similar purposes. [Id., fo. 376.]

[The old Company of Merchant Adventurers suppressed, 21 Feb., 1615. 12 Aug., 1617.]

That James, like his predecessor on the throne, had the increase of the material prosperity of his subjects very much at heart there is little doubt. The measures, however, which he took for increasing that prosperity were not always sound. Among these must be reckoned the withdrawal of all licences for the exportation of undyed and undressed cloth, [By proclamation, dated 23 July, 1614.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1611-1618), p. 247.] the suppression of the old company of Merchant Adventurers and the formation of a new company. For these measures the king was not so much to blame as William Cockaine, the city alderman who gave him advice on the matter. That the advice was bad became soon manifest. The Dutch, who had been the principal buyers of English undyed cloth, retaliated by setting up looms for themselves, and threatened to destroy the English cloth trade altogether. The new company, with Cockaine at its head, proved a complete failure, and the old company was restored. [By proclamation, dated 12 Aug., 1617.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1611-1618), p. 481.]

[The City consents to a loan of £30,000, July, 1615.]

The aldermen of the city continued to be pressed for a loan of £100,000, and after many refusals they at length consented to advance £30,000; but "what is that"—wrote Chamberlain to Carleton—"among so many who gape and starve after it?" [13 July, 1615.—Nichols, "Progresses," iii, 95; Cal. State Papers Dom. (1611-1618), p. 294.]

[The king entertained at Alderman Cockaine's house. 8 June, 1616.]

During the brief career of the new company Cockaine had enjoyed the honour of entertaining the king at his own house in Broad Street. The cost of the entertainment, which took place on the 8th June, 1616—including a bason of gold and £1,000 presented to James and another gift of £500 to Prince Charles—amounted to more than £3,000, and this (we are told) was discharged by the company, whilst his majesty reserved his thanks for Cockaine alone, and at parting conferred upon him the honour of knighthood with the civic sword. [Chamberlain to Carleton, 8 June, 1616; the same to the same, 22 June.—"Court and Times," i, 411, 412.]

[Knights of the Bath at Drapers' Hall, Nov., 1616.]

A few months later (Nov., 1616) the city was the scene of another festive gathering, the occasion being a supper given at Drapers' Hall to the recently created Knights of the Bath. That the wives of city burgesses were looked upon as fair game for the courtier to fly at may be seen in the works of the dramatists of the day; nor was the merchant's or tradesman's daughter averse to the attention of the court gallant when kept within reasonable bounds, but on this occasion the exuberant spirits of the knights, after the long ordeal they had recently gone through, appear to have overcome them, for, we are told, they were so rude and unmannerly and carried themselves so insolently divers ways, but specially in "putting citizens' wives to the squeak," that the sheriff interfered, whereupon they left the hall in high dudgeon without waiting for the supper prepared for them. [Chamberlain to Carleton, 14 Nov., 1616.—"Court and Times," i, 437.]

[Request for a loan of £100,000, 1617.]

Previous to his departure on a progress to Scotland in the spring of 1617, the king addressed a letter to the mayor and Common Council of the City asking for a loan of £100,000. [Letter dated 20th January, 1617.—Journal 30, fo. 159; Letter Book FF, fo. 250; Remembrancia, viii, 44-90 (Index, p. 198).] The necessary occasions of his affairs, he said, required just then "the present use of good somes of money," by way of a loan, and he could think of no better way of supplying himself than by resorting, as his forefathers had done, "to the love" of his city, and borrowing the money upon the credit of its common bonds. He reminded them that whenever he had borrowed money the lenders had always received "royall paiement," and he doubted not that they would now act as their own registers and records would show that their predecessors had acted on similar occasions. On the 22nd January this application was read to the Common Council, when, after mature deliberation, it was unanimously agreed—"without either word or hand to the contrary"—that one or more bonds should be made in the name of the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of London, under their common seal, for the repayment of principal, together with interest, to those who were willing to contribute towards the loan, upon such counter security as was mentioned in the king's letter. The security there mentioned was to be under the great seal and of such a character as the city had been accustomed formerly to receive from the king's predecessors. It appears that James had a few days before endeavoured to get the citizens to advance the sum of £100,000 on the security of the crown jewels, but this proposal had met with little favour. [Cal. State Papers Dom. (1611-1618), p. 428. He contrived, however, to raise the sum of £60,000 on them in another quarter.—Id., p. 447.]

[Difficulty experienced in raising the money.]

In March the mayor, John Leman, received the honour of knighthood and was publicly thanked by the king for the forwardness displayed by the citizens in the loan, although the money had not at the time been raised. [Chamberlain to Carleton, 15th March.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1611-1618), p. 446.] Great difficulty was experienced in raising the money. One London merchant, John Eldred, whose name frequently occurs in the State Papers in connection with advances to the king, endeavoured to get the amount of his assessment reduced by £400, [Remembrancia, iv, 79 (Index, pp. 190-191).] whilst another, William Cater, kept out of the way to avoid contributing to the loan. [Remembrancia, iv, 81-84 (Index p. 191).] In May there was still a deficiency of £20,000, which called forth a reprimand from the lords of the council. The city authorities had been observed to omit or else to sparingly handle many of the best citizens who were "nicetest" to be dealt with, and especially intended for the purpose, and to lay the burden of contribution upon persons of weak and mean estate, or such as otherwise by their quality and place were not so fit to be called upon for any such occasion.[^28]

[^28: Letter dated 28th May. 1617.—Remembrancia, iv, 75 (Index, p. 190). On the previous 23rd April the Earl of Suffolk, writing to Sir Thomas Lake, had remarked that the city did not yield quite £80,000, but that the council would try and obtain the full £100,000.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1611-1618), p. 461.]

[Reception of James on his return from Scotland, Sept., 1617.]

On his return from Scotland in September the king was met by the mayor and aldermen and a deputation from the livery companies at Knightsbridge and escorted to Whitehall with the same pomp and solemnity as had been accustomed to be displayed in attending Queen Elizabeth on her return from a progress. [Journal 30, fo. 228b.] The mayor presented James with a purse of 500 gold pieces, [Repertory 33, fo. 166b.] and the king conferred the honour of knighthood upon Antony Benn, the Recorder, and Ralph Freeman. [Nichols, "Progresses," iii, 437. Freeman afterwards became alderman of Bishopsgate Ward, sheriff in 1623, mayor in 1633.]

[Letter from lords of council touching king's inability to repay loan, 17 March, 1618.]

In the following March (17th) the mayor and aldermen were informed by letter from the lords of the council of the king's inability to repay the last loan according to promise, and were asked to allow a twelvemonth's grace. [Remembrancia, iv, 103.]

[Death of the queen, March, 1619.]

The king's financial position had become by this time reduced to so low a state that when his consort died in March of the following year (1619) there was some probability that her funeral would have to be delayed for want of money to buy "the blacks." [Nichols, "Progresses," iii, 534-535.] As it was the funeral did not take place until the 13th May, but this may have been owing to the king himself having been ill. [Chamberlain to Carleton, 17th April.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1619-1623), p. 37.] The mayor, Sebastian Hervey, and the aldermen received (after some delay) the customary allowance of mourning cloth,[^29] but for some reason or other they were not invited to attend the funeral.

[^29: Sir Gerard Herbert to Carleton, 31st May.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1619-1623), p. 49. "A note of the division of the cloth receyved from the Kings Maties wardrobe for the mourneing garments of the Lord Maior Aldermen and their followers, at the funerall of the late Queene Anne, wife to or Soveraigne Lord King James."—Journal 31, fo. 69. The length of cloth amounted to 648-1/2 yards.]

[Sebastian Hervey and his daughter.]

James had recently been worrying the mayor into consenting to a match between his daughter, a girl barely fourteen years of age, and Christopher Villiers, son of the Countess of Buckingham. The match was "so much against the old man's stomach," wrote a contemporary, [Rev. Thomas Lorking to Sir Thomas Puckering, 24 May, 1619.—"Court and Times," ii, 166-167.] "as the conceit thereof hath brought him very near his grave already." He had publicly declared that he would rather that he and his daughter were both dead than that he should give his consent. The king pressed matters so far as one day to send for the mayor, his wife and daughter, from dinner at Merchant Taylors' Hall, in order to urge upon them the marriage. [Chamberlain to Carleton, 15 July, 1619.—"Court and Times," ii, 182.] It was perhaps owing to the strained relations existing at the time between the king and the mayor that the civic authorities were not invited to the funeral of the queen. If that be the case James soon saw that he had made a mistake, and in order "to please them" caused a memorial service to be held on Trinity Sunday at Paul's Cross, which was attended by the aldermen and other officers of the city, but not by Hervey, the mayor, who—"wilful and dogged" as he may have been—had become seriously ill from the king's importunity and was unable to be present. [The same to the same, 31 May.—Nichols, "Progresses," iii. 549.]

[The commencement of the Thirty Years' War, 1618.]

In the meantime a revolution had taken place on the continent, the effects of which were felt in London and the kingdom. In 1618 the Protestant nobility of Bohemia deposed their king, the Emperor Matthias, and in the following year they deposed his successor, Ferdinand, after unceremoniously flinging his deputies out of the window, and offered the crown to Frederick, the Elector Palatine, who had married James's daughter, the Princess Elizabeth. The Elector asked his father-in-law's advice before accepting the proffered crown, but James shilly-shallied so long that Frederick could wait no longer, and he signified his acceptance (26 Aug., 1619). James was urged to lend assistance to his son-in-law against the deposed Ferdinand, who had become by election the Emperor Ferdinand II, but to every appeal he turned a deaf ear.

[The Elector applies to the City for assistance, Nov., 1619.]

Failing in this quarter the Elector turned to the city of London. On the 26th November, 1619, he wrote from Nuremburg to the lord mayor, saying he was about to send the Baron Dohna to explain how matters stood in Bohemia, and desiring his lordship to lend a favourable ear to what the baron would tell him. [Remembrancia. v, 39 (Index, p. 411).] This letter the mayor forwarded to James, intimating that either himself or the Recorder would wait upon him when convenient. [Id. v, 58.] Time went on, and the king made no sign until in February of the next year (1620) secretary Calvert wrote to the mayor [Id. v, 60.] on the king's behalf to the effect that, his majesty having understood that a request had been made to the City for a loan, he could take no steps in the matter until he was fully satisfied of the justice of the cause; that at present he knew nothing and was "a mere straunger to the business."[^30] In the meantime, if the mayor desired to say anything more to his majesty, he might meet the king at Theobalds, or later on in London.

[^30: This was mere pretence on the part of James, for Lord Doncaster, who had been sent abroad in April (1619) to concert measures for a peaceful settlement, had returned at the opening of the year (1620), and James had for some weeks been busy investigating the Elector's title.—Nichols, "Progresses," iii, 584; Gardiner, "Hist. of England (1617-1623)," i, 308.]

[Formal application for a city loan of £100,000, 28 Feb., 1620.]

[The City agrees to advance the money.]

A fortnight passed, and then Baron Dohna wrote (28 Feb.) to the mayor making a formal application for a loan of £100,000 for the defence of the Palatinate, and expressing a hope for a speedy and favourable reply. [Remembrancia, v, 62 (Index, p. 412, where the sum required has been inadvertently printed as "£10,000").] The king was asked to back up the baron's request, but declined. [Nethersole to Carleton, 20 Feb.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1619-1623), p. 124.] A month later the city authorities again consulted the king as to his wishes. The reply given was characteristic of the caution displayed by James throughout: "I will neither command you nor entreat you," was the answer they got, "but if you do anything for my son-in-law I shall take it kindly." [Gardiner. "Hist. of England (1617-1623)," i, 316. Chamberlain to Carleton, 20 Mar., 1620.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1619-1623), p. 131.] The citizens were not in the least averse to advancing money for the cause of Bohemia, if only they could get some assurance from the king or council that they would not afterwards be blamed for it. [Nethersole to Carleton. 21 Mar.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1619-1623), p. 132.] Having got as much as ever they were likely to get by way of this assurance, they signified their assent to Dohna's request, and received in return a letter of thanks (25 Mar.) from Frederick himself. [Remembrancia, v, 65 (Index, p. 412).]

Precept was issued (29 March) by the mayor, not, as was usually the custom in similar cases, to the livery companies, but to the aldermen of each ward.[^31] Moreover, subscriptions to the loan were to be purely voluntary. Each alderman was especially directed not to "compell any wch are unwilling, nor refuse to accept the smaller summes of such as out of their loves doe offer the same." [Journal 31, fo. 167.]

[^31: It has been said that application was in the first instance made to the companies, but they declined to advance money on so slight a security as a verbal recommendation from the king.—Gardiner, "Hist. of England (1617-1623)," i, 316. There is no indication of this, however, in the City's Records.]

[State visit to St. Paul's, 26 March, 1620.]

On Sunday, the 26th March (1620), the king paid a State visit to St. Paul's, attended by the mayor and aldermen and the members of the civic companies in their best liveries. [Journal 31, fos. 157-158, 164, 164b; Repertory 34, fos. 377, 379; Nichols, "Progresses," iv, 593-602.] The object of the visit, which had given rise to much surmise—the Catholics believing that it was to hear a sermon in favour of the proposed Spanish match, whilst the Protestants hoped it was for the purpose of exhorting the people to contribute to the fund that was being raised for the king of Bohemia—was to hasten the subscriptions for rebuilding the cathedral church, [Nethersole to Carleton, 21 March.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1619-1623), p. 132.] which for sixty years had been in a more or less ruinous state, in spite of all efforts to restore it. On this occasion the king was presented with a sum of 1,000 marks and Prince Charles with half that amount. [Repertory 34, fo. 389.]

[James determined to assist the Elector.]

Towards the close of the year (1620) news reached England that a Spanish army had entered Bohemia and driven Frederick out of the country after a crushing defeat, and at last James was roused to action. A parliament was summoned to meet in January (1621) [Writ dated 6 Nov.—Journal 31, fo. 253.] in order to vote supplies for war. In the meantime he endeavoured to raise what he could by way of a voluntary gift from the nobility and wealthier class of his subjects, to whom circulars from the council were sent urging them to assist. [Cal. State Papers Dom. (1619-1623), p. 185.]

[Application to the City for assistance.]

The council also applied (31 Oct.) to the city of London, [Remembrancia, v, 89 (Index. pp. 412-413).] but more than a month elapsed before a reply was sent, [Sir Clement Edmonds to the lord mayor, 3 Dec., 1620, reminding him that the lords of the council were awaiting the City's reply.—Remembrancia, v, 92 (Index, p. 413).] and it was not until the 14th December that the mayor issued his precept to the livery companies to raise among themselves the several sums of money they had been accustomed to pay on former occasions, [Journal 31, fo. 262b.] such sums being in accordance with a corn assessment made in the mayoralty of Sir Thomas Middleton (1613-14). Several of the companies, and notably the Merchant Taylors (the largest contributors), objected to this mode of imposing assessment upon them according to the corn rate as working an injustice. The Court of Aldermen therefore agreed to again revise the corn rate. [Repertory 35, fos. 59, 59b.] A dispute also arose as to the amounts to be paid by the Apothecaries and the Grocers respectively, the former having recently severed themselves from the latter and become incorporated as a separate company. [Remembrancia, v, 102, 118 (Index, pp. 413, 414).] After all said and done the companies could not be prevailed upon to contribute more than £5,000, which sum was raised to 10,000 marks, or £6,666 13s. 4d., by contribution from the City's Chamber.[^32] We have it on record that the lords of the council never intended that any call should be made on the companies at this juncture, but that only the mayor and aldermen and those who had fined either for sheriff or alderman should contribute towards the defence of the Palatinate as they themselves had done. [Lords of the council to the mayor, etc., 4 Dec., 1620.—Remembrancia, v, 94 (Index, p. 413).] Nor would the companies have been called upon on this occasion (any more than they appear to have been called upon on the last) had the collection of money from the various parishes risen to the proportion required. It was only when a deficiency was discovered that the mayor and aldermen had resort to the expedient of raising £5,000 from the companies, each company paying rateably according to their usual rates for other assessments. [Petition of Apothecaries' Company to the king, Oct., 1621.—Remembrancia, v, 118 (Index, p. 414).]

[^32: Repertory 35, fo. 57b. On the 22nd Dec. Chamberlain wrote to Carleton to the effect that the City thought it hard that, though their loan of £100,000 was still retained without interest, and a contribution given to Bohemia, another large loan should be asked; that the City compromised it by giving £10,000, and would sell plate and dispense with feasts until it was paid.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1619-1623), p. 201.]

[The parliament of 1621.]

When parliament at length met (after several prorogations) on the 30th January (1621) James opened the session with a long speech, in which a request for supplies held a prominent place. The Commons, however, without showing any disposition to be captious, were in no hurry to grant war supplies until they were assured that there was to be a war. The king had therefore to be content with a grant of no more than two subsidies, or about £160,000. He had recently issued a proclamation (24 Dec., 1620) forbidding his subjects to speak on affairs of State. [Journal 31, fo. 264.] If the nation in general was to be thus bridled the Commons showed their determination, whilst criticising the king's administration, to vindicate at least their own right to liberty of speech.

[The citizens and the Spanish ambassador.]

There was also a class of Londoner not easily silenced. A royal proclamation had no terrors for the London apprentice; and when they recognised an old enemy in the person of the Spanish ambassador[^33] in the street, they were accustomed to give tongue and, if thwarted, to resort to blows. It happened one day that as Gondomar was being carried down Fenchurch Street, an apprentice standing idly with one or two of his fellows at his master's door cried out, "There goeth the devil in a dung-cart." This remark raised a laugh which so stung one of the ambassador's servants that he turned sharply on the offender. "Sir," said he, "you shall see Bridewell ere long for your mirth." "What," cried one of his fellows, "shall we go to Bridewell for such a dog as thou?" and forthwith brought him to the ground with a box on the ear. The ambassador laid a complaint before the mayor, who somewhat reluctantly sentenced the offending apprentices to be whipt at the cart's tail. That any of their number should be flogged for insulting a Spaniard, even though he were the Spanish king's ambassador, was intolerable to the minds of the apprentices of London, who were known for their staunchness to one another. The report spread like wildfire, and soon a body of nearly 300 apprentices had assembled at Temple Bar, where they rescued their comrades and beat the city marshals. Again Gondomar complained to the mayor, who, sympathising at heart with the delinquents, testily replied that it was not to the Spanish ambassador that he had to give an account of the government of the city. The matter having reached the king's ears at Theobalds, he suddenly appeared at the Guildhall and threatened to place a garrison in the city and to deprive the citizens of their charter if matters were not mended. His anger was with difficulty appeased by the Recorder, and he at last contented himself with privately admonishing the aldermen to see the young fellows punished. The end of the affair was tragical enough. The original sentence was carried out, with the result that one of the apprentices unhappily died.[^34]

[^33: The Spanish ambassador for the time being often fell foul of the Londoners. In 1612 his hat with a valuable jewel in it was snatched off his head amid the jeers of by-standers.—"Court and Times," i, 191, 192. In 1618 an attack was made on his house because one of his suite had ridden over a child and nearly killed it. A commission sat at the Guildhall to punish the offenders, but the mayor treated those who had offered the insult to the ambassador with such leniency that the king waxed wroth.—Id., ii, 81-82, 85, 86.]

[^34: Meddus to Mead, 6 April. [Dr. James Meddus was rector of St. Gabriel's, Fenchurch Street.] Mead to Stuteville, 9 April.—"Court and Times," ii, 245-249. Chamberlain to Carleton, 7 April.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1619-1623), p. 244.]

Such is the account of the disturbance as found in contemporary letters. From the City's records [Repertory 35, fos. 141b, 142.] we learn a few additional particulars. On Wednesday, the 4th April, a special Court of Aldermen sat, at which a letter from the lords of the council was read signifying the king's pleasure that David Sampson, an apprentice to a tailor, should be very sharply whipt through the city from Aldgate to Fleet Street by the common executioner for an insult offered the Spanish ambassador on the preceding Monday (2 April). A good guard was also to be appointed for the purpose, and instructions were given to the Recorder and some of the aldermen to discover if possible the rest of the offenders. The result of their efforts in this direction was the apprehension of Robert Michell, an apprentice to a haberdasher, and Richard Taylor, an apprentice to a bricklayer, the former of whom was accused of threatening to throw a loaf at the "choppes" of the ambassador's servant, and the latter with having actually discharged a brickbat with effect at one of his suite. Sampson's whipping, which ought to have taken place in the forenoon of Wednesday, was thereupon postponed until the afternoon, when all three offenders were punished together, in the presence of a good guard. On the following morning (5 April) another special Court of Aldermen sat at the mayor's own house, when it was ordered that Daniel Ray, a drayman, who had been convicted of holding up his hand at the Spanish ambassador as he passed through Gracechurch Street, grinning at him and calling him "Spanish dogge" just before Michell and Taylor committed their excesses, should also be whipt between eight and nine o'clock the next morning. In order to prevent a repetition of the disturbance which had occurred the previous day, the mayor issued his precept [Journal 31, fo. 303.](5 April) for a substantial double watch to be kept for twenty-four hours from nine o'clock in the evening of the 5th April. The inhabitants were further ordered to stand at their doors, halberd in hand, and ready for any emergency, whilst they were to see that their apprentices, children and servants behaved well towards all ambassadors and strangers as well as his majesty's subjects.

By this time news of the confusion and rescue attending the earlier punishment had reached the king's ears. Ray's whipping was put off. The Recorder informed the Court of Aldermen, specially summoned to the mayor's house on Friday afternoon (6 April), that the king purposed coming that day to the Guildhall in person between two and three o'clock, when the mayor and aldermen were commanded to attend, and until then the execution of Ray's punishment was not to be carried out. At the appointed hour James arrived with divers lords of the council. He is recorded [Repertory 35, fo. 142b.] as having made an excellent oration to the mayor and aldermen, "much reprovinge their misgovernment, and the ill carriage of the rude sorte of people, and the affront lately offered to justice in that rescue." He commanded them at their peril to see that no manner of affront occurred in the punishment of Daniel Ray, but that he should after his whipping be quietly conveyed to prison until his majesty's pleasure should be further known. Three days later (9 April) Ray, Sampson and Taylor (Michell appears to have been the one who succumbed to ill treatment) appeared before a special Court of Aldermen and, acknowledging their offences, asked pardon of God and the king. Thereupon the Recorder signified to them the king's remission of further punishment, and they were discharged out of prison. [Repertory 35, fos. 142b, 143.]

[Insult offered to the Elector and his wife.]

Whilst the Commons were chafing under the restriction which forbade them mentioning even the name of the Palatinate, an elderly individual named Floyd was imprisoned in the Fleet for displaying joy at the news of the battle of Prague. "Goodman Palsgrave and Goodwife Palsgrave," he had been heard to say, "were now turned out of doors." All sorts of punishment was suggested by members of the House, which after all had no jurisdiction in the matter whatever; and after a kind of three-cornered duel between the king, the Lords and Commons, Floyd was made to expiate his crime by riding from Fleet Bridge to the Standard in Cheapside, his face towards the horse's tail, and having a paper in his hat with the words, "For using ignominious and malicious words against the Prince and Princess Palatine, the king's only daughter and children." After standing there for two hours he was branded on his forehead with the letter K and conveyed to the Fleet. ["Court and Times," ii, 256; Gardiner, ii, 14.]

[The City asked to advance £20,000 on security of subsidy, March, 1621.]

The Commons having voted supplies, albeit small and inadequate for the king's wants, James lost no time in asking the citizens for an advance on the amount of subsidy due from them. On the 27th March (1621) the lord treasurer wrote very urgently on the matter. "I pray you," he added by way of postscript, "make noe stickinge hereatt; you shall bee sure to bee paid att the tyme named." [Remembrancia, v, 103 (Index, p. 413).] If the citizens could not advance the whole sum at short notice, they were asked to give credit for the rest to the merchant whom Baron Dohna should appoint for transferring the money to the Palatinate by bills of exchange. It was all to no purpose. The mayor and aldermen were tired of the repeated calls upon their purse, and returned answer by word of mouth of the Common Sergeant and the Remembrancer that the City hoped rather to receive part of the money already lent than to "runne in further." [Marginal note to the lord treasurer's letter.]

[Joy in the city at the return of Charles from Spain, Oct., 1623.]

The failure of negotiations for a Spanish match, and the return of Prince Charles after his romantic expedition in 1623 without bringing the Infanta with him, was a source of great satisfaction both to the City and the nation. The following story of the day serves to illustrate the feeling prevalent at the time relative to the Spanish match. The bishop of London had given orders to the clergy, pursuant to instructions he had himself received from James, not to "prejudicate the prince's journey by their prayers," but only to pray to God to bring him safely home again and no more. A clergyman, who must have been a bit of a wag (for it is difficult to explain his conduct otherwise), is said to have literally carried out his bishop's orders, and to have prayed publicly "That God would return our noble prince home again to us and no more."[^35] When it became known that the prince had arrived safely at Madrid, bonfires were lighted and bells rung; but the Londoners were but half-hearted in expressing their joy, and would probably have made no display had they not received orders from the lords of the council. [Chamberlain to Carleton, 5 April, 1623; Mead to Stuteville, 5 April, 1623.—"Court and Times," ii, 383-385.] It was otherwise when the prince returned—and without the Infanta. As soon as news reached the mayor that Charles had arrived at Guildford he issued his precept (6 Oct.) for bells to be rung and bonfires to be lighted, [Journal 32, fo. 222.] and right gladly were his orders carried out. "I have not heard of more demonstrations of public joy than were here and everywhere, from the highest to the lowest," wrote Chamberlain from London; [Chamberlain to Carleton, 11 Oct., 1623.—"Court and Times," ii, 422.] "such spreading of tables in the streets with all manner of provisions, setting out whole hogsheads of wine and butts of sack, but specially such numbers of bonfires, both here and all along as he [the prince] went, the marks whereof we found by the way two days afterwards, is almost incredible."

[^35: Mead to Stuteville, 29 March, 1623. The writer of this letter appears to have lost the point of the jest, and ascribes the circumstance to the pure simplicity of the clergyman, who mistook the nature of the order.—"Court and Times," ii, 381.]

[The parliament of 1624.]

The king's foreign policy having proved a total failure, there was no other course open for him but to summon a parliament. A parliament was accordingly summoned to meet in February of the next year (1624). The king and Commons soon found themselves in opposition, the former advocating a war in Germany for the defence of the Palatinate, the latter a war against Spain. At length a compromise was effected, the Commons agreeing to vote supplies on the understanding that James broke off all negotiations with Spain.

[The French alliance.]

Negotiations with Spain were thereupon broken off, but not before James had found another ally in France. Before parliament was prorogued (29 May) James had sounded Louis XIII as to a marriage between Charles and Henrietta Maria, the French king's sister. In April Count Mansfeld, a German adventurer who had offered his services to France, arrived in England and was hospitably entertained. The object of his visit was to see the extent of the preparations that were being made for war.

[Efforts made to raise money in the city, July, 1624.]

Strenuous efforts to raise money in the city were made. Chamberlain, writing to Carleton from London (1 July), tells his friend, "Here is great expedition used to raise money, and make ready payment; insomuch that since Monday sevennight, the council have sat thrice at Guildhall about the subsidies." The lord keeper, in his endeavours to persuade the citizens to loosen their purse-strings, went so far as to declare that anyone disguising his wealth was committing the sin against the Holy Ghost, and was as Ananias and Saphira! So great was the general decay, both in the city and the country, that there was some talk of putting in force the penal laws against recusants, notwithstanding the negotiations that were going on for a French marriage, in order to make up the expected deficit. ["Court and Times," ii, 463-464.] The civic authorities were again pressing the king for the repayment of the loan (£100,000) made in 1617. Time had wrought alterations in the condition of the lenders; some were dead and their widows and orphans were crying out for repayment; some were decayed and imprisoned, and others likely to undergo the same calamity if steps were not taken for their speedy relief. They complained that the city's seal, which had by his majesty's command been given as security to the tenders, suffered as never it had done before, and several suits had been commenced against the Chamber of London in the courts at Westminster, to which they knew not how to give satisfactory answer. They therefore prayed him to give order for such payment to be made to them as might give relief to the distressed and comfort to them all. The result was that the king directed (July, 1624) his two principal secretaries and the chancellor of the exchequer to devise means for satisfying the debt. [Remembrancia, vi, 125 (Index, pp. 195-196).]

[Mansfeld in London, Sept., 1624.]

In September Mansfield was again in England asking for men and money for the recovery of the Palatinate, in which he had been assured of the co-operation of France. This assurance, however, was only a verbal one, and nothing would induce Louis to reduce it to writing. James on his part was willing to make every concession, provided that the matrimonial alliance on which he had set his heart could be brought to a happy conclusion. But as these concessions involved broken pledges, he feared to face the Commons, and thus the parliament, which should have re-assembled this autumn, was further prorogued and never met again until James was no more.

[Stat. 21, Jas. I, c. 2 (1624), relative to concealed lands.]

It was to James's last parliament that the City was indebted for a statute, [An Act for the general quiet of the subjects against all pretences of concealment whatsoever.—Stat. 21, James I, c. 2.] which at length insured it quiet enjoyment of its lands free from that inquisitorial system which had prevailed since 1547, under pretext that it had concealed lands charged with superstitious uses which had not been redeemed. In 1618 a commission had been appointed to enquire as to the waste grounds of the city, on pretence of concealment; but upon representation being made by the mayor and aldermen that the City had long enjoyed the lands in question by ancient grant, proceedings had been stayed. [Remembrancia, iv, 126 (Index, p. 115).] Early in the following year (1619), however, the livery companies were called upon to make a composition to the attorney-general of £6,000 for arrears of superstitious charges claimed by the king. [Cal. State Papers Dom. (1619-1623), pp. 4-5.] On learning that this money was to be paid to John Murray, of the king's bed-chamber (whether to his own use or that of the king is not quite clear), [Cal. State Papers Dom. (1619-1623), p. 89; Remembrancia, v, 81 (Index, p. 116).] the mayor and aldermen petitioned the king for a grant of letters patent, securing both for the City and the companies quiet enjoyment of their possessions, lest in that "searching age" other defects might haply be found in their title, to be followed by further inconveniences. To this the king readily assented, and instructed the attorney-general to draw up letters patent embracing such matters as the City desired. [Remembrancia, v, 82 (Index, p. 116).] The letters patent were no sooner drawn up by Sir Henry Yelverton, the attorney-general, than he was charged with having introduced certain clauses[^36] "corruptly and without warrant." The new charter was ordered to be brought up. The whole matter formed a subject of investigation for three days in the Star Chamber; Yelverton was dismissed from office, and the City compelled to draw up a formal document disclaiming and cancelling the letters patent. [Repertory 34, fo. 593; Letter Book GG, fo. 282; Cal. State Papers Dom. (1619-1623), pp. 177, 189, 192.] At length, on the 23rd February, 1624, a bill was brought in for the "general quiet of the subjects against all pretences of concealment whatsoever," and read the first time; and on the 7th April the bill was passed. [Journal House of Commons, i, 672, 752, 757.]

[^36: The chief objections raised were that the new charter exempted the citizens from serving at musters outside the city, but it granted the City forfeitures for treason and estreated recognisances, the custody of Bethlem and a number of houses intended for the relief of the poor, etc.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1619-1623), p. 192.]

[The City to press 2,000 men for service in the Palatinate, Oct., 1624.]

The question how to supply Mansfield with men as well as money necessary for his undertaking in the absence of parliament was answered by making application to the Council of War. On the 29th October orders were issued for pressing 12,000 men for the service, and on the same day James himself wrote to the mayor for 2,000 men to be pressed in the city to assist in the recovery of the Palatinate. [Remembrancia, vi, 67.] Two days afterwards (31 Oct.) followed a letter from the lords of the council [Remembrancia, vi, 68; Journal 32, fo. 330.] directing the mayor to see that the men were of able bodies and years, but not taken out of the trained bands, which were to be left entire. They were to be ready by the end of November to march to Dover under such officers as the Privy Council might select. As the amount of conduct money, which was usually a half-penny per mile, would vary owing to the difference of localities where the men lived, it was thought best to allow them their ordinary pay of eightpence per day from the time they were handed over to the officers. The mayor was further directed to demand of the collectors of the subsidy sufficient money for the charge of coats, conduct, armour, etc. On the last day of November the lords of the council wrote again informing the lord mayor of the names of the officers appointed to conduct the men to Dover by the 24th December. He was to see that the men were delivered to the officers by roll indented, to be subscribed by himself or his deputy-lieutenants on the one part and the captains or officers on the other part. [Remembrancia, vi, 69.] The service was very unpopular; many deserted, and it was with difficulty that the rest could be got to the sea-coast. The city contingent was ordered to assemble at Leadenhall on the night of the 18th December or by the next morning at the latest, in order to set out on their march by Monday, the 20th. The full complement of men was to be made up and the bail of deserters estreated. [Journal 33, fo. 7.]

[Mansfeld's expedition.]

There was little to hope for from raw levies such as these were, transported into a hostile country under the leadership of a foreigner. "God speed them well whatsoever they do or wheresoever they go," wrote an eye-witness; [Chamberlain to Carleton, 9 Oct., 1624.—"Court and Times," ii, 476.] "but it is beyond my experience or reading to have such a body of English committed and commanded by a stranger, to say no more." On their way to Dover the men carried out a system of pillage as if already in an enemy's country; and as soon as they found their pay was not forthcoming they mutinied. [The same to the same, 8 Jan., 1625.—"Court and Times," ii, 490; Cal. State Papers Dom. (1623-1625), p. 441.] The promises of the French king proved fallacious and Mansfeld was forbidden to land his forces in France. This prohibition, however, was little to him, for he had already determined to act in direct opposition to the wishes of James and to carry his army to Flushing. Before he set sail from Dover, which he did on the 31st January (1625), it became necessary to recruit his rapidly diminishing forces by the issue of new press warrants. The City was called upon to furnish 1,000 men in addition to those already supplied.[^37] The mayor's precept on this occasion directed the alderman of each ward to seize in their beds or otherwise all able-bodied men, and especially "all tapsters, ostlers, chamberlains, vagrants, idle and suspected persons," and to convey them to Leadenhall or Bridewell. Those who had previously been pressed and had absconded were to be particularly sought for, whilst those who had in their charge two small children were to be spared. [Journal 33, fo. 23b.] At Flushing, where Mansfeld landed his forces (1 Feb.), the men were soon decimated by want of food, the inclemency of the season, and sickness, so that, at the time of James's death (27 March), out of a force of 12,000 men there were barely left 3,000 capable of carrying arms.

[^37: "There is a warrant for a new press here of 2,000 men, the moiety of the city and liberties, the other in the out-suburbs" (Letter to Rev. Joseph Mead, 28 Jan.).—"Court and Times," ii, 492. Letter from the lords of the council to the mayor, 19 Jan.—Remembrancia, viii, 69 (Index, p. 255).]

CHAPTER XXI.

[A city loan of £60,000 to King Charles, 1625.]

The commencement of the reign of Charles I, like his father's, was marked by a recurrence of the plague, which greatly affected the trade of the city. Matters were made worse by an application from the Lord High Treasurer for a loan of £60,000 to the king within a few weeks of Charles ascending the throne. He promised that the money, which was wanted for fitting out the fleet which the late king was busy preparing at the time of his death, should be repaid in six months. Interest would be allowed at the rate of eight per cent., and Charles would give mortgage security for repayment of this as well as of the sum of £100,000 borrowed by James. [Journal 33, fo. 85b.] After mature deliberation the Common Council agreed (16 April) to accede to the Lord Treasurer's request, and appointed two representatives of each ward to consult with the mayor and aldermen as to the mode of raising the amount, as well as to consider the nature of the security offered. On the 20th May the Common Council received the committee's report on the matter. [Id., fo. 105.] It recommended that the money should be borrowed and taken up by twenty aldermen and one hundred commoners nominated for the purpose; that five commoners should be allotted to each alderman, and that they should stand bound for the sum of £3,000. Any alderman or commoner refusing to be so joined was to be forced to lend £1,000 on his own account. The assurance of the king's lands was to be made in the names of such aldermen and commoners as the Court of Aldermen should appoint. A week later (27 May) the Court of Aldermen, in anticipation of the money being raised, ordered an advance to be made to the king out of the City's Chamber of the sum of £14,000. [Repertory 39, fo. 226b.] On the 2nd June the king's mortgage was executed; [Journal 37, fos. 367-390b.] and there being no longer any necessity for keeping the bonds entered into by various aldermen for the payment of interest due to contributors to the loan of £100,000, they were ordered to be cancelled. [Repertory 39, fo. 243b.] In November the lords of the council wrote to the City for an extension of time for the repayment of the £60,000. [Remembrancia, vi, 78 (Index, p. 194).]

[Arrival of Henrietta Maria in London, June, 1625.]

On the 1st May Charles was married by proxy at Paris to Henrietta Maria. When the news of the marriage treaty between England and France reached London in the previous November the citizens showed their joy by bonfires and fireworks. [Journal 33, fo. 6.] They forgot for a while the danger likely to arise from the heir to the throne allying himself in marriage with a Catholic princess. On her arrival in the Thames in June the citizens gave her a hearty welcome, whilst the fleet, which was about to set sail—few knew whither—fired such a salute as the queen had never heard before. [Journal 33, fo. 129; Meddus to Mead, 17 June, 1625.—"Court and Times of Charles I," i, 29.]

[The expedition to Cadiz, 1625.]

In the meantime (1 May) Charles had issued his warrant to the lord mayor for levying 1,000 men—"part of 10,000 to be raised by our dear father's gracious purpose, according to the advice of both his Houses of Parliament, in contemplation of the distress and necessity of our dear brother and sister." [Remembrancia (Index, p. 255); Chamberlain to Carleton, 14 May.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1624-1626).] He thought that if he could only gain a victory it would serve to draw a veil over his delinquencies. The City was to be assisted by the county of Middlesex in raising the men, [Remembrancia, viii, 74 (Index, p. 255).] and an allowance was made for "coat and conduct money" for the soldiers at the rate of eightpence apiece per day for their journey to Plymouth, the place where they were to embark (£400), and four shillings a coat (£200), the pay of a captain being four shillings a day. [Remembrancia, vi, 108 (Index, pp. 251-252).] The mayor's precept to the aldermen to raise the men enjoined them to search all inns, taverns, alehouses, "tabling-houses" and tobacco-houses, and to press, especially, all "tapsters, ostlers, chamberlains, vagrants, idle and suspected persons." [Journal 33, fo. 98b.] By August the condition of the troops at Plymouth was pitiable. No money was forthcoming for wages, and the soldiers were forced to forage for themselves in the neighbouring country. At last the fleet set sail (8 Oct., 1625). Its destination proved to be Cadiz, whither it was despatched in the hope of securing West Indian treasure on its way home. The expedition, however, turned out to be as complete a failure as that under Mansfeld in the previous year.

[The plague of 1625.]

The citizen soldiers returned to find their city almost deserted owing to the ravages of the plague. In July the sickness had been so great as to necessitate the adjournment of parliament to Oxford. [Journal 33, fo. 130b.] The colder weather, as winter approached, appears to have made but little difference. Dr. Donne, the Dean of St. Paul's, estimated that in November there died a thousand a day in the city of London and within the circuit of a mile. "The citizens fled away as out of a house on fire," he writes, [Dr. Donne to Sir Thomas Roe, 25 Nov., 1625.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1625-1626), p. 158.] they "stuffed their pockets with their best ware and threw themselves into the highways, and were not received so much as into barns, and perished so, some of them with more money about them than would have bought the village where they died." Donne himself removed to Chelsea, but the infection even there became so great that "it was no good manners to go to any other place," and Donne therefore did not go to court. As early as September the want and misery in the city was described as being the greatest that ever any man living knew: "No trading at all, the rich all gone, house-keepers and apprentices of manual trades begging in the streets, and that in such a lamentable manner as will make the strongest heart to yearn." [Mead to Stuteville, 10 Sept., 1625.—"Court and Times," i, 46.]

[The City called upon to furnish five ships for the defense of the river, Jan. 1626.]

The new year brought relief, and Sunday, the 29th Jan. (1626) was appointed a solemn day of thanksgiving to Almighty God for his mercy in "stayinge his hand." [Journal 33, fo. 168b.] The civic authorities, however, were scarcely rid of one trouble before they found others springing up. Towards the close of the last year a committee had been appointed by the Court of Aldermen to devise measures for relieving the City from the burden of supplying military arms and "other like services" such as they had recently been called upon to perform. [Repertory 40, fo. 38.] The committee had not been long appointed before the City was called upon to look to its stock of gunpowder, prepare the trained bands, [Journal 33, fos. 159, 162b.] and furnish the king with five ships towards protecting the river. This last demand was made on the ground that they had furnished vessels for the same purpose in the reign of Elizabeth.[^38] The Court of Aldermen objected. Times were changed since Elizabeth's day, the lords of the council were informed in reply; the galleys then furnished by the City were only wanted for a short time and when the country was threatened with an invasion; but even then considerable difficulty was experienced before the Common Council passed an Act for supplying the vessels. At the present time, when the City was in a far worse condition than then, there was little or no hope of a similar Act being passed.[^39]

[^38: Lords of the council to the mayor, 23 Jan., 1626.—Remembrancia, vi, 93 (Index, p. 248). The letter referred to a committee of three aldermen with instructions to obtain relief from so great a burden.—Repertory 40, fo. 78b.]

[^39: The mayor and aldermen to the lords of the council, 13 Feb., 1626.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1625-1626), p. 254; Cf. Remembrancia, vi, 95 (Index, pp. 248-9, where the date of the letter is given as "circa 1625").]

[The parliament of 1626.]

The disastrous expedition to Cadiz increased the necessity of summoning a new parliament, and on the 16th December the lord keeper was directed to issue the necessary writs. The enforcement of the recusancy laws, wrung from Charles by the last parliament, had in the meantime been carried out, and fresh proclamations were issued as the day for the meeting of parliament (6 Feb.) approached.[^40] As soon as the Commons assembled they chose Sir Heneage Finch, the city's Recorder, for their Speaker. [Mead to Stuteville, 18 Feb.—"Court and Times," i, 81.] The new parliament was not a whit more inclined to subject its ancient privileges to the control of the Crown than its predecessor had been. Buckingham himself, the king's bosom friend and most trusted adviser, was impeached; and the Commons declined to vote supplies until they had presented their grievances to the king and received his majesty's answer. This was more than Charles could stand. He summoned them to Whitehall and commanded them to cancel the condition. He would give them "liberty of counsel, not of control." To the urgent entreaty of the Peers that he would grant a short respite he replied, "Not a minute," and on the 15th June the parliament of 1626 was dissolved. ["Court and Times," i, 111-113.]

[^40: Journal 33, fo. 164. "Here be daily proclamations come forth; one strict enough against papists and recusants, if it may be duly executed; but it is thought to look forward to the parliament, which is to begin the 6th of February."—Chamberlain to Carleton, 19 Jan., 1626.—"Court and Times," i, 72.]

[A demand for a city loan of £100,000 not complied with, Jan., 1626.]

If the war was to go on it was necessary that money should be found with or without parliament. Application was made to the City by the lords of the council, at first verbally, afterwards by letter, for a loan of £100,000, and a deputation was ordered to wait upon the king at Greenwich on Sunday, the 25th June, with the City's answer. [Remembrancia, vi, 89 (Index, p. 195); Repertory 40, fos. 266b, 272.] The answer given was to the effect that the City was unable to advance the sum required, and it occasioned no little disappointment to the king, who referred the matter back to the mayor and aldermen once more. It was not that Charles had not offered sufficient security for the loan. The money could not be raised. At length it was agreed (30 June) at another special court that the aldermen themselves should advance the sum of £20,000 for one year on the security of the petty customs. [Repertory 40, fo. 278b. "London has lent the king £25,000 sic, scarce enough to buy a dozen points," wrote a contemporary. Cruse to Lady Carnsew (July?).—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1625-1626), p. 392.] In such haste was this trifling sum required, in order to guard the coast against a rumoured attack from Spain, that the mayor and aldermen were requested by the lords of the council to part with the money before the exchequer tallies could be made out. [Lords of the council to mayor and aldermen, 6 July.—Remembrancia, vi, 90 (Index, p. 195).]

[A demand for 4,000 men and 20 ships, July-Aug., 1626]

Not only was money wanted, but men and ships. A demand made on the 15th July by the lords of the council for the City to furnish 4,000 men for the defence of the Isle of Sheppey [Journal 33, fos. 267b seq.; Cal. State Papers Dom. (1625-1626), p. 376.] was quickly followed (4 Aug.) by another for twenty of the best ships in the river, to be fitted out and victualled in order that the war might be carried into the enemy's country. [Journal 33, fos. 279b seq.; Remembrancia, vi, 98 (Index, p. 249).] To the first demand "there was made a double demur, one because the letters came from some of the lords and not from the king; secondly, for that by charter they are for the defence of the city, and not to go further than the lord mayor goes, unless it be for guard of the king's person." [Mead to Stuteville, 24 July, 1626.—"Court and Times," i, 130.] To the second the mayor was instructed to reply to the following effect, viz.—that (1) the City was ready to share with the rest of his majesty's subjects in a matter which touched the state and defence of the whole kingdom; (2) that inasmuch as the City had been called upon in 1588, when the enemy was upon the coast, to furnish only ten ships, and that each of the twenty ships now demanded would, from its larger burden, cost treble the amount of the former ships, the citizens humbly desired to be relieved of so great a charge, in respect of the city's decay in trade and commerce, and its impoverishment by the late visitation and otherwise; (3) that the ships could not be furnished and victualled in the time named; (4) that the city merchants would be the more willing to adventure their lives and means against the enemy if they were allowed letters of mark. [Journal 33, fo. 280. Letter to Mead, 11 Aug.—"Court and Times," i, 136, 137.]

The Lords expressed the greatest dissatisfaction at this answer, and insisted upon the ships being forthcoming. It was in vain that the City offered to provide ten ships and two pinnaces; nothing less than the full number of vessels would suffice, and the City had eventually to give way. [Repertory 40, fo. 338b; Journal 33, fo. 280b, 282.]

[The sum of £18,000 to be raised for fitting out the vessels.]

In order to fit out the vessels the sum of £18,000 had to be raised. [Repertory 40, fos. 299b, 300b, 303b.] Much indignation was caused by this further tax on the purses of the citizens. Many stoutly refused to pay; and the constables whose duty it was to distrain in such cases manifested great reluctance to proceed to extremities. When they did make an effort to carry out their instructions the people rescued one another. The result was that the Chamber of the city had to make up a large deficiency.[^41]

[^41: "Court and Times," i, 148, 149, 150, 153, 154; Repertory 40, fos. 400b, 407b; Journal 34, fos. 3b, 16b, 41, 56. As much as £6,000 was paid out of the chamber in respect of the fleet of twenty ships in the months of January and February, 1627.—Repertory 41, fos. 90b, 92, 104b, 133b.]

[Unpopularity of the Duke of Buckingham.]

The Duke of Buckingham, the king's favourite, whose extravagant projects had ended in nothing but disaster, had rendered himself most unpopular, and one day in August his coach was stopped by a band of sailors, men who had served in the ill-fated expedition to Cadiz or in the ships which Buckingham had sent to assist the French king in suppressing the Huguenots of Rochelle—who clamoured for arrears of pay. The duke put them off with fair words, and so escaped with a whole skin; but for long afterwards the streets of the city, and even the confines of the royal palace, were infested with disaffected seamen, and special precautions had to be taken to prevent riot. [Journal 33, fos. 304, 319; Journal 34, fo. 27; Remembrancia, vi, 96, 97 (Index, p. 249). Pory to Mead, 17 Aug., 1626.—"Court and Times," i, 141.]

[The Forced Loan, 1626.]

Having failed to raise the necessary supplies by a free gift or benevolence of the nation, Charles betook himself to a forced loan. The sum to be raised was fixed at five subsidies. Commissioners were appointed in September, 1626, to summon before them all men rated in the subsidy books. At first the scheme was confined to the five counties nearest London. Opposition was met by imprisonment. The City for awhile was left untouched. It was unwise to try the temper of the citizens too much. It was found that the nearer the City the greater was the opposition shown to the commissioners; and the inhabitants of the Strand and the Savoy offered a more determined resistance than those of the parish of St. Margaret, Westminster, or St. Martin-in-the-Fields.[^42] On the 7th October a proclamation [Journal 33, fo. 318b.] appeared setting forth his majesty's "clear intention" in requiring the aid of his loving subjects by the loan. It was not to be made a precedent, and a parliament should be called as soon as convenient and as often as it should be necessary.

[^42: Letter to Mead, 6 Oct., 1626.—"Court and Times," i, 154. It was not until June, 1627, that pressure was brought to bear upon the citizens themselves to contribute. Beaulieu to Puckering, 20 June.—"Court and Times," i, 244.]

[The loan declared illegal.]

Just at a time when privy councillors were about to set out for the more distant counties to collect the subsidies the judges suddenly pronounced an unanimous opinion against the legality of the new loan. The report of their decision quickly spread, and increased the opposition of the country gentry, many of whom were content to suffer imprisonment rather than yield to the demands of the commissioners.

[Ten of the city's ships to be victualled for a descent on Spain, Nov., 1626.]

On the 10th November the committee appointed to take in hand the preparation of the citizens' fleet reported to the Common Council that the lords of the council had made a request that the City would provision ten out of the twenty ships for a further period of two or three months, in order that they might join two of his majesty's ships and fifteen Hollanders in a descent on the Spanish coast. The court, after due consideration, directed the committee to wait upon the lords and inform them that the City was prepared to spend £1,200 on further victualling, provided the ships were commanded by officers of the City's choosing, and were sent to sea alone "to be at their own liberties and directions without joining or being consorted with any others whatsoever." The City was, moreover, to be provided with letters of mark, and to be allowed to enjoy the benefit of all prizes. [Journal 34, 19b.] The result of the interview was reported to the Common Council on the 14th November, when it was clearly pointed out what the lords of the council were ready to concede and what not. [Id., fo. 20b.] After more haggling, [Id., fo. 21.] the ships were at length got ready and placed under the command of Captain John Pennington, a cousin of Alderman Isaac Pennington, of whom we shall hear more later on. Pennington had but a poor opinion of the fleet; the ships were badly manned and unfit for men-of-war; "with two of the king's ships he would undertake to beat the whole fleet about which so much noise had been raised." [Pennington to Buckingham, 28 Dec, 1626.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1625-1626), p. 507.]

[The City and the Forced Loan, 1627.]

In 1627 war broke out between England and France, and payment of the forced loan was more strictly exacted. On the 14th June the lords of the council wrote to the mayor reminding him of the king's urgent need of money. The greatest part of the kingdom had well expressed their affection and had sent in their moneys to the Exchequer. Because London had been found so slack their lordships had been commanded to call upon the lord mayor to send in forthwith the moneys already collected towards the loan, and to call for all moneys promised. [Remembrancia, vi, 105 (Index, p. 195).] Many of the citizens declined altogether to contribute, and fourteen were committed to prison. [Letter to Mead, 30 June, 1627.—"Court and Times," i, 249.] Writs of habeas corpus were obtained on their behalf—but not before November—and Counsel, of whom the Recorder was one, were appointed for their defence. They were eventually set at liberty without trial. [Beaulieu to Puckering, 7 Nov.; Letter to Mead, 16 Nov.—"Court and Times," i, 283, 285.]

[The expedition to Rochelle, 1627.]

Whilst a small force, to which the City contributed a contingent of 300 men,[^43] was sent to assist the King of Denmark, a fleet was despatched (27 June, 1627) to the Isle of Rhé, under the Duke of Buckingham, with the object of relieving Rochelle. The expedition failed in its purpose and Buckingham had soon to ask for reinforcements. In August the City was called upon by the king to furnish 100 men towards making up the losses sustained, for which the Chamberlain was authorised to disburse £50 in impress money. [Journal 34, fo. 143b; Repertory 41, fo. 311b.] In October Charles asked for 250 soldiers in addition to those already raised, and these were found without drawing upon the trained bands. [Journal 34, fo. 162b.] In spite of all efforts there was great delay in forwarding to Buckingham the reinforcements in which he stood in sore need, and in November he was forced to return home, baffled in his enterprise, and with a loss from war and disease of little less than 4,000 men. [Gardiner, "Hist. of England (1624-1628)," ii, 163.]

[^43: Remembrancia, vi, 101, 102, 103 (Index, p. 250); Journal 34, fos. 88, 90b; Repertory 41, fos. 189b, 219b; Cal. State Papers Dom. (1627-1628), p. 238; Letter to Mead, 30 March, 1627.—"Court and Times," i, 209.]

[The Royal Contract, 1627-1628.]

The time had now arrived for some arrangements to be made for discharging the king's debt to the City. [In April, 1627, when the king's proposal was first made known to the Common Council, the amount due to the citizens from Charles exceeded £200,000.—Journal 34, fo. 80b.] After protracted negotiations an agreement, known at the present day as the "royal contract," was drawn up and executed (3 Jan., 1628) whereby the citizens covenanted to advance the king a further sum of £120,000 by instalments of £60,000 at an interval of six months, whilst Charles, on the other hand, covenanted to convey to the City certain lands, tenements and hereditaments. [Journal 34, fos. 197b-201b.] The City at once set to work to raise the money required among the livery companies. The Merchant Taylors were called upon to contribute £6,300, the highest sum. The Grocers came next with £6,000, after which follow the Haberdashers (£4,800), the Drapers (£4,608), the Goldsmiths (£4,380), the Mercers (£3,720), the Fishmongers and Clothworkers (each £3,390) and the Vintners (£3,120). [Journal 34, fo. 196.] Certain members of the Vintners' Company having proved refractory, the master and wardens complained to the Court of Aldermen, who promptly committed the offenders to prison, thereby earning the approval of his majesty. [Remembrancia. vi, 144 (Index, p. 196); Cal. State Papers Dom. (1627-1628), p. 554.] In cases where the master and wardens of a company had shown neglect in gathering the company's quota they were themselves committed to Newgate. [This occurred to the master and wardens of the several companies of Plumbers, Sadlers, Founders, Joiners and Glaziers.—Repertory 42, fos. 58b, 60, 60b.]

The Court of Aldermen even committed one of their own body for refusing to contribute his quota.[^44] With difficulty the first instalment of £60,000 was raised, several of the companies being forced to part with their plate. [Mead to Stuteville, 12 Jan., 1628.—"Court and Times," i, 311.]

[^44: John Chamberlain, a member of the Drapers' Company and alderman of Billingsgate, was fined £300, or double the amount he was originally called upon to contribute.—Repertory 42, fo. 55b; Cf. Mead to Stuteville, 19 Jan., 1628.—"Court and Times," i, 314.]

[£20,000 advanced by the aldermen, Feb., 1628.]

In such a hurry was Charles for the money that the aldermen had to advance him £20,000 out of the £60,000 on their own personal security. This was in February. Discharged seamen were again clamouring for pay, and the Exchequer was empty. The aldermen came to his assistance, but, inasmuch as the lands and tenements had not yet been conveyed to the City according to the terms of the late agreement, the Court of Aldermen passed a formal resolution that no further advances should be made until "one or more books of the lands to be assured by the contract be passed under the great seale of England." [Repertory 42, fos. 100b-101, 104.]

[Buckingham and Dr. Lamb.]

Notwithstanding the growing unpopularity of Buckingham, the king absolutely refused to abandon his favourite, against whom all kinds of rumours were astir. Nothing was too bad to be believed of him, and popular fury spared neither him nor his friends. Dr. Lamb, an astrologer and quack doctor, was set upon in the city as being one of the latter, and was nearly done to death one night whilst returning home from supper. None would receive into his house the almost lifeless body of the necromancer—the duke's devil, as he was called—who supplied him with love potions wherewith to corrupt women. He was at last removed to one of the compters, where he died the following day. [Mead to Stuteville, 21 June.—"Court and Times," i, 364, 365.] Charles was highly incensed on hearing of the occurrence, more especially as some of the murderers had been heard to say that if Lamb's "master"—the duke himself—had been there they would have handled him worse and so minced his flesh that every one should have had a bit of him. He forthwith summoned the mayor and sheriffs to court and threatened to take away their charter if the murderers were not quickly discovered. [The same to the same, 29 June.—Id., 367, 368.] The lords of the council also wrote to the mayor (15 June) reprimanding him for not taking steps to repress the riot and ordering him to seize the principal actors and abettors and commit them to prison. [Remembrancia, vi, 150 (Index, p. 455); Letter printed by Rushworth (Hist. Coll., i, 618).] These were not so easily to be discovered, but the Court of Aldermen (17 June) committed to Newgate two of the City Marshal's men for neglecting to give notice of the disturbance to the mayor or sheriffs, or even to the alderman or deputy of the ward, as in duty bound. [Repertory 42, fo. 213b.] Others were taken on suspicion but were shortly afterwards set at liberty by order of the lords of the council (23 June). [Remembrancia, vi, 151 (Index, p. 455).] The matter eventually ended by the City being fined £1,000. [Journal 36, fos. 37, 50, 51, 173-175.] In the meantime libellous placards[^45] appeared stuck up in Coleman Street, and the Court of Aldermen committed a man to prison for no other reason than because he took one down to read and after reading it put it up again. That at least was the man's own story. [Repertory 42, fo. 217b.]

[^45: The placards are said to have run thus:—"Who rules the kingdom? The king. Who rules the king? The duke. Who rules the duke? The devil"—ending with threats of personal violence against the duke.—Mead to Stuteville, 29 June.—"Court and Times," i, 368.]

[Preparations for another expedition to Rochelle, 1628.]

[The Duke of Buckingham assassinated 23 Aug., 1628.]

Early in July the balance of the second instalment of £60,000 (part of the late loan of £120,000) was due from the City, but Charles could not wait so long. An expedition to Rochelle under the Earl of Denbigh had recently proved a failure. Determined not to give way, Charles sent orders to the earl to refit his squadron and remain in England until the whole available maritime force of the country could be got ready to accompany him. Money must be raised at once. Charles himself wrote to the mayor and aldermen (30 June) stating that a sudden and important occasion of the relief of Rochelle required present succours, and directing them to find immediately the sum of £20,000 out of the moneys due on the last purchase of the Crown lands. If they had not such a sum in hand they were to raise it on credit. [Remembrancia, vi, 153 (Index, p. 197).] This sum exactly represented the balance due from the City to the king, and precepts had already been issued to the livery companies for raising the amount. Another precept was sent out immediately on receipt of the king's letter, whilst other precepts were directed to levying the subsidies granted by parliament. [Journal 34, fos. 279-280b.] The fate of Rochelle was, in spite of every effort, soon to be sealed. The Duke of Buckingham fell by the hand of an assassin (23 Aug.) whilst engaged at Portsmouth in superintending preparations for its relief, and two months later (18 Oct.) the fortress was compelled to capitulate.

[Tonnange and Poundage, 1628.]

[Dissolution of parliament 10 March, 1629.]

In the meantime the question of the king's right to claim Tonnage and Poundage for life had given rise to so much opposition that Charles had occasion more than once to prorogue parliament. Merchants had refused to pay the dues, and their goods had been seized. Recourse was thereupon had to the Sheriffs' Court of the City, where the owners sued out a replevin as for property illegally distrained. Popular feeling was so much on the side of the merchants that when parliament met Charles publicly renounced all claim to tonnage and poundage as a right. Nevertheless the contest continued, and the feeling of both parties was embittered by mutual provocation and by proceedings taken in the Star Chamber against merchants for protecting their property from these exactions. At length matters reached such a crisis that Charles determined upon an adjournment; but no sooner was the king's intention divined than the Commons determined to put their grievances into writing and to cause them to be read by the Speaker, whom they forcibly detained in the chair. Sir John Finch having refused to accede to their request, resolutions condemning religious innovation, as well as the levying of tonnage and poundage, were hastily put and carried by acclamation, whilst Black Rod was vainly endeavouring to gain admission to the House with a message from the king. Before admittance was granted the House had voted its own adjournment. On the 10th March it was dissolved, [Proclamation, dated 2 March.—Journal 35, fo. 44b.] not to be summoned again until eleven years had passed away.

[Sickness and famine, 1629-1631.]

The years immediately succeeding the dissolution of Charles's third parliament, during which he was preparing a system of personal government destined eventually to work his own destruction, were years of sorrow and trouble to the citizens of London. A "pestilent sickness" again visited the city in the autumn of 1629—brought over from Holland or Rochelle—and remained until 1631. It was followed as usual by a great scarcity of provisions. The civic authorities did what they could to prevent the spread of infection and to alleviate the distress, but it was to little purpose. Riots were of frequent occurrence, necessitating the keeping a posse of constables quartered in the Mercers' chapel. [Journal 35, fos. 74, 112, 138, 270b.] Doggrel rhymes appeared in 1630 [Cal. State Papers Dom. (1629-1631), p. 387.] threatening the wealthier class with mischief if food were not forthcoming—

The corne is so dear
I dout mani will starve this yeare.
If you see not to this
Sum of you will speed amiss.
Our souls they are dear,
For our bodyes have sume ceare.
Before we arise
Less will safise.

[The birth of Prince Charles, afterwards Charles II, 29 May, 1630.]

In the midst of the general gloom one bright spot appeared, namely, the birth of an heir to the crown (29 May, 1630), an event which the king lost no time in communicating to the mayor and Common Council of the city—his "principal city and chamber." [Remembrancia, vii, 40 (Index, p. 419).] On the occasion of the christening of the infant prince the bells of the city churches were set ringing, [Journal 35, fo. 205.] and he was presented with a fair large standing cup of gold with cover, weighing nearly 300 ounces, and enclosed in a case of crimson velvet, the cost of the whole exceeding £1,000.[^46] Two years later, when the prince was carried into the city to witness the pageants on lord mayor's day, the Court of Aldermen were so gratified with this unexpected mark of royal favour that they forthwith voted the babe a gift of £500. [Repertory 47, fo. 1.]

[^46: The precise cost of the cup is given as £1,046 14s. 7d., and that of the velvet case as £6 13s. 4d. There were fees besides, paid by the City, comprising £20 to the queen's midwife, £20 to the prince's nurse, and a like sum to the prince's rockers!—Repertory 44, fos. 366-366b.]

[Loss of the queen's plate and jewels, 1631.]

The year following the birth of Prince Charles the queen was robbed of a great part of her plate and jewels. As the thieves were likely to dispose of their booty among the goldsmiths of the city, a precept was issued to the master and wardens of the Goldsmiths' Company to try and recover it. [Journal 35, fo. 349.] The goldsmiths had long ago begun to leave Goldsmiths' Row in Cheapside, and to set up shops in different parts of the city, and in 1623 they had been ordered to resume their old quarters, which in the meantime had been given up to poor petty trades. [Chamberlain to Carleton, 14 June, 1623.—"Court and Times of James I," ii, 404.] It was easier to trace lost property when all the goldsmiths were congregated together in one spot. This order, however, was so ineffectually carried out that another order was issued by the lords of the council ten years later directing all goldsmiths to find shops for themselves either in Cheapside or Lombard Street within the next six months, inasmuch as the practice of setting up their shops in obscure places in different parts of the city offered facilities for abuses, and more especially "in passing away of stolen plate." [Order of the Council, 12 Nov., 1634.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1634-1635), p. 288.]

[City gifts to king and queen, May-June, 1633.]

On the occasion of the king's departure for Scotland in May, 1633, the Court of Aldermen voted him a present of £2,000 "in two severall purses of velvett or sattin," as a pledge of the City's true loyalty, love and obedience to his majesty. [Repertory 47, fo. 226.] After he had gone the mayor and aldermen proceeded in State to Richmond to pay their respects to the queen and to offer her a bason and ewer of gold of the value of £800, with her arms engraved thereon. [Id., fos. 273b, 287, 302b.]

[Christening of the Duke of York, Nov., 1633.]

In the following November the Duke of York was christened, the ceremony being attended by the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, as well as the chief officers of the City. The infant prince was presented with a gilt cup and cover weighing sixty ounces, and containing the sum of £500 in gold. Similar fees were paid to the midwife, nurse and "rockers" to those paid on the occasion of the baptism of his elder brother. [Repertory 48, fo. 24.] During the absence of the mayor and aldermen at St. James', where the ceremony took place, a double watch was ordered to be kept in the city. [Journal 36, fo. 185b.]

[Demand for ship money, Oct., 1634.]

Five years had now elapsed since the dissolution of the last parliament, during which time the country had submitted to the personal government of Charles. Matters might have continued on the same footing for some time longer had not Charles conceived the idea of claiming the sovereignty of the seas as a pretext for raising a fleet. The difficulty then arose as to how to equip a fleet without summoning a parliament. It had been the custom ever since the time of the Plantagenets to call upon maritime towns to furnish ships ready manned for the defence of the realm at a time of threatened invasion. This custom had been rendered sufficiently elastic to comprise the port of London, and the City had frequently been called upon to furnish a contingent of vessels in time of war. Occasionally a protest may have been made against such demands, but they were seldom, if ever, altogether refused. On the 20th October, 1634, writs were issued calling upon the city of London and various port towns and places along the coast to furnish a certain number of ships of war, and to have them ready at Portsmouth by the 1st March, 1635. In many cases it was impossible to supply ships of the size required, and in these the king offered to supply ships of his own on condition that the port towns should equip and man them. London was called upon to supply seven ships varying in size from 300 to 900 tons, with an equipment of from 150 to 350 men.

[Search to be made for precedents, Nov., 1634.]

The Court of Aldermen appointed (13 Nov.) a committee to consider this writ to the City as well as another sent to the borough of Southwark, and to learn what had formerly been done in like case. The City's records were to be consulted with the view of ascertaining how far it was exempt from such charges, and the City's Solicitor was to attend them on that behalf. [Repertory 49, fo. 18.] The law officers had previously been directed (6 Nov.) to consult together on the matter, and the Town Clerk had received orders to translate the writs into English and make copies of the same. [Id., fo. 5b.]

[Petition of Common Council against demand for ships, 2 Dec., 1634.]

When the matter came before the Common Council that body, after serious consideration, decided (2 Dec.) to present a petition to his majesty setting forth that, by ancient privileges, grants and Acts of Parliament, which were ready to be produced, the City was exempt from any such obligation as that contained in the writ, and praying that the City's privileges might be upheld. [Journal 37, fos. 19-20; Rushworth, ii, 266.]

[The City forced to submit.]

The only effect of this petition was to cause another writ to be issued a week later (9 Dec.) enjoining specific performance of the former writ. [Journal 37, fo. 21.] Finding that there was no way of escape the mayor, Sir Robert Parkhurst, began to take the necessary steps for raising £30,000, the sum required from the different wards. [Id., fo. 18.] On Sunday, the 14th December, Robert Mason, who had recently been appointed Recorder in succession to Littleton, on the king's own recommendation (although the election is recorded as having been according to "antient custom and freedom of election"!), [The king to the mayor, 19 Oct.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1634-1635), p. 241; Repertory 48, fo. 464.] appeared before the lords of the council with an account of the progress made in the city in the matter of the ships, with which Charles was well pleased, and the Recorder was ordered to attend the council every Sunday afternoon with a similar account "untill the worke be perfected."[^47] On the 19th the Court of Aldermen appointed a committee to fit out the ships as required, but they were limited in expenditure to the sum of £30,000. [Repertory 49, fos. 50b seq.] On the 17th February, 1635, the committee reported to the court that his majesty had resolved that two of the City's ships should be assigned to the admiral and vice-admiral of the fleet, and that they should be fitted out by the care and oversight of officers of the navy. For this purpose the sum of £11,475, out of the £30,000 already voted, was ordered to be paid to the treasurer of the navy, whilst the committee proceeded with the business of the other five ships. [Repertory 49, fos. 97b, 106b. The names of these ships were The Samson, The Freeman, The Royal Exchange, The William and Thomas, and The Pleiades.]

[^47: Remembrancia, vii, 132 (Index, p. 467). According to Dr. Gardiner ("Hist. of England, 1628-1637," ii, 89), the mayor and the city lawyers were "reprimanded" and "intimidated" by the council, and a "stormy meeting" of the citizens took place, but nothing of this appears in the City's Records.]

[A fresh writ for ship money, 4 Aug., 1635.]

Hitherto all had promised well, but on the 4th August Charles thought fit to issue another writ calling upon the nation at large, and not only port and maritime towns, to furnish ship money, on the ground that as all were concerned in the mutual defence of one another, so all might contribute towards the defence of the realm. [Cal. State Papers Dom. (1634-1635), p. 531; Cf. Repertory 50, fo. 30.] The City found itself called upon to provide two more vessels of 800 tons apiece. [Repertory 49, fo. 289.] The authorities, however, were so slow in executing this further order that the Sheriffs were made to appear every Sunday before the lords of the council to report what progress was being made. [Minutes by Nicholas, 29 Nov., 1635; Cal. State Papers Dom. (1635), p. 509.]

[Richard Chambers and ship money, 1636.]

In June, 1636, Richard Chambers, a merchant, who had previously displayed a bold front against the king's demand of tonnage and poundage, for which the Star Chamber had condemned him to a term of imprisonment (1628-1629), again came to the fore, and carried the question of the king's right to levy ship money to the Court of King's Bench. The judges, however, refused to allow the question to be argued. "There was a rule of law and a rule of government"—said Justice Berkeley, scarce realising the true import of his words—"and many things which might not be done by the rule of law might be done by the rule of government." Chambers was again committed for contempt, but was afterwards liberated from prison upon payment of the £10 at which he had been assessed. He contented himself with bringing an action in the King's Bench against the mayor, who had made the assessment on the ground of some technical informality.[^48]

[^48: The mayor, etc., to the lords of the council, 13 July, 1638.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1637-1638), p. 563. Rossingham to Conway, 16 June, 1640.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1640), p. 307. Gardiner, "Hist. of England (1637-1649)," i, 69.]

[The City's forfeiture of its Irish estate, 1635-1638.]

Other matters had arisen lately—"great and important businesses"—all tending towards an estrangement of the City from the king. Early in 1635 the City had been condemned by the Court of Star Chamber to a fine of £70,000 and the loss of its Irish estate for having, as was alleged, broken the terms of the charter under which their Irish estate was held. One of the charges against the city and the companies was that they continued to employ the "mere Irish" on their estates instead of relegating them to the narrow limits reserved for them, there to perish of disease or starvation. [In September (1635) the city presented a petition to the king at Hampton Court against the exaction of the fine.—Remembrancia, vii, 155 (Index, pp. 63-64).] There were differences too touching the Royal Contract, differences as to the City's rights to estreated recognisances, as to pretended encroachments and other matters. It was felt that there would be no peace until some arrangement could be made with Charles on all the matters in question, and for this purpose a committee was appointed in May, 1636, to see what could be done. A schedule of "thinges desired by the cittie of London" was drawn up, and an offer was made to the king of the sum of £100,000, to be paid by annual instalments of £20,000, if he would make the concessions desired. [Journal 37, fo. 202; Remembrancia, vii, 181 (Index, p. 64).] The king's commissioners, who had the business in hand, refused the offer. They informed the committee that not only would the City have to surrender certain valuable fisheries and other privileges in Ireland, as well as the castle of Culmore, but it would have to provide an allowance of £5,000 to Sir Thomas Philips. Instead of £100,000 it would have moreover to pay £120,000. [Journal 37, fos. 257-258.] Negotiations continued for two years. Eventually a compromise was effected in June, 1638, and the city was fain to accept a pardon on surrendering its Irish estates and payment of the comparatively small sum of £12,000, [Id., fos. 288 seq., 296b, 307b, 345.] of which the queen happened at that time to stand in need. The patents of the Irish Society and of the companies were not however actually surrendered until 1639. [Journal 38, fos. 199b, 204; Repertory, 53, fo. 104.]

[Other grievances of the City.]

In the meantime Charles had given umbrage to the City in other matters, more especially in the measures he had taken for regulating trade and the institution of corporate monopolies. An order restricting the use of coaches and carts, and forbidding anyone to keep a carriage unless he was also prepared to keep four sufficient horses or geldings for the king's service, weighed heavily upon the mayor and aldermen of the city, who were for the most part men advanced in years and whose duties carried them a good deal abroad. They therefore petitioned the king for an exception to be made in their favour. The petition was granted, but only after long delay. [Remembrancia, vii, 171 (Index, p. 421); Journal 37, fo. 121.]

[Corporation of tradesmen, etc., created, 1636.]

The civic authorities were not better pleased with the king for his having (1636), in spite of all protest, created a new corporation which embraced all tradesmen and artificers in the city and suburbs, and thus threatened to be a formidable rival to the ancient corporation. [Remembrancia, vii, 178, 191 (Index, pp. 227-229); Journal 37, fo. 291; Journal 38, fo. 21b; Repertory 50, fos. 191b, 205b.]

[A third writ for ship money, Oct., 1636.]

In the midst of a growing feeling of dissatisfaction at the existing state of things, a third writ for ship money appeared (9 Oct., 1636). It raised such a storm of opposition in every quarter, however, that Charles once more appealed to the judges for a formal acknowledgment of his right. Their opinion proving favourable,[^49] the work went on and the City was called upon (Sept., 1637) to furnish two ships each of 700 tons. [Journal 38, fo. 17; Repertory 52, fos. 19b, 83b.]

[^49: It was laid down that when the good and safety of the kingdom in general were concerned, and the whole kingdom in danger, the king might by writ command all his subjects to furnish such ships as he should think fit.—Remembrancia, vii, 189 (Index, p. 468).]

In the following year, after Hampden's case had been decided, Charles continued to levy ship money, and the City was told to furnish a ship of 500 tons (5 Nov., 1638). The cost was estimated at £1,000. The usual precept was issued (26 Nov.) to the alderman of each ward for the purpose of ascertaining how best that sum could be raised. [Journal 38, fo. 174.] The returns must have been unfavourable, for on the 29th January (1639) the Court of Aldermen appointed a committee to wait upon the lord high admiral and explain to him that the City was not in a position to fit out another ship. [Repertory 53, fo. 81.] The money was eventually raised by the twelve principal livery companies, seven of which contributed £100 apiece and the other five £60. [Journal 38, fo. 224b.]

[Charter of Charles to the City, 18 Oct., 1638.]

In the meantime troubles had arisen in Scotland through Charles's ill-advised and bigoted attempt to impose upon his northern subjects a Book of Common Prayer. By midsummer (1638) he was preparing for war and would shortly be under the necessity of applying to the city for money and men. It was probably with this end in view that he granted (18 Oct., 1638) to the citizens an ample inspeximus charter, confirming to them their ancient privileges and franchises. Negotiations for a new charter had been going on since the preceding March [Journal 38, fo. 104.] (if not earlier), and it was only now conceded on payment of a sum of £12,000. [The money was raised (or at least £8,000 of it) by the companies according to their corn assessment.—Id., fo. 163.]

[Disorders in Scotland, 1639.]

At the opening of the new year (4 Jan., 1639) Charles applied by letter under his hand to the City for a liberal contribution and assistance towards putting down the disorders in Scotland, notifying at the same time the fact that he had called upon the peers of the realm to attend in person at York by the 1st April. The letter was read to the court of Common Council on the 12th February, but the matter seemed of so great importance that further consideration of it was adjourned to the 16th, when it was agreed to issue a precept to the alderman of each ward to take steps for raising a free and liberal contribution. [Remembrancia, viii, 216 (Index, p. 256); Journal 38, fos. 208b-209b, 215.] A month elapsed, and notwithstanding every effort of the aldermen, less than £5,000 was got together. The aldermen were directed to renew their efforts, but this only resulted in increasing the amount by £200 or £220. [Id., fos. 229, 297.] The whole amount was so small that it was contemptuously refused. At the beginning of April Charles found himself at York with an indifferent army, and with little prospect of being in a position to maintain even that army beyond a very limited period.

[Demand for a loan of £100,000, June, 1639.]

In June he caused another application to be made to the City. [The king to the mayor and aldermen, 4 June, 1639.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1639), p. 276.] On the 7th the lord mayor, who had been summoned to appear before the lords of the council, appeared with so few of his brother aldermen that he was ordered to go back and to return on the 10th with the whole court. When they at last made their appearance they were told that the king expected from them no less a sum than £100,000. The war was, if possible, more unpopular in the city than in the country. The memory of the recent confiscation of their Irish estates had not been obliterated from the minds of the citizens by the subsequent grant of a charter. The mayor and aldermen replied that it was impossible to find the money. The council told them that it must be done, one of the lords declaring that they ought to have sold their chains and gowns before making such a reply. They were ordered to appear once more on the 12th June with a final answer. [Gardiner, "Hist. of England (1637-1649)," i, 239, 240. No mention of this application for a loan appears in the City's Records.]

[The trained bands called out.]

A warrant had in the meantime been issued for raising 3000 men from the trained bands of the city for service in Scotland. [The king's warrant, dated 18 Feb., 1639.—Journal 38, fo. 217; Remembrancia, viii, 220 (Index, p. 538).] Although it does not appear that this demand was acceded to, [Journal 38, fo. 224.] seeing that the trained bands were a force especially intended for the defence of the city, greater activity was shown in making the city's troops as perfect in their drill as circumstances permitted. [Order in Council for the reformation of defects and abuses in the trained bands, 13 Feb., 1639.—Remembrancia, viii, 221 (Index, p. 538).] Boys from Christ's Hospital and Bridewell were taught to play the drum and fife, weapons were marked, and musters held in Goodman's Fields and elsewhere under the eye of Captain John Fisher, recently appointed muster-master.[^50]

[^50: Order in Council. His appointment by the king had been far from popular in the city, and considerable difficulty was experienced in finding his pay.—Remembrancia, viii, 210, 213, 222; Journal 38, fos. 212, 284; Journal 39, fo. 12b. Secretary Windebank to the mayor and aldermen, 10 March, 1636.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1635-1636), p. 286.]

[The City's free gift of £10,000, 31 July, 1639.]

That the citizens were not indisposed to assist the king, if left to themselves and not subjected to threats and intimidation, is shown by the fact that, in anticipation of the return of Charles from the North, the Common Council voted him (31 July, 1639) the sum of £10,000 as a free gift in consideration that the City had not contributed anything to his majesty on his setting out, as had been required, "albeit the counties and private personnes both nobles and others had done the same." [Journal 38, fo. 303.] Even this small sum could not be raised without resorting to sheriffs' fines, no less than sixteen individuals being mulcted for refusing to serve as sheriff in less than two months. [Id., fos. 301-302b.] It was no difficult task to find men unwilling to serve such a thankless office at so critical a time.

[The "short parliament," 1640.]

Before the close of the year (1639) the country was agreeably surprised at the news that it was the king's intention to summon a parliament. Parliament opened on the 13th April (1640). Few of its members could have served in the last parliament of eleven years before, but although so long a time had elapsed since the Commons had met, they had not forgotten their old constitutional claims to have the country's grievances redressed before proceeding to grant supplies. An offer to relinquish ship money proved insufficient, and after three weeks the "short parliament" was dissolved (5 May, 1640).

[Attempt to force a city loan of £100,000, April-May, 1640.]

For some days before parliament was dissolved every effort had been made by the king to get the mayor and aldermen to lend him £100,000. This being found impossible, the mayor, Henry Garway, or Garraway, was directed to make out a list of the wealthiest commoners. After several attempts to negotiate with the aldermen individually, they were summoned to appear in a body on Sunday, the 11th April. Charles himself then told them that his necessity at the time was so great that he must borrow £100,000 of the City; that he must not be denied; the money he must have at once, as it would benefit him more then than twenty subsidies granted by parliament afterwards. After the king had finished speaking the Lord Privy Seal [Henry Montague, Earl of Manchester, who had been the City's Recorder from 1603-1616.] addressed them, setting forth that a similar sum had been advanced by the City to King James; that he himself, being Recorder at the time, had lent £3,000 towards it, and that the money had been repaid with interest. The City, he continued, was rather beholden to his majesty for taking the money and repaying it with interest, than the king beholden to the City for lending it. He further instanced the case of the City having lent King Henry III a sum of £100,000 rather than allow that monarch to pledge his crown and jewels to the merchants of the Steelyard, and it was truly repaid. To this the aldermen were not permitted to make any reply, but were sent away to advise together how the sum should be raised. [Rossingham to Conway, 14th April, 1640.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1640), pp. 31-32.]

On Thursday, the 7th May, the mayor and aldermen were again summoned before the council, when they were told that, having failed to provide the sum previously asked for, they would now have to find £200,000. If the latter sum was not forthcoming the king threatened to "have £300,000 of the city." They were to come again on the following Sunday (10 May) and bring with them a list of the rich men of the wards.

[Four aldermen committed to prison, 1640.]

On the day appointed they came, but brought with them a petition to be excused making such a list as that required. The excuse was not allowed. Strafford is recorded as having lost his temper at the obstinacy of the aldermen. "Sir," said he, addressing the king, "you will never do good to these citizens of London till you have made examples of some of the aldermen," and recommended Charles, in his own "thorough" way, to hang a few of them. [Rushworth, State Trials, 586.] Charles did not take the advice offered. He would have made, however, the mayor resign his sword and collar then and there but for the intercession of the bystanders, and actually committed four of the aldermen to prison, viz., Nicholas Rainton, John Gayre, Thomas Soame and Thomas Atkins, for refusing to make a list of those inhabitants of their respective wards who were able to lend from £50 upwards. [Rossingham to Conway, 12 May, 1640.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1640), p. 155.] One of them, Alderman Soame, gave particular offence. "I was an honest man whilst I was a commoner," he told the king to his face, "and I would continue to be so now I am an alderman." The other aldermen professed their readiness to give in the names of the richer citizens, but objected to rate them according to their means.

[Impeachment of Sir Thomas Gardiner, Recorder, 1642.]

Both Garway and Sir Thomas Gardiner, the Recorder, favoured the king. The latter was particularly anxious that the City should lend the £100,000 originally requested, and did his best to get the money advanced. For his zeal on this occasion, and for "other high crimes and misdemeanours," he was afterwards (1642) impeached. [Howell, State Trials, iv, 167-170.]

[Riot at Lambeth, 11 May, 1640.]

The aldermen were not long kept in confinement. Even before their committal the city was in a ferment, and a placard had appeared posted up in the Exchange inviting all who were lovers of liberty to assemble in St. George's Fields in Southwark early on Monday morning (11 May). Archbishop Laud was a special object of hatred to the citizens, and against him the mob directed their attack. As soon as the trained bands, which kept order during the day, had retired for the evening, the rabble marched to Lambeth. Laud, however, had been warned in time, and had made good his escape across the river to Whitehall. The rioters finding themselves baulked of their prey retired with threats of returning to burn down the palace. For the next few days the city was under martial law. A double watch was kept in its streets. The companies looked to their store of powder and match. A strict guard was kept over servants and apprentices, and a warrant issued for raising 1,000 men of the trained bands, or as many more as the lord mayor should think necessary "to suppress, slay, kill, destroy and apprehend all such as should be tumultuously assembled in or about Southwark, Lambeth, Blackheath or elsewhere in parts adjacent." [Remembrancia, viii, 229 (Index, p. 458); Journal 29, fos. 84b, 85.]

[The aldermen released, 15 May, 1640.]

If the royal warrant was to be effectually and loyally carried out some concession to the citizens was necessary, and accordingly, on the same day (15 May) that the warrant appeared, the four aldermen were released.

[Collection of ship money in the city enforced, June, 1640.]

Pending the negotiations for a loan, payment of ship money had not been strictly enforced; but now that threats and entreaties had failed to open the purse-strings of the citizens Charles made a desperate effort to exact ship money. On the 9th June, 1640, the lord mayor and both the sheriffs were summoned to attend the council to give an account of the ship money due from the city. Why had it not been paid in? The mayor replied that he had sent his officers to collect, but few or none would pay. [The mayor had issued precepts to the aldermen for its collection on 28 Nov., 1639, and 3 Jan., 1640.—Journal 39, fos. 13, 24.] Upon the king telling him that he should have distrained, the mayor remarked that one of his predecessors in office, Sir Edward Bromfield, was still a defendant in a suit in the King's Bench brought against him by Richard Chambers for acting in that manner, and was likely to be cast. "No man," said Charles peremptorily, "shall suffer for obeying my commands." Thus encouraged the mayor himself made a house-to-house visit the next day, accompanied by the sheriffs, for the purpose of collecting the money. Throughout the whole city, however, only one man was found ready and willing to pay. When the mayor ordered the sheriffs to distrain they refused on the plea that it was the mayor's business, not theirs. Entering a draper's shop the mayor attempted to seize a piece of linen cloth; the owner set about measuring it, and naming the price told the mayor that if he persisted in taking it he should esteem it a purchase and put it to his lordship's account. [Rossingham to Viscount Conway, 16 June.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1640), pp. 306, 307.]

[Demand for a city force of 4,000 men for service in the North, 11 June, 1640.]

On the 11th June the Common Council took into consideration two letters—one from Charles, dated the 17th March, and another from the lords of the council, of the 31st May—asking for a city force of 4,000 men (but none to be taken out of the trained bands) for service in the north of England, and directing the mayor to see that coat and conduct money was at once raised for the purpose. [Journal 39, fo. 97.] The court declined to come to an immediate decision; but on the 15th the lord mayor issued his precept for the necessary funds to be levied on the wards. [Id., fo. 82b.]

[Application to the Common Council for a loan of £200,000 renewed, 23 July, 1640.]

On the 19th July news arrived from the North that the Scots were about to seize Newcastle—a very serious matter to the Londoners, as they would thereby be cut off from their supply of coal. Charles took advantage of this, writes Dr. Gardiner, ["Hist. of England (1637-1649)," i, 396.] and sent Lord Cottington and Sir Henry Vane to the Common Council—specially summoned to meet on the 23rd by the king's order [No minutes of a court having been held on that day are recorded in the City's Journal.]—to assure them that if the long-desired loan of £200,000 were granted the citizens would hear nothing more of the project recently promulgated of debasing the coinage, a project which, if carried out, would have worked great mischief to the London merchant and tradesman. "Leaving the Common Council to discuss the demand, the privy councillors amused themselves by strolling through the Cloth Exchange at Blackwell Hall. The owners of cloth gathered quickly round them. They hoped, they said, that they were not to be compelled to sell for copper goods for which sterling silver had been paid. After a debate of an hour and a half Cottington and Vane were re-admitted, to be informed that the Common Council had no power to dispose of the money of the citizens."

[Application to the livery companies for £120,000, Aug., 1640.]

Having failed once more in this direction, and driven to his wits' end for money, Charles applied to the livery companies for a loan of £120,000. They were told that the money was not required for the purpose of making war, but only to enable his majesty to make the more honourable peace, sword in hand. It would be used to pay off the soldiers and so prevent them pillaging the country after disbandment. Each company was assessed according to its wealth; but most of the principal companies pleaded inability to subscribe on the ground that the Londonderry plantation had "consumed their stocks." It was believed at the time that not a tenth part of the money would be raised. [Rossingham to Conway, 4 Aug., 1640.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1640), p. 554.]

[A last effort to obtain a city loan of £200,000, Sept., 1640.]

Six weeks or more elapsed. The king and nobles were at York holding a council. The City had been brought into a better humour by a confirmation of its rights (5 Sept.) to tolls known as "package" and "scavage," and a pardon for all past offences in daring to exact such tolls. [Charter (preserved at the Guildhall, Boxes 21 and 30).] The citizens were still better pleased with a promise of another parliament which Charles made in answer to a petition (24 Sept.), [Cal. State Papers Dom. (1640-1641), p. 94.] and with the prospect of a speedy conclusion of peace with Scotland. Under these circumstances one last effort was made to get them to advance the long-wished-for loan of £200,000. Not only did the king and the lords ride to the city, but the Earl of Manchester, the Lord Chamberlain, Viscount Campden, and other lords paid a personal visit to the Guildhall and used their utmost powers to persuade the citizens to advance the money. The money might be paid by two instalments of £50,000 and one instalment of £100,000 between October and December, and the Peers themselves would give security for repayment. [Journal 39, fos. 137, 137b; Remembrancia, viii, 233; Cal. State Papers Dom. (1640-1641), p. 101.] This time the application was more successful, thanks to a little high-handedness practised by the lords on the Common Council. "With all diligence becoming us we have gone upon the business wherewith your majesty and the Peers entrusted us," they wrote to the king (3 Oct.), giving him a long account of their visit to the city. [State Papers Dom., vol. cccclxix, No. 22 (Calendar, 1640-1641), pp. 133-134.] "On Friday morning (2 Oct.) we desired the lord mayor to call a Court of Aldermen at Guildhall, whither we all went, sat with them in council, and opened to them all our business, and read our letters, which satisfied them very much, yet they reserved themselves till they saw how it would take with the Commons. Then we all went to dinner with the lord mayor and there appointed to have a Common Council that afternoon, amongst which we mingled divers commoners that were not of the Common Council, such as we knew well affected and powerful in the city." We are not surprised to learn that this action on the part of the lords was strongly objected to as not being altogether regular. The lords insisted, however, and they were allowed to have their own way. "At three o'clock that afternoon," the letter goes on to say, "we met at Guildhall, sat with them in the Court of Common Council, and according to our instructions acquainted them with the proceedings of the Assembly of Peers, and used the best rhetoric, which was plain remonstrance of all the passages at York, not concealing the admirable grace and freeness shown by your majesty in this great council, to the infinite content of all the Peers, nor the true affection shown to you by the Peers." They first read the letter from the lords and then that from his majesty. They feared lest some words which his majesty had (falsely) been reported to have uttered on the occasion of the late petition from the City for a parliament might have an injurious effect, so they had explained this and other matters, and the Common Council appeared well satisfied. "We then withdrew, that they before they rose might more freely debate upon the way of raising the sum desired, for we persuaded ourselves it would not be denied." They were not disappointed. Before the council rose it resolved to make application to the livery companies, and a draft of a letter was prepared. A copy of this letter the lords forwarded to his majesty. In conclusion they assured the king of the great services done in the matter, more particularly by Garway, the out-going mayor, the Recorder, and the whole bench of aldermen, and suggested the advisability of sending them a letter of thanks. If the letter were addressed to the whole commonalty so much the better. This suggestion was carried out. [The king to the mayor, etc., 8 Oct.—Remembrancia, viii, 232 (Index, p. 256).] There was a difficulty about the security for repayment of the loan. It was at one time proposed that the queen's jewels to the value of £100,000 should be taken in pledge, but this suggestion was afterwards disavowed by the city. [Notes by Sec. Windebank, 7 and 9 Oct.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1640-1641), pp. 146, 151.]

[Edmund Wright elected mayor loco Garway, 29 Sept., 1640.]

On Michaelmas-day an election of a new mayor took place in succession to Garway. William Acton was the senior alderman below the chair, but he was set aside and Edmund Wright and Thomas Soame were returned by the Common Hall. The former was selected by the Court of Aldermen. This much and no more we learn from the City's own record of the election. [Journal 39, fo. 138b.] From other sources, however, it appears that the election was a very tumultuous one; that the wishes of Charles were consulted, and that Acton was elected and was afterwards discharged by parliament. [Windebank to the king, 6 Oct., 1640.—Clarendon State Papers, ii, 128. See also Notes by Windebank, 30 Sept.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1640-1641), p. 115.]

[The loan reduced to £50,000.]

The loss of an adherent in the mayor of London did not affect Charles so much as the immediate cutting down of the promised loan to the modest sum of £50,000, an event which followed, if it were not occasioned by, the election of Wright. The delay, moreover, in forwarding to the city the writs for the parliament had created a general impression that the promise of a parliament was a mere device to get money. [Vane to Windebank, 13 Oct.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1640-1641), p. 167.] The king determined to take no notice of the City's withdrawal from its original undertaking, but sent another letter "to quicken the business by reason of the straitness of time." [Windebank to the king, 14 Oct.—Clarendon State Papers, ii, 129-131. Notes by Windebank.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1640-1641), p. 170.]

[The Treaty of Ripon, 21 Oct., 1640.]

It only remained for Charles to make the best terms with the Scots that he could. Negotiations were accordingly opened at Ripon by commissioners appointed by both parties (2 Oct.), with the result that a cessation of arms, under certain conditions, was agreed to until a permanent treaty could be arranged in London (21 Oct.).

CHAPTER XXII.

[Meeting of the Long Parliament, 3 Nov., 1640.]

[Speaker Lenthall.]

Parliament—the Long Parliament—met as promised on the 3rd November, 1640. Charles had intended to nominate Sir Thomas Gardiner, the Recorder, a devoted adherent of the Crown, as Speaker of the Commons; but since the days of Heneage Finch the City had failed to return its Recorder to parliament.[^51] Charles was therefore obliged to look elsewhere. His choice fell upon William Lenthall, who was the first to realise the position of a Speaker in times of political controversy, and who throughout his career acted up to his famous dictum, that "he had neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak, save as the House was pleased to direct him."

[^51: Between 1631, the year of Finch's death, and 1635, when Gardiner was elected Recorder, there had been three other Recorders, viz., Edward Littleton, Robert Mason and Henry Calthorp, not one of whom sat in parliament for the city.]

[The City and the Earl of Strafford.]

As soon as parliament met, Strafford, who was only too conscious of his impending fate, determined to take the bull by the horns, and to use every means to induce the king to anticipate the blow by boldly accusing the parliamentary leaders of treasonable designs. His efforts were futile. Rightly or wrongly, it was generally believed that he intended to establish a military despotism in England, and that London was to be brought into subjection. The way in which it was all to be effected was even described by Cradock, one of the city members, in a speech he made to the House. It is certain that the citizens regarded him as a deadly foe. They had not forgotten the advice he gave to Charles respecting the aldermen, nor his attempt to ruin their trade by depreciation of the coinage. For weeks past the city had been in a disordered state. On the 22nd October, the mob having forced its way into the Court of High Commission, some of the offenders were brought before the mayor and aldermen sitting on a commission of Oyer and Terminer; but the grand jury refused to find a true bill. These abortive proceedings were followed by a riot at St. Paul's. [On the 3rd November the mayor issued his precept for steps to be taken to prevent further mischief.—Journal 39, fo. 143.] Before the House had been in session a fortnight Strafford was ordered into custody.

[Necessity of raising money, Nov., 1640.]

The £50,000 which the City had advanced went but a little way towards meeting the king's necessities. The two armies in the north had to be paid, and there was not the wherewithal to pay them. The City was ready to lend a further sum of £25,000, on condition that the Londonderry estate was restored, the garrison in the Tower removed and the ordnance dismounted from its walls. Unless this were done, said Cradock, "such jealousies would possess the city, it would hinder supply." [Gardiner, "Hist. of England (1637-1649)," ii, 22, 23.] Parliament agreed to the loan being repaid, as a first charge, out of the £100,000 ordered to be raised for the relief of the army and northern counties; [Journal House of Commons, 2 Dec., ii, 43; Repertory 55, fo. 21.] and the Common Council lost no time in preparing a petition to parliament for the restoration of the Irish lands. [7 Jan., 1641.—Journal 39, fo. 162.] Nor was it only in their corporate capacity that the citizens came forward to render pecuniary assistance to the government. On the 21st November Isaac Pennington, alderman of the ward of Bridge Without, and one of the city's representatives in parliament, announced to the House that his constituents had subscribed £21,000 to the loan.

[Alleged Popish plot, Nov., 1640.]

The general feeling of distrust that prevailed was heightened by an attack made upon a member of the House who, in his capacity of a justice of peace, had prepared a list of recusants, in pursuance of a recent proclamation. ["Proclamation ordering Popish recusants to repair to their homes, and not to come to court or within ten miles of London without special licence, 11 Nov., 1640.—Journal 39, fo. 147.] So great was the alarm among the Commons that Pennington offered the House a guard of three hundred citizens, and at first there was a disposition to accept the alderman's offer, but in course of time better counsel prevailed and the idea was abandoned.

[Impeachment of Archbishop Laud, Dec., 1640.]

The tendency of the city towards Puritanism at this time was very marked. On the 28th November Prynne and Burton entered London, and their entry was made one long triumphal procession. This circumstance was specially noted by the royalist writer Clarendon as a remarkable "instance of the unruly and mutinous spirit of the City of London," which he is pleased to term "the sink of all the ill humour of the Kingdom." ["Hist. of the Rebellion" (ed. 1839), pp. 85, 86.] A fortnight later (11 Dec.) a petition for church reform and the abolition of episcopacy "root and branch" was presented to parliament, signed by 15,000 Londoners. [Journal House of Commons, ii, 49.] The blow was aimed at Laud, who was looked upon as the cause of all the country's trouble. That day week (18 Dec.) the archbishop was impeached.

[The Scottish commissioners in the city.]

When the meetings held at Ripon between English and Scottish commissioners for the purpose of negotiating a treaty ceased (Oct. 1640), it was on the understanding that they were to be resumed in London. The Scottish commissioners accordingly came south, and were lodged in the city in a house adjacent to the church of St. Antholin, where they were visited by a large concourse of citizens and magnificently entertained. [Clarendon, "Hist. of the Rebellion," p. 81.] It was with no little satisfaction that the success of the Scots had been watched by the majority of the inhabitants of the city, and now that the northern commissioners were in their midst the citizens took the opportunity of showing them substantial marks of favour.

[City loan of £60,000, Jan., 1641.]

[Reprieve of Goodman, 22 Jan., 1641.]

[Excitement in the city.]

On the 12th January, 1641, the Scottish demands were formally submitted to parliament, but they were not taken into consideration until the 22nd. After much debate it was agreed in general terms that a "friendly assistance" should be given, leaving the amount and the manner of collection for future consideration. [Journal House of Commons, ii, 71.] In the meantime the Speaker, Lenthall, had written (15 Jan.) to the mayor directing him to summon a Common Hall for the purpose of raising a loan of £60,000 required for the army, and the Common Council had agreed (18 Jan.) that the amount should be collected from the wards. [Journal 39, fo. 167.] But before this could be accomplished an incident occurred which threatened to jeopardise the loan. This was the reprieve of John Goodman, a Roman Catholic priest, who had been condemned to death. The morning after parliament had agreed to raise money for the Scottish commissioners alderman Pennington rose in the House and declared that, in consequence of Goodman's reprieve and other suspicious circumstances, the City had resolved to lend nothing.[^52] The Lords as well as the Commons followed the initiative of the alderman and made a joint demand for the execution of the condemned priest. As he had often done before, Charles again threw over the Catholics. He announced his intention not to allow the increase of Popery or superstition in the country; he would forthwith issue a proclamation commanding Jesuits and priests to leave the kingdom within a month, and he was willing to submit the case of Goodman to the decision of both Houses. [Journal 39, fo. 167b.] Fortunately for Goodman, the City and the Commons had higher game to fly at in Strafford, and the humbler priest was allowed to remain unmolested in prison.

[^52: "These sessions a priest was condemned at Newgate whom the king reprieved, whereupon the city absolutely refused to send in their moneys. The issue of it will be that in a day or two the man will be hanged and we shall have our money." Uvedale to Bradley, 25 Jan., 1641.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1637-1649), p. 432.]

[Letters from Lenthall to the City touching the loan of £60,000, 6 and 19 Feb., 1641.]

On the 6th February the Speaker addressed a second letter to the mayor to the effect that the money was required sooner than it could be collected by way of subsidies, as formerly suggested to his lordship, and that consequently the House had directed him to take steps for having £60,000 raised by subscription and paid into the Chamber of London, to be at the disposal of parliament. [Journal 39, fo. 167.] The money not coming in so speedily as was desired, the Speaker wrote a third time (19 Feb.) to the mayor, directing him to summon a Common Hall and to lay before it the extreme urgency of affairs. [Id., fo. 180.] The chief cause of the delay in getting in the money was the dissatisfaction felt in the city at Strafford's trial being put off so long. The 17th February being at last fixed for his trial, there was some hope that the money would speedily now be forthcoming, ["I think now we shall proceed clearly and speedily for moneys." Uvedale to Bradley, 16 Feb., 1641.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1640-1641), p. 462.] and the same day the Commons commissioned Sir William Uvedale to go to the lord mayor and get an order for receiving the money that had been collected up to £50,000. [Journal House of Commons, ii, 88.] Three days later the Court of Aldermen made out the necessary order for the Chamberlain to pay over the money. [Repertory 55, fo. 86.]

[Trial and execution of Strafford, March-May, 1641.]

Again there was delay in bringing Strafford to trial, and it was not until the 22nd March that he was arraigned in Westminster Hall, where alone room could be found for the crowds that were anxious to witness the proceedings. The mayor took steps to prevent a rush of people to Westminster and to suppress any riot that might arise. From five o'clock in the morning until nine at night a double watch was kept at the city's gates and landing stages on the river. The trained bands were held in readiness, whilst servants and apprentices were ordered to keep indoors. [Journal 39, fo. 185b.] At the end of three weeks a Bill of Attainder was brought in and read a first time (10 April), and on the 21st April it was read a third time and passed. [Journal House of Commons, ii, 118, 125.] The Lords would willingly have let matters rest here, but the discovery of a design entertained by the queen of bringing the defeated English army from the north to Westminster to overawe the parliament, and likewise of an attempt made by Charles to get possession of the Tower that he might liberate Strafford by force, hurried the unfortunate earl's end. The citizens were determined not to rest until his head was off his shoulders, and 20,000 Londoners signed a petition addressed to both Houses (24 April) demanding his execution on the ground that he had advised the plundering of the city and putting it to fine and ransom. [Rushworth, iv, 233, 234.] The Peers deemed it advisable to give way. They passed the Bill of Attainder and on the 12th May Strafford was beheaded.

[The City stops the loan until justice is executed on Strafford, May, 1641.]

The Lords had another pressing reason for giving way, for until the citizens were assured that the full penalty of the law would be executed on Strafford they determined to stop payment of the loan. Writing to Matthew Bradley on the 3rd May, the treasurer of the army tells him "a strange story." "There is," he says, "money ready in the city, but none will be delivered until justice be done upon my lord of Strafford."[^53] On that very day, the letter continues, there had been a crowd of 10,000 well-to-do persons at Westminster—"citizens of very good account, some worth £30,000, some £40,000" demanding justice against Strafford and threatening to send their servants the next day unless justice were speedily executed. "Truly these unsettled times do much trouble me."

[^53: Uvedale to Bradley, 3 May.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1640-1641), p. 569. The day after Strafford's execution the Court of Aldermen intimated their readiness to pay over £80,000, part of £120,000 promised by the City, to Sir William Uvedale and the Earl of Warwick.—Repertory 55, fo. 136.]

[The "Protestation" accepted by the City, May, 1641.]

The discovery of the so-called "army plot" had in the meanwhile led to a preamble being drawn up to a document known as the "Protestation," or declaration in favour of the reformed religion, in which the danger from the army was for the first time clearly mentioned. The Protestation passed the Commons on the 3rd May, [Journal House of Commons, ii, 132.] and on the following day received the assent of the House of Lords. On the 11th May a printed copy of this document was introduced into the Court of Aldermen, when it received the willing assent not only of the aldermen present, but also of the Town Clerk and the City Remembrancer. [Repertory 55, fo. 133.] On the 29th it was accepted by the Common Council, and two days later the mayor issued his precept for a house-to-house visitation to be made in every ward for the purpose of getting all the inhabitants of the city to give in their adherence to it. [Journal 39, fo. 203b; Journal 40, fo. 2b.]

[Establishment of a poll tax for disbanding the armies, July, 1641.]

Although the execution of Strafford somewhat allayed the nation's fears of having "two armies brought into the bowels of the kingdom," they were soon revived by a second army plot. The armies thus became a constant source of danger as well as expense, and it was determined to disband them. Charles could not withhold his assent, and a poll tax was established for the purpose of raising the necessary funds. This was in July (1641). ["A proclamacon for the speedy payment of the moneys assessed by parlyament for disbanding the armies," 6 July, 1641.—Journal 39, fo. 213.] The masters and wardens of the livery companies were forthwith called upon to make a return in writing of the names of every person who had been and then was master and warden of each company; the names of all the livery, yeomanry and freemen of each company, noting in the margin of the return those who had ever been fined for alderman or sheriff, and the parish and ward in which each individual member of the company resided. Every alderman was likewise instructed to make a return of the names of his deputy and common councilmen of his ward; the names of every merchant-stranger that kept house there, every English merchant and factor, and every popish recusant; and finally the names of everyone in the ward above the age of sixteen years not otherwise rated. [Journal 39, fo. 216.]

[The "friendly assistance," July, 1641.]

On the 3rd February the House had come to a resolution that the sum of £300,000 might justly be appointed as a "friendly assistance and relief" for the Scots. The manner in which it was to be raised was left for further consideration. [Journal House of Commons, ii, 78.] It was now arranged that £80,000 of that sum should be at once paid over to them, and that on August the 25th they should cross the Tweed. The City was called upon to find £40,000—or one-half of the amount immediately required—by Wednesday, the 28th July.[^54] By order of the House of Commons (29 July) it was to be repaid with interest out of the poll money when levied. [Wiseman to Sir John Pennington, 29 July.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1641-1643), p. 62; Journal House of Commons, ii, 229.] So eager were the citizens to contribute towards the work of ridding the country of the Scottish forces before Charles should have an opportunity of using his powers of persuasion upon them that there was a difficulty in getting a sufficient number of tellers to receive it. ["The poll money comes in cheerfully and so fast in Guildhall that they want tellers to receive it" Smith to Pennington, 6 Aug.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1641-1643), p. 76.]

[^54: Journal 39, fo. 218. "The Scots are now put to a push, for the city within these two days, besides the poll money, have advanced £40,000 to send them away, and to disband both armies" (Wiseman to Pennington, 29 July, 1641). "This day London pays £40,000" (Bere to the same, 29 July).—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1641-1643), p. 62.]

[The queen mother in England.]

In addition to this heavy drain upon their resources, the citizens were called upon by the House of Commons (31 July) to forthwith pay the sum of £3,000 which they had undertaken to advance, upon the public faith of the House, towards "the furnishing of the queen-mother of France in her journey out of the kingdom." [Journal House of Commons, ii, 231.] Ever since October, 1638, Mary de Medicis had resided at St. James's Palace, and had caused no little discontent by her intermeddling in the affairs of the country and the favour she displayed towards Catholics. On her first arrival in London the citizens had accorded her a hearty welcome. [Repertory 52, fo. 293; Journal 38, fos. 164, 164b.] The acknowledgment that Charles subsequently made of his gratification at the City's action on this occasion was rendered somewhat ungracious by his requesting that a gift of the value of £1,000, "or thereabouts," should be made to the queen-mother in further demonstration of the City's love. After communicating with the Common Council the Court of Aldermen agreed to present her with a cup of the value of £800, "or thereabouts." [Repertory 53, fo. 3b; Journal 38, fo. 173.]

[The king sets out for Scotland, 10 Aug., 1641.]

Charles had determined to set out for Scotland on Monday, the 9th August, in spite of every effort to get him to postpone his journey. So great indeed was the fear of danger likely to be incurred if he carried out his intention at this juncture that the House of Commons determined to sit on Sunday to contrive measures for avoiding the threatened risk—a proceeding which they publicly declared they would never have adopted, "but upon inevitable necessity, the peace and safety both of Church and State being so deeply concerned." [Journal House of Commons, ii, 246.] In answer to a fresh appeal Charles consented to put off his journey for one day, and on Tuesday (10 Aug.)—the day on which the treaty with the Scots was finished and the queen-mother left England—he set out for Scotland.

[Adjournment of the Houses, 8 Sept.]

[A day of public thanksgiving, 7 Sept.]

On the 28th August, when all danger in the north appeared to have passed away and Charles had visited both armies without appealing to them for assistance, parliament decided to adjourn from the 8th September until the 20th October. The Commons were in need of rest after the excitement of the session, and the necessity for an adjournment was increased by another visitation of the plague, [Journal 39, fos. 202, 229.] which had already driven many members home without leave. The day preceding the adjournment was appointed to be kept as a day of thanksgiving for the peace; and, pursuant to an order of both Houses, the mayor issued his precept for shops to be closed and for the inhabitants of the city to attend divine service, after which bells were to be rung and bonfires lighted. [Journal 39, fo. 221b; Journal House of Commons, ii, 276.]

[Judgment of Star Chamber re the City's Irish estate reversed, 26 Aug., 1641.]

Before the Commons separated they delivered (26 Aug.) their judgment upon a petition [Journal 39, fos. 164-166b.] which the City had prepared for them in January touching its estate in Londonderry, of which it had been deprived in 1635 by sentence of the Court of Star Chamber. That petition set forth the unwillingness of the City to undertake the work of the Ulster plantation. It had only been undertaken at the late king's earnest desire, and subject to special articles, the City absolutely refusing to be bound by the general articles drawn up by his majesty for ordinary undertakers. The Irish Society and the companies had expended more than £130,000 (exclusive of money laid out by tenants) on their estate "in hope to have in the future enjoyed some benefitt of their great cost and charge." The city of Londonderry and the town of Coleraine had been rebuilt, and the castle of Culmore repaired and entrenched. Fifteen churches had been either built or repaired, besides a "very fair" church and free school which had been erected in Derry at a cost of more than £4,000. Roads had been made which had converted one of the most barbarous places in the kingdom into one of the most civilised. The society and the companies, the petition went on to say, had enjoyed this estate without interruption until Hilary Term a° 6 Charles I (1631), when the Attorney-General, Sir Robert Heath, exhibited an information against the mayor, commonalty and citizens of London and divers individuals, suggesting that they had possessed themselves of the said lands and taken the profits before any grant was made to them, and that they had a greater quantity of lands than was intended to be passed by the grant, and had by indirect means procured divers privileges to be inserted in the grant for which the Attorney General who passed the grant had no warrant. Evidence of witnesses had been taken on the matter, but before the cause came to a hearing this information was dropt and another exhibited in Hilary Term a° 8 Charles I (1633) against the petitioners and the Irish Society, in which new charges touching infringement of conditions of Letters Patent were inserted, and upon these pretences the Irish Society was adjudged by sentence of the Court of Star Chamber in Hilary Term a° 10 Charles I (1635) to pay a fine of £70,000 and to lose their estate on the ground that the said Letters Patent had been "unduly and surreptitiously obteyned to the prejudice and deceipt of his majestie." The companies refused to surrender their estates, and divers lands belonging to the City and to the Bridgehouse were seized to satisfy the fine, to the great prejudice of the City. Being otherwise unable to redeem themselves from the penalty of the Star Chamber sentence, the companies were forced to consent to relinquish their Irish estate and all arrears of rent, amounting to £20,000. A scire facias was brought in and judgment allowed by default, whereupon the companies lost their estates, whilst the mayor and commonalty and citizens of London, although not parties to any patent or plantation—having done no more than lend their name for the better transaction of the business and for the purpose of raising money for the plantation, which otherwise could never have been effected—were fined £70,000. Seeing that the matter reflected so badly upon the justice of the late as well as the present king, the petitioners humbly prayed that a full investigation of the whole proceedings might be made and justice done.

Such was the nature of the petition which the Common Council ordered in January (1641) to be submitted to parliament. The House had its hands too full to pay much attention to the City's grievance until recently; but now, within a fortnight of their adjournment for a well-earned rest, the Commons declared [26 Aug.—Journal 40, fo. 6b; Journal House of Commons, ii, 272.] the sentence in the Star Chamber to have been unlawful and unjust. They declared that, in the opinion of the House, the citizens of London had been solicited and pressed to undertake the plantation of Londonderry, that the king had not been deceived in the grant to the new corporation of the Irish Society, that no breach of covenant (if any there were) had been committed sufficient to cause a forfeiture of the lands, that the Star Chamber proceedings were ultra vires, and that the citizens of London and all those against whom judgment had been given in the scire facias should be discharged of that judgment and reinstated as they were before the sentence in the Star Chamber.

[Disbanded soldiers in the city, Sept.-Oct., 1641.]

Before the Houses again met, Richard Gurney, a man of the same royalist proclivity as Garway, and on that account, perhaps, described by Clarendon as "a man of wisdom and courage," had been elected mayor in succession to Edmund Wright. [Journal 39, fo. 236.] The last days of Wright's mayoralty were days of sickness and tumult in the city. Numbers of disbanded soldiers from the north had made their way to London, where they carried on a system of rapine and outrage. The mayor issued precepts for search to be made in every ward for suspected persons and disbanded soldiers, as well as for keeping the streets well lighted at night by candle and lanthorn, whilst public proclamation was made by the king for soldiers to repair to their own homes.[^55]

[^55: Journal 39, fos. 237b, 238. Return of the mayor to the council touching the steps he had taken for ridding the city of loose and disorderly persons, sending home disbanded soldiers, and shutting up infected houses. 20 Oct.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1641-1643), p. 141.]

[The Irish rebellion of 1641.]

Shortly after the House of Commons had resumed its session attention was again drawn towards Ireland, where a rebellion had broken out. Seeing how successful Scotland had been in its resistance to England, the Irish had determined to strike a blow for the recovery of lands handed over to Protestant colonists, as well as for religious liberty. Charles himself had held out hopes of greater freedom to the Irish Catholics, who saw no reason why they should be worse treated than the rebellious Puritans of Scotland. The scene of massacre and cruelty which followed has been described by others, and remains to this day (in the words of Carlyle) "a huge blot, an indiscriminate blackness, one which the human memory cannot willingly charge itself with."

[The City asked for a loan of £50,000, 2 Nov., 1641.]

As soon as news of the outbreak reached parliament, application was forthwith made to the City for assistance. On the 3rd November lord mayor Gurney issued his precept [Journal 39, 240.] to the aldermen informing them that on the previous day divers lords and others of both Houses of Parliament had come to the Common Council and asked for a loan of £50,000 at eight per cent. Seeing that the matter was of so great importance, each alderman was desired to take steps in conjunction with his deputy and common councilmen of his ward to get liberal contributions made towards the loan. [Before the end of December nearly the whole amount had been paid to the order of the Commons.—Journal 39, fo. 262; Repertory 55, fos. 223, 230b, 231b, 333, 351, 351b.]

[The City declares against the Catholic lords and the bishops, 12 Nov., 1641.]

The attitude of the City now became more marked. Whilst consenting to find the money required, it asked parliament that the persons of the Catholic lords might be secured, and that the bishops, who were the cause of every good measure being defeated in the Upper House, might be deprived of their votes. It had a minor grievance in the custom that had arisen of members of both Houses granting their servants "protections" against creditors, a procedure extremely prejudicial to the city merchant and tradesman, and one which they would willingly see remedied. [Journal House of Commons, ii, 314. As regards protections, the Common Council had drafted a petition to the House in the preceding May.—Journal 40, fo. 3.]

[Charles entertained in the city, 25 Nov., 1641.]

The City's declaration against the bishops, which Dr. Gardiner ["Hist. of England (1637-1649)," ii, 316.] characterises as being "the turning point in the struggle," augured badly for Charles. Nevertheless, he had friends in the city. The new mayor was a strong royalist, as also were the majority of the aldermen, and they took the opportunity of Charles paying his first visit to the city (25 Nov.) since he ascended the throne to demonstrate their loyalty. On the 17th the Court of Aldermen appointed a committee to make the necessary arrangements, [Repertory 55, fo. 227.] whilst the mayor issued his precept the same day to the civic companies to prepare a certain number of their livery, well horsed and apparelled, to assist him in escorting the king and queen from the church of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, to the Guildhall on the morning of the eventful day, and thence, after the banquet, to Whitehall. [Journal 39, fo. 243b.] The Common Council agreed that the cost of the entertainment at the Guildhall should be defrayed by the Chamber.[^56]

[^56: Journal 40, fo. 8. "Preparations for the king's reception. He is to dine at Guildhall and be escorted thence by the city companies to Whitehall. I am glad we are thus dutiful; it makes the sectaries look about them, and the consideration of his majesty having the love of the able citizens will certainly conduce much to settle his affairs" Wiseman to Sir John Pennington, 18 Nov.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1641-1643), p. 168.]

[The Recorder's speech, 25 Nov.]

On the king's approaching the northern suburbs of the city, whither the mayor and citizens had gone to meet him, [Journal 39, fo. 245b.] he was welcomed by the Recorder. There was some talk of presenting the king with a gift either of money or plate,[^57] but the proposal fell through. "We tender to you," said Sir Thomas Gardiner, "no formal present; it would but lessen us; I am sure whatever it were it would be far short of our meaning."

[^57: "This day the city is busy receiving his majesty; all is very stately and well, but that I am told the present which was spoken of is wanting" Bere to John Pennington, 25 Nov.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1641-1643), p. 178. Again, "They say a great present is to be presented to the king after dinner" Slingsby to the same, 25 Nov.—Ibid., p. 180.]

[The king's reply.]

It was of the utmost importance to Charles to win over the city to his side if he could—"The loans of the London citizens alone had made it possible for the House of Commons to disband the armies; and without the loans of the London citizens the House would find it impossible to provide for a campaign in Ireland," and thus place itself in a position of military supremacy. [Gardiner, "Hist. of England (1637-1649)," ii, 329.] Accordingly, in a speech carefully prepared beforehand,[^58] he expressed his gratification at finding that the better class of citizens were still loyal. "I see," said he, "that all those former tumults and disorders have only risen from the meaner sort of people, and that the affections of the better and main part of the city have ever been loyal and affectionate to my person and government." He proceeded to assure his hearers of his determination to maintain the true Protestant religion as established by Elizabeth and James, and he hoped with the assistance of parliament to re-establish the trade of the country. But what pleased the citizens perhaps more than anything was a promise he made to restore to them their Londonderry estate—at that moment in the hands of the rebels, but soon, he hoped, to be recovered. The Recorder was expressly commanded to wait upon his majesty and see that this promise was punctually performed. [Journal 40, fos. 9, 9b.]

[^58: "Recommendations submitted to Nicholas suggesting the substance of a speech to be delivered by the king on his public reception in the city of London on his return from Scotland."—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1641-1643), p. 177.]

[Honours for the Mayor, Sheriffs and five aldermen.]

By way of further showing his favour Charles knighted both the Mayor and Recorder on the spot. He afterwards expressed his gratification at the reception that the City had accorded him, [The Recorder signified the fact to the Common Council on the 30 Nov.—Journal 40, fo. 9.] and conferred knighthoods upon both of the sheriffs and five of the aldermen.[^59]

[^59: Maitland (i, 345, 346) gives their names:—Cordell (Queenhithe), Soame (Cheap), Gayer (Aldgate), Gerrard (Candlewick), and Wollaston (Farringdon Without). Both the sheriffs happened to be aldermen, viz., George Garrett of Castle Baynard and George Clarke of Bridge Ward.]

[Measures prepared for restoration of Irish estate, 30 Nov., 1641.]

The Common Council took Charles at his word and lost no time in appointing a committee for the purpose of introducing a Bill in parliament for the recovery of the city's Irish estate. The Recorder had pointed out (20 Nov.) to the court that the "corporation" (i.e. the Irish society) had been dissolved, and it behoved them to consider in whose names the Irish estate should be vested, whether in the name of the mayor and commonalty of London or a "select company."

[A London mob at Westminster, Nov., 1641.]

The disaffected element in the city, which had voluntarily kept itself in the background, or had been suppressed by force on the day of the king's visit, again came to the surface as soon as the duties of hospitality had been executed. Once more a crowd gathered (29 Nov.) at Westminster, shouting "No bishops!" encouraged (it was said) by John Venn, a merchant taylor, who had succeeded Cradock, on the latter's decease, as one of the city's representatives in parliament. On the 10th December the mayor, acting under orders from the king, issued his precept to the aldermen to see that apprentices and servants were kept within doors and not allowed to go abroad to make tumult and hold unlawful meetings. [Journal 39, fo. 253b.]

[The character of the mob.]

A difference of opinion existed as to the representative character of those who had thus threatened parliament. "You much mistake," wrote Thomas Wiseman to Sir John Pennington ten days after the riot had taken place, "if you think those seditious meetings of sectaries and others ill affected, who have lately been at the parliament-house to cry for justice against the delinquent bishops, are the representative body of the city—they are not, but the representative body is the lord mayor, aldermen and Common Council, who gave the entertainment to the king and will stick to him and live and die in his service." [Wiseman to Pennington, 9 Dec.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1641-1643), p. 192.]

[Petition to the House, 11 Dec., 1641.]

In order to dispel all doubts as to the respectability of the agitators they determined to present a formal petition to parliament for the removal of the bishops, and to do the thing in style. "Accoutred in the best manner they could," they rode to Westminster in coaches, "to prevent the aspersion that they were of the basest sort of people only which were that way affected." [Slingsby to Pennington, 16 Dec., 1641.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1641-1643), p. 202.] They declared that the petition was signed by over 20,000 well-to-do citizens, including aldermen and members of the Common Council, and that many more signatures might have been obtained but for the obstruction of divers "ill-affected persons." [Maitland, i, 349-350.] When the Commons came to inquire (20 Dec.) who these ill-affected persons were, it was found that the Mayor and the Recorder were the chief. The former was declared to have said that the petition had found favour only with ignorant or idle people, who did not realise the danger they were in, and that the petition "tended to mutiny." On hearing that part of the petition which stated that it was the wish of the "representative body" of the city to have the bishops removed, the Recorder lost all control over himself, and swore it was a lie. The petition, he said, tended to sedition, and to set men together by the ears. So far from tending to peace it was, he declared, "for blood and cutting of throats; and if it came to cutting of throats, thank yourselves; and your blood be upon your own heads." [Journal House of Commons, ii, 350.]

[The new Common Council, 21 Oct., 1641.]

The following day was the Feast of St. Thomas (21 Dec.), the day on which the members of the Common Council go out of office and present themselves to their constituents for re-election. The result of the elections turned out to be largely in favour of the Puritan opposition. The new Common Council, like the House of Commons, would support "King Pym" and his policy; whilst the more aristocratic Court of Aldermen would side with Charles and the House of Lords. [The returns of elections to the Common Council are not entered on the City's Records. Considerable irregularities appear to have been practised at this election.—Journal 40, fos. 21-22b.] It cannot be doubted that the new council was more truly representative of the inhabitants of the city, and better able to give expression to their wishes than the last. There was only wanting a popular lord mayor. He was to come.

[Fresh riot at Westminster, 27 Dec., 1641.]

[The trained bands called out, 28 Dec.]

The tardy and unsatisfactory reply Charles gave to the remonstrance—the "Grand Remonstrance of the state of the Church and Kingdom" presented to him at Hampton Court on the 1st December—and his appointment of Colonel Lunsford, a debauched ruffian, as lieutenant of the Tower, in place of Balfour, who was a favourite with the city, increased the exasperation against him, and the mayor was obliged to inform him (26 Dec.) that unless Lunsford was removed he could not answer for the peace of the city. This representation by Gurney had the desired effect, and Lunsford was removed that night. [Bere to Pennington, 30 Dec., 1641.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1641-1643), p. 216.] Before his removal became generally known another riot broke out at Westminster (27 Dec.) between London apprentices and some officers of the late army, among whom was Lunsford himself. The officers drew their swords and drove the close-cropt apprentices, or "roundheads" as they were jeeringly called, out of Westminster, chasing them up King Street as far as Whitehall. Several of the rioters were hurt, but none killed. For some days the excitement was so great that everyone attending the court at Whitehall wore a sword; and 500 gentlemen of the Inns of Court offered their services to the king. [Slingsby to Pennington, 30 Dec.—Ibid., p. 217.] On the 28th December Charles directed the mayor to call out the trained bands, and to command their officers, "by shooting with bullets or otherwise," to slay and kill such as should persist in tumultuary and seditious ways and disorders. [This appears in a marginal note by Nicolas to a letter from the king to the mayor, 28 Dec.—Ibid., p. 214.] The Peers were inclined to throw the blame of the disturbance upon the civic authorities, but Pym and the House of Commons refused "to discontent the citizens of London, our surest friends," at such a critical time. [D'Ewes's Diary, Harl. MS, clxii, fo. 287b, cited by Dr. Gardiner, "Hist. of England (1637-1649)," ii, 371.] Charles himself took the same view, and sent a letter to the City by the hand of Lord Newburgh, in which he expressed his continued confidence in the loyalty of the city, and ascribed the recent tumults and distempers to "the meane and unruly people of the suburbs." The Common Council in reply caused it to be signified to his majesty that neither that court nor any individual member of it was implicated in the late disorder, which they altogether disavowed and disclaimed. [31 Dec.—Journal 40, fo. 10 (printed in Rushworth's "Historical Collections," iv, 469).] Having committed this message to Lord Newburgh to carry to the king, the court proceeded to take measures for the better preserving the peace in the several wards of the city.

[A guard for parliament refused by the king, 3 Jan., 1642.]

The same day that these measures were being taken for public safety in the city the Commons directed halberds to be brought into the House for their own use in case of a sudden attack, and desired the king to appoint the Earl of Essex captain of the guard. After this they adjourned until the 3rd January, a committee being ordered to sit in the meanwhile at the Guildhall. Upon the re-assembling of the House Charles refused its request for a guard. [Rushworth, iv, 471.] The Commons thereupon sent a message to the mayor for the trained bands to be put in readiness "for the safety of the king's person, the city and the commonwealth," and for good and strong watches to be set at all places convenient about the city. The following day Sir Thomas Soame, Alderman Pennington and Captain Venn were despatched to the city to inform the citizens of a new danger which was threatening the Commons. [Minutes Common Council, 4 Jan., 1642 (expunged in 1683).—Journal 40, fo. 11.]

[The arrest of the five members demanded, 3 Jan., 1642.]

During the short recess Charles had at last made up his mind to a course long premeditated. He determined to seize the parliamentary leaders on a charge of treason, and articles of impeachment were drawn up against Lord Kimbolton, of the House of Peers, and Pym, Hampden, Holles, Hazlerigg and Strode, of the Commons. No sooner had the Commons met than the Sergeant-at-Arms appeared with orders to arrest the five members. [Journal House of Commons, ii, 367.] As such action affected the privileges of the House, a committee was appointed to send a reply to the king in due course. Baffled in this direction, the king despatched a message to the lord mayor forbidding him to call out the trained bands at the order of the Commons, but only to raise such a force as might be necessary to put down tumult and disorder. [Warrant from the king to the mayor, 3 Jan.—Ibid., p. 235.] Gurney was in bed at the time, but he promised to see to it in the morning. [Latche to Nicholas, 4 Jan.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1641-1643), p. 237.]

[Meeting of the Commons, 4 Jan.]

When the Commons met the next morning (4 Jan.) they sent up the articles of impeachment to the House of Lords as a scandalous paper. The king in the meantime was taking steps to secure the Tower and the city. He had heard that six pieces of ordnance had been removed from the artillery yard and placed near the Leadenhall, and he wrote to the mayor bidding him see that they were used only for the guard and preservation of the city if need be. [Warrant of the king to the mayor, 4 Jan.—Ibid., p. 237.] It was these measures that caused the Commons to send Soame, Pennington and Venn to the city to inform the citizens of the impending danger. On the afternoon of the same day Charles himself appeared in the House, to the door of which he had been accompanied by an armed retinue. Taking his stand before the Speaker's chair he professed sorrow for the necessity that had brought him there. Yesterday he had sent, he said, a Sergeant-at-Arms to apprehend certain persons accused of high treason. He had expected obedience and not an answer. Careful as he was and always would be of the privileges of the Commons, they were to know that there was no privilege in matters of treason. Failing himself to discover those whom he sought, he turned to Lenthall and asked him if they were in the House. "Do you see any of them?" The Speaker's reply was singularly apt. "May it please your majesty," said he, falling on his knee before Charles, "I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here." Casting one more glance round the House, and finding that the "birds had flown," the king withdrew amid cries of "Privilege! Privilege!" and the House immediately adjourned.

[The king at the Guildhall, 5 Jan., 1642.]

The king could not allow matters to rest here. The next morning, being Wednesday, the 5th January, he set out for the city with a small retinue, and presented himself at the Guildhall when a Court of Common Council was sitting. The city's archives are searched in vain for any record of what took place on that memorable occasion, but we have a vivid account of the scene handed down to us by an eye-witness, Captain Slingsby, who, happening to meet the royal party on its way to the city, turned back and followed it into the precincts of the Council Chamber. [Slingsby to Pennington, 6 Jan.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1641-1643), pp. 242-243; Cf. "The arrest of the five members," by John Foster, pp. 258-263.] Charles lost no time in coming to the point. He had come, he said, to demand those persons who had been already accused of high treason, and who were believed at that moment to be lurking within the city. He desired to bring them to a trial at law, and depended upon those present for their assistance. He was resolved to redress grievances and to preserve the privileges of parliament, but he must "question these traitors." After justifying the existence of a guard at Whitehall and saying a few friendly words to the aldermen, he invited himself to dinner with one of the sheriffs, choosing the sheriff who was less favourably disposed towards him, viz., sheriff Garrett. The king's speech was followed by an ominous pause. Then a cry, writes Slingsby, was raised in the council, "Parliament! Privileges of parliament!" and presently another, "God bless the king!" These continued for some time, but he professes to be unable to say which of the two was loudest. When silence was restored the king asked that a spokesman should make known to him their wishes. Thereupon a member of the council arose and said, "It is the vote of this court that your majesty hear the advice of your parliament." This statement was at once challenged by another, who cried out, "It is not the vote of this court: it is your own vote." The king replied by asking who it was that charged him with not taking the advice of his parliament, adding that he did take its advice and would continue to do so, but, said he, "I must distinguish between the parliament and some traitors in it," and these, he repeated, "he would bring to trial—to trial." "No privileges could protect a traitor from a trial." With this he turned to leave the Council Chamber. On reaching the outer hall he was again assailed with the cry that had been made to ring in his ears all the way from Whitehall to the city, "The privileges of parliament!" Undaunted he made his way through the mob to dine at Garrett's house, and later in the day, amid the same cries, he returned to Whitehall.

[The City's petition to the king, 5 Jan., 1642.]

Relieved of his presence, the Common Council, with great deliberation, agreed on the terms of a petition to be presented to his majesty. [Journal 40, fo. 12. Printed in Rushworth's Collections, iv. 480. The date is there given as 7 Jan.] After expressing their regret for the continuation of the rebellion in Ireland, the removal of the lieutenant of the Tower, in whom all had confidence, the steps taken to fortify Whitehall, and the recent disturbances at Westminster, they represented to the king the great increase of the fears of the citizens owing to his attempt to seize the five members, the effect of which was to prejudice the whole trade of the city and the kingdom. They therefore humbly desired him to take steps for the speedy relief of the Protestants in Ireland, to place the Tower in the hands of persons of trust, to remove discredited persons from Whitehall and Westminster, and not to proceed against Lord Kimbolton and the five members of the Commons otherwise than in accordance with the privileges of parliament.

[The Common Council vote £2,000 for the defence of the city.]

Having ordered this petition to be engrossed and afterwards to be presented to his majesty, the Common Council proceeded to vote a sum of £2,000 for the purpose of providing a stock of arms and ammunition for the defence of the city in "theis tymes of daungers and feares."

[Panic in the city, 6 Jan., 1642.]

Each alderman had already been directed to see that the trained bands, 6,000 strong, were fully equipt without the necessity of borrowing arms from the city halls or elsewhere; a double watch with halberds and muskets was ordered to be kept in each ward by night and day, chains and posts which were in any way defective were to be forthwith made good, and hooks, ladders, buckets, spades, shovels, pickaxes, augers and chisels were to be kept in readiness in case of fire. [Precepts by the mayor, 4 Jan., 1642.—Journal 39, fos. 263b, 264.] Members of the Common Council were forbidden on the 6th January to leave their wards without express permission. [Journal 39, fo. 264b.] The same night an alarm was raised, and the mayor was asked to call out the trained bands. On his refusal the trained bands dispensed with his authority and turned out on their own account. The panic quickly spread, and every inhabitant, arming himself as best he could, hastened to join them. In course of time the alarm subsided, but the mayor was commanded by an Order in Council (8 Jan.) to investigate the cause of the alarm, and to secure the persons who had taken upon themselves to call out the trained bands. [The council to the lord mayor, 8 Jan., 1642.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1641-1643), p. 249.] This Order in Council was immediately met by a resolution of the Grand Committee of the Commons sitting at Grocers' Hall to the effect that the action of the citizens for the defence of parliament had been in accordance with their duty, and that anyone attempting to arrest them for so doing was a public enemy. More than this, the Committee declared that at a time when the king, kingdom and parliament were "in very eminent and apparent danger," it was the duty of the lord mayor, aldermen and Common Council, or the greater number of them, to make use of the trained bands or any other forces of the city for the preservation of the peace. [Journal 40, fo. 14b; Cal. State Papers Dom. (1641-1643), pp. 247, 248.]

[The king's reply to the City's petition. 8 Jan., 1642.]

On the same day (8 Jan.) the king's reply to the City's late petition was read before the Common Council. [Journal 40, fo. 13; printed in Rushworth's Collections, iv, 481. "A fierce reply."—Gardiner.] He had hoped, he said, to have already satisfied most of the objections raised in the petition by his speech to the citizens on the previous Wednesday; nevertheless, he was willing to give a further answer to the several matters objected to, being persuaded that his so doing would be considered the greatest proof that he could offer of his good intention. His answer, however, in whatever terms it was couched, was considered far from satisfactory to the council, and preparations for resisting force by force began to be pushed on.

[Skippon to command the city's forces, 10 Jan.]

On Monday, the 10th January, a joint agreement for the future defence of parliament and the city was arrived at by the committee of parliament and a committee appointed by the Common Council. [Journal 40, fo. 15.] The trained bands were ordered to their colours and placed under the command of Captain Philip Skippon, as sergeant-major-general of the forces of the city. Eight pieces of ordnance were to accompany the troops, and as many citizens as could supply themselves with horses were to serve on horseback. All this was done for the safety of the "king, parliament and kingdom." With the object of increasing the number of trained bands, the mayor was authorised by the Common Council (19 Jan.) to issue his precept for a return to be made by the alderman of each ward (1) of the number of men in his ward fit to find and bear arms, and (2) the number of men fit to bear arms but unable to find them. [Journal 40, fo. 16; Precept, 21 Jan.—Journal 39, fo. 273b.] The Common Council agreed to pay Skippon £300 a year for life, if he should so long continue in the city's service. [Journal 40, fo. 16b.] Guns and ammunition were stored up at the Leadenhall, [Id. ibid.] and a supply of corn laid in by the livery companies. [Journal 39, fo. 274b.]

[Charles quits London, 10 Jan., 1642.]

In the meanwhile Charles committed the fatal mistake of quitting London (10 Jan.), and parliament had thereupon returned to Westminster (11 Jan.). The appearance of the five members as they made their way by water from the city to Westminster was greeted with shouts of joy and firing of volleys. On entering the House they publicly acknowledged the kindness extended to them by the City, for which the sheriffs and the citizens received the thanks of the Commons, and a promise of indemnity for their action throughout the recent crisis. [Journal House of Commons, ii, 370. Bere to Pennington, 13th January.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1641-1643), p. 252; Rushworth, pt. iii, i, 484; Clarendon (ed. 1839), p. 162.]

[The Tower held for the king.]

Everything now promised well for parliament except the refusal of Sir John Byron, lieutenant of the Tower, to submit to its orders. Once more the seamen or mariners of London, who play no unimportant part in the history of the city at political crises, came forward. They offered to take the Tower by assault. There was some talk of reducing the fortress by starvation, and Byron confessed to secretary Nicholas (22 Jan.) [Byron to Nicholas, 22-28 Jan.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1641-1643), pp. 265-269.] that if the measures had been carried out he could not long have held the place, determined as he was to sell both the Tower and his life at as dear a rate as he could. No such strict investment, however, took place. Skippon attempted to win over a portion of the garrison in the absence of the lieutenant, but failed. The Tower, however, became less an object of fear to the citizens as its stock of munition of war became less every day by reason of shipments to Ireland.

[A loan of £100,000 demanded of the City for the Irish war, 22 Jan., 1642.]

It was to Ireland that Charles looked for assistance in his struggle with parliament. It behoved the latter, therefore, to use its utmost endeavours to reduce that country to subjection. A deputation from the House waited on the Common Council (22 Jan.) with a request for a loan of £100,000. Whilst this request was under consideration the mayor was directed by the council to write to all the livery companies interested in the Londonderry estate, and exhort them to contribute bread and corn for the relief of the plantation. [Journal 40, fos. 17, 17b.]

[The City's reply, 24 Jan., 1642.]

Two days later (24 Jan.) the City resolved not to accede to the request. Answer was sent that they were unable to raise money for a foreign war by way of a tax, and it was hopeless to raise the money by voluntary contributions. The House was reminded that the City had already advanced a sum of £50,000 on the express understanding that troops should forthwith be despatched to Ireland, but none had gone. The citizens would refuse to lend more until assured that relief had been actually sent to Londonderry. The House was further reminded that the City was dissatisfied with the remissness shown in disarming Papists and pressing of soldiers, as well as in displacing the lieutenant of the Tower, and appointing one well approved by parliament. A similar representation was made to the House of Lords. [Id., fos. 18-19b.]

[Money raised by promise of confiscated lands.]

On the 11th February a petition was presented to the House of Commons by "divers of his majesty's loyal subjects," offering to assist at their own charge in putting down the Irish rebellion, provided that they might have such satisfaction out of the rebels' estates as should be thought reasonable.[^60] The suggestion was readily accepted, and a scheme for opening a public subscription passed through both Houses in a week. The mayor lost no time in setting a subscription on foot in the city. [Precept to the Aldermen, 22 Feb.—Journal 39, fo. 281.] The companies, to whom application had been made a month before for contributions of bread and corn, were now desirous to know if they could limit their relief to those sufferers on what was or had been their own estates in Ireland, and not have it distributed among all his majesty's distressed subjects in that country. The Common Council declined to undertake to answer this question, but recommended each company to appear before the parliamentary committee appointed for the purpose and make its own conditions.[^61]

[^60: Journal House of Commons, ii, 425. According to Dr. Gardiner ("Hist. of England, 1637-1649," ii, 433), this "monstrous scheme of confiscation" was suggested by "some London citizens," who represented that there were 10,000,000 acres in Ireland liable to confiscation, and that there would be no difficulty in raising £1,000,000 if a quarter of these lands, or 2,500,000 acres, were assigned to subscribers.]

[^61: March.—Journal 39, fo. 282b; Journal 40, fo. 21. It appears from an order of the Lords and Commons, 18 March (Cal. State Papers Dom. 1641-1643, pp. 298-299), that the contribution by the companies was allowed to be devoted more especially to the relief of Londonderry.]

The following day (3 March) the City was informed that an Act of Parliament was already in preparation for settling 2,500,000 acres of land according to the votes of both Houses, unto which his majesty had given his royal assent. [Journal 39, fo. 285.] The companies were subsequently (19th March) invited to provide ordnance for the protection of Londonderry. [Id., fo. 287.]

[The militia ordinance, 31 Jan., 1642.]

Meanwhile the struggle that had been going on between the king and parliament as to who should have control over the fortresses and the trained bands or militia of the kingdom, resulted in the Commons drawing up an ordinance conferring power in each county upon persons, to be afterwards named, to raise an armed force for the suppression of rebellions and invasions (31 Jan.). [Journal House of Commons, ii. 406.] This "militia ordinance"—as it was called—caused no little dissatisfaction in the city as trespassing upon the authority of the lord mayor, and a petition against it was drawn up by a certain section of the inhabitants and presented to both Houses of Parliament. The same was printed and circulated together with the king's message to the Houses against the ordinance. [Journal 40, fo. 25.]

[The Common Council uphold the ordinance, 17 March, 1642.]

The Common Council were determined, however, to stand by parliament. They passed a resolution disclaiming the petition against the militia ordinance, and ordered other petitions to be drawn up and presented to both Houses, [Id., fos. 27-28b.] congratulating them on the steps they had taken "for the safety of his majesty, the parliament and the kingdom," which would meet with ready submission on the part of the petitioners, and thanking them for the honour they had done the City in allowing it to nominate those persons to whom its militia should be committed. [This concession was made by order of the committee of parliament sitting at Grocers' Hall, 19 Jan.—Journal 40, fo. 17b.] Gurney, the royalist mayor, did not preside at the court which sanctioned these petitions, being absent from illness, so it was said.

[Commissioners for the city's militia, 4 April.]

On the 4th April a militia commission appointed by parliament for the city was read before the Common Council, the commissioners being authorised to raise and train forces, appoint and remove officers, and do other things necessary for the suppressing of rebellions and resisting invasions. [Journal 40, fo. 30.] It was suggested that six colonels and thirty-four captains should be set over the trained bands, which had been recently increased to forty companies, each 200 strong. [Journal 39, fos. 295b, 304.] The pay of the officers was guaranteed by the Common Council. [Journal 40, fos. 30, 31.] A stock of gunpowder was laid up in the city ready for any emergency, and the livery companies were called upon to make a return of the arms stored in their several halls. [Id., fos. 30b, 31.]

[A muster in Finsbury Fields before both Houses of Parliament, 10 May, 1642.]

On the 10th May a grand review of all the trained bands of the city, with their new officer Skippon at their head, was held in Finsbury Fields in the presence of both Houses of Parliament, the members of which were hospitably entertained on the ground at the City's expense. [Clarendon (ed. 1839), p. 227; Journal 39, fo. 306b.]

[The City receives the thanks of both Houses, 16 May.]

So pleased was parliament—both Lords and Commons—at the zeal of the City in raising and training so large a force as 8,000 men, to serve as an example (it was hoped) to the rest of the kingdom, as also in contributing upwards of £40,000 (more than one-tenth part of the whole sum recently voted by parliament) for the defence of the kingdom, that a deputation from both houses waited on the Common Council (16 May) and returned their hearty thanks. [Journal 39, fos. 306b, 309; Journal 40, fo. 32.]

[Skippon to ignore the king's order to go to York, 17 May.]

On the following day (17 May) the Houses resolved that Skippon should ignore an order from the king to attend his majesty at York, and directed the sheriffs to suppress any levy of men made without the major-general's authority. [Journal House of Commons, ii, 575.]

[Loan of £100,000 by the companies, June, 1642.]

It was no long time before application was again made to the city for more pecuniary assistance. The breach between king and parliament was rapidly widening. Charles was known to be collecting forces around him in spite of a formal prohibition by the Commons, who now more distinctly asserted their claim to sovereignty. On Thursday, the 2nd June, a deputation of Lords and Commons presented themselves before the livery of the several companies assembled in Common Hall, and desired a loan of £100,000 towards "the relief and preservation of the kingdom of Ireland" and "speedy supply of the great and urgent necessities of this kingdom." The money was voted "most freely and with great alacrity," and was to be raised by the companies according to their corn assessment, as on previous occasions. On the 4th June the Commons passed an ordinance for security of the loan, and the thanks of both Houses and of the whole kingdom were returned to the city for its ready compliance. [Journal House of Commons, ii, 605-606.] Two days later (6 June) Gurney, much against his own inclination we may be sure, was forced to issue his precept to the companies to raise their several contributions. [Journal 39, fo. 314.] The Grocers' Company raised their quota of £9,000 by voluntary subscription without demur. The Merchant Taylors, on the other hand, who were assessed at £10,000, whilst expressing themselves ready to do their part in furnishing the loan, took occasion to formally place on record their resolution "that the Common Hall (consisting of the liveries of this city) assembled in the Guildhall, London, hath no power, right or authority to bind or impose upon this company any loan of money whatsoever." [Clode, "London during the Great Rebellion," pp. 19-21.]

[Parliamentary order for bringing in of money, plate, etc., 10 June.]

[The king's protest, 14 June.]

On the 10th the Commons issued "propositions" for the bringing in of money, plate, arms and horses for "the defence of the king and both houses of parliament." Those living in and around London within a radius of eighty miles were allowed a fortnight; and so great was the enthusiasm displayed for the parliamentary cause that (in the words of Clarendon) ["Hist. of the Rebellion" (Oxford ed. 1839), p. 278.] "it is hardly credible what a vast proportion of plate was brought in to their treasurers within ten days, there being hardly men enough to receive it or room to lay it in." It was in vain that Charles protested and threatened the citizens with the loss of their charter if they carried out the behests of the Commons. [The king to the mayor, etc., of London, 14 June.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1641-1643), p. 339.] His protest was only met with a further levy of £50,000 on all strangers and aliens residing within the city. [Journal 39, fos. 319, 325, 328.]

[Pennington elected mayor loco Gurney, discharged, 16 Aug., 1642.]

[Charles sets up his standard at Nottingham, 22 Aug., 1642.]

Gurney's position as mayor had become more and more an anomalous one every day. In July he was impeached by the Commons for having published the king's commission of array in the city. On the 12th August the Lords sentenced him to be imprisoned during the pleasure of the House, and to be deprived of his mayoralty, [Journal House of Lords, v. 284, 285.] and at the same time ordered Sir Nicholas Raynton to summon a Common Hall for the election of a new mayor. A Common Hall was accordingly summoned for the 16th, when Isaac Pennington and John Wollaston being nominated by the livery, the former was selected by the Court of Aldermen as Gurney's successor. [Journal 39, fo. 329.] Upon application being made to Gurney for the insignia—the sword, cap, mace and collar of esses—"he pretended they were at his house in London, locked up, and he could not come at them"; and he stoutly refused to deliver up the city's sword to any one but the king. [Journal House of Lords, v, 297, 298.] With a rigid Puritan like Pennington in the mayoralty chair, and Gurney and Sir Thomas Gardiner already impeached, the city was made secure for parliament before Charles set up his standard at Nottingham (22 Aug.) in token that the Civil War had commenced.

CHAPTER XXIII.

[The City requisitioned for arms, 25 Aug., 1642.]

It was the general opinion of both parties that the war would be a short one. A deputation from both Houses attended a court of Common Council held on the 25th August. It had been decided that an army should at once set out so as not to "prolong or draw out a war," and in order to keep the field of action at a distance from London. But arms were wanted. The City was therefore asked to supply the parliamentary forces with 6,000 muskets and 4,000 pikes. [Journal 40, fo. 35.] It was difficult to raise this quantity of arms in the city without depriving the trained bands of their weapons, a course which was entirely out of the question. At first the halls of the various companies were ransacked for arms; this having been done and a deficiency still remaining, a house-to-house visitation was resolved on. [Journal 39, fos. 332b, 339.]

[Additional forces for the City, Sept., 1642.]

It behoved the citizens to look to themselves at this crisis; and accordingly the Common Council resolved early in September to raise two additional regiments of foot, each 1,200 strong, and four troops of sixty horse for the defence of the city. In order to defray the necessary charge parliament was asked to sanction the setting apart of £25,000 out of the money and plate subscribed by the inhabitants for the general defence of the kingdom; and the House, not wishing to run the risk of losing the goose that laid the golden egg, readily gave its assent. [Journal 40, fos. 35b-37.]

[The Committee of Militia of the city.]

The Committee of Militia, to whom the defence of the city was entrusted, took care—"with most loyal intentions to his majesty," as they were careful to make known—that the city's force, consisting of forty companies in six regiments, was properly exercised both together and by separate regiments, one regiment "going abroad" weekly for exercise. The action of the committee gave rise to much adverse comment by royalists, and led to two members of the committee, viz., Sir John Gayer and Sir Jacob Garrard, withdrawing from it. At the request of the committee the Common Council agreed that the lord mayor and sheriffs should take the place of the retired members, and at the same time signified their approval of all that the Committee of Militia had done for the defence of the city. [Id., fo. 37b.]

[Other measures taken for the defence of the city.]

Skippon and other officers were directed (6 Sept.) to take a view of the city and liberties and inspect the gates and posterns, and especially a passage through the Bell Inn into the fields at Temple Bar. They were to consider the advisability of stopping up the less used passages as adding to the city's peril, and of erecting more watch-houses in addition to those about to be made at Moorgate and Bishopsgate. They were further to report anything that might the better conduce to the safety of the city and liberties "in these times of great and eminent danger." [Id., fos. 37b, 38.] Pennington, the new mayor, had previously given orders for the gates and portcullises to be seen to, the city's chains and posts repaired, and the usual precautions to be taken against fire. [Journal 39, fo. 331b.]

[Essex puts himself at the head of the parliamentary forces, 9 Sept., 1642.]

On the 9th September Essex set out from London to put himself at the head of the parliamentary army which (it was fondly hoped) was to make short work of the royalists. He carried with him, we are told, his coffin and his winding-sheet, together with his funeral escutcheon, in token of his readiness to die in the cause. [Gardiner, "Hist. Great Civil War," i, 25.] On the 14th he reviewed his forces, and was soon convinced that they would quickly desert unless promptly paid. Disaffection had appeared in the ranks a week before, the soldiers demanding five shillings a man, which sum had been promised them monthly, and threatening to throw down their arms unless paid. [Wharton to George Willingham, merchant, at the Golden Anchor, St. Swithin's Lane, 7 Sept.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1641-1643), pp. 385, 386.]

[Desires a loan of £100,000, 13 Sept.]

In this strait the earl despatched a letter to the City desiring a loan of £100,000 for the maintenance of the army. [Journal 40, fo. 38.] This letter having been read to the Common Council (15 Sept.) and well received, the mayor issued his precept to the aldermen of each ward to incite the inhabitants to underwrite the loan. [Journal 40, fo. 38b; Journal 39, fo. 342b.]

[The trained bands prepare to take the field, 18 Oct.]

A month later the Common Council was informed (18 Oct.) that Prince Rupert was expected soon to be on his way towards London. What force would the City be prepared to put in the field in order to stay the advance of the "adverse party"? After due deliberation answer was made to the "Close Committee" of parliament that twelve companies of the trained bands would be prepared to join the forces of the adjacent counties at any place the committee might appoint "for the defence of religion, the king, kingdom, parliament and the city." [Journal 40, fo. 40b; Letter Book QQ, fo. 51b.] The aspect of the city at this time was that of a huge military depôt. Everywhere was heard the sound of musket-shot and rattle of drum, besides the noise of the squib or other firework of the frolicsome apprentice. So great and continuous was the din that it had to be restricted by precept of the mayor. [28 Oct.—Journal 39, fo. 364b.]

[The whole city "either real or constrained Roundheads."]

The whole city, as described by a Puritan soldier in a letter to a merchant of London, [Nehemiah Wharton to George Willingham, 26th September.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1641-1643), p. 391.] was now "either real or constrained Roundheads." There were exceptions, however, but these were to be found chiefly among the wealthier and more aristocratic class of citizens. They were stigmatised as "Delinquents" or "Malignants," and as such were committed to prison, and their estates seized to provide means for protecting the city and carrying on the war. Out of thirty-seven "delinquents" imprisoned in Crosby House a month later, three at least were aldermen of the city, viz., Sir William Acton, Sir George Whitmore and Sir John Cordell. [Cal. State Papers Dom. (1641-1643), p. 403.]

[Pennington re-elected Mayor, 29 Sept., 1642.]

At Michaelmas Pennington was re-elected mayor, [Journal 39, fo. 366.] and, as the lord keeper was with the king, Pennington presented himself before the House of Lords for approval of his re-election. He took the opportunity of mentioning a few city matters concerning which he desired their lordships's advice. In the first place he had received the king's writ for proclamation of the adjournment of the next law term, and he wished to know if he was to act upon it. Secondly, there had been recently a riot at St. Paul's, and the rioters had been committed to prison, and he desired to know what proceedings should be taken against them. Lastly, he had to complain of the seditious character of the sermons preached at St. Paul's, the preacher being appointed by the Bishop of London. Indeed, they had been so bad that he and his brother aldermen had ceased to attend. He asked that the appointment of preachers might be vested in the lord mayor, according to a former order of their lordships. On the first two questions an immediate answer was given. As to the proclamation for the adjournment of the term, it had received the sanction of the Lords, and therefore the mayor was at liberty to publish it. Touching the rioters at St. Paul's, they might be proceeded with according to law. The question as to the appointment of preachers at St. Paul's, that was a matter which required further consideration. [Journal House of Lords, v, 404.]

[The battle of Edge-hill. 23 Oct., 1642.]

The first serious conflict between the forces of king and parliament took place at Edge-hill (23 Oct.), when both parties claimed the victory. With Charles, however, rested the more immediate fruits of success, for he had overcome the first obstacle that stood in his way to London. That Charles did not enter London as a conqueror was owing to the determined front shown to his forces by the trained bands of the City, and the energy displayed by the inhabitants at large. If anything were needed to stimulate exertion on the part of the Londoners, they found it in the reports which daily arrived of country houses being despoiled by the royalist soldiery. Few doubted that if allowed to enter the city the wealth of London would be at their mercy. "You see what is threatened you," said the Earl of Holland to the citizens at the Guildhall, soon after the battle, "you must know what to expect and what to trust to; they intend you no lesse (and that is to be believed) than the destroying of the city, your persons and the preying upon your fortunes." ["Eight speeches spoken in Guildhall upon Thursday night. 27 Oct., 1642" (printed at the Sign of the Globe, near the Royal Exchange. 1642).—Guildhall Library, A, vi, 6.]

[The City raises 4,000 horse.]

By the 12th November Charles had made himself master of Brentford. The next day (13th Nov.) was Sunday; nevertheless, the House sat and received a deputation of Londoners, who, "in the name of the Godly and active part of the city," placed their persons, purses and estates at the command of the House to do with them at its pleasure, and declared that they would "man out every man his man and make their own captains and officers, and live and die with the House of Commons, and in defence thereof." [Journal House of Commons, ii, 847.] An offer made by the citizens of London to raise one thousand light-horse and three thousand dragoons was gladly accepted by both Houses of Parliament. [15 Nov.—Journal House of Lords, v, 446; Journal House of Commons, ii, 851.] These were placed under the command of Skippon, now promoted to the rank of Serjeant-Major-General in the army under Essex. The citizens were sorry to lose one who had done so much to raise the discipline of the city forces, but there was no withstanding the appeal made to them by the leader of the parliamentary forces. [Journal 40, fo. 41b.]

[Charles leaves Brentford for Reading.]

The city was ransacked for soldiers, who, by the way, were allowed certain privileges, being charged no more than a penny a night for lodging and three half-pence for a quart of beer, and every available man was ordered to be despatched (18 Nov.) to join Essex at Turnham Green. [Common Hall Book, i, fos. 1b, 3.] Charles deemed discretion to be the better part of valour and withdrew from Brentwood, which was immediately occupied by Essex, and made his way to Reading. The golden opportunity thus lost was never regained.

[The Houses resolve to levy a tax, 25 Nov., 1642.]

Hitherto the parliamentary cause had been supported by loans which were in name, if not in actual fact, voluntary. The spasmodic nature of this method of obtaining a supply of money for the army proved a source of weakness. The Houses therefore resolved to change it for the more effective system of raising money by taxation. The rest of the kingdom would thus bear its share of the burden, which until now had been chiefly borne by the city of London. Inhabitants of the city who had never before contributed to so-called voluntary loans would now be compelled to pay their quota. Those who had not already contributed to the support of the army were now compelled to do so, in money, plate, horse, horsemen or arms. Every man was to be assessed according to his ability, but no one was to be assessed above a twentieth part of his estate. Payment was to be enforced by distress of goods in cases of refusal, and the aid of the trained bands might be invoked if necessary. [Journal House of Lords, v, 462, 463. This ordinance is often referred to as the ordinance of the 29th November, it having been amended on that day.—Journal House of Commons, ii, 869.]

[A city loan of £30,000.]

In the meantime a deputation of members of both Houses attended a meeting of the Common Hall and asked for a loan of £30,000. The mayor forthwith issued his precept for a return to be made of the names of every inhabitant of each ward for the purpose of an assessment. [Journal House of Commons, ii, 863; Common Hall Book, No. 1, fo. 10.]

[Petitions to Common Council advocating a peace, 12 Dec., 1642.]

The city was becoming more and more agitated by party faction every day. Royalist and parliamentarian openly acknowledged the side he favoured by wearing a distinctive badge, [Order against wearing ribbons and other badges in hats, etc., 12 (17?) Dec.—Journal 40, fo. 44; Letter Book QQ, fo. 56.] and disturbances were of frequent occurrence. To many the state of affairs had become little less than disastrous, owing to the shutting up of shops and the stoppage of trade. The new parliamentary taxation increased the general dissatisfaction and made the citizens sigh for peace. On the 12th December two petitions were laid before the Common Council. Both petitions advocated peace. One of them was objected to by the court as too dictatorial in tone and as casting an aspersion on parliament. They nevertheless ordered it to be entered on record, "to the end their dislike might the better appear." [Journal 40, fo. 43.] Whilst these petitions were under consideration in the Council Chamber, which stood almost on the same spot as that on which the present new and handsome structure stands, cries were heard proceeding from an angry crowd in the adjacent hall. On all sides there arose a clamour for peace. The lives of the lord mayor and the unpopular aldermen were even threatened. The few soldiers who happened to be present received some rough handling, and were told to go and spend the money they had received from the State at the tavern, for they should have no more. At last a body of the city trained bands arrived and order was restored. The Common Council continuing its deliberations set aside both petitions, but appointed a committee to draw up on its behalf two other petitions advocating a cessation of hostilities, one to be presented to the king and the other to parliament. [Journal 40, fos. 43b, 44.]

[The City's petitions submitted to both Houses, 19 Dec.]

On the 19th December these petitions, which had previously been submitted to the Common Council for approval, [Id., fos. 44b, 45.] were laid before both Houses of Parliament, the sheriffs and certain members of the Court of Aldermen and of the Common Council attending at the bar of the House of Commons and publicly disavowing any other petition. Having notified its approval of both petitions the House gave orders that those who had been suspected of taking part in the late tumult at the Guildhall should be committed as prisoners to Lambeth House. [Journal House of Commons, ii, 894.] A week later (26 Dec.) both Houses were prepared to open negotiations with the king. [Id., ii, 903.]

[The City's petition to the king at Oxford, 2 Jan., 1643.]

[The king's reply read at a Common Hall, 13 Jan., 1643.]

Having obtained the sanction of parliament to present their petition to Charles, the Common Council left it to the mayor to send whom he would to "Mr. Secretary Falkland to learn his majesties pleasure whether certeine citizens might with safety repaire unto his highness" with the City's petition, and in the meanwhile nominated the members of the deputation who should wait upon the king if Falkland's reply to the mayor's messenger proved satisfactory. [Journal 40, fo. 45b.] The reply was favourable, and the deputation set out for Oxford, where Charles had taken up his quarters. On their return they reported the result of their journey to the Common Council. [Journal 40, fo. 46. The account is printed verbatim in the Journal of the House of Lords, v, 548, 549.] They arrived in Oxford, said they, between one and two o'clock on the afternoon of Monday, the 2nd January (1643), and an hour later waited upon Lord Falkland at his lodgings in New College. At five o'clock the same evening they were admitted into the king's presence and the City's petition was then publicly read. The king professed satisfaction at seeing them, for he could now be sure that certain printed declarations of his would reach those for whom they were intended. He questioned very much the ability of the City to protect his person, seeing that it was unable to preserve peace among themselves. On Wednesday (4 Jan.) the deputation was dismissed with a promise that Charles would send an answer by Mr. Herne (or Heron), one of his own servants, who would accompany them on their return. He asked which was the larger assembly, the Common Council or the Common Hall. On being told that the latter were more numerous he directed that his answer should be read there, as he wished as many as possible to be disabused and to know the truth. Just when the deputation was about to set out from Oxford on its return a printed paper purporting to be the king's answer was handed to Sir George Garrett and Sir George Clark as they sat in their coach. The Common Council having heard the whole story of the mission to Oxford deemed it expedient to inform the House of Commons of the result, and to lay the printed paper in their hands. [Journal 40, fo. 46b.] This was accordingly done on the 11th January, with the result that the House directed the mayor to summon a Common Hall for Friday, the 13th, to hear the king's reply. [Journal 40, fo. 47; Journal House of Commons, ii, 921.] When the Common Hall met at the appointed time it was only to hear a long diatribe against the heinousness of those who had taken up arms against their king. All good subjects were called upon to throw off their yoke, and to begin by arresting the lord mayor and certain leading citizens who had been guilty of treason. When this had been done, and not before, he would be prepared to return to London without the protection of his army, or, to use the expression of the petitioners themselves, with his "royal," and not his "martial attendance." [Gardiner, "Hist. Great Civil War," i, 95, 96. The proceedings are not entered in the Common Hall Book.]

[His terms rejected by the City.]

After this Pym, who attended the Common Hall and heard the king's reply, [Journal House of Commons, ii, 927.] had no difficulty in convincing the assembly of the king's real mind, and that he had no intention to accept terms of peace. The meeting was all but unanimous for continuing the war rather than submit to the degradation of their mayor. A subsequent attempt by Charles to have his reply circulated among the livery companies was frustrated by an order of the House of Commons (24 Jan.) which granted the sheriffs an indemnity for refusing to execute the king's order. [Journal House of Commons, ii, 941.]

[Speech of Alderman Garway in Common Hall, 17 Jan., 1643.]

If the war was to be carried on it was necessary for parliament to face the difficulty of getting a steady supply of money. Up to this moment the new parliamentary taxes had brought in nothing. Many of the wealthier class of citizens absolutely refused to pay. At a Common Hall held on the 17th January Alderman Garway pointed out, in a very strong speech, the danger which would beset merchants trading with foreign parts if the king withdrew his protection from them in consequence of the city contributing to the maintenance of the parliamentary army. His speech was followed by a great tumult, and the meeting broke up amid cries of "No money, no money! peace, peace!" [See Garway's speech bound up with "Eight Speeches.... 27 Oct., 1642" (Guildhall Library); Cf. Cal. State Papers Dom. (1641-1643). pp. 438, 439.]

[Alderman Whitmore and the parliamentary tax, 20 Jan.]

The payment of the assessment made in November last had been widely refused. The war had already ruined many, and if some refused to pay on principle others refused from sheer inability. Among the former must be reckoned Sir George Whitmore,[^62] a royalist alderman of considerable means, who, with Thomas Knyvett, a goldsmith, Paul Pindar, and others preferred imprisonment to pay what was by them considered an illegal tax. [Journal House of Commons, ii, 935.]

[^62: He was the owner of Balmes House and an estate at Hoxton, not far from the Kingsland Road, and had already once suffered imprisonment for the royal cause. Particulars of his staunch adhesion to Charles, of his liberality and his family are given in Remembrancia (Index), p. 296, note.]

[A fresh loan of £60,000 by the City, 18 Feb., 1643.]

Nevertheless application was made to the City at this juncture for a loan of £60,000 to keep the army from disbanding. A deputation from both Houses of Parliament attended a court of Common Council held on the 18th February, and assured the citizens that the money would be repaid out of the weekly payments which parliament had resolved to impose upon every county in England. [Id., ii, 971.] This would be the last time, as they hoped, that a call of this kind would be made upon the city. The council declared its willingness to promote the loan, the members present promising an immediate payment of £6,000. Ministers were recommended to lay the matter before their respective congregations on the following Sunday and exhort them to contribute. [Journal 40, fos. 47b, 48.]

[The City's weekly assessment.]

A weekly assessment of £10,000 had been imposed on the City, whilst a monthly rebate was allowed of £3,000. The Common Council complained to parliament that the City was over-assessed in comparison with other counties, and suggested that the monthly allowance should be raised to £4,000. They also desired some security for the repayment of the loan of £60,000. These and other proposals were laid before the House as being "encouragements" for the City to make the loan; and the House, in returning thanks to the City for its readiness in the matter of the loan, promised that the "encouragements" should receive favourable consideration. [Journal 40, fos. 48-50; Journal House of Commons, ii, 972.]

[The propositions of parliament presented to the king, 1 Feb., 1643.]

In the midst of their financial difficulties the Commons had been busy elaborating the propositions for peace sent down to them from the Lords. At length these were complete, and on the 1st February were presented to the king. They were, however, received by Charles with little favour, and the rest of the month was consumed by both Houses in an endeavour to arrive at a compromise at once satisfactory to themselves and likely to be acceptable to the king.

[Fresh proposals to parliament by the City.]

Before fresh terms of compromise were formulated the House was asked (23 Feb.) to consider certain other propositions drawn up by the Common Council of the city. These were three in number. The first desired the reformation of the army. The second demanded an indemnity to the citizens for their adhesion to parliament. The third was a proposal for a religious covenant and association for the defence of religion and liberty in case the negotiations with the king should fall through. To only one of these propositions did the House give an immediate reply, and that was the second. To this the Commons returned answer that in the intended treaty with the king such care would be taken for the indemnity of the City and citizens of London and of the privileges thereof as should secure them and "be a witness to the present and future generations of their fidelity to the king and parliament." [Journal House of Commons, ii, 976; Journal 40, fos. 50b, 51.]

[Scheme for the fortification of the city and suburbs, 23 Feb.]

That the citizens entertained but little hopes of a peaceful issue to the negotiations with Charles is evinced by their resolving (23 Feb.) to carry out a comprehensive scheme of defence of the city and suburbs.[^63] The scheme received the sanction of parliament, which further allowed the civic authorities to call upon the inhabitants of the suburbs as well as of the city proper to contribute to the undertaking. [Journal House of Commons, ii, 993.] The City had a hard task to get subscriptions in from the outlying districts, and was consequently obliged to advance out of its own Chamber no less than six sums of £2,000 each between the months of March and July lest the work of erecting the necessary fortifications should be brought to a standstill. [Journal 40, fos. 56, 59, 59b, 61, 65, 66b.]

[^63: Journal 40, fo. 52. "A plan of the city and suburbs of London, as fortified by order of parliament in the years 1642 and 1643," is engraved in Maitland's History, i, 368-369. The remains of some of the earthworks and masonry erected during the civil war might have recently been seen in the neighbourhood of Hackney. The name of Castle Street is said to commemorate a rampart at Southampton House, in Holborn, whilst Mount Street is believed to take its name from a large earthwork known as "Oliver's Mount."—Loftie, "Hist. of London," i, 345.]

[An extra monthly allowance of £3,000 to the City for purposes of defence, 1 March, 1643.]

In the face of this extraordinary expenditure the City was the more anxious to get its weekly assessment reduced. On the 1st March Colonel Venn, one of the city's members, informed the Common Council that the application to have the assessment reduced had been made too late, but the House would allow the City an additional monthly sum of £3,000 in aid of its defences so long as the ordinance for a weekly assessment should continue in force. [Journal 40, fo. 54; Journal House of Commons, ii, 985.]

[News of Prince Rupert threatening Bristol, 10 March.]

On the 10th March a deputation from both Houses, including Pym, informed the Common Council of a message that had recently arrived from the Earl of Essex to the effect that Prince "Robert" (Rupert) had arrived with a large force within four miles of Bristol, and the earl intended forthwith to make an advance. His army, however, was sadly in arrears of payment; he wanted both men and money, and this fact he had desired to be represented to the citizens of London. Pym, therefore, in the name of both Houses desired the Common Council to hasten as far as possible the payment of the residue of the £60,000 already promised, and to furnish such forces as the city could spare.

[The City's answer to a request for men and money.]

As far as the first part of the request went the council promised its ready assistance. [Journal 40, fo. 54b.] It frankly acknowledged that little more than one-third of the whole amount promised had come in, but there were difficulties in the way of getting it in. A large sum of money—as much as £30,000—which ought to have been repaid to the lenders out of the estates of malignants was still owing, and lenders were thereby discouraged. Men of ability refused to lend, and there were no means of forcing them; whilst divers rich men had left the city, carrying with them what property they could, and leaving their houses empty. Nevertheless, the council assured the deputation that it was well affected to parliament, all but a very few of its members having already contributed, and it would forthwith take steps to get the money in. Touching the furnishing of soldiers, the council remarked that there were but three regiments in the city besides the trained bands, two of which were on active service and the one remaining was on outpost duty. [Pym's report to the Commons, 11 March.—Journal House of Commons, ii, 999.]

[Volunteer foot and horsemen for the city, March, 1643.]

Soon after the outbreak of the war it was seen that the weak point of the parliamentary army lay in its cavalry. Already something had been done towards remedying this defect. Volunteers had offered themselves for the formation of a troop of horse at their own expense, and a "seminary" for cavalry had been established. [Repertory 56, fo. 72b-73] The news about Rupert urged the citizens to a greater effort. On the 15th March an offer was made to the Common Council to raise no less than ten volunteer regiments, three of which were to consist of cavalry. The men were to receive no pay except when engaged on active service, and only a small sum was asked for, in order to provide colours, drums and other necessaries. The offer was gladly accepted. [Journal 40, fo. 55b.]

[A further loan of £40,000, 6 April.]

The last loan of £60,000 could scarcely have been subscribed before an order came from the Commons for the city to make a further advance of £40,000 for the support of the army. [6 April.—Journal 40, fo. 56b. 5 April.—Journal House of Commons, iii, 31.]

[Ordnance and arms for defence of the city.]

The East India Company was at the same time called upon to lend its ordnance and military store for the defence of the city. In case of refusal both ordnance and provisions were to be seized, on the understanding that the City would restore them in as good condition as it received them or give satisfaction for them. Should any great emergency arise the Commons would supply the company with what was necessary. [5 April.—Journal House of Commons, iii, 30.] The livery companies too were exhorted to lend their arms. These were to be stored at Salters' Hall, in Bread Street. [27 April.—Journal 40, fo. 58b.]

[Failure of negotiations followed by Puritan outrages, May, 1643.]

A few days later the negotiations between parliament and the king for a cessation of hostilities collapsed, and the parliamentary commissioners at Oxford were ordered to return home (14 April). [Journal House of Commons, iii, 45.] Irritated at the king's obstinacy, the Puritan party vented its spleen by ordering the wholesale destruction of superstitious or idolatrous monuments in Westminster Abbey and elsewhere. The City followed suit by asking parliament to sanction the removal of Cheapside cross, "in regard of the idolatrous and superstitious figures there about sett and fixed." [Journal 40, fo. 58b.] In 1581 these figures had given cause for offence and were secretly removed, [Maitland, i, 266.] but others had apparently been set up in their place. The demolition of the cross, which took place on the 2nd May amid signs of public rejoicing, was followed (10 May) by the public burning of the "Book of Sports" by the hands of the common hangman in Cheapside. [Id., i, 371.] Another measure in the same direction was the placing of the appointment of preachers in St. Paul's Churchyard in the hands of the mayor and aldermen, a proposal which the mayor had formerly suggested to the House of Commons. [26 May.—Journal House of Commons, iii, 165.]

[The discovery of "Waller's Plot."]

Now that all hopes of a peaceful settlement had gone, Charles took measures to gain over as many Londoners as he could to his side. He had previously (16 March) caused a commission of array to be drawn, addressed to Gardiner, who was still Recorder, and others, authorising them to raise a force on his behalf in the city. [Howell's State Trials, iv, 628-630.] This commission he had retained at Oxford until he could find an opportunity for conveying it safely to London. It was now entrusted to Lady Daubeny to carry to London. She succeeded in her mission and handed the document over to a city linendraper named Chaloner, who, in his turn, transferred it to Tompkins, a brother-in-law of Waller the poet, who was also implicated in the design which on that account came to be known as "Waller's Plot." Tompkins endeavoured to conceal it in a cellar, but it did not escape the prying eyes of parliamentary searchers. Early in the morning of the 31st May Tompkins was arrested, and in the course of time both he and Chaloner paid the penalty of their rashness by being hanged in front of their own houses, the one in Cornhill and the other in Holborn. Waller was also taken and flung into prison. [Clarendon (ed. 1839), 415-419; Rushworth, v, 325, 326, 330.]

[Day of thanksgiving, 15 June, 1643.]

Thursday, the 15th June, was appointed to be kept as a day of thanksgiving for deliverance from the plot, [Journal House of Commons, iii, 117, 122.] and on that day the new parliamentary vow or covenant, binding those who took it to support the forces raised in defence of parliament against those raised by the king, was generally accepted in the city.

[Royalist successes, June-July, 1643.]

In the meantime Essex had besieged and taken Reading (26 April), but his troops became affected with disease, and he made no attempt to advance on Oxford until June. Before his arrival Hampden had received a mortal wound at Chalgrove Field (18 June). On the 5th July the royalist forces under Hopton worsted the parliamentary army under Waller in the west, whilst a similar success was achieved against Fairfax in the north (30 June). The king had reason to be elated as he rode into Oxford (14 July) accompanied by the queen, from whom he had been separated for fifteen months, amid the shouts of men and the ringing of bells.

[Scarcity of coal in London.]

[Newcastle to be reduced if possible, May, 1643.]

Parliament and the City, on the other hand, had reason to be dejected. On the 17th July Charles issued a proclamation for seizing all merchandise on its way to London. The trade of the city became paralysed. [Maitland, i, 362, 371.] Nor was this all. For some months past the citizens had been suffering from a scarcity of coal. Ever since the appointment of the Earl of Newcastle as governor of the town of Newcastle in June, 1642, [News letter from York, 17 June, 1642.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1641-1643), p. 342.] that town had been held for Charles, and a refusal to allow its coal to be supplied to the supporters of parliament had brought the city of London and the eastern counties into great straits. [Journal 40, fo. 60.] It thus became a matter of prime importance that Newcastle should be captured. How this was to be accomplished was set out in a series of propositions drawn up (25 May, 1643) by the Common Council of the city to be laid before parliament. [Id., fo. 61.] A monopoly of the trade in coal, salt and glass with the north of England was to be held out as an incentive for persons to adventure their money in the reduction of the town. A committee, of which one-half of its members was to be nominated by the Commons and the rest by the City, was to have charge of all the money subscribed and to direct the undertaking. The propositions were well received (26 May), [Journal House of Commons, iii, 104, 105.] and on the 10th June the Common Council nominated three aldermen and seven common councilmen to join with a like number to be appointed by parliament in raising a force by sea and land for the reduction of the town. [Journal 40, fo. 63.]

[Royalist cavalry in the neighbourhood of London, July, 1643.]

To make matters worse news arrived on the 18th July that royalist cavalry were in the vicinity of London, and that great disaffection to the cause of parliament had manifested itself in the neighbouring counties of Kent and Surrey. The Common Council, recognising the danger, forthwith resolved to raise what money it could at the rate of eight per cent., and to place it at the disposal of the Committee of the Militia of the city. [Id., fo. 68.]

[Dissensions in the city touching the militia.]

[Waller appointed commander-in-chief of the city's forces, 29 July, 1643.]

The danger which threatened London was increased the more by reason of dissensions which sprang up among those whose particular care were the defences of the city. A sub-committee which usually met at Salters' Hall fell out with the Committee of the Militia of London for presuming to get into its hands the sole power over the auxiliary forces which had lately been raised. Another committee was appointed to investigate the cause of dissension, and if possible to suggest a modus vivendi. [7 and 10 June, 1643.—Journal 40, fos. 62b seq.] This was no easy matter to accomplish. It was eventually agreed to lay before parliament a petition that all the forces raised within the city and liberties, as also within the parishes adjacent mentioned in the weekly bill of mortality, might be under the sole command of the Committee of the Militia of the city, under the direction of both Houses of Parliament. [Journal 40, fo. 67b.] On the 18th July a petition to this effect was accordingly laid before the Commons by a deputation of aldermen and common councilmen, and received the approval of the House. The outcome of all this was that the House eventually passed a resolution (29 July) that "Sir William Waller do command in chief all the forces raised within the city of London, and all other forces that are or shall be under the command of the militia of London, subordinate to the lord mayor and militia," and at the same time transferred the custody of the Tower into the hands of the lord mayor and sheriffs. [Journal House of Commons, iii, 187.]

[The Common Council stands by Essex, 1 Aug.]

Waller's appointment was a distinct slur upon Essex, about whom some rumours had been spread in order to prejudice him in the eyes of the City. The Common Council took an early opportunity of deprecating strongly these false rumours, and appointed (1 Aug.) a deputation to wait upon "his excellency" to assure him of the good opinion which the court—as the representative body of the city—had of his great care and fidelity in the preservation of the king, parliament, city and kingdom, and to promise him every assistance in recruiting his army. The citizens would stand by his excellency with their lives and fortunes. [Journal 40, fo. 69.]

[The Lords renew propositions for peace.]

[Opposition of the City, 6 Aug., 1643.]

Taking advantage of a split in the parliamentary camp, the Lords renewed their proposals for peace. As soon as the City became aware of this there was great consternation. A Common Council hurriedly met on Sunday afternoon (6 Aug.) and drew up a petition to the Commons praying them to continue the same course they had hitherto pursued and to reject all propositions for peace. [Journal 40, fo. 69b. The petition is printed in Rushworth's Collections, v, 36.] This petition was presented to the House on Monday (7 Aug.), when the proposals of the Lords came on again for consideration. The House thanked the City for its care, recommended the lord mayor to take measures to prevent all disorders, and afterwards formally rejected the peace propositions. [Journal House of Commons, iii, 197.]

[Riots at Westminster, 8 and 9 Aug.]

Whilst the proposals of the Lords were under consideration the approaches of the Houses had been filled by an angry mob which threatened to return the next day unless matters went as they pleased. On the morning of the 8th August parliament was again besieged. This time it was by a crowd of women with white ribbons in their hats, shouting loudly for peace. The next day they appeared in greater numbers, and having presented a petition for the cessation of the war and received a courteous answer from the Commons, they refused to go home, but pressed on to the door of the House and demanded that the traitors who were against peace might be handed over to them. From words they resorted to stones and brickbats. At length a small body of Waller's horse from the city appeared on the scene, and order was with difficulty restored. [Rushworth, Historical Collections, v, 357.]

[1,000 horse to be raised in the city for Waller, 11 Aug., 1643.]

On the 7th a commission had arrived from Essex, in answer to the recommendation of the House, appointing Waller to the command of all the forces to be raised by the city. [Journal House of Lords, vi, 172.] Four days later (11 Aug.) the Committee of the Militia for the city desired the cooperation of the Common Council in raising 1,000 horse, pursuant to an order of parliament of the 25th July, and on the following day (12 Aug.) Pennington issued a warrant for pressing the number of horses required for delivery to Waller. [Journal 40, fo. 71; Cal. State Papers Dom. (1641-1643), p. 476.]

[Gloucester summoned to surrender by the king, 10 Aug., 1643.]

Instead of marching with his main army direct upon London from Bristol, as Charles had originally intended, he resolved to lay siege to Gloucester. On the 10th August he appeared before its gates and formally summoned the town to surrender. [Rushworth, v, 286.] The citizens of London were quick to realise the fact that the fall of Gloucester would endanger their own safety, and at once took measures for defending themselves and sending relief to the besieged town.

[£50,000 to be raised in the city, 11 Aug.]

On the day after Gloucester had been summoned to surrender the Common Council, in view of "the neare approach of the king's forces," resolved to call upon the livery companies to raise the sum of £50,000, for which the City would give bonds at the rate of eight per cent. interest. The companies were to contribute according to their corn assessment. In addition to this every inhabitant of the city, citizen or stranger, was to contribute to the Chamber a sum equal to fifty times the amount of subsidy he had been in the habit of paying, and for this also the City would allow him interest at the rate of eight per cent. after the first six months. This mode of raising the money required subsequently (18 Aug.) received the sanction of both Houses of Parliament, who guaranteed its repayment (24 Aug.).[^64] The Merchant Taylors' Company again hesitated before they consented to pay the sum (£5,000) at which they were assessed, whilst the Grocers, on the other hand, displayed the same alacrity as before in contributing their quota (£4,500), resolving to dispose of the remainder of their plate (with the exception of such as was absolutely necessary) for the purpose. [Clode, "London during the Great Rebellion," pp. 26, 27.]

[^64: Journal 40, fos. 70-70b, 71b-72b; Journal House of Commons, iii, 209, 217; Journal House of Lords, vi, 190. The Common Council had previously (1 Aug.) resolved to raise a like sum from the inhabitants within the city and "the command of the forts or lines of communication."—Journal 40, fo. 69.]

[The City's force sent to the relief of Gloucester, 21 Aug., 1643.]

Ten days later (21 Aug.) the Committee of the Militia of the city declared its intention of sending a force under the command of Essex to assist in raising the siege of Gloucester, and at once ordered every shop to be closed and all business suspended until Gloucester should be relieved. The regiments to be sent were to be chosen by lot. These consisted of two regiments of the trained bands, two of the auxiliaries, and a regiment of horse; and with them were despatched eleven pieces of cannon and three "drakes." [Rushworth, v, 291, 292.]

[Essex and the Londoners relieve Gloucester, 5 Sept.]

After reviewing his forces on Hounslow Heath in the presence of a large number of members of both Houses, Essex set out on his march (26 Aug.). The troops suffered great privation from lack of food and water by the way. "Such straits and hardships," wrote a sergeant in one of the London regiments, "our citizens formerly knew not; yet the Lord that called us to do the work enabled us to undergo such hardships as He brought us to."[^65] By the 5th September every obstacle had been overcome and Essex appeared before Gloucester, only to see, however, the blazing huts of the royalist army already in full retreat. Three days later he entered the city amid the enthusiastic rejoicings of the inhabitants, who, but for his timely arrival, would have been at the mercy of the enemy. The relief of Gloucester, to which the Londoners contributed so much, "proved to be the turning point of the war." [Green, "Hist. Engl. People," iii, 226.]

[^65: "A true and exact Relation of the Marchings of the Two Regiments of the Trained Bands of the city of London ... By Henry Foster, quondam sergeant to Captain George Mosse, Oct. 2, 1643" (British Museum (E. 69)/15* Cited in Raikes's "Hist. Hon. Artillery Company," i, 113-128).]

[Courage displayed by the trained bands at Newbury, 20 Sept., 1643.]

If the Londoners fairly claimed some credit for the part they had taken towards the relief of Gloucester, still more credit was due to them for the bold stand they made a fortnight later (20 Sept.), at Newbury, against repeated charges of Rupert's far-famed cavalry. Again and again did Rupert's horse dash down upon the serried pikes of the London trained bands, but never once did it succeed in breaking their ranks, whilst many a royalist saddle was emptied by the city's musketeers, whose training in the Artillery Garden and Finsbury Fields now served them in good stead. Whilst the enemy's cannon was committing fearful havoc in the ranks of the Londoners they still stood their ground "like so many stakes," and drew admiration even from their enemies for their display of courage. "They behaved themselves to wonder," writes the royalist historian of the civil war, and "were, in truth, the preservation of that army that day." [Clarendon (ed. 1839), p. 458.] Notwithstanding, however, all their efforts, the day was undecided. Neither party could claim a victory. Essex was glad enough to make his way to Reading, whilst Charles retired to Oxford. On their return to London (28 Sept.) the trained bands received an enthusiastic welcome, the mayor and aldermen going out to meet them at Temple Bar.

[Trained bands again called out for the recovery of Reading, 9 Oct., 1643.]

Ten days later the services of the trained bands were again required to assist in regaining the town of Reading, which had been occupied by the royalists as soon as Essex had quitted it. Six regiments were to be despatched for the purpose. Two regiments of the city's trained bands were chosen by lot, as before, and the remainder of the force was made up out of the auxiliaries and the trained bands of Southwark and Westminster. [Journal 40, fo. 78b.] Orders were issued that if any member of the appointed regiments failed to appear on parade, his shop should be closed, and he himself expelled beyond the line of fortifications. [Gardiner, "Hist. Great Civil War," i, 285.]

[Disaffection among the trained bands.]

In no long time a mutinous spirit broke out among the trained bands, who, in the midst of an attack on Basing House, the mansion of the Marquis of Winchester, in the following month insisted upon returning home, and the siege had to be abandoned. On the 28th November the sheriffs of London, accompanied by a deputation of aldermen, appeared at the bar of the Commons and boldly desired that the city regiments with Essex might be called home. Alderman Fowke or Foulke, a leading spirit in the city and staunch parliamentarian, was one of the sheriffs at the time, and acted as spokesman. He laid before the House a plain statement as to how matters stood. The fact was that the troops were unpaid, and that no money was forthcoming. If money was found for the trained bands the civic authorities, in consideration of the critical times, promised to do their best to persuade them to remain longer in the field. The House resolved to raise £5,000 for the city's forces on this understanding. [Journal House of Commons, iii, 323.] A month later (30 Dec.) the Common Council formally approved of a request made by both Houses of Parliament that two or three regiments of the trained bands should be sent to reinforce Waller, who was endeavouring to recapture Arundel. [Journal 40, fo. 81.]

[Discovery of Brooke's plot, 6 Jan., 1644.]

The recent signs of disaffection encouraged Charles to make another effort to win over the City, and in this he was promised the support of Sir Basil Brooke. Whilst accepting the services of one who was a warm Catholic, Charles addressed a letter to the mayor and aldermen, in which he assured them of his "constancy in religion." He foolishly imagined that such an assurance would induce the City to break at once with parliament and declare for peace. The letter, as luck would have it, fell into the hands of the Committee of Safety. The plot was discovered, and full particulars of it laid before the Commons (6 Jan., 1644). [Journal House of Commons, iii, 358.]

The discovery led to stricter precautions being taken to prevent inhabitants of the city leaving the city to join the king at Oxford, as many ill-affected persons had already done. The number of passes was reduced, and the keys of the portcullises of the city's gates were ordered for the future to remain in the custody of the sheriffs. [Journal 40, fos. 82b, 84.]

[Banquet to both Houses at Merchant Taylors' Hall, 18 Jan., 1644.]

In token of the City's constancy to parliament the Common Council resolved (12 Jan.) to invite both Houses to dinner. [Id., fos. 84b-86.] The entertainment, which took place at Merchant Taylors' Hall (18 Jan.), was preceded by a sermon preached at Christ Church, Newgate, in favour of union. The preacher, Stephen Marshall, received the formal thanks of the City, besides a "gratification," and was desired to print his sermon. On their way from church to the banquet the Lords and Commons passed through Cheapside, where a pile of crucifixes, pictures and popish relics were in the act of being burnt on the site of the recently destroyed cross. [Whitelock's Memorials (ed. 1732), p. 80; "A Perfect Diurnal" (Guildhall Library), No. 26, p. 265.] The City afterwards received the thanks of the Commons for the entertainment.

[The Committee of Both Kingdoms, 16 Feb.]

The day following the banquet the first regiments of the Scottish army crossed the Tweed, driving the royalists of the extreme north of England to take shelter in Newcastle. The mutual understanding between England and Scotland—the result of Pym's policy—necessitated the appointment of some definite authority at Westminster which should control both armies in common. Hence it was that on the 16th February a Committee of Both Kingdoms, composed of members of parliament and commissioners sent from Scotland, was established to take the place of the Committee of Safety.

[A weekly meal sacrificed for payment of city troops. Jan., 1644.]

Meanwhile the City was busy increasing its defences and raising a force to join in the next campaign. It was found necessary to cut down the pay of both officers and men, [Journal 40, fo. 81b.] and to such straits were the authorities driven for money to pay the troops that they could devise no better method than that the inhabitants of the city should be called upon to set apart the price of one meal every week for the purpose. The idea was at first distasteful to the Common Council, but seeing no other alternative open they eventually applied for and obtained the sanction of parliament to carry it out. [Journal 40, fos. 83b, 86b, 88b, 89, 89b, 90, 90b, 93; Journal House of Commons, iii, 380, 384, 388, 409.]

[Petition for reforms in the army, 26 Jan.]

The council at the same time signified to parliament its regret that those reforms in the army which it had expressed a wish to have carried out, had not been effected, and humbly prayed that Essex might be furnished with a force such as the necessity of the times demanded, that command might be given to officers whose fidelity was beyond suspicion, and that such discipline might be maintained in his excellency's army as might make it a pattern of reformation to all the rest of the armies of the kingdom. [Journal 40, fo. 88; Journal House of Commons, iii, 380.]

[Waller's victory at Cheriton, 29 March.]

The spring campaign opened successfully for parliament. When news of Waller's success at Cheriton (29 March) reached London it was received with enthusiastic joy, and, for a time at least, all thoughts of peace were set aside. The City assisted parliament to raise a sum of £20,000 (3 April) and authorised the purchase of 3,000 muskets and 1,000 pikes on the credit of the weekly meal money (3 April). [Journal 40, fos. 91b, 92.] The Commons ordered a public thanksgiving for the victory which had crowned their arms to be kept in London on the 9th April, [Rushworth, v, 655.] and the mayor was instructed to summon a Common Hall to meet in the evening of that day for the purpose of hearing proposals from both Houses. All the advantages gained at Cheriton were unfortunately lost by the city's trained bands again insisting upon returning home.

[Speeches at a Common Hall, 9 April, 1644.]

The Common Hall which was accordingly summoned was addressed by Warwick, Vane, Essex, Pembroke, Hollis and Glyn, the new Recorder. [Id., v, 658-662.] All the speeches were pitched in the same strain. The City was thanked for its past services and exhorted to embrace the opportunity that now offered itself of putting an end to the existing distractions. It was purposed to draw all available forces together to a general rendezvous at Aylesbury by the 19th of the month, and the citizens were desired to offer themselves "as one man," for it was to no purpose "to go by little and little."

[Six regiments of auxiliaries to attend the rendezvous at Aylesbury.]

Three days later (12 April) the Committee of Militia, which had recently received (8 April) a fresh commission, was instructed to call out six regiments of the auxiliaries. Three of them were to set out immediately to join the parliamentary army, whilst the other three were to be held in reserve. [Journal 40, fo. 92b; Letter Book QQ, fo. 108.] It was to little purpose, however, that the City kept sending out fresh forces, if these were to be continually insisting upon returning home, as those under Waller had recently done for the second time.

[Three regiments ready to march, 2 May.]

Great delay took place in getting the parliamentary forces into the field. The 19th April, the day appointed for the rendezvous at Aylesbury, arrived and found Essex still unprepared. It was not until the 2nd May that the Committee of the Militia of the city informed the Common Council that three regiments out of the six to be called out were then in readiness to march. The committee asked the sanction of the council before giving orders for the regiments to start because, they said, their powers had been much limited by their last commission (8 April). The council was in favour of the regiments setting out at once towards Uxbridge, according to instructions left behind by Essex, and the committee was directed to draft an ordinance for parliament to the effect that none of the forces might be kept longer abroad or sent further from London than the committee should from time to time think fit, and that the forces should be conducted and commanded by such major-general and other officers of the brigade as the committee should appoint. [Journal 40, fo. 94b; Letter Book QQ, fo. 112b.] It was a repetition of the old story. The City always insisted on appointing its own officers over its own men.

[Propositions for a peace, April-May, 1644.]

[The City consulted, 6 May, 1644]

In the meantime the Committee of Both Kingdoms had been busy drawing up proposals for peace such as would at once satisfy both Houses as well as be acceptable to Charles. At length the proposals were laid before the Commons and read the first time (29 April). The second reading was appointed for the 1st May. Before any further steps were taken in the matter it was but right that the citizens of London, without whose aid the issue of the struggle between king and parliament might have been very different to what it was, should be consulted. A deputation was therefore appointed (3 May) by the House to wait on the mayor, aldermen and common council of the city and to express to them the willingness of parliament to consider any proposals that they might think fit to make on behalf of the city, and to lay them before the king. [Journal House of Commons, iii, 472, 477.] The City thanked parliament and referred the matter to a committee. [Journal 40, fo. 95b.]

[Suspected persons from Oxford to be expelled from the city, 15 May.]

For some time past there had been a flow of dissatisfied royalists from Oxford to London, induced to embrace the parliamentary cause by an offer of pardon made by Essex (30 Jan.) to all who would return to their duty and take the covenant. [Gardiner, i, 353.] During 1643 the flow had been in the opposite direction. It now became necessary to see that only genuine converts found their way into the city, and to this end parliament ordered (15 May) the mayor to take steps for the expulsion from the city and lines of communication of all suspicious persons such as had lately come from Oxford, or any other of the king's quarters, all recusants, the wives of recusants and the wives of those who were in arms against the parliament.[^66]

[^66: Journal 40, fo. 97; Journal House of Commons, iii, 493. Towards the close of the year the influx from Oxford became so dangerous that it became necessary for the mayor to issue a precept (17 Dec.) for special precautions to be taken against danger arising from ill-affected persons.—Common Hall Book No. 1, fo. 223b.]

[Disputes as to re-appointment of Committee of Both Kingdoms.]

[The City's petition for re-appointment of the committee, 16 May, 1644.]

Meanwhile the term of three months for which the Committee of Both Kingdoms had been originally appointed was fast drawing to a close, and considerable difference of opinion had manifested itself between the Lords and Commons as to its re-appointment. The former were in favour of increasing the numbers of the committee, with the view no doubt of giving a larger representation to the peace party, whilst the latter advocated a simple renewal of the powers of the committee as it then stood. At this juncture, when the country seemed likely to be left without any central authority to direct the movements of the parliamentary forces, the City presented a petition (16 May) to the Commons [Journal 40, fo. 97b; Rushworth, v, 710.] setting forth the danger that was likely to arise from the discontinuance of the committee, and praying that it might speedily be re-established as the present urgency of affairs required. The citizens took the opportunity of praying the Commons to see that the Tower of London, Windsor Castle and Tilbury Fort remained in good hands and were properly supplied with necessaries, and further that none of the members of the House who had returned from Oxford might be readmitted to their seats until they had given satisfactory pledges for their fidelity in the future. The re-admission of these members had been a cause of a long wrangle between the two Houses.

[The answer of the Commons to the City's petition, 18 May.]

Two days later (18 May) a deputation from the Commons attended at the Guildhall with their answer. [Journal 40, fo. 98; Rushworth, v, 711.] They gratefully acknowledged the assistance they had received from the city, without which they would have been unable to achieve what they had done. An ordinance, they said, was being proceeded with for the continuance of the Committee of Both Kingdoms; measures would be taken respecting the Tower, Windsor Castle and Tilbury Fort such as would be for the security and satisfaction of the City; and the House had already passed an ordinance touching the re-admission of members which it would see carried into execution. The answer concluded by again acknowledging the obligation that parliament was under to the City for spending its blood and treasure for the public good, which the House would ever have in remembrance and would endeavour to requite.

[The old Committee of Both Kingdoms resume work, 24 May.]

Just as matters were coming to a dead-lock the crisis was averted by the happy thought of reviving an old ordinance which had already received the sanction of the Lords, but had hitherto been ignored and laid aside by the Commons. This ordinance, which proposed to confer unlimited powers on the committee, was now taken up and passed by the Commons, and thus the old committee was enabled to meet on the 24th May and continue its work. [Journal House of Commons, iii, 498, 500, 501, 503-505.]

[Request for a city loan of £200,000 or £300,000, 28 May, 1644.]

Parliament was still sadly in need of money, and on the 27th May appointed a committee, of which the Recorder and one or two of the city aldermen were members, to consider how best to raise it, "either by particular securities or companies, or other particular persons beyond seas, or by mortgaging of any lands, or by putting to sale sequestered lands." [Journal House of Commons, iii, 508-509.] The civil war appeared to be approaching a crisis. The town of Abingdon had recently been abandoned by the royalists and occupied by Essex, whilst Waller was advancing in the direction of Wantage, to gain, if possible, a passage over the Thames above Oxford, and thus cut off Charles from the west of England. Both generals sent notice of their movements to parliament, and on the 28th their letters (or an abstract of them) were read before the Common Council by a deputation of the recently appointed committee, and a request was made that the City would furnish the House with a sum of £200,000 or £300,000 upon the security of the estates of delinquents. Notwithstanding the difficulty the City was then experiencing in getting in the arrears of the monthly assessment and the weekly meal account, it at once took steps to carry out the wishes of parliament. [Journal 40, fo. 99; Journal House of Commons, iii, 509; Whitelocke's Memorials (ed. 1732), pp. 88-89.]

[Major-General Browne and the siege of Greenland House, June, 1644.]

For some time past a royalist garrison in Greenland House, near Henley, had caused considerable annoyance to the country round about it, and had cut off all communication by way of the Thames between London and the west. On the 5th June the Common Council was asked to furnish one or more regiments to assist in reducing the garrison. [Journal 40, fo. 99b.] The council was the more willing to accede to this request for the reason that the force was to be placed under the command of a city alderman, Major-General Browne.[^67]

[^67: Richard Browne, variously described as Woodmonger and Coal-merchant, alderman of Langborn Ward; Sheriff 1648. His military duties interfered so much with his municipal that he was soon discharged from serving as alderman.—Common Hall Book No. 2, fo. 175b; Repertory 59, fo. 242; Repertory 60, fo. 29b.]

[News of Charles having fled from Oxford, 7 June, 1644.]

On the 7th June information was brought to the City that Charles had been forced to flee from Oxford, and the Common Council was asked to render assistance in the reduction of the king's stronghold. [Journal 40, fo. 100.] As long as Charles was at large, not only was the prospect of an end of the war more than ever remote, but the safety of London itself was threatened. It was a time for Essex and Waller to forget all past differences and to strengthen each other in a joint attack upon the royalist army wherever it may be found. Instead of this the two generals went different ways; Essex marched westward, leaving Waller to pursue Charles as best he could. To make matters worse, disaffection again appeared in the ranks of Waller's army. [Id., fo. 100b.]

[Disaffection among the trained bands, July, 1644.]

That the city trained bands had done good service in their day no one will deny, but the time was fast approaching when it would be necessary to raise an army of men willing to devote themselves to the military life as a profession. For permanent service in the field the London trained bands were not to be relied on. "In these two days' march," wrote Waller (2 July) to the Committee of Both Kingdoms, "I was extremely plagued with the mutinies of the City Brigade, who are grown to that height of disorder that I have no hope to retain them, being come to their old song of Home! Home!" There was, he said, only one remedy for this, and that was a standing army, however small;—"My lords, I write these particulars to let you know that an army compounded of these men will never go through with your service, and till you have an army merely your own, that you may command, it is in a manner impossible to do anything of importance." [Extract from Committee Letter Book, cited by Dr. Gardiner, "Hist. Great Civil War," i, 453-454.] The junction of his forces with those under Browne, who had been despatched (23 June) to protect the country between London and the royalist army, served only to increase the general discontent. "My London regiments," he wrote (8 July), "immediately looked on his [i.e. Browne's] forces as sent to relieve them, and without expectation of further orders, are most of them gone away; yesterday no less than 400 out of one regiment quitted their colours. On the other side, Major-General Browne's men, being most of them trained band men of Essex and Hertfordshire, are so mutinous and uncommandable that there is no hope of their stay. They are likewise upon their march home again. Yesterday they were like to have killed their Major-General, and they have hurt him in the face.... I am confident that above 2,000 Londoners ran away from their colours." [Extract from Committee Letter Book, cited by Dr. Gardiner, "Hist. Great Civil War," i, 455.] The same spirit of insubordination manifested itself again when Waller threw himself (20 July) into Abingdon. Most of his troops were only too anxious to leave him, whilst the Londoners especially refused to stir "one foot further, except it be home." [.Id. ibid., i, 456.]

[City's petition to parliament for payment of debts out of estates of delinquents, 2 Aug., 1644.]

All this was not unnatural if unpatriotic. The absence of these men from their counters and shops portended bankruptcy to many. Even those who stayed at home found difficulty in carrying on their commercial pursuits, owing to the war. Credit had been given to persons who at the outbreak of the war threw in their lot with the king. Their estates had thereupon been sequestrated by parliament, and the city merchant, tradesman or craftsman was left to recover his debt as best he could. At length (2 Aug., 1644) the Common Council took the matter up, and agreed to petition parliament that delinquents might be brought to judgment, and that in all cases of sequestration provision might be made for payment of all just debts out of delinquents' estates. [Journal 40, fos. 103-103b.] Another grievance which the London tradesman had was the large circulation of farthing tokens, which they were unable to get re-changed. [Journal 40, fos. 101, 102, 102b, 105.]

[Ordinance for a standing army, 12 July, 1644.]

The representations made by Waller as to the untrustworthiness of the trained bands were such as parliament could not disregard. It resolved therefore (12 July) to establish a permanent force amounting in all to 10,000 foot and 3,050 horse, to be levied in the eastern and southern counties, to take their place and form a small standing army. [Journal House of Commons, iii, 559; Journal House of Lords, vi, 629, 630.] The city of London and the county of Middlesex were called upon to find 200 horse. The city's contingent of 100 horse was reported as being ready early in August, but money was wanted for their pay. The Common Council thereupon authorised the payment of £2,000 out of the weekly meal fund. [Journal 40, fos. 103b.]

[The City's propositions laid before the House, 21 Aug., 1644.]

[The number of propositions ordered to be reduced, 25 Oct.]

More than three months had now elapsed since parliament offered to consider any propositions that the municipal authorities might suggest for the good of the city. At length these were ready, and were laid before the House on the 21st August. They were twenty-eight in number. [Journal 40, fos. 104, 108-110; Journal House of Commons, iii, 602.] The first six had reference to the appointment of justices of the peace in the city and Southwark, whilst others dealt with the City's right to the conservancy of the Thames, the restitution of the City's Irish estate and the extension of its jurisdiction over the Tower. Parliament was further urged to empower the Common Council to correct, amend or repeal any by-law made or procured by any company or mistery of London, notwithstanding any statute or law to the contrary, and generally to extend the powers of the City. Lastly, it was proposed that, as the city had grown very populous, the citizens should be allowed to send two additional burgesses to parliament. The consideration of these propositions by the Commons was put off until October, when (25th) the House resolved that the City should be desired to reduce the number of propositions and to state specifically a few of the most important and to bring forward the rest in general terms, so that the propositions of the two kingdoms, which had been ready for some time past, might be forwarded to the king without more delay. [Journal House of Commons, iii, 667, 669, 675, 677.]

[The propositions reduced to six, 26 Oct., 1644.]

The Common Council met accordingly on the following day (26 Oct.) and reduced the number of propositions to six, viz., (1) that an Act be passed confirming to the City its charters, customs and liberties; (2) that the militia of the city, as well as of the parishes beyond the city, and its liberties, but within the bills of mortality, should be regulated by the Common Council; (3) that the Tower should be under the government of the City; (4) that the City's forces should not be forced to serve outside the city; (5) that an Act might be passed confirming all by-laws and ordinances made or to be made for calling and regulating the Common Council of the city; and (6) that such other propositions as should be made for the safety and good government of the city, with the approval of both Houses, might be confirmed by Act of parliament. These six propositions were ordered to be forthwith presented to parliament by the Recorder and by alderman Pennington (as lieutenant of the Tower), with an humble desire that they might be sent to his majesty with the propositions of the two kingdoms. It was hoped that the rest of the propositions formerly presented by the City to the House of Commons might soon pass both Houses of Parliament. [Journal 40, fo. 115; Journal House of Commons, iii, 679, 680.]

[Surrender of the parliamentary forces in the west, 2 Sept.]

Whilst the propositions which were supposed to make for peace were under consideration, the whole of the parliamentary forces under Essex in the west of England, with the exception of the cavalry, had been compelled to surrender to the royalist army. Deserted by their leader, and left by their cavalry to shift for themselves, the foot soldiers were driven to accept such terms as Skippon, who still stuck to his post, was able to obtain, and on the morning of the 2nd September they laid down their arms. News of the disaster created great consternation in the city, and the Common Council resolved (9 Sept.) to petition parliament to take steps to prevent the royalists occupying Reading as they had done before, and to hasten the passing of a measure for raising money for the maintenance of the fortifications and guards of the city. [Journal 40, fo. 106.]

[Fresh forces required to prevent Charles returning to Oxford, Sept., 1644.]

Every effort was made to prevent Charles, who was coming up from the west, reaching the garrisons around Oxford, where he would be able to fight to advantage, and the City was asked (13 Sept.) to send a contingent to assist Waller in that design. The Common Council thereupon gave its assent (20 Sept.) to the red and blue regiments of the trained bands being drawn out in conjunction with three other regiments, viz., one of the trained bands of Westminster, one of the trained bands of Southwark, and the auxiliaries of the Hamlets, and a week later (27 Sept.) voted the sum of £20,000 "or thereabouts" for defraying their cost. [Journal 40, fos. 106b, 107, 107b.] This sum was afterwards raised to £22,000, of which £17,250 was to be raised in the city and liberties, and the balance within the Tower Hamlets, the city of Westminster and borough of Southwark.[^68]

[^68: Journal 40, fo. 111. To assist the City at this juncture parliament allowed them £10,000, a sum which Waller, the poet, who had now been in prison for more than a year, was content to pay for the recovery of his freedom.—Id., fo. 107; Journal House of Commons, iii, 639.]

[The second battle of Newbury, 27 Oct.]

These preparations were of little avail. As the royalist army came on Waller fell back, until at Newbury the opposing armies again tried conclusions (27 Oct.). Notwithstanding some success which attended the parliamentary forces, they failed to attain the main object in view, and Charles was able at the close of the day to continue his march to Oxford, which he entered on the 1st November.

[Surrender of Newcastle, 19 Oct., 1644.]

In the meantime better news arrived from the north. Newcastle had at last surrendered to the Scots (19 Oct.), and this intelligence gladdened the hearts of the parliamentary soldiers as well as of the citizens of London. The city might now look for a plentiful supply of coal, a commodity which had become so scarce that in July the civic authorities had received permission from parliament to dig for turf and peat, by way of a substitute for coal, wherever they thought fit. [Journal 40, fo. 102; Journal House of Commons, iii, 534, 564.] Seeing that it was by the aid of the city that a fleet had been maintained off the north coast, that Berwick had been secured for parliament, and that a free passage had thus been kept open for the Scottish army, the civic authorities thought themselves justified in appealing to parliament for repayment of the money formerly advanced by the adventurers. [Journal 40, fo. 117.] Notwithstanding the surrender of Newcastle the citizens had to pay a high price for coal owing to a heavy impost set upon it by parliament, until, at the earnest request of the municipal authorities, parliament consented to reduce it. [Journal 40, fos. 117b, 118; "A Perfect Diurnal," No. 70, for the week ending 2nd December, 1644, p. 558; Id., No. 71, p. 566.]

[The trade and commerce of the city ruined by the war.]

The close of the year (1644) found the trade and commerce of the city in a deplorable condition. Commercial intercourse with the woollen and linen manufacturers of the west of England had been almost entirely cut off, whilst the blockade of the east coast by the royalist navy deprived the city of a great amount of corn, fish, butter, cheese and other provisions. The citizens were greatly opposed to free trade being allowed with those ports and towns which were in the hands of the royalists, [See schedule of "Reasons against free trade to or from any ports of his majesty's dominions that are or shalbe in hostility against the king and parliament," October, 1644.—Journal 40, fos. 113-114.] but they were still more anxious to have their trade kept open with the west of England, and they petitioned parliament to that end. [Journal 40, fos. 119-122b.]

[The treaty of Uxbridge, 31 Jan.-22 Feb., 1645.]

Early in the following year (31 Jan., 1645) a conference was opened at Uxbridge to discuss three propositions for peace which parliament had offered to Charles at Oxford in November last. These propositions involved the abolition of Episcopacy, and the placing the entire command of the army and navy, as well as the future conduct of the war with Ireland, in the hands of parliament. From the outset it appeared very unlikely that Charles would bring himself to accept the terms thus offered. After three weeks' discussion negotiations were broken off and the so-called "Treaty of Uxbridge" fell to the ground.

CHAPTER XXIV.

[The New Model Army, 15 Feb., 1645.]

[The City advances £80,000, 4 March, 1645.]

The failure of the negotiations at Uxbridge hastened the passing of an ordinance for re-modelling the army and placing it on such a footing that the men should be in receipt of constant pay and the officers selected for military efficiency alone. Ever since November the "New Model" ordinance—as it was called—had been under consideration. In January it passed the Commons, but the Lords hesitated until the difference of opinion that had manifested itself at Uxbridge induced them to give their assent (15 Feb.). On the 4th March a deputation from both Houses came into the city and informed the Common Council that, the Treaty of Uxbridge having fallen through, the Houses had resolved "to put their forces into the best posture they can for the vigorous prosecution of the war, as the best means now left (under God) for the obtaining of peace." Parliament had passed an ordinance—they proceeded to say—for raising £50,000 a month for nine months for payment of an army under Sir Thomas Fairfax, and they now asked the City to advance a sum of £80,000 on the security of the money so to be raised in the last five months out of the nine. The matter was referred to a committee to carry out. [Journal 40, fo. 125.]

[The self-denying ordinance, 3 April, 1645.]

The passing of the New Model ordinance was followed by the passing of a self-denying ordinance, [Journal House of Lords, vii, 302.] the original purport of which was to exclude all members of either House from commands in the army, but was afterwards so far modified as to compel existing officers to resign their appointments, leaving it to parliament to re-appoint them if it would. Essex, Waller and Manchester resigned, but when the time came for Cromwell, the prime mover in the re-organisation of the army, to follow suit, he and two or three others were re-appointed to commands in the new army. The immediate effect of the passing of this ordinance upon the city of London was that Pennington, who had been appointed by parliament lieutenant of the Tower, had to resign his post. The nomination of his successor was, however, left with the Common Council, who sent up the name of Colonel Francis West for the approval of the Commons (24 April). [Journal 40, fo. 126.]

[Military activity in the city, April, 1645.]

Whilst the army was undergoing a process of reformation outside London, considerable activity prevailed within the city with the object of strengthening its position. The Committee of Militia was instructed to raise a sufficient number of men to guard the city forts so that the trained bands might be free for more active duties. Large sums of money were voted to pay arrears due to gunners, "mattrosses" and workmen who had been engaged in erecting the fortifications. The sum of £500 was ordered to be laid out in the purchase of gunpowder. The scout-master for the city was encouraged in his duty of bringing information of movements of the royalist army by the payment of arrears due to him, and steps were taken to bring up the regiments of the city auxiliaries to their full complement by enlistments from the several wards. [Id., fos. 125b, 128.]

[The siege of Oxford, 22 May, 1645.]

The first serious undertaking confided to Fairfax and the New Model army was the siege of Oxford. The utter uselessness of such an enterprise, whilst Charles was free to roam the country and deal blows wherever opportunity offered, failed to make itself apparent to the Committee of Both Kingdoms, which still governed the movements of the parliamentary army. The siege being resolved upon, a deputation from both Houses waited on the Common Council (16 May) to ask for assistance in furnishing a force to set out under Major-General Browne to join Fairfax and Cromwell in the undertaking. [Journal 40, fo. 128b.] Four days later (20 May), when another deputation attended, the court instructed the committee of arrears sitting at Weavers' Hall to raise £10,000 for the purpose. [Letter Book QQ, fo. 158b. The minutes of this court are not recorded in the Journal, there being two folios missing.]

[Massey to quit Gloucester and take command in the west, 24 May.]

Whilst the main force of the parliamentary army was wasting time in besieging Oxford, care was taken to keep the country open round Taunton, recently set free by a detachment sent by Fairfax. For this purpose Massey, the governor of Gloucester, was ordered to quit his post and march towards Bristol.[^69] The prospect of losing their governor, who had achieved so many military successes in the neighbourhood, threw the inhabitants of Gloucester into terrible consternation, and they went so far as to petition parliament against his removal; but somehow or other their petition failed to be read before the Commons. In their distress they caused their mayor to address a letter to the city of London (29 May) stating the facts of the case, and praying that the Londoners, who had already done so much to save them from the hand of the enemy, would interpose with the Commons on their behalf, so that Colonel Massey might be allowed to remain. The civic authorities agreed (7 June) to lay the matter before parliament; [Journal 40, fos. 132, 133.] but in spite of all representations Massey had to go. The Londoners themselves were asked (9 June) to furnish 500 mounted musketeers for Massey's expedition, and were encouraged to do so by "motives" setting forth the gallant behaviour of the brigade in and about Taunton, and the critical condition it was in by being cut off from provisions. The Common Council ordered the motives to be printed and circulated, with the result that sufficient money was raised to fit out 500 dragoons. [Journal 40, fos. 132b, 133. The Committee of Both Kingdoms to the Earl of Warwick and the committee of Essex, 15th June.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1644-1645), p. 595.]

[^69: The committee of both kingdoms to Massey, 24 May.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1644-1645), p. 519. On the 10 June the committee again wrote, bidding him hasten with all possible diligence and speed to the relief of Taunton.—Id., p. 585.]

[City's petition to parliament, 4 June, 1645.]

In the meantime considerable dissatisfaction manifested itself in the city at the state of affairs in general, and more particularly with the manner in which the movements of Fairfax and the New Model army were hampered by orders from home. A petition from divers inhabitants of the city with certain suggestions was laid before the Common Council for presentation to parliament. It was not customary, however, for the Common Council to present petitions to parliament unless drawn up by themselves, but as the feelings of the court were in sympathy with the petitioners it ordered two petitions to be drawn up embracing the substance of the original petition, and these were presented, one to each of the Houses. After setting forth what they esteemed to be the reasons for the ill success of the parliamentary cause, the petitioners made known their own wishes. In the first place, they desired that the army of Fairfax should be recruited, and that the general might be allowed greater freedom of action. Secondly, that steps should be taken, before it was too late, to recover Leicester, which had recently (31 May) fallen into the king's hands. Thirdly, that the Scots should be urged to march southward. Fourthly, that Cromwell should be placed in command of the Eastern Association. Fifthly, that adequate convoys should be provided for merchants; and lastly, that parliament should publish its own account of the recent negotiations, as well as its resolutions against free trade by sea to such ports as were in the king's hands. [Journal 40, fo. 131.] The petition, which was presented by Alderman Fowke to the Commons (4 June),[^70] was favourably received by both Houses, and the City thanked for its care.

[^70: Journal House of Commons, iv, 163. Six weeks later Alderman Fowke was committed to Fleet Prison by the committee for accompts of the kingdom, presumably on a charge of malversation. He appears to have remained in confinement until the following October, and then to have regained his liberty only by the Common Council interesting itself with parliament on his behalf.—Journal 40, fos. 137, 146b.]

[Cromwell appointed lieutenant-general, 10 June, 1645.]

One of the wishes expressed in the City's petition was soon realised, for within a week Cromwell was appointed, not to the command of the Eastern Association as suggested, but to a still greater command, viz., the lieutenant-generalship of the army, an office which, by long prescription, carried also the command of the cavalry, an arm of the service in which Cromwell had especially shown himself a master. [Journal House of Commons, iv, 169, 170; Journal House of Lords, vii, 421.]

[The battle of Naseby, 14 June, 1645.]

Fairfax, being now allowed a free hand, abandoned the siege of Oxford and set off in pursuit of the royal army. He came up with them at Naseby, where on the 14th June he succeeded, with the help of Cromwell and his cavalry, in obtaining a signal victory and utterly crushing the power of Charles in the field. Among the wounded on the parliamentary side was the City's old friend Skippon, "shot under the arme six inches into his flesh." The pain of having his wound dressed caused him to groan. "Though I groane, I grumble not," said he to the by-standers, and asked for a chaplain to come and pray for him.[^71]

[^71: "A list of the particulars of what was lost on both sides in the great battle on Dreadfull Downe, neere Naisby. June 14. 1644 (sic)," is set out in "Perfect Occurrences of Parliament" for week ending 20 June, 1645.]

[Thanksgiving in the city for the victory at Naseby, 19 June.]

The victory at Naseby was celebrated in the city by a thanksgiving service at Christ Church, Newgate (19 June), which was attended by the members of both Houses, followed by an entertainment at Grocers' Hall. The hall not being large enough to contain the whole of the company, the members of the Common Council dined by themselves at the hall of the Mercers Company. Nothing was omitted that could serve to enhance the reputation of the City. [Journal 40, fo. 134.]

[The city advances £31,000 for payment of the Scottish army, 14 June.]

The wishes of the citizens were to be further gratified. The Scottish army was about to move southward, and parliament had voted a month's pay, or £31,000. The City was asked to assist in raising the money (14 June). To this the Common Council readily agreed, but at the same time directed the Recorder to represent to parliament that the citizens were anxious for the Scots to recover Leicester as speedily as possible. [Journal 40, fos. 133b, 134. The committee of both kingdoms to the Earl of Leven, 14 June, 1645.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1644-1645), p. 592.] Before the army had time to make any great advance in this direction Leicester had surrendered to Fairfax (18 June).

[Cavalry raised by the City for the parliamentary arms, July-Sept., 1645.]

In July the City was called upon to assist in raising 1,000 horse and 500 dragoons for the relief of the counties of Oxford, Buckingham, Berkshire and others, and the better security of the Association. [Journal 40, fo. 137; Journal House of Commons, iv, 211.] Three months later (2 Sept.) another contingent of 500 light horse and a like number of "dragoneers" were required "to pursue the forces of the king." Each member of the Common Council was directed to provide a light horse and arms or to pay the sum of £12 in lieu thereof. A dragoon horse and arms might be compounded for by payment of half that sum. Parliament agreed to charge the excise with the sum of £16,000 to provide compensation for any loss the contributors might sustain, whilst the City contributed out of its Chamber the sum of £400 towards the pay of officers, the buying of trophies and other necessaries. [Journal 40, fos. 143, 143b.]

[Plymouth appeals to London, 5 Sept.]

The aid of the City was now invoked by Plymouth as formerly it had been by Gloucester. On the 5th September the mayor and aldermen of Plymouth addressed a letter to the mayor and common council of London enclosing a petition they were about to lay before parliament. The petition set forth how, in the absence of Fairfax, who was laying siege to Bristol, the whole country round Plymouth was in the hands of the enemy; and an attack would, it was feared, be soon made by Lord Goring on the town garrison. Unless the siege was raised before winter, or considerable supplies brought in, the town would be unable to hold out longer. This petition the municipal authorities of London were asked to second, with the hope of prevailing upon parliament to send at least that relief which had been so often desired and so often promised. A whole fortnight elapsed before the letter and petition were brought to the notice of the Common Council (20 Sept.)—the letter from Gloucester had taken a week in transit, such was the state of the country—and then it was resolved to send a deputation from the city, including the two sheriffs, to express to the Committee of Both Kingdoms the desire of the City that they would be pleased to take the petition into speedy and serious consideration, and to provide for the safety and defence of Plymouth. [Journal 40, fos. 144b, 145.]

[Accommodation in the city for royalist prisoners.]

The Londoners themselves were suffering from an inconvenience from which they had hitherto in vain sought relief from parliament, and that was the large number of royalist soldiers—amounting to no less than 3,000—which after the battle of Naseby had been quartered on the city. [Id., fo. 141.] Now that the war was practically over, so far as the king was concerned, the Common Council again took the matter in hand, and it was suggested that the Convocation House and its cloisters situate on the south side of St. Paul's Churchyard should be fitted up at a cost of £40 for their reception. By this means Bethlehem hospital, where many of the prisoners had been housed, would be free to minister again to the wants of the poor. [Journal 40, fos. 146, 148.]

[The Presbyterians and Independents.]

The troubles with Charles had scarcely terminated before a new struggle commenced. A monster had been raised, after much hesitation and with no little difficulty, in the shape of a well-organised and regularly paid army, the command of which was virtually in the hands of a small political party known as Independents. The great fear was lest this party, with the army at its back, should over-ride the wishes of the Presbyterians, a party which was numerically stronger than the Independents, both in the House and in the country; and to avoid such a catastrophe the Presbyterians of England were ready to join hands with their brethren in Scotland.

[The Presbyterians and the Scottish army.]

The House, however, was unfortunate enough at this critical juncture to offend the Scots as well as the citizens of London. The Scottish army had been invited to march southward to attack Newark, whither Charles had betaken himself after witnessing from the walls of Chester the defeat of his troops on Rowton Heath (24 Sept.), and the Commons had promised to raise a sum of £30,000 for its pay provided it arrived before Newark by the 1st day of November. [Journal House of Commons, 6 Oct., iv, 298.] This sum the City promised to find (10 Oct.), but only on the condition named. [Journal 40, fo. 146.] On the 13th the House offended the dignity of the Scots by a series of resolutions protesting against the conduct of the Scottish army in not attacking the enemy as well as in levying money on the inhabitants of the northern counties, and demanded the removal of the garrisons which had been placed in Newcastle, Carlisle and other towns without the consent of parliament. [Journal House of Commons, iv, 305.]

[Presbyterianism in the city, 1645.]

The quarrel between parliament and the City was scarcely less serious, and arose out of an attempt to foist a system of Presbyterianism upon the citizens which should serve as a model for the rest of the kingdom. It was not that the Londoner objected to the principle of Presbyterianism; the natural bent of his mind was in that direction, and the City had already petitioned parliament for the election of elders to join with the parish ministers. [Whitelock, p. 136.] What he found fault with was the mode of electing the elders prescribed by parliament (23 Sept.). [Journal 40, fo. 148.] The scheme was so far from satisfying the general body of citizens that a number of them presented a petition to the Common Council to address both Houses of Parliament, with a view to having the powers of the elders sufficiently enlarged to effect a genuine reform in the Church. [Journal 40, fo. 153b; Journal House of Lords, vii, 717.] They wanted, in fact, to see parliamentary control over the Church in matters purely ecclesiastical withdrawn. Herein they were supported by the ministers of their own parish churches, who drew up a list of reforms they desired to see executed and the reasons why they so desired. [Journal 40, fo. 151b-153; Journal House of Lords, vii, 714-717.] It was a difficult matter on which to approach parliament. Nevertheless, in accordance with a resolution of the Common Council (18 Nov.), a deputation of aldermen and common councillors, of whom Alderman Gibbs acted as spokesman, presented themselves (19 Nov.) before the House of Commons with the petition of the citizens, as well as with the "desires and reasons" of the city clergy. The reply they got was far from encouraging. They were given to understand that parliament was well aware of its trust and duty, and was quite able to discharge both, if only it was let alone, and its purpose not misconceived and prejudged as it appeared to have been in the city; and they were dismissed with the caution not to form premature opinions about matters which were still under discussion. [Journal 40, fo. 154b; Journal House of Commons, iv, 348.] Notwithstanding this rebuff, the deputation the following day attended before the Lords (20 Nov.), who returned them a far more gracious and sympathetic answer. After thanking the deputation for their expressions of submission to the resolutions of parliament, their lordships assured them that none should excel them in their endeavours for the maintenance of the covenant, the advancement and settling of God's true religion, and the discharge of the trust reposed in them. [Journal 40, fo. 154b.]

[City loan of £6,000 for siege of Chester, 12 Nov., 1645.]

In the meantime a deputation from parliament had waited on the Common Council (12 Nov.) with a request for a loan of £6,000 for the troops engaged in blockading Chester. The court agreed to the request, but thought it high time to learn precisely how the city stood with respect to loans already made to parliament, and appointed (17 Nov.) a committee to report on the whole matter, with a view of addressing parliament for re-payment of monies in arrear. [Journal 40, fos. 150-151.]

[Parliament and the Scottish army.]

It was feared that the Scottish army might change sides. It wanted supplies. The City, we have seen, had agreed with parliament to advance a sum of £30,000 for payment of the Scots, provided their army appeared before Newark by the 1st November. This condition had not been fulfilled. The army, nevertheless, appeared later on, and a committee of the House of Commons came down to the city and asked the citizens (6 Dec.) to stand by their former promise and advance the sum mentioned, which they readily consented to do. [Id., fo. 156.]

[The king's proposal to come to Westminster, 26-29 Dec., 1645.]

[Answer of the House, 13 Jan., 1646.]

The question with Charles was, from whom was he likely to obtain the better terms, the English or the Scots? On the 26th December he addressed a letter to the Speaker of the House of Lords, asking whether the two Houses of Parliament, the Scottish commissioners, the municipal authorities, as well as the militia of the city and the officers of both armies, would guarantee his personal security if he came to reside in London or Westminster, with a retinue not exceeding three hundred in number, for a period of forty days. [Letter from the king at Oxford to the Speaker of the House of Peers, pro tempore, 26 Dec., 1645.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1645-1647), pp. 278-280.] The risk of allowing such a step was too great. Already the Earl of Holland had been heard to threaten a royalist rising in the city if only Charles could be brought in safety to Westminster. Not getting a reply so quickly as he wished, Charles wrote again three days later (29 Dec.) urging his former proposal. [The same to the same, 29 Dec.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1645-1647), p. 282; Journal House of Lords, viii, 73-74.] More delay took place, during which the Commons instructed the mayor to see well to the city's guards and scrutinise the passes of those coming and going, [Journal 40, fo. 159b.] and at last, on the 13th January, the Speakers wrote to Charles declining the proposal. [The Speakers of both Houses of Parliament to the king, 13 Jan., 1646.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1645-1647), p. 306.]

[Day of humiliation in the city, 14 Jan., 1646.]

The day following the despatch of this reply was kept in the city as a day of solemn humiliation. Sermons were preached before the mayor, aldermen and members of the common council, who afterwards individually took the oath and covenant. An enquiry was subsequently ordered (9 Feb.) for the purpose of discovering what members of the common council had failed to take the covenant on this occasion, and the reasons why they had not done so. A few members stood out and refused to renew the covenant, whereupon the court resolved to ask parliament for instructions as to what should be done with them. [Journal 40, fos. 160, 166b, 174.]

[The king's offers to parliament on religion, 15 Jan.]

On the 15th January Charles made overtures to parliament for the first time on the question of religion. He was prepared to allow religion to be settled as it was in the reign of Elizabeth and James, "with full liberty for the ease of their consciences who will not communicate in that service established by law, and likewise for the free and public use of the directory prescribed and, by command of the two Houses, now practised in some parts of the city of London." [The king to the Speaker of the House of Lords, 15 Jan.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1645-1647), p. 311; Journal House of Lords, viii, 103.]

[The City's petition against toleration, 15 Jan.]

This important concession on the part of Charles—a concession which only the necessities of the time induced him, after much exercise of mind, to make—was announced to parliament on the same day that the City presented a petition [Journal 40, fo. 160b; Journal House of Lords, viii, 105.] against toleration of any other form of religion than the Presbyterianism already adopted by parliament and the citizens. The petitioners declared that since they last addressed the Houses on the subject of religion a fresh election of the Common Council had taken place, and the inhabitants of many of the wards had taken the opportunity of asking their alderman that parliament might be again desired to settle Church government and forbid toleration. Private meetings for religious worship, they went on to say, were constantly held. In one parish there were at least eleven. Orthodox ministers were evil spoken of, as if the city were still under the "tyranny of prelatical government." Women had taken to preaching, and such blasphemies were uttered as made the petitioners tremble to think of. Having heard that it was the intention of divers persons to petition the House for a toleration of such doctrines as were against the covenant under pretext of liberty of conscience, the petitioners humbly prayed that parliament would take steps to remedy abuses and to settle the Church government according to the solemn covenant made with the most high God. The Commons lent a ready ear to the petition and thanked the City for their display of piety and religion. It was gratifying to them to know that they had the sympathy of the City in their anxiety to settle the peace of the Church. [Journal 40, fo. 166; Journal House of Commons, iv, 407.] The Lords, to whom a similar petition had been presented, returned an equally gracious message, and expressed a hope that the municipal authorities would take steps to remedy the existing abuses. [Journal 40, fo. 166b; Journal House of Lords, viii, 104.]

[The Scottish commissioners attend a Common Council, 11 Feb., 1646.]

Whilst endeavouring to come to terms with parliament Charles was also in communication both with the Scots and the Independents. His purpose was to play one party off against the other. A complete understanding existed between the citizens and the Scots on the subject of religion. On the 11th February the Scottish commissioners themselves appeared at a Common Council bearing a letter from the president of the Scottish parliament addressed to the lord mayor, aldermen and common council of the city, thanking them for their zeal for the reformation of religion and uniformity of Church government, as well as for the large sums of money advanced to the armies in defence of religion and the liberty of the subject. [Letter dated 27 Jan.—Journal 40, fo. 170.] The Common Council thanked the commissioners for the favour thus shown, and begged them to assure their countrymen that the City would continue its zeal and affection for the reformation of religion and uniformity of Church government, and would persevere in its resolution to preserve the same according to the covenant.

[Parliament desires to know particulars of the interview.]

[Francis Allen's account of the interview.]

As soon as Parliament heard that the City had received a communication from Scotland the Commons sent a deputation to learn all the particulars and to ask that the letter might be forwarded to them. The deputation was to assure the mayor and the Common Council that there was "no jealousie at all or dislike of their proceedings" in the business. In the meanwhile the House called upon Francis Allen, a member of the House as well as a member of the Common Council, to give an account of what had taken place in the city on the 11th. This he did to the best of his ability, giving from memory the substance of the letter from Scotland. He then proceeded to say that one of the Scottish commissioners, Lord Lauderdale, had made the following remark before the Common Council, viz., "That many aspersions had been caste upon their armie and their proceedings by malignants; and desired that the authors of them might be looked upon as those that endeavour to disturb the unitie of both kingdomes." [Journal 40, fos. 170b, 171; Journal House of Commons, iv, 437, 439.]

[The City's version of the matter.]

That at least was the story as recorded in the Journal of the House. Allen, however, declared that he had been inaccurately recorded, and the Common Council, in giving parliament their own version of the matter, denied that Lauderdale had made any such remark. He had said nothing that could give offence. They forwarded the letter as desired, but begged that it might be returned in order that it might be entered on the city's Journal. They further expressed a wish to print and publish it so that the real facts might be known. Allen, they said, was not to be credited, and had been guilty of a breach of privilege in what he had done. [Journal 40, fos. 171-173.]

[Resolution of the House. 21 Feb., 1646.]

The House, however, took a different view of Allen's conduct, and declared that he had only done his duty. It at the same time came to a resolution that the relation entered on the Journal of the House varied from Allen's and ordered it to be expunged. [Journal House of Commons, iv, 449.]

[Allen elected alderman of Farringdon Without, 1649.]

Three years later, when Allen was elected alderman of the ward of Farringdon Without, the House declared (5 Dec, 1649) that it deemed it "an acceptable service to the commonwealth" if Allen would accept the post, and the Common Council resolved (19 Dec.) to revoke all votes of the court that had been passed in the month of February, 1646, reflecting on Allen's conduct. [Repertory 60, fo. 28b; Journal House of Commons, vi, 329; Journal 41, fo. 15b.]

[The City's claim to govern the militia of the suburbs, 1646.]

Hitherto the City and Parliament had, in the presence of a common danger, mutually supported one another; but as soon as the royalists ceased to give further cause for alarm differences immediately sprang up. The question of the City's jurisdiction over the militia raised within the weekly bills of mortality, as well as over that raised within the city and liberties, was no new question. It had been raised at least as far back as August, 1644, [It had been one of the twenty-eight propositions (afterwards reduced to six) made to parliament in that month.] but during the crisis of the civil war the matter had been allowed to drop until December, 1645, when the City again brought it forward and urged parliament to acknowledge its jurisdiction. [Journal 40, fos. 156, 156b.] Before parliament would give its assent it wished to be informed whether the jurisdiction claimed by the City was already vested in the City by Charles or by custom, and if not, what extension of jurisdiction was it that the City now desired? [Id., fos. 157b, 158, 159.] The chief opposition came from the inhabitants of Middlesex, Surrey, Southwark and Westminster, who objected to their militia being placed under the command of the mayor, aldermen and common council of the city. All parties were cited to appear before the Star Chamber on the 31st June, 1646, to support their own contention. [Journal 40, fo. 161b.] Parliament had already (27 Jan.) expressed itself as willing to sanction the government of the militia of the city and liberties being vested in the municipal authorities and to allow that the city forces should not be called upon to serve away from the city without their own consent, [Journal House of Commons, iv, 420.] but this was not enough. What the City desired was nothing more and nothing less than what had already been proposed to the king at Oxford with the sanction of both Houses, namely, "the government of the militia of the parishes without London and the liberties within the weekly bills of mortality." Parliament had made no scruple about the matter at a time when it stood in sore need of assistance from the City; and the City did not intend to let it go back lightly on its word. [Journal 40, fos. 162b, 163b-165b.]

[The City's petition to parliament, 6 Feb., 1646.]

A petition was accordingly presented to the House of Commons by alderman Fowke on the 6th February. [Id., fos. 167b-169.] The petition set out at considerable length all the proceedings that had taken place since the question of the militia was first submitted to Charles. It compared the attitude of the city towards parliament in the late civil war with the part played by the citizens in a previous civil war, viz., the war of the Barons, when (according to the petitioners) the Barons were eventually beaten out of the field owing to the citizens of London staying at home! The petitioners proceeded to show the necessity of the City being empowered to raise militia in the adjacent counties for the purpose of keeping open a passage for victualling the city in times of danger; that since the militia of the suburbs had been under the command of the City good service had been rendered to the parliamentary cause, and notably in the relief of Gloucester; that if it were now removed from the jurisdiction of the City the suburban forts might be seized and both the city and parliament might be threatened; and that it was for the better preservation of parliament, and not for the purpose of rendering the city militia independent of parliament, that the petitioners appeared before the House. Finally, Alderman Fowke, who acted as spokesman, declared himself authorised to state that if the militia of the city and kingdom were not settled by the king and parliament there would be no course left open to the city authorities but to act according to their conscience and to abide by their covenant. A similar petition was presented to the House of Lords (7 Feb.). A week later (14 Feb.) a counter-petition was addressed to the Commons by the inhabitants of the Tower Hamlets, Westminster and Southwark, [Journal House of Commons, iv, 441.] and on the 13th March a committee was appointed to arrange, if possible, a compromise. [Journal House of Commons, iv, 474.]

[Ordinance establishing Presbyterianism, March, 1646.]

Before this question was settled another had arisen to widen the breach between parliament and the city in the shape of an ordinance for establishing a system of Presbyterianism throughout England. [5 March, 1646.—Journal House of Commons, iv, 463.] One clause of this ordinance—clause 14—was particularly objectionable as introducing the authority of the State into matters of Church government. Commissioners were to be appointed, of whom nothing was known, to regulate the Church in each province. The Common Council, being urged by inhabitants of the city to oppose a measure so opposed to the Word of God, [Journal 40, fos. 173b, 174b.] presented petitions to both Houses (to the Lords first, they having not yet assented to clause 14) praying that no officers might be appointed to exercise any Church censures contrary to the Scriptures, and that their appointment might be in accordance with the Word of God. [Id., fos. 174, 174b.] The petitions were so badly received by both Houses that the municipal authorities took fright, and asked that they might be withdrawn and expunged from the Journals of Parliament. Their request was acceded to, but only on condition that the petitions were likewise expunged from the City's Records. [19 March, 1646.—Journal House of Commons, iv, 479.]

[Public thanksgiving in the city for defeat of royalists, 2 April.]

[Entertainment at Grocers' Hall.]

The reconciliation between parliament and the city was followed by an interchange of courtesies. The royalist army under Hopton had recently surrendered to Fairfax in the west of England (14 March), and had been disbanded; and the last hope of Charles had vanished in the defeat of Astley's troops after a sharp engagement at Stow-on-the-Wold (22 March). "You have now done your work" were the parting words of the veteran commander to his soldiers, "and may go play, unless you will fall out among yourselves." [Rushworth, vi, 141.] On the 26th March a deputation from both Houses waited on the Common Council, and invited the mayor, aldermen and council, as "the representative body of the city," to attend a public thanksgiving service to be held that day week (2 April) at Christ Church, Newgate Street. The invitation was graciously accepted, and the City returned the compliment by asking both Houses to dine the same day at Grocers' Hall. [Journal 40, fo. 175b.]

[Letter of Charles to the City, 19 May.]

[The City's remonstrance to parliament, 26 May.]

On the 19th May, whilst virtually a prisoner in the hands of the Scots, Charles wrote to the City [Journal 40, fo. 183; Rushworth, vi, 275; Journal House of Lords, viii, 334.] declaring his readiness to concur in settling truth and peace, his desire to have all things speedily concluded to that end, and his hope that his return to his ancient city might be to the satisfaction of parliament and his people. The Commons were angry with the civic authorities for opening the king's letter without their leave, and returned a curt answer to a remonstrance presented to them by the City calling upon them to suppress heresy, to unite with the Scots and to come to a speedy arrangement with the king. [Journal House of Commons, iv, 555.] The Lords, to whom a similar remonstrance had been presented, expressed themselves more graciously. They acknowledged the fidelity and constant services of the City to parliament. They were satisfied with the resolutions of the citizens to settle the Protestant religion and to preserve the rights and privileges of parliament, the liberties of the kingdoms and the person and authority of his majesty. As for their lord mayor (Thomas Adams), whose character the petitioners had declared to have been aspersed by certain members of the Commons (for opening the king's letter without leave?), they (the Lords) held him in high esteem, and declared that nothing had been said or done in their House to his prejudice. As soon as they should be informed of the nature of his grievance they would be found ready in a parliamentary way to do him right. [Journal 40, fo. 183b; Journal House of Lords, viii, 334.] The Common Council received a formal address of thanks for presenting this remonstrance from a large body of "citizens of the best rank and qualitie," as well as from the General Assembly of Scotland. [Journal 40, fos. 183b-184b; Rushworth, vi, 307.]

[Disaffected citizens and the remonstrance.]

On the other hand an attempt was made to minimise the effect of the remonstrance by getting up a counter-petition on the pretext that the remonstrance had not fairly represented the wishes of the majority of the citizens. This counter-petition, which is said to have been backed up with 5,000 or 6,000 signatures, was duly presented to the Commons, who by a small majority passed a vote of thanks to the petitioners (2 June). [Journal House of Commons, iv, 561; Whitacre's Diary, Add. MSS, 31,116, fo. 272, cited by Dr. Gardiner, "Hist. Great Civil War," ii, 489.]

[The City's reply to the king's letter, 3 July, 1646.]

In the meanwhile the king's letter of the 19th May remained unanswered. At last, on the 3rd July, an answer—or "petition"—was drafted and submitted to the Common Council for approval. After acknowledging the special favour of receiving a letter direct from the king, the citizens expressed their desire to assure his majesty and the whole world of the continuance of their loyalty in accordance with the terms of their protestation and covenant. They prayed him to comply with the propositions for the settlement of religion and peace and the maintenance of the union of the two nations which parliament was about to send him, and they expressed an earnest hope to see him return to his ancient city with honour and joy. [Journal 40, fo. 187.]

[The leave of parliament asked before despatching the City's answer, 4 July, 1646.]

The city fathers were too wary to despatch their petition without first obtaining leave from parliament. On the following day (4 July), therefore, a deputation of aldermen and members of the council, with Alderman Sir Thomas Foote at its head, presented itself before the House of Lords to ask their leave to despatch the City's answer to the king. After perusing the petition the Lords declared their approval of its being sent to the king, and courteously acknowledged the action of the citizens in first submitting it to the judgment of their lordships. [Journal House of Lords, viii, 411; Journal 40, fo. 188.] It was otherwise with the Commons, who again returned a churlish reply. The deputation was given to understand that the House had been put to some inconvenience in giving them an audience, being busily engaged at the time in pressing business. The petition, however, was of importance, and would receive their consideration at a convenient time. [Journal House of Commons, iv, 602.]

[The Commons refuse leave, 11 July.]

On Friday the 10th the Commons were pressed for an answer, but they again put the matter off on the plea of pressure of business. The next day the deputation again waited on the House, attended by the city members of parliament, and about four o'clock in the afternoon received a message from the Commons that the City's petition was not to be forwarded to the king, and that "in convenient time" they would send and inform the Common Council of their further pleasure. Accordingly two of the city's members, Sir Thomas Soame and Samuel Vassall, appeared before the council on the 15th, when Vassall declared that he had been commanded by the House to make an explanation. In order to avoid mistakes he would read the message he was to deliver. The message was to the effect that inasmuch as the propositions which had been despatched to the king by parliament on the 13th June embraced the city of London as well as the whole kingdom, the House could not approve of the city's petition being forwarded to his majesty. Being desired by the council to leave the paper with them, Vassall declared that he had no authority to do so. [Journal 40, fo. 189; Journal House of Commons, iv, 615.] In the meantime, the House had appointed a committee to enquire "concerning the first principal contrivers and framers of the city remonstrance, and concerning such as have or do labour to disaffect the people and the city from the parliament"; [Journal House of Commons, iv, 616.] but before the committee could take steps to carry out its instructions, circumstances had arisen which made it advisable to let the matter drop and not to widen the breach between the city and parliament.

[The king's answer to the propositions for peace, 12 Aug., 1646.]

On the 30th July the parliamentary commissioners arrived in Newcastle for the purpose of laying before Charles propositions for peace. Charles had already become possessed of a copy, and had long since made up his mind to reject them. The commissioners had received positive orders to allow the king ten days to give his assent, and if he failed to give his assent within that time after their arrival they were at once to return. [Journal House of Lords, viii, 423, 433.] The only reply which Charles condescended to give was contained in a letter which he handed to the commissioners on the 1st August. The letter was read before the House on the 12th. It contained little more than vague promises and a request that he might be allowed to come to London to discuss the propositions at length. [Id., viii, 460.]

[A loan of £200,000 to be raised to get rid of the Scottish army, Sept., 1646.]

The same day that the king's answer was read before the Lords a letter from the Scottish commissioners was produced, in which they offered to withdraw their forces from England upon payment of expenses already incurred. [Journal House of Lords, viii, 461.] After a considerable amount of haggling the Scots consented to take the sum of £400,000 in full discharge of all claims, a moiety to be paid to them before leaving England and the remainder by instalments at specified dates. [Journal House of Lords, viii, 487; Journal House of Commons, iv, 644, 649, 654-656, 659.] It only remained for parliament to raise the sum of £200,000 needed for the first payment, and to whom was it more natural that application should first be made than to the City? A large deputation from the Commons, including Cromwell himself, accordingly waited on the Common Council (7 Sept.) to ask it to consider ways and means for raising the money. The committee to whom the matter was referred lost no time. On the 9th it reported to the court a scheme for raising the money on the security of the excise and sale of the Bishops' lands, the security to extend to previous loans. Parliament accepted these terms, on the understanding that "Bishops' lands" were not to comprise impropriations and advowsons. [Journal 40, fos. 191, 191b, 192; Rushworth, vi, 326.]

[City petitions to both Houses for redress of grievances, 19 Dec., 1646.]

On the 10th December there was presented to the Common Council "an humble representacon of the pressinge grievances and important desires of the well affected freemen and covenant engaged cittizens of the cittie of London," with a request that it might be laid before parliament. [Journal 40, fo. 199.] This document, after being revised by a committee appointed for the purpose, was laid before the Commons on the 19th December, together with a petition from the civic authorities themselves, who similarly addressed themselves to the House of Lords. The chief points on which stress was laid were the disbandment of the army, the suppression of heresy, the union of the two kingdoms, the free election of members of parliament, and the City's government of its own militia. As for the "bringing home of his majesty," that was left to the wisdom of both Houses, with the confidence that they would preserve his majesty's royal person and authority in defence of the true religion and liberties of the kingdom according to the covenant. [Id., fos. 199b-203b.] Both Houses thanked the City and promised to take the matter into their consideration. [Id., fo. 204.]

[City petitions for disbandment of army, 17 Mar., 1647.]

In the spring of the following year (1647) a new terror presented itself to the Presbyterians at home in the absolute supremacy of the army under Fairfax, although that general had given his word that the army should not come within twenty-five miles of London. [Journal House of Commons, v, 115.] The City petitioned both Houses that it might be disbanded, and that the Common Council might have authority to make annual election of the members of the city's militia. To those petitions gracious answers were returned, the Lords declaring that they had considered already a measure touching the city's militia and had transmitted it to the Commons. [Journal 40, fos. 207-210b]

[Dispute between the Presbyterians in parliament and the army, March, 1647.]

The army would in all probability have been disbanded in due course, and all might have gone well but for the high-handed treatment it received from the Commons. It was proposed to ask the soldiers after disbandment to volunteer for service in Ireland. There were, however, considerable arrears of pay due to them, and neither officers nor men would volunteer until they had received some assurance from parliament that they would be paid all that was due to them. Instead of doing this parliament contented itself with voting a sum of £200,000, not for satisfying arrears of pay, but "for the service of England and Ireland." [Journal House of Commons, v, 130.] The soldiers were about to petition parliament with the sanction of their officers, but such a course was declared by both Houses to be highly improper. [Declaration of both Houses against the petition, 30 March.—Journal House of Lords, ix, 115.]

[A city loan of £200,000, April, 1647.]

It was easier for parliament to vote a sum of £200,000 than to raise that amount. Application was as usual made to the City (6 April). [Journal 40, fo. 212.] The zeal of the citizens was excited by the Commons at length passing the ordinance sent down to them by the Lords for a new militia committee (16 April). [Journal House of Commons, v, 145.] On the following day (17 April) the Common Council was prepared with a scheme to be submitted to parliament for raising the money. Like other schemes that had gone before, it proposed that subscribers to certain former loans should add arrears of interest, and by making a further advance equivalent to the sum total should have the whole secured on the sale of lands of bishops and delinquents. [Journal 40, fo 214. The scheme is printed at length in Journal House of Commons, v, 146, 147.] Parliament hesitated at first to allow the lands of delinquents and compositions paid by them to the committee sitting at Goldsmiths' Hall to form part of the security for the loan, but afterwards consented to a moiety of all such compositions being added to the security. [Journal 40, fos. 216-217 et seq.; Journal House of Commons, v, 148, 153, 159, 163; Journal House of Lords, ix, 163, 165.]

[Nomination of the new militia committee, 27 April, 1647.]

The appointment of the new militia committee was made a solemn business by the citizens. Tuesday, the 27th April, was fixed for the nomination, which was preceded by prayer and a sermon in the church of St. Laurence Jewry, and a formal renewal of the covenant by all present. Thirty-one persons, the number prescribed by the ordinance, were nominated, all of them Presbyterians. Of these seven were aldermen. On the 4th May both Houses signified their approval of the city's nominees, and ordained that any nine of them, whereof three were to be aldermen and six to be commoners, should thenceforth constitute a committee for the militia to order and direct the same according to the true meaning and intent of the ordinance recently passed. [Journal 40, fos. 215, 215b; Journal House of Lords, ix, 175.]

One of the first acts of the new committee was to ask leave of parliament to raise an additional sum of £20,000 to satisfy the arrears due to the city's forces that had been engaged in guarding the Houses of Parliament, the Tower and forts within the lines of communication around the city. Parliament only consented, however, to the sum of £12,000 being raised for this purpose. [Journal 40, fo. 217(a)b; Journal House of Commons, v, 188.]

[Parliament beset by disbanded soldiers, 7 June, 1647.]

The re-modelling of the city force to the exclusion of everyone tainted with independency only served to increase the discontent of the army. It was bad enough to find the Presbyterians in parliament joining hands with the Presbyterians in the city against the army; it was worse if the city trained bands were to receive their arrears of pay whilst the army was left out in the cold. An attempt was made to bring pressure to bear on parliament by a mob of reformadoes or disbanded soldiers besetting the House of Commons on the 7th June. These men clamoured for their arrears of pay and refused to go away unless the sum of £10,000 should be voted for them.

[City petition to parliament, 8 June.]

On the following day (8 June) the City presented another petition to parliament praying that the army might be paid off as speedily as possible; that the king, who had recently been carried off from Holmby House by a troop of cavalry under Joyce, might be disposed of in such a way as to allow the parliaments of England and Scotland free access to him; and thirdly that, seeing the danger of the times, an ordinance of the 17th January, 1645, authorising the City to raise cavalry in their own defence and to apprehend disaffected persons, might be revived. The House, which was guarded at the time by a city regiment, could scarcely do otherwise than comply with the prayer of the petitioners. [Journal 40, fos. 218b, 219; Journal House of Commons, v, 202, 203; Rushworth, vi, 546, 552.]

[Letter from the army to the city, 11 June, 1647.]

Three days later (11 June) a letter was brought to the city by "two messengers that looked like soldiers," signed by Fairfax and twelve others, informing the civic authorities of the army's approach to London. [Journal 40, fos. 219-220; Journal House of Commons, v, 208; Rushworth, vi, 554.] The City was asked to believe that such action on the part of the army was only directed against those who were endeavouring to engage the kingdom in a new war. As Englishmen, if not as soldiers, the writers desired only "the peace of the kingdom and liberty of the subject, according to the votes and declarations of parliament." They desired no alteration of the civil government, nor to hinder Presbyterianism. When once the State had settled a matter there was nothing for it but to submit or suffer; they only wished that every good citizen and every peaceful man might be allowed to enjoy liberty. "These, in brief," continued the writers, "are our desires, and the things for which we stand, beyond which we shall not go; and for obtaining these things we are drawing near your city, professing sincerely from our hearts we intend not evil toward you; declaring with all confidence and assurance that if you appear not against us in these our just desires to assist that wicked party that would embroil us and the kingdom, nor we nor our soldiers shall give you the least offence." It was true, they went on to say, that a rich city like London offered a tempting bait for poor hungry soldiers, but the officers would protect it with their last drop of blood from the soldiery provided no provocation were offered by the citizens themselves. Their men valued their own high character above any wealth, and the citizens would act like fellow subjects and brethren by using their influence with parliament on their behalf. On the other hand, "if after all this you, or a considerable part of you, be seduced to take up arms in opposition to or hindrance of these our just undertakings, we hope by this brotherly premonition, to the sincerity thereof we call God to witness, we have freed ourselves from all that ruin which may befall that great and populous city, having thereby washed our hands thereof."

[A new Committee of Safety, 11 June, 1647.]

This letter was laid before the House with a request that it would endeavour to prevent Fairfax quartering his army on the city, thereby enhancing the price of provisions, and this request was acceded to. At the same time a new committee of safety, composed of members of both Houses, was appointed to join the reformed Committee of Militia of the city in taking all necessary steps to secure "the safety of the parliament and the city." [Journal House of Commons, v, 207; Journal House of Lords, ix, 255.] The committee established itself at the Guildhall and commenced preparing lists of disbanded officers willing to serve the parliament.

[The City's answer to the letter from the army, 12 June, 1647.]

The City in the meantime drafted a reply [Journal 40, fo. 221; Rushworth, vi, 557.] of its own, and this was despatched to the army on the 12th, after receiving the approval of the House. In it the City disavowed any animosity towards the army. The citizens had only put themselves into a state of defence against unlawful violence. So far were they from opposing the just demands of the army, they had themselves presented a humble address to parliament that these might be granted. If the officers would only keep the army at a distance of thirty miles from London, and so give no occasion for disorder or rise in the price of victuals in the city, it would go far to prove the sincerity of the intentions expressed in their letter.

[Answer from Fairfax and his council of war at St. Albans, 15 June, 1647.]

This letter found the army at St. Albans. The deputation that carried it thither returned with two missives, one addressed to the commissioners of the city of London and the other to the mayor, aldermen and Common Council. [Journal 40, fos. 222, 222b.] In the first Fairfax and the "council of war" declared the utter impossibility of removing the army to a distance of thirty miles from London so long as enlistments were being made in the city and suburbs in addition to the usual trained bands and auxiliaries. A stop must be put to this, otherwise the army would have to take the matter in hand. In the second the officers informed the civic authorities that the movements of the army would greatly depend upon the action parliament took with respect to certain "papers" now to be submitted to it.

[The Declaration of the Army and the Charge against eleven members of the House, 15 and 16 June.]

By "papers" the writers were referring to a document styled The Declaration of the Army, which had that morning been placed in the hands of the parliamentary commissioners to be forwarded to the Lords. [The commissioners to Manchester, 15 June, 1647.—Journal House of Lords, ix, 269.] This declaration sought to establish the right of the army to speak in the name of the English people, and demanded the banishment from office of all who spoke ill of it. To this was added a further demand, viz., the expulsion from the House of those who had proved themselves unworthy of their seats. This last demand was followed by a formal charge laid in the name of the army against eleven members of the House of Commons (of whom Glyn, the city's Recorder, was one) of having prejudiced the liberties of the subject, misrepresented the army and raised forces for a new war.

[Ineffectual attempt to call out the trained bands, 12 June.]

As matters turned out the army had little cause to fear the enlistments that had taken place in the city. An attempt had, it is true, been made to increase the number of the militia, but it had met with poor success. When it became known in the city that the army was moving southward from Royston something like a panic prevailed. The trained bands were called out on pain of death and shops ordered to be shut, Sir John Gayer, the lord mayor, being especially active. But when the companies appeared on parade they were found to be lamentably deficient in numbers, "not ten men of some companies appeared, and many companies none at all but officers."[^72] The whole affair was treated as a farce by the on-lookers, who jeered at the troops as they passed; and those who had shut up their shops at the mayor's command soon opened them again. It was clear that the citizens had no intention of being engaged in a "new war." Parliament, finding this to be the case, annulled the order for enlistments and resolved that "the city might upon occasion send letters to the army, so as they did first present them to the House for their approbation." [Journal 40, fos. 223, 223b.]

[^72: News letter from London, 13 June.—Clarke Papers (Camd. Soc., New Series, No. 49), i, 133. This attitude of the trained bands was a serious affair, and called for a public declaration to be made for the encouragement of citizens to respond to the call to arms for the safety of parliament and the city.—Journal 40, fo. 224.]

[Letter from the City to Fairfax and the council of war, 18 June, 1647.]

By the 18th June the City was ready with its reply to the last letters of Fairfax and the council of war. This reply had after some hesitation received the sanction of the Commons, and the City was to be thenceforth permitted to correspond with the army on its own responsibility, and without submitting its letters first to parliament.[^73] It entirely disavowed any privity or consent of the Common Council in connection with the recent enlistments other than those of the trained bands and auxiliaries. All such enlistments Fairfax was assured had now been stopped, the civic authorities having intervened as requested. The City's readiness to conform to the wishes of the army would, it was hoped, draw forth a fuller assurance that the army intended no prejudice either to parliament or to the city, which had expended so much blood and treasure in its defence, and that it would remove its quarters farther from London. [Journal 40, fos. 224-225b.]

[^73: Journal 40, fo. 224b. The original reply not meeting with the approval of the House, another was submitted on the following day, and at last the City was allowed to send such answers as it thought fit.—Journal House of Commons, v, 216, 217; Rushworth, vi, 577.]

[Reply of Fairfax and council of war, 21 and 22 June, 1647.]

This reply did not give unqualified satisfaction. It was impossible, wrote Fairfax and the council of war (21 June), [Id., fos. 225b, 226.] to remove the army farther from London until parliament should have given a satisfactory reply to the Humble Representation of the dissatisfaction of the Army, the Declaration of the Army, and the Charge made against eleven members of the House of Commons. That the City had done its part in stopping enlistments they readily acknowledged, but information had reached them of underhand workings still going on to enlist men, as a "foundation for a new armie and a new warre." The letter concluded with a reiteration of the writers' intention to do nothing prejudicial to the parliament or the city, for which they professed "a most tender regard." To this letter a postscript was added the following day (22 June) to the effect that since writing the above they had heard that parliament had been again threatened by a mob of reformadoes. It was therefore more necessary than ever to preserve the remnant of liberty that attached to the House.

[Commissioners from the city to remain at headquarters, 24 and 25 June.]

On the 23rd another letter [Only the commencement of the letter is set out in the city's Journal (No. 40, 226b). In the margin is the following note:—"This letter I could not get from the committee."] was despatched desiring that some representatives of the city might take up permanent quarters with the army until matters became more settled. Accordingly, on the following day (24 June) the Common Council appointed Alderman Warner, Deputy Pack and Colonel Player to go to Fairfax and the army and remain with them until further orders. They were to give his excellency and the council of war an account of the true state of affairs respecting enlistments, and assure them that the City would take good care that both Houses should be allowed to conduct their affairs in peace and quiet. [Journal 40, fos. 227, 228. On the 25th the number of commissioners was increased to twelve, and a schedule of instructions drawn up for their use.—Id., fos. 229-230.]

[The army moved to Uxbridge, 25 June, 1647.]

As soon as the commissioners arrived in camp they were informed that the army was about to change its quarters to Uxbridge. On the 25th Fairfax again took occasion in a letter to the City, dated from Berkhampstead, [Journal 40, fo. 230.] to enlarge upon the danger that was likely to arise from continued attempts to raise forces in Wales, "besides underhand workings in your city," and from parliament being threatened by the presence of reformadoes. It could not be expected that the kingdom would be safe, or justice done, so long as the accused members sat as judges. "We have written this to you," the letter concluded, "for your satisfaction that so nothing may be done without giving you a perfect account of our intentions and ends, and still to continue our assurance to you that should necessity bring us nearer to the city our former faith given you shall be observed inviolably, there being nothing more (next the good of the kingdom) in our thoughts and desires than the prosperity of your city." It was six o'clock in the evening when this letter was brought to the Common Council, so that there was only time to acknowledge its receipt in a letter, which was on the point of being despatched to the army. [Journal 40, fos. 229-230.]

[Withdrawal of the eleven members, 26 June, 1647.]

As far as the removal of the objectionable members of the House went Fairfax soon had his way. For, notwithstanding the Commons having declared on the 25th that they saw no valid reason for suspending the members, the members themselves solved the difficulty on the following day by asking leave of absence, which the House was willing enough to grant. [Journal House of Commons, v, 225.]

[The City's petition to parliament to remove reformadoes, etc., 2 July.]

The bands of reformadoes which infested the city presented a greater difficulty. On the 2nd July the City once more addressed itself to parliament in the form of a petition suggesting a remedy for this grievance, and although the petition reflected strongly upon the mismanagement of affairs by the government, and ventured to prescribe rules for its better regulation, it was more favourably received than others of a far less bold character had formerly been. [Journal 40, fos. 231b-233; Journal House of Commons, v, 231; Rushworth, vi, 597-600.] The temper of the House must indeed have changed when it could listen calmly to charges of malversation of money collected for the disbandment of the army, and to such advice as that parliament should "improve its time" and busy itself only with such laws as might settle the government of the Church, secure the people from unlawful and arbitrary power, and restore his majesty to his just rights and authority, according to the covenant. A few months ago any deputation that dared to address the House in these terms would have been sharply dismissed. Times had changed; and now, instead of a rebuke, the City received thanks for its "constant very good affections," and a day was appointed for taking the petition into consideration.

[Letter of Fairfax to the City setting forth the obstacles to a peace, 8 July, 1647.]

A week later (8 July) Fairfax wrote to the City from Reading—whither he had removed the headquarters of the army (3 July) upon certain concessions being made by parliament—enclosing a copy of a paper which he had forwarded to parliament setting forth the obstacles which still stood in the way of a peaceful settlement, viz., the continued presence of reformadoes in and about London, as well of the army raised for Ireland but not despatched there, and the non-expulsion from the House of those members who had aided the king against parliament. [Journal 40, fo. 234.] At length parliament gave way. On the 9th the Commons passed an ordinance expelling all members who had favoured the king's cause since the beginning of the war, [Journal House of Commons, v, 238.] and the Lords passed another ordinance for all disbanded soldiers to quit London. [Journal House of Lords, ix, 322.]

[The London apprentices' petitions, 13 and 14 July.]

Matters were not improved by the action of the apprentices of London, who, like the rest of the inhabitants, took sides with king or parliament. Parliament had recently sanctioned a monthly holiday to all apprentices. The first of these holidays fell on Tuesday, the 13th July. Grateful for this concession, a number of lads employed the day in presenting a petition to the Commons calling upon them to uphold their own authority, recall those who had been so unreasonably expelled, protect the clergy, and bring prisoners to a speedy trial. [Journal House of Commons, v, 243; Rushworth, vi, 614, 615.] This was more than the royalist apprentices could stand, so the next day they had their turn, and presented a petition to both Houses praying for the suppression of conventicles, the restoration of the king, the maintenance of the covenant, and the disbandment of the army. [Journal House of Commons, v, 243; Journal House of Lords, ix, 330; Rushworth, vi, 618, 619.] This last petition roused the indignation of the army, and was one of the motives which led the "agitators" [Agents elected to represent the views of the rank and file of the army. A corruption of "adjutators."] to demand of the council of war an immediate march on London, a step which would most certainly have been undertaken but for the strenuous opposition of Cromwell and Ireton. [Representation of the agitators, 16 July.—Clarke Papers, i, 170 seq.]

[The Solemn Engagement of the City, 21 July.]

A week later (21 July) a mob of apprentices, reformadoes, watermen and other disaffected persons met at Skinners' Hall, and one and all signed a Solemn Engagement pledging themselves to maintain the Covenant and to procure the king's restoration to power on the terms offered by him on the 12th May last, viz., the abandonment of the episcopacy for three years and the militia for ten. An endeavour was made to enlist the support of the municipal authorities to this engagement, but a letter from Fairfax (23 July) soon gave them to understand that the army looked on the matter as one "set on foot by the malice of some desperate-minded men, this being their last engine for the putting all into confusion when they could not accomplish their wicked ends by other means." [Journal 40, fos. 238-239.] On the 24th both Houses joined in denouncing the Solemn Engagement of the City, their declaration against it being ordered to be published by beat of drum and sound of trumpet through London and Westminster, and within the lines of communication. [Journal House of Commons, v, 257; Journal House of Lords, ix, 351; Id., x, 202, 203.] Anyone found subscribing his name to the engagement after such publication would be adjudged guilty of high treason.

[The City's militia again placed in the hands of a parliamentary committee, July, 1647.]

In the meanwhile the army council had forwarded (19 July) certain recommendations to the city which they proposed to submit to parliament, among them being one for removing the command of the city's militia out of the hands of the municipal authorities and vesting it in parliament. [Journal 40, fos. 237b, 238.] This proposal was accepted in due course by both Houses. [Journal House of Commons, v, 254; Journal House of Lords, ix, 349.]

[Dissatisfaction of the City, 24 July.]

[A mob at Westminster, 26 July, 1647.]

[The late militia ordinance repealed, 26 July.]

On Saturday, the 24th July, the day after the Lords had given their assent to the proposal touching the militia, two petitions were presented to the Common Council praying it to take steps for retaining the militia in the hands of the city committee.[^74] Both petitions were well received by the court, and a draft of another petition from the court itself was at once made for presentation to both Houses on the following Monday, together with the petitions presented to the court. The sheriffs and the whole court, or as many of them as could go, with the exception of those actually serving on the militia committee, were ordered to carry the petitions to Westminster. When Monday came an excited crowd of apprentices and others followed the sheriffs and members of the Common Council up to the very doors of the Houses. The few Peers who were in attendance on that day were soon brought to pass a resolution abrogating the recent ordinance. [Journal House of Lords, ix, 355.] When the turn of the Commons came they made a bolder stand. The consideration of the petitions was frequently interrupted by cries of "Vote! vote!" from the apprentices, who stood at the open doorway with their hats on. [Journal House of Commons, v, 258, 259; Whitelock, 260, 261; Clarke Papers, i, 218.] Hostile as the city was, the House had no means of restoring order without its aid. The civic authorities showed no particular haste in complying with a request for assistance. The Common Council assembled in the afternoon, but all it did was to agree that the members present should adjourn in a body to Westminster "and use their best endeavour by all gentle ways and means possible they can to appease the said multitude and to free the said House from danger." [Journal 40, fo. 240b.] At length, towards eight o'clock in the evening, the Commons, worn-out and exhausted, yielded to the pressure put upon them and repealed the obnoxious ordinance, after which the mob was content to obey the city councillors and quietly disperse.

[^74: One petition purported to come from "Divers young men, citizens and others, apprentices of the city," and the other from "Divers well affected citizens of the city of London."—Journal 40, fos. 236, 239, 239b.]

[The City prepares to defend itself, 27 July.]

[Letter to Fairfax, 28 July, 1647.]

The civic authorities having recovered its control over the militia immediately began to put the city in a posture of defence. In this it was assisted by the apprentices offering their services, their lives and fortunes against any power whatsoever that should attack the city. The Common Council thanked them for their good will, and desired them to carry themselves in an orderly and regular way, and endeavour to prevent disorder and tumult. [Journal 40, fo. 240b.] There were already rumours that the army had broken up and was marching towards London. No time was to be lost if the city was to be saved from falling into its hands. The militia committee was ordered to draw up a declaration in justification of all that the civic authorities had done, whilst a letter was sent (28 July) to Fairfax deprecating any attempt by the army to "intermeddle" with the liberties or privileges of the city or to interpose in the matter of the militia, which should be used only in defence of parliament and the city without giving occasion for offence to anyone. He was assured that now the government of the militia had become revested in the city there would be no more disorder. [Id., fo. 242b.] The day on which this letter was despatched had been set apart by the civic authorities as a day of fasting and humiliation. Three ministers were appointed to pray and preach before the mayor, aldermen and common council at the church of St. Michael Bassishaw that God might turn away his wrathful indignation against the city and the nation. [Journal 40, fo. 236.]

[Letter from Fairfax, 29 July.]

[The City's reply.]

In the meantime Fairfax had been informed of the terrorism brought to bear upon parliament, and wrote (29 July) from Bedford to the Common Council [Id., fos. 243, 243b.] saying that, for his part, he looked upon them, being in authority, as responsible to the kingdom for the recent disturbances. The letter reached the council at eleven o'clock at night. In spite of the lateness of the hour an answer was drawn up [Journal 40, fo. 243b.] disclaiming any responsibility for the riot at Westminster on the ground that at the time the city was without a settled militia and held no commission on which to act. So far from having encouraged the tumult, as many of the council had been reported to have done, they had used their best endeavours to allay it. In conclusion the council declared themselves unconscious of having contributed to the interruption of the "hopeful way of peace and settlement" mentioned in the general's letter, and would accordingly rely upon God for His protection over the city.

[£20,000 voted for the defence of the city, 29 July, 1647.]

The time for negotiations had clearly passed away, and there was no other recourse but to repel force by force. The Common Council immediately voted (29 July) a sum of £20,000 on the security of the city seal for the purposes of defence. [Id., fo. 243.] The trained bands were sent to man the works, and orders were given for a general muster to be held on the following morning of all the inhabitants who were not members of the trained bands but were capable of bearing arms. [Rushworth, vi, 646.]

[Meeting of parliament, 30 July.]

When parliament re-assembled on the 30th the Speakers of the two Houses and a number of members failed to appear. New Speakers were immediately appointed and the expelled members ordered to take their seats. One of the first acts of the House was to authorise the militia committee to seize all horses within the lines of communication for the defence of parliament and the City, and in accordance with the City's request sent word to Fairfax not to approach within thirty miles of London. [Journal 40, fos. 243-244; Journal House of Commons, v, 259.]

[Massey appointed to the command of the city's forces, 31 July, 1647.]

On the following day (31 July) the House signified its assent to the appointment of Massey as commander-in-chief of the city forces, in accordance with the desire of the militia committee and the Common Council, and informed a city deputation that it had taken the precaution to secure the Block-houses at Tilbury and Gravesend. On hearing this some of the deputation expressed a hope that the House would also see to Windsor Castle. [Journal 40, fos. 244-246b; Journal House of Commons, v, 261.]

[New commissioners sent to the army, 2 Aug.]

[Their instructions.]

The Common Council was getting more and more anxious every day. Fairfax had disdained giving any reply to their last letters, and the army was known to have already advanced as near as Colnbrook. On the afternoon of the 2nd August the council resolved to send another letter to the general, disclaiming any intention on the part of the city to raise a new war. The delivery of this despatch was entrusted to six aldermen and twelve commoners, who were to remain with the army, in addition to the commissioners previously appointed, and use every means in their power to prevent any further bloodshed. If Fairfax complained that the city was engaged in raising a body of horse, they were instructed to throw the responsibility on parliament. If he objected to the drilling of reformadoes, it was again the work of parliament and not of the militia committee. If the commissioners were asked for some assurance that the city would protect parliament in future from all attacks, they were to say that the city would do its best to protect not only the sitting members, but all who should return to the House. If objection was raised to the appointment of Massey, it was to be laid to the sudden approach of the army. Should any question arise as to the recent riot at Westminster, the whole affair was to be ascribed to the absence of any settled authority of the city militia; and lastly, if the matter of the petition and engagement was raked up, the commissioners were to say that the city had not been the promoters. [Journal 40, fo. 247.] Furnished with these instructions, the commissioners set out for the army, which they found the next day (3 Aug.) drawn up on Hounslow Heath.

[A declaration by the army, 3 Aug., 1647.]

In the meantime another declaration [Id., fos. 248-250b.] had been prepared by Fairfax and the council of war recapitulating the course affairs had taken, the changes that had taken place in the government of the city militia, the pressure that had been put upon parliament resulting in the Speakers and many members being driven away, and the continued presence of the eleven members in the House after charges had been brought against them, and signifying the intention of the army to give a welcome to all members of parliament who found themselves unable to take their seats at Westminster with freedom and safety, and to regard them as persons in whom the public trust of the kingdom still remained. It was moreover the purpose of the army to march on London, when it was expected the eleven members would be either delivered up or else kept in custody until they could be brought to trial.

[The City's reply to the declaration, 3 Aug., 1647.]

As soon as the city commissioners arrived at headquarters this declaration was put into their hands, and with it they hurried back to London in time to lay it before the Common Council the same afternoon. The council was quick to discern that no other course lay open to them but submission. A letter [Journal 40, fo. 250b.] was accordingly despatched to Fairfax the same night, to the effect that, as it appeared from the declaration that the main object of the army drawing so near London was to bring back to a free parliament at Westminster those members who had withdrawn owing to the tumult on the 26th July, the Common Council heartily concurred therein, and no opposition whatever would be shown to the troops appointed to escort the members to Westminster. The City declared itself ready to submit to parliament in everything, and offered its entire force for its protection. In order to remove all cause of offence or misunderstanding, the City's own declaration [Id., fos. 244b-246.] recently published (30 July) was withdrawn. Under these circumstances the council expressed a hope that the army would be prevented from doing any offence or prejudice to the city or the lines of communication.

[Surrender of forts to Fairfax, 4 Aug.]

The City was now all submission. On the 4th August it agreed to a demand to surrender the forts from "Giles Forte" down to the river-side, and the Common Council wrote to Fairfax to that effect, saying that "now, next unto Almighty God, we do rely upon your excellencye's honourable word for our safety, and to be protected from all violence of the soldiery." [Journal 40, fo. 251.] By that time Fairfax had arrived with the army at Hammersmith, whence he wrote to the City acknowledging their ready compliance in the surrender of the forts, which he would shortly garrison, and assuring them that the army would behave itself in such a manner "as to witness to the world the integrity of their hearts in having no other design but the quiet and happy settlement of a firm and lasting peace." [Id., fo. 251b.]

[The army enters London, 6 Aug., 1647.]

On the 6th August the army entered the lines of fortification and made its way to Westminster, accompanied by the Speakers of both Houses and those members who had betaken themselves to the army after withdrawing from parliament. The civic authorities, taking advantage of the hint offered them, welcomed the army on its approach, the mayor and aldermen going out as far as Hyde Park in coaches, whilst the Common Council betook themselves to Charing Cross by water, and there ranged themselves in view of the soldiers as they passed. [Id., fo. 251b.] Glyn, the Recorder, on whose behalf the City had already addressed Fairfax, was instructed to make a speech with the view of absolving the City from any implication in the tumult of the 26th July.

[The army passes through the city, 7 Aug.]

[Fairfax and officers invited to dinner at Grocer's Hall.]

On the following day (7 Aug.) the citizens made a closer acquaintance with the army as it marched through the heart of the city on its way to Croydon. The words of Fairfax proved true. The troops marched through the streets "with all civility, not doing the least hurt or prejudice." The civic authorities felt so much relief at seeing this unexpected maintenance of discipline that they gave vent to their feelings by asking Fairfax and all the officers to meet them at dinner at Grocers' Hall on Thursday, the 13th, but that day proving inconvenient to the general, who was busy settling the affairs of the army, the dinner was ordered to be put off until the city should again hear from him. [Journal 40, fos. 252, 252b.] The termination of hostilities gave rise to the following poetical ebullition on the part of Mercurius Pragmaticus:—

"A Peace, a Peace, the countrey cries,
Or else we shall be undone;
For this brave warre we thank the wise
Confiding men of London."

"Sure now they may as well as we
Know how to value Quiet,
When th' army comes their Guests to be
For a twelve-month's Cash and Diet."

CHAPTER XXV.

[Retribution on the city for opposition to army, 6 Aug., 1647.]

The City was now powerless. The day of reckoning had come, and the City had to pay for the opposition it had displayed towards the army. The Tower was no longer entrusted to the citizens, but was committed by parliament to Fairfax as constable. [6 Aug.—Journal House of Commons, v, 269.] Diligent search was made for reformadoes with the intention of making an example of some of them, [News letter from the army, 5 Aug.—Clarke Papers, p. 222.] and a committee consisting of members of both Houses was appointed to enquire into the violence recently offered to parliament. [Journal House of Commons, v, 269; Journal House of Lords, ix, 375.] The Town Clerk received orders to produce to the committee all such books of the city as contained the Acts and Orders of the Common Council passed and made from the 20th July until the 6th August, as well as the original petitions of which copies had been presented to the Commons on the memorable 26th July, and other documents. [Journal 40, fos. 253b, 254.]

[Glyn, the city's Recorder, expelled the House and committed to the Tower, Aug., 1647.]

The cry raised by the agitators of the army for the expulsion of the eleven members from parliament became so great that six of the number thought it advisable to make their escape to the continent. [News letter from the army, 5 Aug.—Clarke Papers, pp. 220-221.] Of those that remained to face the worst in England, Glyn, the city's Recorder, was one. It was in vain that the Common Council, who upheld the conduct of their officer, interceded with Fairfax and invoked the aid of friends in both Houses on his behalf. [Journal 40, fo. 251.] He was expelled the House and committed to the Tower, one week only being allowed him to put his papers and affairs in order. [Journal House of Commons, v, 295.]

[A loan of £50,000 demanded from the city, 24 Aug., 1647.]

[The city hesitates to advance the sum demanded, 6 Sept., 1647.]

On the 24th August a deputation of the committee of the army waited on the Common Council and demanded an advance of a month's pay (£50,000). The City was to re-imburse itself out of the arrears which the citizens had failed to contribute to the army, and which amounted to over £60,000. The matter was referred to a committee. [Journal 40, fos. 254-254b.] Ten days elapsed and parliament became impatient for an answer. [Journal House of Commons, 3 Sept., v, 290.] The City was told (4 Sept.) that its "engagement" of the 21st July had been the occasion of the army approaching London, and its failing to pay the money as it became due was the occasion of keeping the army near London. If the citizens failed to take the necessary steps for the removal of the army, "they must expect to suffer the inconveniences that will come hereby." [Journal 40, fo. 255.] To this the City replied (6 Sept.) that whatever arrears of assessments were due they were not due from the Common Council as a body, for that had never been assessed, but were due from particular individuals. The council feared that it would be impossible to raise the money on the security offered, but it promised to use its best endeavours to raise it if some better security were found, and to get in arrears of assessments at the same time. As to the "engagement," they called God to witness that the Common Council as a body had had no hand in it; but as soon as a copy of it was received from the army, the council returned answer that "according to their duty they did rest in that which both Houses of Parliament had resolved hereupon." In that resolution the council expressed itself as still remaining and altogether disavowed the "engagement." It even ventured to hope that the House would not permit such a mark of its displeasure to remain on record, reflecting so badly as it did upon the whole City. [Journal 40, fos. 255b, 256.]

[Parliament repeats its demand for a loan, 9 Sept., 1647.]

[The demand backed up by a letter from Fairfax, 6 Sept.]

This reply being deemed unsatisfactory the Commons sent a more peremptory demand (9 Sept.) to the effect that not only the sum of £50,000 should be advanced by the City before the 18th September, but that also the whole of the arrears, amounting to £64,000, should be levied, [Journal House of Commons, v, 298.] and they got Fairfax himself to write and back up their demand for £50,000. The letter of Fairfax was dated from Putney on the 6th September, but it was not communicated to the Common Council until Saturday the 11th, a court which had been specially summoned for the previous day (Friday) having been adjourned for want of a quorum. [Journal 40, fo. 256b. The letter of Fairfax is printed in the Perfect Diurnal (6-13 Sept.), but the date is there given as 7 Sept.] To this letter was appended the following postscript:—"We understand itts neare a fortnight since the committee applied themselves to you in this busines, and that yet nothing is done, we desire there may be a present performance, the condicon of the armie not admitting any longer delay."

[The City's reply, 13 Sept., 1647.]

To the Commons the City made answer (13 Sept.) that arrears were already being got in as speedily as possible, and asked that the hands of the collectors might be strengthened by additional parliamentary powers. [Journal 40, fo. 257; Journal House of Commons, v, 301.] To Fairfax a long letter was sent the same day explaining the reason of the delay that had occurred in satisfying the demand of parliament, and informing him of the steps that were being taken to get in the arrears due to the army. [Journal 40, fo. 257.]

[Suggestions by Fairfax to parliament for enforcing a city loan, 16 Sept.]

The excuses put forward were considered to be of so unsatisfactory and temporising a character that Fairfax and the General Council of the Army proposed to parliament, that unless the arrears came in by a certain day the general himself should be authorised to levy them and to inflict fines upon delinquents. This withholding the money by the City, said they, was but a scheme for bringing the army into disrepute, and for the purpose of causing disturbance; the Common Council had been ready enough to advance far larger sums to encourage designs against parliament and the army; it might again be induced to show a similar readiness in providing money, without which the army could not disperse, if parliament would but impose a fine upon them as a body, "which money being chargeable so properly upon themselves, we presume they will not have the like excuse not to provide."[^75]

[^75: "A declaration from his Excie. Sr. Tho. Fairfax and the General Council of the Armie, held at Putney on Thursday, 16 Sept., 1647, concerning the delayes in raising money for supply of the armie, and other forces of the kingdome; and their humble offers and desires in relation thereunto. To be tendred to the right Hoble. Comrs. of Parliament residing with the armie, and by them to be presented to the Houses."—Journal 40, fo. 258.]

[The mayor, one of the sheriffs, and three aldermen committed to the Tower, 24 Sept., 1647.]

[Warner elected mayor, loco Gayer, 28 Sept., 1647.]

[The new mayor presented to the House of Lords.]

Before any further steps were taken to enforce the loan the committee appointed to investigate the outrage upon parliament in July reported (24 Sept.) to the House that they had discovered sufficient evidence for the impeachment of Sir John Gayer, the mayor, Thomas Cullum, one of the sheriffs, and three aldermen of the city, viz., James Bunce, John Langham and Thomas Adams, on the charge of threatening the Commons with force and raising a fresh war. [Journal House of Commons, v, 315. An attempt to impeach another alderman, John Bide, on a charge of high crimes and misdemeanors broke down.—Id., v, 317.] The House at once accepted the committee's report and ordered the accused parties to the Tower. On the following day it took into consideration the question as to how the city government was to be carried on in the absence of the mayor, and resolved to refer the matter to the rest of the aldermen who happened to be in London at the time, so that the civil government might continue "according to the charters, custom or usage of the city in like cases." [Id., v, 317.] But on the 27th it was left to Alderman Pennington, in whom both Houses had confidence, to summon a Court of Aldermen and to direct that a Common Hall should be forthwith called for the purpose of electing someone to serve as mayor "until the 29th October next, or until Sir John Gayer should be either sentenced or acquitted." [Repertory 5, pt. ii, fo. 177; Journal House of Lords, ix, 452.] The customary day for election (29 Sept.) having been appointed a solemn fast, the election took place by order of the Common Council on the 28th September, [Journal 40, fo. 259.] when Alderman Warner, a strong Independent, was chosen mayor, the approaches to the Guildhall being guarded at the time of the election by a strong body of soldiers. [Common Hall Book No. 2, fo. 97; Gardiner, "Hist. of the Great Civil War," iii, 205.] In the absence of the king, and there being no chancellor or lord keeper, the new mayor was presented to the House of Lords (30 Sept.), which approved of the city's choice and gave orders that the customary oaths should be administered to him in the exchequer as well as in the city. [Journal House of Lords, ix, 456.] On the 6th October an ordinance excluding delinquents from all municipal offices or from voting at municipal elections finally received the approval of both Houses. [Journal House of Commons, v, 320, 323, 326; Journal House of Lords, ix, 467, 470.]

[Threat of Fairfax to quarter troops on the city to assist in getting in arrears, 19 Nov.]

A letter from Fairfax, dated at Kingston the 19th November, [Journal 40, fo. 260, 260b; Maitland, i, 408.] threatening to quarter 1,000 men on the city to assist the municipal authorities in getting in arrears of assessments due to the army, created no little alarm in the city. Whilst the Common Council was deliberating on the matter news was brought that the Earl of Northumberland and a deputation from both Houses were waiting without the Council Chamber desiring to speak with some members of the court. A similar intimation to that contained in the letter of Fairfax had been made to parliament, and both Houses were anxious to urge upon the city the extreme importance of anticipating such a step as that which Fairfax threatened by getting in the arrears of assessments as speedily as possible. This the council expressed itself as very willing to do if parliament would relieve the collectors of certain pains and penalties recently imposed on them, which had only served to render them the more unwilling to execute their duties. [Journal 40, fo. 260.]

[The City's reply, 20 Nov., 1647.]

A little respite was granted [Journal House of Commons, v, 364.] whilst the municipal authorities drew up a reply to Fairfax. [This reply, although dated 20 Nov., was not submitted to the Common Council for approval until the 25th.—Journal 40, fo. 261b; Maitland, i, 409.] They expressed great regret if the arrears due from the City to the army, or anything else connected with the City, should be the cause of the army continuing so long in the vicinity of London, to the great prejudice if not to the ruin of many. They were doing all they could to get in the arrears, and they called the general's attention to certain proposals which they were about to submit to parliament. They concluded by assuring Fairfax that the City was determined to remain faithful to parliament and the kingdom, and at the same time to cultivate good relations with the army.

[Proposals for the better getting in of arrears in the city rejected by parliament, 22 Nov.]

The City's proposals, which were submitted to parliament on the 22nd November, met with little favour in the House of Commons. The deputation presenting them was somewhat bluntly informed that parliament had done what it had judged fit in the matter of the City's arrears; that it was much dissatisfied with the slowness with which they were being got in; that the City was setting a very bad example to others which might have ill consequences; that the commands of parliament were expected to be obeyed, and that prompt measures ought to be taken by the City to carry them out. [Journal 40, fo. 262; Journal House of Commons, v, 366.]

[Letter from Fairfax at Windsor, 24 Nov., 1647.]

Two days later (24 Nov.) Fairfax wrote to the City from Windsor, [Journal 40, fo. 262; Maitland, i, 410.] whither the army had removed as soon as the king's escape (11 Nov.) from Hampton Court did away with the necessity of its presence in the immediate neighbourhood of London, informing the authorities that as parliament had raised an objection to his sending troops to the city for the purpose of getting in arrears, he was content to wait and see the result of parliamentary action in the matter and whether the City's recent promises bore fruit or not. Should the result prove unsatisfactory, he doubted not the consequences would be sad, "and that not more to the parliament, kingdom or army than to the city itself."

[City's petition to parliament, 1 Dec., 1647.]

On the 1st December Alderman Bide, who had narrowly escaped impeachment with Gayer and the rest, and who was now sheriff, presented a petition to the Commons on behalf of the City. This petition, which had been ordered to be prepared as far back as the 6th November—that is to say, before Charles's escape from Hampton Court and the withdrawal of the army to Windsor—after expressing the City's humble submission to parliament and its appreciation of the many benefits it had derived from the course which parliament had followed, prayed the House to take steps for the removal of the army to a greater distance from the city and for the strict observance of the Covenant, and concluded by asking for the release of their Recorder and of the aldermen recently committed to prison. [Journal 40, fo. 263.] The Journal of the House records nothing more than the formal answer which the Commons returned to the petition: their thanks to the City for expressions of goodwill, their readiness to consider such matters referred to in the petition as had not been already taken in hand, and their assurance that speedy justice should be done to those imprisoned. [Journal House of Commons, v, 374; Journal 40, fo. 264.] But from other sources it appears that the petition created considerable ill-feeling in the House, and that it was only after Vane had threatened to bring the army back again that the petition was practically rejected. Had the petitioners succeeded in their object it was expected that the Presbyterians in parliament and in the city would have followed up their victory by restoring the expelled members and preparing for a personal treaty with Charles without imposing upon him any test whatever. [Gardiner, "Hist. Great Civil War," iii, 269.]

[The royalist cause in the city.]

In the city the royalist cause was gaining ground every day. The merchant was tired of the disquietude that had so long prevailed, condemning him to frequent calls upon his purse whilst preventing him replenishing it by his commercial pursuits. He was ready to support any party that would promise him peace and quiet. "The citty is subject still to be ridden by every party and wilbe so rather than endanger trade and stock," wrote a royalist in March of this year. [News letter of Nicholas Oudart, sometime secretary to Charles I, whom he attended in 1648 in the Isle of Wight, 4 March, 1646/7.—Nicholas Papers (Camd. Soc., N.S., No. 40), p. 81.] The more youthful inhabitant was disgusted with the closing of the playhouses, [Journal House of Commons (22 Jan., 1648), v, 439, 440.] whilst the shopkeeper was indignant at having to close his shop on Christmas-day for fear of a riot, notwithstanding his having parliamentary sanction for opening it. The city apprentices resisted the interference of the lord mayor and his officers who would have put a stop to their decorating a pump in Cornhill with evergreens at Christmas, and not only did ministers who had been deprived for malignancy occupy pulpits in various city churches on that day, but they used the Book of Common Prayer. [Whitelock, pp. 284, 285.]

[A riot in the city, 9-10 April, 1648.]

The mayor, who owed his election to pressure of parliament, and who was on that account never really popular in the city, unwittingly assisted the royal cause by another act of injudicious meddling. On Sunday, the 9th April, 1648, he sent a detachment of trained bands to interfere with the amusement of some boys playing tip-cat in Moorfields. A crowd of apprentices and others took the part of the boys, and attacked the trained bands, getting possession of their arms and colours. With these they marched, some three or four thousand strong, along Fleet Street and the Strand, raising the shout of "Now for King Charles!" and intending to make their way to Whitehall, but before they reached Charing Cross they were scattered by a troop of cavalry quartered at the King's Mews, and for a time the disturbance was at an end. During the night, however, the apprentices again arose and made themselves masters of Ludgate and Newgate. Laying their hands on whatever ammunition they could find, and summoning their friends by drums belonging to the trained bands, they proceeded to attack the mansion of the unpopular mayor. Whilst a messenger was hurrying off to Fairfax for military aid, the mayor, the sheriffs and the Committee of Militia had to repel as best they could the attacks of the mob, who kept firing through the windows of the lord mayor's house. At last the troops arrived, and were admitted into the city by Aldersgate. They followed up the rioters to the Leadenhall, where arms were being collected. Resistance to a disciplined force soon proved useless. The ringleaders were taken and led off to prison, and the crowd was dispersed, but not without some little bloodshed. [Report to Common Council, 11 April.—Journal 40, fo. 267; Whitelock, p. 299.] The affair made the city poorer by the sum of £300, that amount being voted by the Court of Aldermen out of the city's cash to the officers and soldiers sent by Fairfax to suppress the riot. [Repertory 59, fo. 189b.]

[The City reports the riot to parliament, 13 April, 1648.]

On the 13th April the city authorities submitted to both Houses an account of what had recently taken place, which the Houses ordered to be printed. Parliament accepted their assurance that they were in no way responsible for the outbreak, and thanked the mayor and all others concerned for the part they had taken in its suppression. A day was appointed for a public thanksgiving for deliverance from the threatened danger. The Tower garrison was augmented and the city's chains removed, in view of a recurrence of danger, whilst a commission of Oyer and Terminer was issued for the punishment of those implicated in the late riot. [Journal 40, fos. 268, 268b; Journal House of Commons, v, 528, 529; Journal House of Lords, x, 188, 190.]

[Impeachment of Gayer and his brother aldermen, 15 April, 1648.]

[Their discharge ordered by the Lords, 6 June, 1648.]

Six months and more had now passed since Gayer, the late deposed mayor, and his brother aldermen had been committed to prison, and no steps had as yet been taken to bring them to trial. At length articles of impeachment were drawn up by the Commons and sent up to the Lords (15 April), [Journal House of Lords, x, 201-203.] charging him with having on the 26th July last past, in conjunction with Thomas Adams, John Langham, James Bunce, aldermen of the city and others, "maliciously and traitorously plotted and endeavoured with open force and violence, and with armed power, to compel and enforce the Lords and Commons then assembled in parliament at Westminster to alter the laws and ordinances by parliament established for the safety and weal of the realm; and likewise maliciously and traitorously raised and levied war against the king, parliament and kingdom." Gayer took exception to the jurisdiction of the House, and when brought before the Lords and ordered to kneel at the bar as a delinquent refused to do anything of the kind, for which contempt he was fined £500. After hearing the articles of impeachment read, he declared that he disavowed and abhorred the offences with which he was charged, and asked to be furnished with a copy of them. He further desired the assistance of counsel and time to answer them, both of which were allowed. [Journal House of Lords, x, 207, 208.] When his brother aldermen and fellow prisoners appeared before the Lords to hear their several charges read to them and were ordered to kneel as delinquents, they too refused. Like Gayer they were severally fined [Id., x, 231, 232.] and relegated to the Tower, whence they had been brought. There the four aldermen remained prisoners until a crisis arrived in the following June, when the Commons, fearing to alienate the city at a time when the enemy was almost at its gates, declared (3 June) that they would proceed no further with the charges. [Journal House of Commons, v, 583, 584.] The Lords thereupon ordered (6 June) their discharge and their impeachments to be vacated. [Journal House of Lords, x, 307.]

[The "Lion Sermon" at the church of St. Catherine Cree.]

Gayer did not live long to enjoy his liberty. By his will, dated the 19th December following his discharge, he left a sum of £200 for the purchase of lands or tenements the rents of which were to be devoted to the preaching of a sermon on the 16th October of every year in the church of St. Catherine Cree in commemoration of the testator's escape from a lion whilst travelling in Africa. The sermon is preached to this day and is commonly known as the "Lion Sermon." [City Parochial Charities Com. Report, 1880, vol. iii, p. 130.]

[News of an army being raised in Scotland, 25 April, 1648.]

In the meanwhile matters assumed a gloomy aspect for the Independents, culminating in the news that an army was in course of being raised in Scotland. The object for which this step was being taken was declared to be the establishment of the Presbyterian form of religion in England, the suppression of heresy and the Book of Common Prayer, the disbandment of Fairfax's army of sectaries, and the opening of negotiations with Charles, who was to be brought for the purpose to the neighbourhood of London.[^76]

[^76: Letter from Hazlerigg (the same probably, writes Dr. Gardiner, as the one printed anonymously in the "Perfect Diurnal") announcing that a resolution to raise an army had been taken in Scotland, dated Newcastle, 20 April.—Journal House of Commons, v, 544.]

[Ill-feeling between the city and the army.]

Matters were made worse by the continued ill-feeling between the City and the English army, whose pay was still largely in arrear. No threats of Fairfax or of parliament had succeeded in making the inhabitants of the city pay up their arrears of assessments, and unless these were paid the soldiers had no alternative but to starve or render themselves obnoxious to the nation by living at free quarters. The City had been already charged with withholding money for the express purpose of driving the army to the latter alternative, that so the nation might the quicker be free of it. The army was fast losing patience, and there was some talk of it taking the law into its own hands.

[Everard's information, 24 April, 1648.]

[Demands of the city, 27 April.]

On the 24th April the mayor informed the citizens assembled in Common Council that he had received information from one John Everard of certain matters which the informer pretended to have overheard at Windsor greatly affecting the city. He had examined Everard on oath, and the result of the examination being then openly read, it was resolved to lay the same before parliament. [Journal 40, fo. 267b.] Accordingly, on the 27th, Everard's information, which was nothing more nor less than a threat which he had overheard some officers make of disarming and plundering the city, was laid before both Houses, together with a petition from the municipal authorities that the chains which had been recently removed from the streets of the city by order of parliament might be restored for the purpose of defence, that the army should be removed to a greater distance, and that Skippon might be placed in command of the city's forces. [Journal 40, fos. 269, 270; Journal House of Commons, v, 546; Journal House of Lords, x, 234.] There was nothing to be gained by opposing the city's wishes in the matter of replacing the chains and the appointment of Skippon, so that these concessions were readily made, but the question of removing the army could only be decided with the concurrence of the army itself.

[Charges against a member of the Common Council, 28 April, 1648.]

A member of the Common Council, Philip Chetwyn, was charged with having publicly declared that Skippon's appointment was not the real wish of the court, and that "seaven lies" had been voted by the court on the 11th April last. [Referring probably to the report of the riot which had taken place on the night of 9 April.] Chetwyn gave an emphatic denial to the first charge, and eventually both charges were allowed to drop. The council at the same time passed a resolution to the effect that whenever a charge should in future be made by one member of the court against another, and the court take cognisance of it, the charge itself and the names of the accuser and the accused should be expressed in the order of the court. [Journal 40, fo. 271b.]

[Great alarm in the city, 29 April.]

[Revolt of Wales, 1 May, 1648.]

The City lost no time in availing itself of the assent of parliament to replace the chains in the streets from which they had been removed. They went further than this. From Saturday night to the following Monday night (28-30 May) the gates and posterns were ordered to be kept closed and guarded, the names of all lodgers were to be taken, vagrant soldiers were to be ordered to their quarters, whilst servants and children were to be confined indoors, except on the Sunday that intervened, when they might be escorted to church by their parents or masters. [Journal 40, fos. 270b, 271b.] The reason for these precautions was that there had been unmistakable signs of the army getting out of hand. An unexpected danger, the revolt of the whole of South Wales, which meant nothing less than the renewal of the war, served, however, to consolidate the ranks.

[Necessity of conciliating the City.]

With Wales up in arms for the king and the north of England threatened with a Scottish invasion the army had enough to do without keeping a forcible hold on London. The City, therefore, had to be left to itself, and to be kept in good humour by concessions rather than by force until the trouble had passed away. The story goes that before Cromwell proceeded to quell the rebellion in Wales the Council of War resolved that the City should have all they asked or desired, "there being no other way for the present to quiet them." It would be time enough when the enemy had been beaten to "make the City pay for all." [This remark is credited to Cromwell, but as Dr. Gardiner ("Hist. Great Civil War," iii, 368, note) has pointed out, the story must be accepted with caution as emanating from a royalist.]

[The protection of parliament entrusted to the City in the absence of Fairfax.]

On the 1st May Fairfax wrote to the Commons from Windsor announcing his intention to despatch Cromwell into Wales and to withdraw the regiments quartered at Whitehall and Charing Cross, leaving the protection of parliament to the London forces under the command of Skippon. The same day that the Commons received this letter (2 May) they communicated with the Common Council of the city, who were delighted at the execution of their long expressed wishes that the army should be removed from the vicinity of London and at the compliment paid them by Fairfax in placing the protection of parliament in their hands. The sum of £600 a year was voted to Skippon for his services, a sum just double that allowed him on his appointment as sergeant-major-general in January, 1642. [Journal 40, fo. 272b; Journal House of Commons, v, 549.] Fairfax wrote him a friendly letter complimenting him on his past services to parliament and the kingdom and expressing regret at parting from him. He at the same time disengaged Skippon from all ties to himself and the army under his command, and wished him much happiness in his new sphere. [Journal 40, fo. 275.]

[Petition for control of city militia and custody of the Tower, 9 May, 1648.]

The civic authorities were not slow to take advantage of the turn of affairs. If they were to be responsible for the protection of parliament and the peace of the city, surely, they reasoned, the appointment of their own Committee of Militia should be left in their hands as well as the custody of the Tower. Both Houses accordingly were approached with petitions to this effect (9 May). [Id., fos. 273, 273b, 274.] The Lords hesitated, [Journal House of Lords, x, 249, 252, 257, 260, 261.] but the Commons at once acquiesced. [Journal House of Commons, v, 555, 556.] On the 16th the Commons had under consideration the several names of persons chosen (12th May) by the Common Council to serve on the Militia Committee, [Journal 40, fo. 274b.] and agreed to the City's nomination of Lieutenant-Colonel West to be lieutenant of the Tower. [Journal House of Commons, v, 560, 561.]

[Parliament looks to the City for protection, 19 May, 1648.]

On the 19th a deputation of Lords and Commons waited on the Common Council and informed them that both Houses had assented to their wishes. In return for this favour parliament expected that the City would secure them from tumult and insurrections, and "did now put themselves really and truly into the hands of the city." The court was at the same time assured that parliament meditated no alteration of the fundamental government of the kingdom by king, lords and commons, that it was resolved to stand by the solemn league and covenant and preserve the treaties between England and Scotland. [Journal 40, fo. 275b.]

[The City master of the situation.]

[Determined to stand by parliament, 19 May.]

Once more at an important crisis in England's history all depended upon the attitude of the city of London. "The key of the situation was in the hands of the city, which had it in its power to paralyse the army by simply maintaining an attitude of passive resistance." [Gardiner, "Hist. Great Civil War," iii, 377.] But great as was the detestation in which the army was held by the majority of citizens, their distrust of the royalists, should they regain the upper hand, was greater. Under the circumstances the City resolved to maintain its attitude of standing by parliament, and gave its assurance to both Houses that it was ready "to live and die with them according to the solemn league and covenant." [Journal 40, fo. 275b; Journal House of Lords, x, 272.]

[Petition for release of Recorder and others, 23 May.]

Four days later (23 May) the City presented a petition to both Houses in which, after acknowledging the joy and comfort they had derived from the recent announcement made to them that parliament was resolved to make no constitutional change in the government of the kingdom by king, lords and commons, and other matters conducive to peace, the citizens prayed that the Houses would release their Recorder, the aldermen and the rest of the citizens that were still imprisoned in the Tower. The Commons replied by at once ordering the release of Glyn and nine other prisoners, and promised to take into consideration the release of the aldermen, which was a more serious business, in a week's time. [Journal 40, fos. 276b, 277; Journal House of Commons, v, 570; Journal House of Lords, x, 276.]

[A royalist rising in Kent, 21 May, 1648.]

Parliament was the more anxious to conciliate the City inasmuch as a royalist rising had already taken place in Kent (21 May). On the 26th May a deputation from the Commons waited on the Common Council with a request for an immediate advance of £6,000. A portion of the money was to be devoted to the payment of Fairfax's soldiers, "to enable them to march out," and give place to the city's own force under Colonel West. The money was at once voted, [Journal 40, fo. 278.] and Fairfax, after giving orders for securing Southwark, proceeded to occupy Blackheath, the place appointed for the rendezvous of the insurgents.

[The royalist party in the city.]

Whilst Fairfax was engaged in putting down the rising in Kent the royalist party in the city was not inactive. On the 30th May a petition was presented to the Common Council, purporting to emanate from "divers well affected citizens and other inhabitants" of the city, desiring the court to approach parliament with the view (inter alia) of bringing about a personal treaty with the king and appeasing the Kentish insurgents "by way of accommodation and not by any engagement in blood." [Journal 40, fos. 278b, 279.] Contrary to its usual practice the court consented to forward the petition to both Houses, which it did on the 1st June, with the result that a deputation from parliament waited on the court that same afternoon with a verbal reply. The precise terms of the reply are not recorded. We are only told that after a "full and large declaration" made by the parliamentary members, the council expressed itself as completely satisfied. [Id., fo. 279b.]

[An appeal for a Common Hall to be summoned refused, 3 June, 1648.]

An appeal was made the same day (1 June) by a certain section of the inhabitants of the city for a Common Hall to be summoned. The appeal was made to the Common Council. The court took time to consider the matter. After consulting the law-officers it was eventually agreed not to accede to the request, on the plea that, although it was in the power of the court to assemble the livery for the election of public officers and other purposes as might be necessary for the public good of the city, it was neither fit nor convenient to summon them at the present juncture on account of the present distraction and distempers of the city and places adjacent. [Journal 40, fos. 280-280b.]

[The insurgents approaching London, 3 June, 1648.]

[Impeachments abandoned and aldermen released from prison.]

Two days later (3 June), when a deputation from parliament again appeared before the Common Council with the news that the insurgents were making their way to Blackheath under the leadership of the Earl of Norwich, otherwise known as "Lord Goring," and asked that the Militia Committee might speedily raise what force it could for the protection of parliament and the city, the opportunity was again taken of pressing the Houses for the release of the aldermen, an act which they were assured "would give good satisfaction to the city and very much quiet their minds." [Journal 40, fo. 280b.] That same afternoon the Commons resolved to proceed no further with the impeachments of the aldermen, and on the 6th they were set free by order of the House of Lords. [Journal House of Commons, v, 583-584; Journal House of Lords, x, 307.]

[Feeling in the city.]

Parliament could not well have done otherwise, unless they wished to lose their main support—the support of the City; for although the Earl of Norwich found the city's gates shut against him, as was to be expected with Warner occupying the mayoralty chair and Skippon in command of the trained bands, there was, as we have seen, a considerable party in the city who favoured the royalist cause and would gladly have trusted Charles if they dared.

[The Common Council desire that the king may come to London, 22 June.]

Nor were the municipal authorities themselves adverse to the restoration of the king, but such restoration must be effected on their own terms. Again and again they called upon parliament to open a personal treaty with Charles. On the 22nd June the Common Council directed a petition to both Houses to be drafted, thanking them for setting the aldermen at liberty, and praying them to allow the king to come to some house near parliament where negotiations might be carried on.[^77] The petition was submitted to both Houses on the 27th June, and was well received. [Journal House of Commons, v, 613-614; Journal House of Lords, x, 347, 348, 349-350.] The Commons, in reply, declared that they were using their best endeavours in the interest of peace, and they had already appointed a committee to consider what further offers could be made to the king, as well as of "time, place and other circumstances for convenience of address to be made to his majesty." [Journal 40, fo. 282b.]

[^77: Journal 40, fo. 281. Four days later (26 June), when the draft petition was read to the council, it was asked whether the clause relating to his majesty coming to "some of his houses near the parliament" represented the sense of the court, and it was decided by show of hands that it was the sense of the court.—Id., fo. 281b.]

[Petition to parliament by officers of the trained bands, 5 July.]

A week later (5 July) the Common Council introduced to the House of Lords another petition, in which the officers of the trained bands of the city made a similar request for a personal treaty to be made with the king in London, and not only repeated a former request made by the City itself that the London regiments might be associated with those of the adjacent counties, but asked that the force thus formed might be furnished with a contingent of cavalry. To all these requests the Lords gave a ready assent. [Journal House of Lords, x, 362-364; Journal 40, fos. 283b, 284, 285.] The Commons, however, to whom a similar petition was presented the same day, whilst signifying their assent to the amalgamation of the trained bands, left the other matters for further consideration, and appointed a committee to confer with the Common Council and the officers of the trained bands the following afternoon. [Journal House of Commons, v, 624.]

[The City engages to guard the king against violence if brought to London.]

The question to be considered was the steps to be taken for the security of the king's person in the event of his taking up his quarters in London for the purpose of negotiating. The Common Council, for their part, undertook in such an event to venture their lives and fortunes in defending his majesty against all violence according to the covenant, and appointed a committee to confer with the parliamentary committee and with the military officers as to the best means of enabling them to carry out this engagement. [Journal 40, fo. 284b.]

[Negotiations for a personal treaty with the king.]

By the 11th July the committee was in a position to report to the Common Council the result of the conference so far as it had gone. [Journal 40, fos. 285b-286b; Whitelock, 319.] The parliamentary committee had propounded seven questions bearing upon the terms of the City's engagement to protect the king against violence pending negotiations, and its intentions as to the king's person in the event of such negotiations falling through. To these the city committee had made replies (now submitted to the council for approval), and had added certain propositions to the parliamentary committee to enable the City the better to carry out its engagement. The first two of these related to the amalgamation and increase of the militia; the third asked that, pending negotiations, no force should be allowed to come within thirty miles of London, and that riot and tumult raised in the city during that period after proclamation made should be met with a death penalty; and the last that if parliament so willed no one who had ever taken up arms against it should be allowed within thirty miles of London without leave. Both the answers and proposals of the city committee were alike approved by the council, and a house-to-house visitation was organised for the purpose of getting names subscribed to the city's engagement.

[The Speaker insulted by a member of the city militia, 8 July 1648.]

The demand for a death penalty on rioters in the city was not unwarranted. There were not wanting signs of disaffection even in the ranks of the city's militia. So recently as Saturday, the 8th July, the Speaker himself, whilst being escorted to his coach by a company of soldiers, had been insulted by one in the ranks, who cried out to the surrounding mob "that now he was out of their charge they [the mob] should tear him in pieces." [Journal 40, fo. 286b.] A few days later (12 July) some prisoners of war were rescued in the streets of London by the mob, and the lord mayor received a sharp reprimand for not keeping better order in the city. [Gardiner, iii, 412, 413.] The Commons, in consequence, resolved that no more prisoners should be brought to London. [Journal House of Commons, v, 635.]

[Petition to parliament, 12 July.]

[The Speaker's reply to the petitioners.]

It was known that about this time secret enlistments were being carried on in the city, and that horses were being despatched out of the city by twos and threes to assist the royalists. It was also reported that an attempt was about to be made to seize the Tower. [Information given to the Common Council by Chetwyn, 12 July.—Journal 40, fos. 287, 288b, 289, 289b.] The majority of the inhabitants, nevertheless, remained faithful to parliament, and the Speaker took the opportunity of a petition addressed to both Houses (12 July) from "divers well-affected magistrates, citizens, ministers and other inhabitants" of the city and parts adjacent, praying them to enter into no treaty without proper assurances for the maintenance of the covenant, [The petition, not having emanated from the Corporation, is not entered on the City's Records, but is printed in Journal House of Lords, v, 380.] to compliment the aldermen and great magistrates of the city on their courage and fidelity. It was a petition—the Speaker said, addressing the deputation—for peace, and such peace as the House and all honest men desired. It had come at a most seasonable time, when parliament was the object of much abuse and men dared not own their true opinions. The petition was the more valuable from the quality of the petitioners—"divers aldermen and great magistrates of the city of London, many reverend ministers, who have always held close to the cause, and others, the gentlemen of birth and quality that have less valued their blood than the hazard and loss of so noble an undertaking." On behalf of the Commons he returned them real and hearty thanks, assuring them that the House approved of the petition and the matter thereof, and that in prosecuting the peace it would take care to preserve the religion, laws and liberties of all those who have been constant to these ends. [Journal House of Commons, v, 634.]

[Another petition to Parliament for amalgamation of militia, 18 July, 1648.]

On the 18th July the City caused two petitions to be presented to both Houses, one of which asked for an impost to be laid on Newcastle coals, and the other repeated the old request for an amalgamation of the city's militia with that of the neighbouring counties. To the first no answer was vouchsafed. To the second the Commons replied that the matter had already been referred to a committee; whilst the Lords directed an ordinance to be drawn up pursuant to the wishes of the petitioners. The petition relative to the militia was met by a counter-petition from "divers well-affected citizens of London and inhabitants in and about the same," the authors of which the Common Council wished to discover. [Journal 40, fos. 287b, 288; Journal House of Commons, v, 639; Journal House of Lords, x, 384, 385.]

[The City desires Skippon's commission revoked, 22 July, 1648.]

In the meantime enlistments of horse and foot had been to such an extent carried on clandestinely in the city, under pretext of the parliamentary powers granted to Skippon, that the municipal authorities began to get nervous. Servants and apprentices were reported to have enlisted one another at all hours of the night, and to have issued spurious commissions. Against the continuation of such proceedings, which threatened the city with danger, the authorities petitioned both Houses (22 July). The Lords consented to revoke a commission granted to Skippon to raise a troop of cavalry for the protection of parliament, independently of the Committee of Militia; the Commons, on the other hand, determined to let the order stand. [Journal 40, fos. 288b, 289, 289b; Journal House of Lords, x, 389, 390; Journal House of Commons, v, 644.] The civic authorities thereupon yielded to the entreaties of the inhabitants of the city, and resolved (27 July) to raise a troop of horse on their own account to be subject to the orders of the Militia Committee alone. On the 29th they again petitioned the Commons. [Journal 40, fos. 289b, 290, 291b.] That day being Saturday the House appointed a committee to confer with the Common Council on the following Monday afternoon, and undertook to put a stop to irregular enlistments in the future. [Journal 40, fos. 290-291; Journal House of Commons, v, 651.]

[A deputation from parliament attends the Common Council, 31 July, 1648.]

When Monday came a deputation from the Commons duly appeared and explained the reasons for continuing Skippon's commission and the measures that were to be taken to prevent irregular enlistments. Several letters were read for the purpose of demonstrating the dangers with which the country was still threatened, among them being one from a royalist agent in London, in which the writer informed his correspondent of the progress of the royalist cause in the city. "We are in this city," he declared, "generally right; only Skippon makes some disturbance by listing horse and foot, which, though inconsiderable to what we have listed for us, yet we hope not only to null his listing, but out him from his being general of this city. The Lords have already done something, but wait for some further encouragement from hence, to which purpose the Common Council are about framing a petition." [Journal 40, fo. 291; W.G. to Sir A. Gibson, 26 July, cited by Dr. Gardiner, "Hist. Great Civil War," iii, 424, 425.] The reading of this letter appears to have had a diametrically opposite effect upon the members of the council than was anticipated, for they still insisted upon the withdrawal of Skippon's authority under which the irregular enlistments were carried on. The Commons, however, refused to be moved from their former resolution.

[Letter and declaration of the Prince of Wales sent to the City, 29 July, 1648.]

On the 2nd August a letter from the Prince of Wales, who had recently arrived with a fleet off Yarmouth, was read to the Common Council. The letter had been forwarded to its destination by the company of merchant adventurers, and contained a copy of the prince's declaration to the effect that he was approaching the shores of England to settle religion in accordance with the terms of the agreement between his father and the Scots, to restore the king to his throne, and to bring about an act of oblivion and the disbandment of all armies. [Journal 40, fo. 291b; Journal House of Lords, x, 399.] He had recently seized several merchantmen in the Downs—one alone being valued at £20,000—and he asked the Common Council to pay him that sum to assist him in his enterprise, promising on receipt of the money to set the vessels free. [Whitelock, pp. 326, 327.]

[The City ordered by parliament to send no reply, 3 Aug.]

On hearing this letter and declaration read the council forthwith appointed a committee to draw up a petition to parliament, in which they repeated their request for a speedy personal treaty with the king so as to put an end to the present troubles and miseries. After sending for the original letter the Commons directed (3 Aug.) the City to make no reply to the prince until the House took further order, and the next day declared all who aided the prince, by sea or by land, to be traitors and rebels. [Journal 40, fos. 291-292b; Journal House of Commons, 660, 661.]

[The prince accepts the Scottish terms, 16 Aug.]

Disappointed at the way in which the news of the arrival of his fleet had been received by the City, the prince lent a more ready ear to proposals from Scotland, and on the 16th August declared his acceptance of the terms offered. It was still believed by many that as soon as he should raise his standard in the north the Presbyterians in the city would openly avow themselves in his favour, and rumour had gone so far as to name the commanders of their forces. "The lords and the city," wrote one of Rupert's correspondents, "understand each other, as also the reformadoes, that are considerable—8,000 in number." [W. Steward to Rupert, 20 Aug., cited by Dr. Gardiner, "Hist. Great Civil War," iii, 452.]

[Change of feeling in the city, 31 Aug., 1648.]

On the 29th August the City was asked by a committee of the House of Commons to send money, corn or biscuit to the value of £20,000 for the relief of the army in the north, and to take active measures for getting in all arrears of assessments due for the army of Fairfax. [Journal 40, fo. 295.] But although the City so far acceded to this request as to take immediate steps for getting in arrears of assessments, recent events—and notably the successes of Cromwell and Fairfax at Preston and Colchester, as well as the seizure of London ships and interference with London trade—had rendered the citizens anxious that parliament should come to an understanding with the army. [Journal 40, fos. 295b, 296, 296b; Journal House of Commons, v, 694; Journal House of Lords, x, 478-480.]

[A city loan of £10,000 towards carrying out negotiations with the king, 4 Sept.]

On the 4th September a deputation from parliament appeared before the Common Council and asked for a loan of £10,000, to be paid by weekly instalments of £2,000, to enable the House to proceed with negotiations with the king. The nature of the security to be given for the loan was practically left in the hands of the city provided it lay within the power of parliament. The request was unanimously granted, bonds under the city's seal being offered as security to those willing to make advances. [Journal 40, fos. 296-297.]

[Petition by the London "Levellers" against negotiating with the king.]

The prospect of negotiations being opened at all with the king was distasteful to the radical party or "Levellers" in the city, and a petition was laid before the Commons on the 11th September calling upon them as the supreme authority in the realm to shake off all control exercised over them by the House of Lords, and to render kings, queens, nobles and all persons alike subject to the law of the land. The petitioners finally asked the House to consider seriously "whether the justice of God be likely to be satisfied or His yet continuing wrath appeased by an Act of Oblivion." ["Perfect Diurnal" for the week ending 18 Sept. (Guildhall Library).]

[Opening of the Treaty of Newport, 18 Sept., 1648.]

This petition had little effect upon the House, and preparations were rapidly pushed forward. Fifteen commissioners were appointed, of whom Glyn, the Recorder, was one, ["Perfect Occurrences" for the week ending 22 Sept. (Guildhall Library).] to go to Newport in the Isle of Wight for the purpose of opening negotiations with Charles, who was allowed to take up his quarters in that little town on parole. The commission held its first sitting on the 18th September, it being understood that negotiations were to continue for forty days and no more. They, however, continued to be carried on long after the allotted time.

[Dispute in Common Council as to efficiency of guard supplied to parliament by the City, 4 Nov., 1648.]

Early in November parliament was again pressed for money and was forced to apply to the City for a further loan of £4,000 to enable it to proceed with the "Treaty." It at the same time complained of the inadequate guard provided by the City for the protection of the Houses. The guard, it was said, consisted of hired men, and not citizens, who often quitted their posts when on duty. The subject led to an acrimonious debate in the Common Council. As soon as Alderman Gibbs, who was a member of the Militia Committee, began to suggest a remedy for the evil, he was interrupted by Philip Chetwyn, whose plain speaking had once before created trouble, and who now boldly charged the alderman and others with telling "many long stories to put the city in fear without cause." He declared that at a former council the alderman had acted in a similar way, "pretending that the city was in great danger of having their throats cut whereas there was no such cause." This speech brought other members of the council on their legs in defence of the alderman, who declared that this was not the first time that Chetwyn had done him wrong, and asked the court to right him. What he had said at a former council about the danger the city was in was nothing more than what the Militia Committee had authorised him to say, and this statement was corroborated by other members of the committee then present. Certain questions were thereupon put to the vote, when it was decided (1) that Chetwyn had done the alderman a wrong by his speech, (2) that what the alderman had spoken at a former council was warranted by the Militia Committee, and (3) that the action by the committee on that occasion had been for the safety of the city, which was then in danger. [Journal 40, fo. 300b.] On the 27th November the Militia Committee reported to the council the steps taken to satisfy parliament that better protection would be afforded to the Houses in the future. [Id., fos. 301-302.]

[A declaration from the army, 30 Nov., 1648.]

Before the end of November the army, now at Windsor, had entirely lost patience both with king and parliament, and on the last day of the month issued a declaration to the effect that it was about to appeal "unto the extraordinary judgment of God and good people." The existing parliament must be dissolved to give place to a succession of reformed parliaments. Those members who agreed with the army were invited to leave the House and join the army to form a kind of provisional government until elections for a new parliament could take place, when the army would willingly disband.

[Letter from Fairfax. Is coming to London, and demands the sum of £40,000, 30 Nov.]

That same night (30 Nov.) whilst the mayor was going the rounds inspecting the city watches a letter was put into his hands by a trumpeter of Fairfax, addressed to the lord mayor, aldermen and common council. [Journal House of Commons, vi, 92.] Strictly speaking, the mayor had no right to open a letter thus addressed. Reynardson, however, who had not long been in the mayoralty chair, and who afterwards displayed strong royalist proclivities, thought otherwise and broke the seal; a proceeding which received the approval of the Common Council specially summoned for the next day (1 Dec.) [Journal 40, fo. 304b.] The letter announced the general's intention of quartering his army on London, and demanded a sum of £40,000 out of the arrears of assessment to be paid to the soldiers by the following night. [Journal 40, fo. 305; letter printed in Journal House of Lords (x, 618).]

[The letter of Fairfax laid before Parliament, 1 Dec, 1648.]

The council at once decided to lay the letter before both Houses, and in the meantime took steps for the immediate payment of an instalment of £10,000 to Fairfax, to whom a deputation was despatched to assure him that the City would do its utmost to execute his commands. [Journal 40, fo. 306-306b.] Both Houses assented to Fairfax being provided with the money demanded, the Commons giving the City liberty to communicate direct with the general by committee or letter as they should think fit. [Id., fo. 305b.]

[The army returns to London, 2 Dec.]

In spite of a request by the Commons that he would keep at a distance, lest his approach should involve danger, Fairfax entered London with his troops on Saturday, the 2nd December, and took up his quarters at Whitehall. On Wednesday, the 6th—the day on which Colonel Pride administered his famous "purge" to the House of Commons—a letter from the general was read in the Common Council in which he desired that 3,800 beds might be sent to Whitehall by ten o'clock the next morning for the use of the soldiers, and also sufficient furniture for lodging. The beds and furniture were to be afterwards returned. [Id., fo. 307.]

[The City's reply to the demands of Fairfax, 6 Dec.]

The Common Council immediately nominated a committee to go to Fairfax and to beg him to excuse the City furnishing the beds as desired. The committee was further instructed to inform his lordship that if he would obtain a warrant from the Committee of the Army to the Treasurers at War for the payment of £10,000, the City would be prepared to pay over the whole sum of £40,000 (which ought to have been already paid over) by the next day (7 Dec). There was one other matter. A rumour had reached the city that it was intended to arrest Major-General Browne, who at the time was serving as one of the sheriffs of London, and the committee were directed to point out to his excellency the "inconveniences" likely to arise from such a proceeding. [Journal 40, fo. 307.]

[Arrest of Major-General Browne, one of the sheriffs, 12 Dec, 1648.]

Fairfax paid little regard to what might or might not be convenient for the City, and on the 12th Browne was arrested, together with Waller, Massey and others, on the charge of having joined in an invitation to the Scots to invade England, although it was difficult to find evidence against them. The Court of Aldermen immediately interested themselves in endeavouring to obtain Browne's release, guaranteeing to Fairfax, if he would set the sheriff free, to produce him whenever required, and vouching for his "civil and quiet deportment" in the city. [Repertory 59, fo. 325.]

[Fairfax seizes the treasury at Weavers' Hall, 8 Dec, 1648.]

Finding that the money (£40,000) which he had ordered the City to furnish was not forthcoming on the day appointed, Fairfax notified the Common Council by letter (8 Dec.) that he had given orders for seizing the treasury at Goldsmiths' Hall and Weavers' Hall. The sum of £27,400 was accordingly seized at the latter Hall; and this sum Fairfax intended to keep until the £40,000 should be paid. When that was done he would withdraw his troops, and not before. On learning this the Common Council sent a deputation to inform his excellency that, if certain concessions were made, the City itself would be responsible for repayment of the money seized, and that arrears should be got in as speedily as possible. At the same time Fairfax was asked to withdraw his troops from the city. [Journal 40, fo. 308.]

[Soldiers to be withdrawn from the city on payment of arrears within 14 days, 9 Dec., 1648.]

To these proposals Fairfax replied by letter the same day, [Id., fo. 308b.] that if the City would cause all the money charged on the City for the army up to the 25th March next ensuing, and still in arrear, to be brought in within fourteen days, he would repay the money taken from Weavers' Hall and would withdraw his troops. Their presence in the city he affected to conceive would facilitate the collection of the money. On the receipt of this letter the civic authorities renewed their exertions to hasten the getting in of assessments. [Repertory 59, fo. 323.]

[The question of discontinuing the city guard of the trained bands referred, 13 Dec.]

It was thought that a saving might be effected by the discontinuance of the trained bands in their duty of guarding the city. They were known to be very remiss in their duties, piling their arms and leaving them in charge of some few of their number whilst the others went away and amused themselves. They had thus become a laughing-stock to the better disciplined soldiers of the army, and brought discredit on the city. The question was eventually left to the discretion of the Militia Committee to continue the guards or not as it might think fit. [Journal 40, fo. 308b.]

[Pay demanded for soldiers quartered in the city, 6 Jan., 1649.]

In spite, however, of every effort the money demanded by Fairfax was not forthcoming, and the maintenance of his troops quartered in the city became an intolerable burden. On Saturday, the 6th January, 1649, a fortnight's pay, or, £19,000, was due to the soldiers, and unless the money was found within four days Fairfax threatened to quarter his whole army upon the city. A house-to-house visitation for getting in arrears was organised. A short extension of time for payment to the army was asked for and obtained. Ministers were charged to exhort their parishioners on the intervening Sunday to pay up their arrears. The money was eventually advanced by the Treasurers at War on the personal security of the aldermen and wealthier inhabitants of each ward. [Journal 40, fos. 309-311.]

[Ordinances of parliament touching elections to the Common Council, 18 and 20 Dec.]

The feeling of detestation for the army and of inclination towards the king had in the meanwhile been growing stronger in the city day by day. A royalist lord mayor, in the person of Abraham Reynardson, had recently been elected, and it was feared by parliament—or the Rump, as it came to be called—that the same royalist proclivities would show themselves in the elections to the Common Council which were to take place on St. Thomas's day (21 Dec.). An ordinance was accordingly passed on the 18th against the election of "malignants" to the city council. This ordinance was amended two days later (20 Dec.) in such a way as to exclude every citizen who had subscribed to an engagement for a personal treaty with the king. [Journal House of Commons, vi, 99, 101; Journal House of Lords, x, 633.] It was in vain that representation was made to parliament of the difficulty of getting a council together under such a restriction. The House was inflexible and ordered the election to be at once proceeded with. The election accordingly took place, but when the members came to take their seats the mayor forbade them unless they were prepared to take the oath of allegiance, which had not yet been abolished. This action on the part of Reynardson being reported to the House, it directed him (5 Jan., 1649) to forthwith summon the Common Council together, but to suspend the taking of oaths until further order. [Journal House of Commons, vi, 103-104, 105, 111; Rushworth, vii, 1370, 1376, 1384.] It at the same time gave orders for the city chains to be removed and stored in the Leadenhall, the easier to put down any disturbance that might arise in consequence of the recent elections. [Journal 40, fo. 309b.] The effect of the "purge" thus administered to the city's parliament was soon to be seen.

[Proceedings of the court of Common Council, 13 Jan., 1649.]

On the 13th January, by which day a High Court of Justice had been especially established for the king's trial and all royalists had been banished the city by order of Fairfax, [Dated "Queenstreet," 9 Jan.—Rushworth, vii, 1387, 1388.] the new Common Council began to assert itself. The court had been summoned to meet at eight o'clock in the morning (not an unusually early hour in those days), but the mayor did not put in an appearance until eleven, and then was only accompanied by two aldermen, the number necessary to form a court. It was soon seen that there was something wrong. The mayor refused to acknowledge the authority of the council or to allow the minutes of the last court to be read in accordance with custom. The council took but little notice of this and passed on to the next business. This was a petition to the House of Commons, drawn up and approved by a committee,[^78] asking the House to execute justice impartially and vigorously "upon all the grand and capital authors, contrivers of and actors in the late wars against parliament and kingdom, from the highest to the lowest," and to take steps, as the supreme power of the nation, for the preservation of peace and the recovery of trade and credit. [Journal 40, fo. 313b.] Such a petition was so diametrically opposed to the sentiments of the royalist lord mayor and his brother aldermen that they got up and left the court rather than allow the petition to be sanctioned by their presence. Strictly speaking there was no longer any court. Nevertheless an attempt was made to get the Common Sergeant and then the Town Clerk[^79] to put the question, but they refused to do so in the absence of the mayor and aldermen, and they too got up and left the council chamber. Thus left to themselves the members of the court voted Colonel Owen Rowe into the chair. The petition was then three times read, and after due deliberation unanimously agreed to, twenty members of the council being nominated to carry it up to the House, together with a narrative of the proceedings that had taken place that day in court. [Journal 40, fo. 313.]

[^78: The court had been asked on the 9th Jan. to present a petition to the House "subscribed by many hands," the purport of which is not set out in the City's Journal, but was considered to be of such "high concernment" that the petition was referred to a committee (Journal 40, fo. 310). There is little doubt but that this petition was embodied in that presented to the House on the 15th.]

[^79: Robert Michell, the Town Clerk, was soon afterwards (3 July) dismissed from office; and the same fate threatened Henry Proby, the Common Sergeant, but the Common Council relented and Proby was allowed to hold his office until his decease.—Journal 41, fos. 1b, 248.]

[Petition to parliament by the "commons of the city," 15 Jan., 1649.]

In submitting the petition to the Commons on the 15th January, Colonel Robert Tichborne, a member of the council, explained the reason why the petition varied in title from other petitions from the city, purporting, as it did, to come from the commons of the city alone, and not from the mayor, aldermen and commons, and with the petition presented a narrative of the proceedings that had taken place in the council two days before.[^80] The House readily accepted the explanation (as was only to be expected), and declared that the petition and narrative might and should of right be entered on the records of the Common Council. "As to the Common Council of the city of London, and so owned by this House"—the Speaker went on to say—"they take notice of the extraordinary affections long since and often expressed by many particular persons, if not by every member of your present body, especially of that true and publick principle which carried you on to the framing of this petition, and to your going through with it, notwithstanding the opposition and withdrawing of your mayor and aldermen." The Speaker assured the deputation that the House fully approved of the members continuing to sit as a Common Council in the absence or dissent of the mayor or aldermen, or both together, and concluded by saying that both the petition and narrative would receive speedy consideration. [Journal House of Commons, vi, 117, 118. A printed copy of the petition and narrative, as well as of Tichborne's speech and vote of the House, is preserved in the Guildhall Library (A.5.5.)]

[^80: "A narrative of the proceedings of the court of Common Councell held in Guildhall, London, the thirteenth of January, 1648, humbly presented by the order of the said courte to the honorable the Commons of England assembled in parliament."—Journal 40, fo. 314. See Appendix.]

[£4,000 still due to the army, 23 Jan.]

On the 23rd January two officers from the army waited upon the Court of Aldermen and informed the members that the sum of £4,000 out of the £19,000 formerly demanded for the army was still in arrear. The money was in the hands of the Treasurers at War, but they refused to pay it over until they had received their security from the wards according to agreement. Fairfax pressed for an immediate payment, otherwise he would be under the necessity of quartering troops of horse and foot upon those wards which had failed to give the promised security for arrears of assessments. Rather than this should happen the aldermen themselves engaged to be security to the treasurers for payment of the money. [Repertory 59, fo. 333.]

[The trial and execution of the king, Jan., 1649.]

In the meanwhile the special tribunal established for the trial of the king had commenced its work. At its head sat John Bradshaw, a sergeant-at-law and sometime a judge of the sheriffs' court of the Wood Street compter in the city. [Journal 41, fo. 131b.] Five aldermen were placed on the commission, viz., Isaac Pennington, Thomas Andrews, Thomas Atkins, Rowland Wilson and John Fowke; [Howell's State Trials, iv, 1051, 1052.] but only the first two named took any active part in the trial, and Wilson absolutely declined to serve. Not one of them affixed his signature to the king's death-warrant. Among the rest of the commissioners were, however, two citizens of repute, viz., Robert Tichborne, afterwards an alderman, [Of Farringdon Within.—Repertory 59, fo. 456b.] and Owen Rowe, both of whom took an active part in the trial and both signed the warrant for the king's execution. When put upon his trial in October, 1660, for the part he now took, Tichborne pleaded that what he had done was through ignorance, and that had he known more he would sooner have entered a "red hot oven" than the room in which the warrant was signed. [Noble's "Lives of the English Regicides," ii, 274, 275.] His penitence saved his life, and he, like Pennington, spent the remainder of his days in confinement.

The proceedings of the trial were unreasonably short and sharp. On Friday, the 19th January, Charles was brought from Windsor to London. On the following day he made his first appearance before his judges. On that day week—Saturday, the 27th—sentence was pronounced, and three days later (30 Jan.) it was carried out before the king's own banquetting-house at Whitehall.

CHAPTER XXVI.

[The Council of State, 14 Feb., 1649.]

Within a week of the king's execution the Commons, confident in their own strength and that of the army, voted the abolition of king and house of lords, and declared England to be a Commonwealth. [Journal House of Commons, vi, 132, 133.] They next proceeded (14 Feb.) to place the executive power in the hands of a Council of State of forty-one members, most of whom were also members of their own body, with Bradshaw as president. Cromwell, Fairfax and Skippon were members of the council, as also were two aldermen of the city, viz., Pennington and Wilson. [Id., vi, 140, 141.] The post of Secretary for Foreign Languages was offered to a kinsman of Bradshaw, and one of whom the city of London is justly proud, to wit, John Milton.

[Analogous changes in national and municipal government.]

The revolution which was taking place in the government of the kingdom found its counterpart in the municipal government of the City, where the mayor, aldermen and commons bore close analogy to the king, lords and commons of the realm. The City was but the kingdom in miniature, the kingdom was but the City writ large. No sooner was the house of lords abolished, and with it the right of the lords to veto the Acts of the commons, than the Court of Aldermen was deprived of a similar right over the proceedings of the Common Council.

[The right of veto by mayor and aldermen impugned, 24 Jan., 1645.]

Until the year 1645 the right of the mayor and aldermen to veto an ordinance made by the commons in Common Council assembled appears never to have been disputed, but on the 24th January of that year, when fresh by-laws were under the consideration of the court, and the mayor and aldermen claimed this privilege as a matter of right, objection was raised, and the question was referred to a committee. [Journal 40, fo. 121b.] No settlement of the matter appears to have been arrived at until matters were brought to a crisis by the action of the mayor and aldermen on the 13th January, 1649, when, as we saw at the close of the last chapter, they got up and left the court.

[Act of Parliament regulating proceedings of Common Council, 28 Feb., 1649.]

In view of similar action being taken by the mayor and aldermen in future, it was enacted by parliament (28 Feb.), [Journal 40, fo. 312. This Act is recorded neither in the Journals of the House of Commons nor in Scobell's collections.] that all things proposed in Common Council should thenceforth be fairly debated and determined in and by the same council as the major part of the members present should desire or think fit; "and that in every vote which shall passe and in the other proceedings of the said councell neither the lord maior nor aldermen, joynte or separate, shall have any negative or distinctive voice or vote otherwise than with and amonge and as parte of the rest of the members of the said councell, and in the same manner as the other members have; and that the absence or withdraweinge of the lord maior or aldermen from the said councell shall not stopp or prejudice the proceedings of the said councell; and that every Common Councell which shall be held in the city of London shall sitt and continue soe longe as the major parte of the saide councell shall thinke fitte, and shall not be dissolved or adjourned but by and accordinge to the order or consent of the major parte of the same councell." It was further enacted that "in all times to come the lord maior ... soe often and att such time as any tenn or more of the Common Councell men doe by wryting under theire hands request or desire him thereunto, shall summon, assemble and hold a Common Councell. And if at any tyme beinge soe requested or desired hee shall faile therein, then the tenn persons or more makeinge such request or desire shall have power, and are hereby authorized, by wrytinge under theire hands, to summon or cause to be summoned to the said councell the members belonginge thereunto in as ample manner as the lord maior himself usually heretofore hath done."

[Proceedings of the Common Council, 14 June, 1650.]

Pursuant to this enactment the mayor received a written request from fifteen members of the council for a court to meet at three o'clock of the afternoon of the 14th June, 1650. The court assembled, but neither mayor nor any alderman appeared until a message was sent to the Court of Aldermen then sitting requesting their attendance in the Common Council. [Repertory 60, fo. 159b.] After prayers[^81] his lordship declared that he had not summoned the court inasmuch as the members who came to him on the matter had refused to acquaint him with the reasons for which it was to be summoned, and he moved that the subscribers to the request for a court should state why the court was summoned before any other business was taken in hand. This proposal met with great opposition, and a debate arose on the question whether the mayor's motion should take precedence of the reading of the minutes of the last court or not, and lasted until nine o'clock at night. At length the mayor's motion was negatived and the minutes of the last court were read. It then became known that the reason for the court being summoned was to hear a committee's report read. But the mayor at this point declared himself tired with sitting so long and rose to go, promising to call a court the next morning or any time most convenient. Upon certain members insisting upon the report being read then and there, his lordship and all the aldermen except one left the court. Nevertheless the report was read, and the members themselves fixed a day for another court for taking it into consideration unless the mayor himself should summon one in the meantime. His lordship was informed of this resolution by a deputation sent for the purpose. [Journal 41, fo. 26b.]

[^81: On the 9th May, 1644, the Common Council—in consideration of the sad distractions and divisions among them, and the heavy judgments of God justly drawn upon the land for its manifold sins and transgressions—resolved that their proceedings in the future should be opened with prayer.—Journal 40, fo. 96.]

[A further purge to be administered to the Common Council, 17 March, 1649.]

In the meantime the Common Council had resolved to administer to itself a further purge. A committee was appointed (17 March, 1649) to "consider what officers are properly to sitt in this courte as itt is a courte, and by what authority they doe sitt there, and are to doe and performe service in the courte, and what sallary or allowance they shall conceive expedient to bee made to them respectively, and whether those officers shall bee yearely chosen or to remain for soe long time as they shall well and honestly use and behave themselves in their places."[^82] Another committee was appointed to enquire what members of the council or others holding positions under the council had subscribed engagements which brought them within the purview of the ordinances of parliament of the 18th and 20th December. It was further instructed to devise some good expedient "to heale upp all breaches and that may tende to union and to the peace and safety of this citty, and likewise for the begettinge of a right understandinge and to keepe a good correspondency both betweene the parliament and citty and betweene the army and this citty." [Journal 40, fo. 314b.] Three days later (20 March) the Common Council resolved that in the opinion of the court "such persons as were chosen to any places of trust within the city (before the two ordinances of the xviijth and xxth of December last were made) and doe continue in those places and are within the compasse of any the matters menconed in this same ordinances or either of them are as equally dangerous to be in any of those places as they that were forbidden to be chosen to any such place since the said ordinances made," and the committee last mentioned were to see how best to avert the danger. [Id., fo. 315.]

[^82: Journal 40, fo. 314b. This committee reported to the court on 29 May (when the court decided, after long debate, that the Recorder was an officer and not a member of the court), but the report was not entered in the Journal until 9 July, 1650.—Journal 40, fo. 320b; Journal 41, fo. 30.]

[Reynardson deposed from the mayoralty, 2 April, 1649.]

When it came to proclaiming in the city the decrees of parliament abolishing the kingly office and the House of Lords, Reynardson, the mayor, declined to do so, and defended his action before the House by the plea of conscientious scruples. He was forthwith deposed from the mayoralty, condemned to pay a fine of £2,000 and committed to the Tower. [Journal House of Commons, vi, 177; Whitelock, pp. 392-393.] As to the fine, he stoutly refused to pay it. His goods were therefore seized and, according to the custom that prevailed, sold "by the candle." [Cal. of Committee for advance of money (State Papers Dom.), pt. iii, p. 1188.]

[Reynardson and four other aldermen deprived of their aldermanries, 7 April, 1649.]

Not content with deposing him from the mayoralty, the House deposed (7 April) Reynardson also from his aldermanry and with him four other aldermen, [Journal House of Commons, vi, 181; Repertory 59, fo. 371.] viz., John Gayer, Thomas Adams, John Langham and James Bunce—the same who had undergone impeachment in 1648. Bunce was a special object of aversion to the Council of State, who later on (14 April, 1651) ordered an Act to be prepared declaring all who had correspondence with the enemies of the Commonwealth, "and especially with James Bunce, late alderman of London," guilty of high treason. [Cal. State Papers Dom. (1651), p. 147. A proclamation was afterwards ordered to be published inflicting a penalty on all who should presume to hold intelligence or traffic with Bunce.—Id., p. 162.]

[Difficulty in filling their places.]

The times were so much "out of joint" that it was no easy matter to find well-to-do citizens willing to undertake an office which had become so unenviable, and many paid fines varying in amount from £400 to £1,000 rather than serve. [Repertory 59, fos. 389, 399b, 402, 403b, 405b, 406b, 419b, 420b, 426, 431, 435b, 440b, 442, 451b, 501.] By paying a fine for not taking upon himself the duties of an alderman a man could generally, upon petition, be relieved from serving as sheriff. [Journal 40, fo. 319; Journal 41, fos. 1, 2, 3.]

[Misbehaviour of soldiers in the city.]

Meanwhile the continued presence of the soldiers of Fairfax in the city was becoming more and more burdensome. Scarcely a day passed without some disturbance arising between the soldiers and the civil guardians of the peace. Occasionally there was bloodshed, and twice within a very few days appeal had to be made to the general himself to restrain the plundering and roystering habits of his men. [1 Feb., 8 Feb., 1649.—Repertory 59, fos. 339b, 343.] It is not surprising if, bearing in mind the horrors that the military occupation of the city had recently brought upon the inhabitants, the Common Council rejected a proposal (17 April) that the custody of the Tower should be placed in the hands of a national guard in preference to the city's own trained bands. [Journal 40, fo. 317b.]

[Affairs in Ireland.]

A series of royalist successes in Ireland now engaged the attention of Cromwell, recently appointed (15 March) lord-lieutenant of that country, but nothing could be done without money. More than a year ago (16 Feb., 1648) an ordinance had been passed for raising money for Ireland, but in the city it had been almost treated as a dead letter—"in divers wards no assessment at all, and in most very little paid in." The civic authorities had recently (22 March, 1649) been reminded of their remissness in this respect by a letter from the Council of State, who threatened to enforce their ordinance if the City could not be brought to execute it from a sense of duty. [Cal. State Papers Dom. (1649-1650), p. 50.]

[City loan of £120,000, 12 April, 1649.]

Three weeks later (12 April) a deputation from parliament, including Cromwell himself, appeared before the Common Council and desired a loan of £120,000 upon the security of the Act for assessment of £90,000 per month and the Act for sale of fee-farm rents. The security was not liked, nevertheless the council nominated a committee to confer with parliament as to the best means of raising the money. [Journal 40, fo. 317; Journal House of Commons, vi, 185, 186, 187.]

[A mutiny in the army, April, 1649.]

Want of money was not the only difficulty that Cromwell had to contend with. The levelling spirit which two years before had displayed itself in the ranks of the army, and had ever since been fostered by speeches and writings of the wrong-headed and impracticable John Lilburne, again asserted itself. The troops refused to serve in Ireland. A mutiny broke out at "The Bull," in Bishopsgate Street, the soldiers refusing to obey their colonel's orders and seizing the regimental colours. An example had to be made, so one of the ringleaders was shot in St. Paul's Churchyard. Five others condemned to death were pardoned. The funeral of the unfortunate man who was executed was made the occasion of a public demonstration against parliament and the army, [Whitelock, pp. 398, 399.] and for some time afterwards the Levellers continued to give trouble in different parts of the country.

[The Commonwealth at length proclaimed in the city, 30 May.]

Time was passing rapidly and yet the establishment of the Commonwealth still remained unproclaimed in the city. On the 10th May Colonel Venn, one of the city members, was ordered to enquire and report to the House as to the cause of the delay. [Journal House of Commons, vi, 206.] At length, on the 30th May, the formal proclamation was made by Andrews, the new mayor, assisted by twelve of his brother aldermen [Whitelock, p. 404.] and by a posse of troops which had to be sent for to preserve order. "It was desired," wrote the secretary of the French ambassador in England to Cardinal Mazarin, "that this act should be effected in the ordinary form of a simple publication, without the mayor and aldermen being supported by any soldiers, in order to show that no violent means had been resorted to; but a crowd of people having gathered around them with hootings and insults, compelled them to send for some troops, who first drove away all bystanders, and thus they finished their publication." [M. de Croullé to Cardinal Mazarin, 14 June, 1649, cited by Guizot, "Hist. de la Republique D'Angleterre et de Cromwell," i, 10-11.] A man named Prior was arrested for attempted riot and was sent by the mayor to the Council of State, by whom he was committed to the gatehouse. [Council of State to the mayor, 30 May.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1649-1650), p. 165.]

[Aldermen punished for not attending proclamation.]

Two aldermen, Sir Thomas Soame and Richard Chambers, who had absented themselves on the occasion, were called before the bar of the House (1 June) to answer for their conduct. Soame, who was himself a member of the House, boldly declared that the proclamation "was against several oaths which he had taken as an alderman of London, and against his judgment and conscience." Chambers said in defence "that his heart did not go along in that business." Both delinquents were adjudged to lose their aldermanries, and Soame was also condemned to lose his seat in the House. [Whitelock, p. 405; Journal House of Commons, vi, 222.] Whilst inflicting punishment upon those who determined to remain staunch to the royalist cause, the House resolved to honour those who supported the new order of things, and on the 6th June a proposal was made to authorise the Speaker "to create the dignity of a knight, and to confer the same upon Thomas Andrews, alderman and lord mayor of London, and Isaac Pennington and Thomas Atkins [Atkin], aldermen and formerly lord mayors." [A draft bill to the above effect corrected by Bradshaw.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1649-1650), p. 175. No mention of it appears in the Journal of the House for that day.]

[The Commons and Council of State entertained in the city, 7 June, 1649.]

Thursday, the 7th June, having been appointed a day of public thanksgiving for the suppression of the Levellers, the Common Council resolved (29 May) to invite the Commons of England, the Council of State and other high officers, as well as Fairfax and the chief officers of the army, to a dinner at Grocers' Hall, in order to "manifest the city's good affections towards them." The House accepted the invitation and appointed Christchurch, Newgate, to be the church wherein the thanksgiving service was to take place. [Journal 40, fos. 320b, 321; Whitelock, p. 404.] The same deference and respect was paid on this occasion to the Speaker as was customarily paid to the king, the mayor delivering the civic sword into his hands on entering the city and receiving it back again, whilst the chief seat at the banquet was also surrendered to him. [Whitelock, p. 406; Cal. State Papers Dom. (1649-1650), pp. 175. 176.]

[Gifts of plate to Fairfax and Cromwell.]

The City showed exceptional honour to Fairfax and to Cromwell, presenting the former with a bason and ewer of gold weighing 242 ozs. 14 dwts., and the latter with another bason and ewer, as well as with two flower pots, a perfume and chafing dish, two fruit baskets, a kettle and laver and a warming pan, the whole weighing 934 ozs. 9 dwts. Cromwell was also presented with a purse containing £200 in twenty-shilling pieces. [Journal 40, fo. 321b.] Thomas Vyner, a goldsmith of repute, who was sheriff at the time, provided the plate at a cost of £1,412 15s. [Repertory 59, fos. 419b, 446b.]

[Gift of Richmond Park to the city, 17 July.]

The House was so pleased with the flattering reception it had received that the next day (8 June) it appointed a special committee "to consider of some mark of favour and respect" to be done to the City, [Journal House of Commons, vi, 227.] and on the 30th it resolved "that the city of London have the New Park in the county of Surrey settled upon them and their successors, as an act of favour from this House, for the use of the city and their successors, and that an Act be brought in for the purpose." [Id., vi, 246.] Accordingly, on the 17th July, an Act "for settling the New Park of Richmond, alias Richmond Great Park, on the mayor and commonalty and citizens of London and their successors" was brought in and passed. [Id., vi, 263.]

[Demand for a further loan of £150,000, 5 July, 1649.]

In the meantime (5 July) Cromwell had again appeared before the Common Council and had desired a further advance of £150,000 upon the security of the excise. The matter was referred to a committee. [Journal 41, fo. 2b; Whitelock, p. 413. Proceedings of Council of State, 3 July.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1649-1650), p. 220.] By the 13th August the new lord-lieutenant had obtained sufficient resources for him to cross over to Ireland.

[News of the defeat of Ormond before Dublin, 11 Aug.]

Before he set sail a complete victory had been already gained over Ormond's forces before Dublin. The news of the success was despatched to the mayor of London by letter from the Council of State (11 Aug.), who ordered particulars of the victory to be printed and published in every church within the lines of communication and thanks to be rendered to Almighty God for his great goodness. [Council of State to mayor, 11 Aug.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1649-1650), p. 273.] The 29th August was accordingly kept as a day of public thanksgiving, and whilst the Commons attended divine service at St. Margaret's, Westminster, the municipal authorities listened to sermons at Christchurch, Newgate, and afterwards dined together at Mercers' Hall. [Repertory 59, fo. 476; Journal House of Commons, vi, 287.]

[Letter from the Council of State threatening "free quarters" for the army, 22 Aug., 1649.]

The citizens kept such a tight hold upon their purse-strings, and the money which they had been called upon to advance came in so slowly, that the Council of State began to lose all patience, and on the 22nd August wrote to the mayor and aldermen [Cal. State Papers Dom. (1649-1650), pp. 287-288.] reminding them of their remissness in obeying the council's previous orders, and informing them that the soldiers had got to the end of their pay and wanted more. "It is not reasonable," the letter went on to say, "that the country, which is far less able, should bear the burden of the city, or that the soldiers should quarter upon them to spare you; and if you suffer free quarter to come upon you it may produce great inconvenience. You are therefore to take it into serious consideration, and you will then be sensible of the effects this backwardness in payment may produce. We once more offer this to your consideration, resolving not to trouble you hereafter with further letters, which produce no better effect, but that the same clamour and complaints return to us every week."

[Glyn, the Recorder, forced to resign. 25 Aug., 1649.]

On the 25th August Glyn, the city's Recorder, yielded to pressure and resigned his office. An attempt had been made in January, 1648, to get him to resign in favour of William Steele, but he managed to keep his place notwithstanding his being a prisoner and threatened with impeachment at the time. On the 9th August, 1649, the Court of Aldermen desired him to surrender his place on the ground that both law and the custom of the city demanded that the Recorder of the city should be an apprentice of the law and not a sergeant-at-law.[^83] The plea was a shallow one, and Glyn declined to accede to their request, as being prejudicial to himself and as casting a slur upon his profession. This answer he made on the 18th August. Nevertheless by that day week he had thought better of it, and came into court and there "freely tendred" his resignation, which was accepted as "his own free voluntary act." The court voted him the sum of £300 in recognition of his past services and appointed William Steele in his place.[^84]

[^83: Repertory 59, fo. 472. Glyn had assumed the coif in October, 1648, and in so doing had followed the example of Sir Henry Montague and others of his predecessors. The City had tried to get rid of Montague (in 1610) on the same grounds, but failed owing to the intervention of the king, who emphatically declared that in calling Montague to be a sergeant-at-law he intended a further mark of favour to him and to the City, and did not intend that he should lose his place.—Remembrancia (Index), p. 288.]

[^84: Repertory 59, fo. 474. As early as the 3rd July the Common Council (presumably by virtue of the resolution of parliament of 28 Feb., 1649) had looked upon the Recordership as vacant, and had nominated Steele as Glyn's successor. It had, however, to give way to the Court of Aldermen.—Journal 41, fos. 1b, 4.]

[Election of Foote, mayor, 29 Sept.]

When Michaelmas-day, the day of election of a fresh mayor, arrived Andrews was not re-elected, to the disappointment of a large number of citizens, who petitioned the Common Council to enquire into the manner in which the elections had taken place. The court, whilst declaring that the election had been carried out according to custom, was willing to appoint a committee to search the City's Records with the view of getting more definite information as to the mode of such election, as well as to enquire into charges that had been publicly made against Sir John Wollaston in connection with the recent election. Andrews himself appears to have suffered no little disappointment, if we may judge from his not presiding at any Common Council or Court of Aldermen after the 9th October, leaving that duty to Foote, the lord mayor elect, as his locum tenens. [Journal 41, fo. 7b. For a mayor to appoint an alderman who had not yet passed the chair to act as his locum tenens was unusual and contrary to custom.]

[The trial of John Lilburne at the Guildhall, 25-27 Oct., 1649.]

A few days before Andrews quitted the mayoralty the Guildhall was the scene of one of those trials for which it is historically famous. On the 24th October (1649) John Lilburne was brought to trial for spreading seditious pamphlets. Parliament had shown every disposition to conciliate this impracticable reformer, but all its efforts had been futile. "Tell your masters from me," said he to a friend who visited him in the Tower, "that if it were possible for me now to choose, I had rather choose to live seven years under old King Charles's government (notwithstanding their beheading him as a tyrant for it) when it was at the worst before this parliament, than live one year under their present government that now rule; nay, let me tell you, if they go on with that tyranny they are in, they will make Prince Charles have friends enow not only to cry him up, but also really to fight for him to bring him into his father's throne." ["A discourse betwixt Lieut.-Col. John Lilburne and Mr. Hugh Peter, 25 May, 1649."—Lilburne Tracts (Guildhall Library), vol. iv.] His trial was at length forced on parliament by the injudicious publication of a pamphlet ["An Outcry of the Young Men and Apprentices of London, 22 Aug., 1649."] calculated to excite discontent in the army, and a mutiny broke out in the garrison at Oxford so soon after the issue of this pamphlet that it was justly thought to have occasioned the outbreak. The country became flooded with seditious pamphlets to such an extent that an Act was passed for their suppression and for the better regulation of printing. The civic authorities and the Stationers' Company were especially admonished to see the provisions of the Act carried out. [The Council of State to the mayor, etc., 2 Oct.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1649-1650), p. 328. Proceedings of Council of State, 10 Nov.—Ibid., p. 386.] What brought matters to a climax was the discovery that the Levellers were entering upon negotiations with Prince Charles, and thereupon the House resolved (11 Sept.) that Lilburne's trial should at once be proceeded with. [Journal House of Commons, vi, 293.] A special commission of Oyer and Terminer, presided over by Andrews, the outgoing Lord Mayor, and including the Recorder, the Common Sergeant and nine aldermen, was opened at the Guildhall on Wednesday, the 24th October. The trial lasted three days. Lilburne made a spirited defence, winding up with a solemn peroration in which he invoked God Almighty to guide and direct the jury "to do that which is just, and for His glory." His words sent a thrill of enthusiasm through the crowded hall, the audience with "an extraordinary great hum" giving vent to cries of "Amen! Amen!" in such a manner that Skippon, who was in attendance, deemed it advisable to send for more troops in case of disturbance. When in the end a verdict of acquittal was brought in, a wild scene followed. "The whole multitude in the hall, for joy of the prisoner's acquittal, gave such a loud and unanimous shout as is believed was never heard in Guildhall, which lasted for about half an hour without intermission." The judges turned pale from fear, but the prisoner at the bar, so far from displaying any excess of joy, remained unmoved and silent, and "rather more sad in his countenance than he was before." ["The Triall of Lieut.-Col. John Lilburne at the Guildhall, 24, 25, 26 Oct., 1649."—Lilburne Tracts, vol. iv.] He was conducted back to the Tower, whence he had been brought, amid the acclamations of the multitude. At night bonfires were lighted in his honour. The government made an attempt to detain him still in prison, but in about a fortnight the general discontent of the people and the intercession of friends procured his liberation.

[Lilburne elected member of Common Council, 21 Dec., 1649.]

[Philip Chetwyn disfranchised and sent to Warwick Castle.]

The citizens of London further testified their appreciation of this champion of liberty by electing him a member of their Common Council on St. Thomas's Day (21 Dec.), but upon the mayor and aldermen representing the case to parliament the House declared his election void by statute. [Journal House of Commons, vi, 337, 338.] The matter, however, was compromised by Lilburne consenting to take the engagement "with a declaration of his own sense upon it." [Whitelock, p. 436.] Philip Chetwyn, a man somewhat of Lilburne's stamp, who had interested himself in Lilburne's election, was ordered by parliament to lose the freedom of the City, and was committed to Warwick Castle. [Journal House of Commons, vi, 338.]

[Colonel Pride elected member of Common Council, 21 Dec.]

[Browne dismissed from parliament and his aldermanry, 4 Dec.]

Colonel Pride, whose famous "purge" had reduced the House to a mere shadow of its former self, and who was elected a member of the Common Council on the same day as Lilburne, was allowed to take his seat without objection, [He afterwards served on various committees.—Journal 41, fos. 13b, 21.] whilst Colonel John Fenton was declared by the House to be disabled from service as a Common Councilman. On the other hand, the royalist alderman, Major-General Browne, had to go, notwithstanding his past services to parliament and the army. According to the record of the votes of the House of Commons for the 4th December, 1649, preserved in the Journal of the Common Council, Browne was not only dismissed from parliament, but was also discharged and disabled from being an alderman of the city; but in the Journal of the House itself the latter resolution relating to his discharge from his aldermanry was subsequently erased, and a note subscribed to the effect that the vote was vacated by order of parliament made the 26th March, 1659. [Journal 41, fo. 10b; Journal House of Commons, vi, 328, 329, note.]

[Expenses of mayor and sheriffs cut down, 11 Dec, 1649.]

The late troubles had sadly depleted the city's Chamber as well as increased the number of the poor within the city's walls. It became necessary to appoint a committee (18 Sept., 1649) to examine the state of the city's finances. The result was that in the following December the Common Council resolved to cut down the table expenses of the mayor and sheriffs, which were found to have materially increased since they were last taken in hand in 1555. [Journal 16, fo. 334.] Thenceforth it was to be unlawful for any mayor or sheriff to be served at dinner with more than one course; nor were they to have at any time "any more sundry dishes of meat at that one course, to a mess of ten or twelve persons, upon the Lord's day, Tuesday, Thursday or any ordinary festival day, than seaven, whether the same be hot or cold." One or two of the dishes might (if they pleased) be brought to the table hot "after the first five or six be served." On Monday, Wednesday, Friday or Saturday the course was to comprise not more than five sundry dishes of meat or six of fish, to be served in such order as they pleased. Hors d'œuvres, such as "brawne, callups with eggs, sallettes, broth, butter, cheese, eggs, herings, shrimps," and dishes "serveinge onely for settinge forth and furnisheinge the table at any of the said dinners or feasts and not there to be cutt or eaten," were not to be accounted among the dishes thus limited. Similar restrictions were placed upon the diet of the members of the household of the mayor and sheriffs, and no lord mayor or sheriff was to "make any feast" on entering or leaving office. [Journal 41, fos. 12b, 13.]

[The mayor and sheriffs no longer to sell places, 1649.]

Hitherto the mayor and sheriffs for the time being had been accustomed to sell offices and places as they happened to become vacant and to use the money so obtained towards defraying the expenses of their own year of office. This was to be no longer allowed. They were henceforth to be content with the allowance made to them by the Common Council, viz., a monthly allowance of £208 6s. 8d. for the mayor, and a monthly allowance of £150 to each of the sheriffs.

[Means for replenishing the City's Chamber.]

A committee was at the same time appointed to manage and let to farm to the best advantage for the City a number of offices, including those of garbling, package and scavage, metage of grain, coal, salt and fruit, as well as all fines, issues, amerciaments and estreated recognisances under the greenwax. It was to have entire control over the City's new acquisition, Richmond Park, the timber of which it was empowered to sell (notwithstanding a proviso in the Act of Parliament to the contrary), as well as the woods of the manors of Middleham and Richmond, which formed part of the Royal Contract estate in Yorkshire. All sums of money thus raised were to be paid forthwith into the Chamber. [Journal 41, fo. 13b.]

[Proposed postal system in order to raise money for the poor of the city, 18 Sept., 1649.]

The question how to deal with the poor of the city had been for some time past growing more pressing every day, and in September last (1649) the "President and Governors for the Poor of the city" suggested to the Common Council the establishment of a postal system as a means of raising money for the purpose. The court welcomed the proposal, and promised to forward any scheme that might be laid before it. [Id., fo. 5b.] A committee was appointed (25 Sept.) to wait upon the Earl of Warwick, Prideaux, the attorney-general, and Witheringe, who had the management of the inland post—a government monopoly recently established—and inform them of the desire of the court "that the President and Governors for the Poor of the city of London may use and dispose of the said postage for the good of the poor, without any obstructions from them in the work." [Id., fo. 6.] An attempt [The City's petition to parliament, 16 Nov., 1649.] to lay a petition before parliament on Friday, the 16th November, having failed, the deputation not being admitted, the court appointed a committee (24 Nov.) to consider the best way of setting the scheme on foot without delay. [Journal 41, fo. 10.] The committee had [Danger of a Quo Warranto against the City.] not proceeded far in the matter when it was deemed advisable (23 Jan., 1650) to take counsel's opinion as to whether there might not be some danger of a Quo Warranto against the City before allowing any further steps to be taken. [Id., fo. 16b.] For a fortnight, therefore, matters were in abeyance, but on the 6th February, 1650, the opinion of counsel having presumably been favourable to the city's action, the committee received instructions to proceed to settle stages and other matters connected with a postal system without delay. [Journal 41, fo. 19b.] Before another six weeks had elapsed the City had established a postal system with Scotland and other places. Complaint was thereupon [The City's post to Scotland a subject of complaint to parliament, 21 March, 1650.] made to parliament (21 March) "that the Common Council of London have sent an agent to settle postages, by their authority, on the several roads; and have employed a natural Scot into the North, who is gone into Scotland; and hath settled postmasters (other than those for the State) on all that road." [Journal House of Commons, vi, 385.] The Common Council, it was said, had "refused to come to the parliament and to have direction from them in it," but this statement is not borne out by the City's Records, according to which, as already narrated, a deputation had at least on one occasion waited on the House, but had not been admitted. Fortified by the opinion of the [Resolution of the House of Commons, 21 March, 1650.] attorney-general and of the Council of State, the Commons passed a resolution to the effect "that the offices of postmaster, inland and foreign, are and ought to be in the sole power and disposal of the parliament." [Journal House of Commons, vi, 385. Cf. Council of State, day's proceedings, 14 March.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1650), p. 38.] In the face of this resolution [The City's posts suppressed.] the City could proceed no further. A petition to parliament was drafted, but failed to get the approval of the Common Council, and the City posts were summarily suppressed. [Journal 41, fo. 23.]

[£4,000 to be raised to find work for the poor, 21 May, 1650.]

In the meantime steps had been taken towards raising a fund from the inhabitants of the wards to enable the municipal authorities to find work for the poor. [Journal 41, fo. 20.] On the 2nd April the President and Governors for the Poor of the city reported to the Common Council that they stood in need of £12,000 at the least, in order to start the poor on work. The court thought best to begin by raising only £4,000, and there was some talk of applying to parliament to increase (if need be) the powers of the Corporation for the Poor, so as to charge both real and personal estate in assessments. [Id., fos. 23-25.] A year ago (6 June, 1649) parliament had assisted the City with the sum of £1,000 towards the relief of the poor, and had consented to convey to the municipal authorities a certain storehouse in the Minories, as well as the wardrobe near the Blackfriars, the latter to be used as a work-house. [Journal House of Commons, vi, 226.] The City now took the opportunity of thanking the Commons for these gifts as well as for the gift of Richmond Park, and promised to stand by them "against all wicked practices and opposite pretended powers whatsoever." [Journal 41, fo. 23.]

[Inhabitants of borough of Southwark desire incorporation. 4 Dec., 1649.]

There was another matter of municipal interest which claimed the attention of the civic authorities about this time. Ever since 1550, when, as we have seen, the borough of Southwark first became completely subject to the jurisdiction of the city, the inhabitants of the borough had suffered from the anomalous position of being ruled by an alderman not of their choosing, and by a Common Council to which they sent no representatives. Nevertheless, it was not until the close of 1649 that they began to raise any serious objection to the existing state of things. On the 4th December of that year they petitioned parliament that they might be incorporated or enfranchised either with or without the City, on the ground that, as matters stood, their poor were neglected and they suffered from "diversity of jurisdictions," under which they were subjected to "double service and charges," such as no other body suffered throughout the kingdom. [Journal 41, fo. 17b; Journal House of Commons, vi, 329.]

[The City's answer, 21 May, 1650.]

Early in the following year (28 Jan., 1650) the City presented a counter petition in defence of its rights and privileges in Southwark, and the whole matter was referred by parliament to the Committee for Corporations. [Journal 41, fos. 17b, 19b; Journal House of Commons, vi, 351.] The inhabitants of Southwark having submitted their case to the committee, the City were called upon to make reply. [Journal 41, fos. 22, 24.] They, in effect, denied that the inconveniences mentioned by the petitioners were caused by their being under the City's government. As to the alleged grievance of being subject to concurrent jurisdictions, that was nothing uncommon. Not that the City itself countenanced variety of jurisdiction over the borough. Far from it. In fact, the civic authorities had recently themselves applied to parliament for the removal of the "Court Marshall" (or Marshalsea) and the abolition of the "Marshall of the Upper Bench" from the borough. The answer concluded by assuring the Committee for Corporations that if any inconveniences arose in the borough from any defect in the City's government the City would be pleased to receive the assistance of the inhabitants in asking the supreme authority of parliament to amend it. No defect, however, could justify the separation of the borough from the City. There was another objection. The incorporation of Southwark would not only be an invasion of the City's rights, but would work injury to the several companies and fraternities of the city which for trade purposes had become incorporated. These exercised their power of government over, and received support from, their members who were not exclusively inhabitants of the city, but dwellers in the suburbs two or three miles away. A conference was proposed between the parties, [Journal 41, fo. 27b.] but nothing appears to have come of it, and the matter was allowed to rest for another hundred years and more.

[Letter from the Council of State to the mayor touching the City's Irish estate, 15 Feb., 1650.]

[The city and companies assert their rights to their Irish estates.]

Cromwell had not been long in Ireland before the country began to assume at least a semblance of prosperity. The good achieved by the city of London and the companies in Ulster in the earlier years of the plantation had well nigh disappeared during the troublous times of the civil war. Londonderry itself had suffered two sieges at the hands of the royalists, but the garrison on both occasions had displayed the same indomitable courage as that which in later years made them famous in the pages of history, and with like success. Cruel as was Cromwell's policy in Ireland it accomplished its object. By February, 1650, Bradshaw was able to write to the mayor of London [Copy of letter preserved among the archives of the Grocers' Company. Cf. Council of State, day's proceedings, 10 Feb.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1649-1650), p. 510.] informing him of the intention of the Council of State to "plant" the seaports in Ulster, which had by God's blessing been reduced to obedience. He understood that the City had or "pretended to have" some interest in the towns of Londonderry and Coleraine, with other lands and fishings in Ulster, and he desired to know if the City intended to vindicate its right or claim. If so, the lord mayor was advised to depute someone to attend the committee appointed by the Council of State for Irish affairs and explain to him the nature of the City's rights. This letter having been read to the Court of Aldermen on the 19th February, counsel was instructed to investigate the City's interest in Ireland. [Repertory 60, fo. 70b.] A committee of aldermen was subsequently appointed to confer with representatives of the several livery companies on the matter. Although Bradshaw's letter had desired a speedy reply, it was not until the 9th May that a report was submitted to the Court of Aldermen. This report, which had received the assent of the companies, recommended that counsel should forthwith be instructed to assert the rights of the City and the companies to the towns and lands originally conveyed by letters patents of the 30th March, 1613, to the Irish Society. [Id., fos. 131b-133.]

[Cromwell welcomed on return from Ireland, 31 May, 1650.]

When Cromwell returned to England at the end of May (1650), having all but stamped out the rebellion in Ireland, he was met at Hounslow Heath by a huge concourse of people, including many members of parliament and the chief officers of the army. At Hyde Park, where it is said that the lord mayor and the militia awaited him, although no directions to that effect appear in the City's Records, he was received with a volley of artillery. [Whitelock, p. 457; Guizot, op. cit. i, 120.] He had returned at the express desire of parliament, who required his services in Scotland. No time was lost. On Wednesday, the 26th June, an Act was passed constituting him "commander-in-chief of all the forces raised or to be raised by the authority of parliament within the Commonwealth of England," [Whitelock, p. 462.] in place of Fairfax, and on the following Saturday he set out for the North.

[Cromwell in Scotland.]

Two days before parliament thus transferred the command of the army from Fairfax to Cromwell, Charles II had landed in Scotland and Fairfax had displayed some scruples in opposing the Scots, who, as he declared, had a right to choose their own form of government. Not so Cromwell. He saw the danger that was likely to arise from such a concession, and he resolved forthwith to make an attempt on Edinburgh. He was, however, out-manœuvred by Leslie and forced to fall back upon Dunbar. There he was fortunate enough to utterly rout the Scottish forces (3 Sept.) by one of those dashing cavalry charges for which his "Ironsides" were famous.

[Thanksgiving day for victory at Dunbar, 3 Sept., 1650.]

This victory, which contributed more perhaps than anything else to establish the Commonwealth, was celebrated in the city by a public thanksgiving. A "convenient dinner" was ordered by the Common Council (12 Sept.) to be provided for that day, to which Major-General Harrison, Major-General Skippon, the lieutenant of the Tower, and others were to be invited. The City's latest acquisition, the New Park at Richmond, was laid under contribution for venison. The dinner was not on this occasion paid for out of the City's cash, owing probably to the low condition of the Chamber, but was defrayed by the payment of ten shillings by each alderman and five shillings by each commoner. [Journal 41, fo. 34.] The names of those who refused to observe the day of thanksgiving were afterwards ordered to be taken and certified by the mayor to parliament. [Whitelock, p. 475.]

[Review of city forces in Hyde Park. 22 Oct., 1650.]

A few weeks later (22 Oct.) the city forces and those of Middlesex to the number of 8,000 mustered in Hyde Park, where they were addressed by the Speaker and members of the House. Before the end of the month a contingent of recruits from London was on its way to join the army in Scotland, "but near half of them," we are told, "ran away in their march, and listed themselves in the garrisons of Newcastle and other garrisons by the way." [Whitelock, pp. 475-476.]

[Resolution of Common Council on elections in Common Hall, 14 Oct., 1650.]

At Michaelmas Andrews was once more elected mayor. The proceedings of the committee appointed a twelvemonth ago to enquire into the mode of electing the mayor of London have not come down to us. Possibly the committee made no report, for a new committee was nominated a few days before Andrews was re-elected, "to consider what may be the most right and fitt way for electinge of all that are wont to bee by the Comon Hall." [Journal 41, fo. 35.] On the 26th September (1650) a report on the subject was laid before the Common Council, and consideration adjourned. [Journal 41, fo. 35b. A vacant space is left in the Journal for the report, which, however, was not entered.] On the 14th October, the court having considered the report, came to the following resolution:— [Id., fo. 36b.] "That it apeareth to them by the auncient charters of this citty that the lord maior and sheriffs of this citty are eligible by the comons and citizens of this cittie and that the eleccon of the lord maior and sheriffs was aunciently by severall persons chosen out of the wards joyned with the Common Councell. And that the same waye is most convenient still to bee continued."

[Act of Common Council touching elections in Common Hall, 4 Nov., 1651.]

The matter was not allowed, however, to rest here. Petitions were sent in by the livery companies, and debate followed debate until the 7th December, when the court put a stop to further discussion by ordering that "this busines shalbee wholey laid aside." [Journal 41, fos. 37-40.] A year later (4 Nov., 1651) the Common Council passed an Act much to the same effect as the above resolution. Elections in Common Hall were thenceforth to be by the aldermen, common councilmen and "a like number of other honest men" of each ward, and not by the companies. [Id., fos. 65b, 68.]

[Removal of royal statues, arms, etc., by order of the Council of State.]

Although the kingly office as forming part of the Constitution had been declared by parliament to be abolished immediately after the execution of Charles, emblems of royalty might still be seen displayed in the city and elsewhere many months afterwards. On the western façade of St. Paul's, for example, there remained statues of James and of Charles. These the Court of Aldermen had been ordered to remove (31 July, 1650). They were further ordered to see that the head of Charles's statue at the Royal Exchange was struck off, the sceptre in the effigy's hand broken, and an inscription set up hard by proclaiming the abolition of tyranny—Exit Tyrannus Regum Ultimus—and the dawn of liberty. On the 14th August the entire statue was ordered to be removed. [Repertory 60, fos. 213, 220b.] This was done, and on the following day a certificate to that effect, under the hand of the Town Clerk, was forwarded to the Council of State. [Id., fo. 219.] Nevertheless there were many places, many churches and companies' halls in the city, where the royal arms and portraits of the late king had been allowed still to remain, and these the Council of State directed the mayor and aldermen in December to search for and cause to be removed. [Cal. State Papers Dom. (1650), pp. 453, 484-485.] In February, 1651, the Court of Aldermen showed greater activity in the matter, and the lord mayor was directed to issue the necessary precept for the removal of all "monarchichal armes." [Repertory 61, fo. 74b.]

[Letter of thanks from Cromwell to the mayor, read 7 March, 1651.]

In the meantime, oppressed as the citizens were with constant demands on their purses, they contributed what they could toward the relief of the sick and poor of the army in the North, [Journal 41, fos. 34, 35, 40b.] and on the 7th March, 1651, their efforts were rewarded by a letter of thanks from the lord general himself.[^85]

[^85: Journal 41, fo. 44b. Cromwell's letter having been read before the Common Council, was, we are told, "delivered back to the lord mayor who presented it." The custom of the lord mayor for the time being keeping as private property letters addressed to him in his official capacity continues to deprive the Corporation of a valuable addition to their records.]

[Petition by the City against excessive taxation, 24 March, 1651.]

To such an extent were they ground down by taxation (the city alone being assessed at a fifteenth of the whole kingdom) that a petition was ordered to be laid before parliament on the subject a fortnight later (24 March). [Journal 41, fo. 46b.] Whilst acknowledging the care bestowed by parliament in managing the affairs of the nation at the least possible charge, and declaring their willingness to bear their share in defraying expenses with the rest of the nation, the petitioners prayed for a more equitable amount of taxation than that which they had hitherto been called upon to bear. The reasons they gave were (1) the losses which merchants had sustained within the last few years by the interruption of foreign trade, vessels belonging to citizens of London having been constantly seized by Prince Rupert and others who roamed the seas for piratical purposes, and (2) the withdrawal of the wealthier class of citizens to the suburbs of London, where houses were increasing, and where taxation was less than in the city.

[Parliament authorises the raising of 4,000 horse, 8 April, 1651.]

Before the House found time to take this petition into consideration [Journal House of Commons, vi, 554, 556.] it had granted (8 April) authority to the Council of State to raise out of the militias of the several counties a force of horse and dragoons not exceeding the number of 3,000 horse and 1,000 dragoons. The civic authorities lost no time in representing to parliament that the City had always been exempt from the charge of providing horse. They were ready, however, to bear their proportion of the necessary charge with the rest of the kingdom. [Journal 41, fo. 47b.] Later on they became more complaisant, and expressed their readiness to furnish the number of horse demanded "in respect of the pressing occasions and necessities now lying on the Commonwealth," notwithstanding the proportion laid on the City was greater than that imposed on any other part of the nation. It was stipulated that the City's assent was not to be drawn into a precedent for the future. [Journal 41, fo. 48.] The Council of State, on the other hand, would not for a moment allow that the City had been called upon to contribute more than its just proportion. London was a large place, they said, where many opportunities arose for outbreaks, and where there was not always a force at hand to put them down. They doubted not there were many well-affected persons within London, Westminster, the Hamlets and Southwark, able and willing to lend their horses, with well-affected riders, for the prevention of mischief, and they recommended that such should be encouraged. [Letter of Council of State, 6 May.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1651), p. 181.]

[The lord mayor's allowance cut down, 1651.]

In June (1651) another attempt at retrenchment was made by the City. A committee was appointed "to examine what profits or perquisites have been received by the lord mayor and sheriffs or belong to their places, and how they came so to belong or to be received" whilst another committee was appointed "to consider how the service, honour and attendance of the lord mayor and sheriffs of this city may be continued with all befitting abatement of diet and all other charges." [Journal 41, fos. 53, 54.] The result of the enquiry was to cut down the profits and perquisites hitherto attaching to the office of lord mayor to such an extent that when John Kendricke was elected to the chair on the following Michaelmas-day (29 Sept., 1651) he, being without sufficient private estate, represented to the Court of Aldermen (2 Oct.) that he could not undertake the office "upon such terms as never any had done before him, the ancient perquisites and late allowances made in consideration thereof being wholly taken away." [Repertory 61, fo. 236b] He was afterwards prevailed upon by his brother aldermen to change his mind and accept office, declaring that he did so "for the city's quiet and peace, and in hope and expectation of all due and fit encouragements." [Id., fo. 240.]

[Matters of difference between the aldermen and the Common Council.]

Ever since the passing of the Act of Parliament of the 28th February, 1649, the relations between the court of Aldermen, including the lord mayor for the time being, and the court of Common Council had become more and more strained. It had become a common practice whenever the Common Council made a proposition distasteful to the mayor and aldermen for his lordship and such aldermen as happened to be present to break up the court by taking their departure. Mention has already been made of two occasions (viz., 13 Jan., 1649, and 14 June, 1650) on which the mayor and aldermen took this method of expressing their dissatisfaction with the Common Council. They took the same course again on the 2nd July, 1651. [Journal 41, fo. 55.]

[The aldermen complain of encroachments by the Common Council, Oct.-Nov., 1651.]

The aldermen complained of other encroachments on their rights and privileges by the Common Council, and determined to lay their case before the Council of State. They objected (1) to the commons increasing the number of members sitting on committees, and making a quorum without any alderman being present; (2) to the commons taking upon themselves to appoint the executive officers of the mayor and sheriffs, and abolishing perquisites whereby the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs were rendered unable to fulfil their duties; (3) to the assumption by the commons of control over the city's lands; and (4) the limitation of the right of aldermen to draw upon the Chamber. [Repertory 61, fos. 238, 238b; Repertory 62, fos. 17b-20.] The government endeavoured to arrange matters by the appointment of a committee (8 Oct.) to confer with representatives from the Courts of Aldermen and Common Council, and, failing an agreement, to lay the whole matter before parliament for final determination. [Cal. State Papers Dom. (1651), p. 470. Proceedings of Council of State, 4 Dec.—Id. (1651-1652), p. 46.] The livery also petitioned parliament against the innovations introduced by the recent Act of Common Council (4 Nov., 1651), depriving them of their right of election in Common Hall. [Id. (1651-1652), pp. 56, 63; Journal 41, fo. 65b. Vide sup. p. 330.]

[The mayor and aldermen refuse to withdraw from the Common Council, 3 Dec., 1651.]

When the Common Council was about to hear a report by their own committee upon this subject of "perquisites and incroachments," they directed the Common Sergeant to desire the lord mayor and aldermen to withdraw. This, however, they declined to do. [Journal 41, fo. 67.]

[The question of allowances to mayor and sheriffs still undetermined, 1652.]

In February of the next year (1652) the question of allowances to be made to the mayor and sheriffs was referred to another committee, with the result that in the following June the court voted an allowance to lord mayor Kendricke of £1,500, the same to be reduced by £100 for succeeding lord mayors, and an allowance of £600 to each of the sheriffs present and to come. Neither mayor nor sheriffs were to be allowed "standing houses." [Journal 41, fos. 71, 72, 72b, 73.] The matter, however, was by no means settled. On the 13th August the court reverted to the old system of perquisites, and resolved "that the succeeding lord mayors and sheriffs of this city shall have allowances from this city towards the maintenance of their public charges, and that those allowances shall be the ancient perquisites themselves." [Id., fo. 73b.] This was followed a month later (15 Sept.) by another resolution to the effect that future sheriffs should have no allowances from the city other than the perquisites. [Journal 41, fo. 74b.]

[Simon Edmonds elected mayor, but refuses to serve, Sept., 1652.]

[Discharged on fine of £600.]

The election of a successor to Kendricke on Michaelmas-day in the person of Simon Edmonds was made the occasion of fixing the amount of profits the new mayor was to enjoy from the various offices of package, scavage, metage and others. [Id., fos. 75-76.] Edmonds, like his predecessor in office, had reported to the Court of Aldermen soon after his election that he could not undertake the charge of the mayoralty without those "encouragements and allowances" which former lord mayors had enjoyed. [Repertory 62, fo. 197b.] Finding that Edmonds could not be brought to accept their terms, [The allowances were settled 12 Oct.—Journal 41, fos. 75b, 76.] the Common Council discharged him from service (19 Oct.) on the plea of old age and ill-health, but fined him £600. [Journal 41, fo. 77.] The Court of Aldermen subsequently discharged him from his aldermanry. [Repertory 62, fo. 205b.]

[The mayoralty of John Fowke, 1652-1653.]

John Fowke, who succeeded to the mayoralty in place of Edmonds, [Common Hall Book No. 3, fo. 264.] always insisted upon his right to know for what purpose a Common Council was required before he would accede to a request to summon one, [Journal 41, fos. 83b, 84.] and upon quitting office he made a speech in Common Hall reflecting upon the proceedings of the Common Council. His speech was referred to a committee, with instructions to consider at the same time his grievances and to endeavour to bring matters to a peaceful issue. [Id., fos. 88b, 89.] The committee presented their report to the council on the 24th October (1653). Fowke, who still occupied the mayoralty chair, got up and left the court as soon as the report had been read. [Id., fo. 89b.] He was found by the committee to have been guilty of various misdemeanours, such as withholding the common seal and refusing to allow leases to be stamped with it, appointing his own son to various places, making an open assault upon the custom-house and seizing the rights and profits of the city to his own use.[^86] Thereupon the court resolved to appeal to parliament—not the Rump, for that had been sent to the right about[^87] by Cromwell six months before (20 April, 1653), but to "Barebones parliament," the parliament composed of Cromwell's own nominees—to take in hand Fowke's conduct and to restore to the citizens those rights of which he had deprived them. [Journal 41, fos. 89b, 90.] Nothing appears, however, to have come of the petition. On the 22nd September (1653) the Common Council resolved that Fowke's successor should enjoy "all the perquisites and profits which any lord mayor hath enjoyed for twenty years last past, before the yeare of our Lord one thousand six hundred and forty and nine." [Id., fo. 88b.]

[^86: "The perticulers of a charge of the aldermen and commons of the citty of London ... against John Fowke, the present lord maior, exhibited by a Committee of Common Councill authorized thereto," 26 Oct., 1653.—Journal 41. fos. 91-92.]

[^87: "Interrupted" came to be the authorised expression for the treatment parliament suffered at the hands of Cromwell on this memorable occasion. Scobell, the clerk of the parliament, who had innocently entered in the Journal that on a certain day the Lord General Cromwell had "dissolved" the House, was called to account six years later for venturing to use such a term, and his excuse that he had heard of no other term until six years later was scarcely tolerated.—Pepys, Diary, 9 Jan., 1660.]

[Numerous refusals to serve as sheriff.]

The difficulty of finding an alderman willing to undertake the office of mayor under the new regulations was as nothing compared with that of getting men to serve as sheriffs and aldermen, and the Chamber of the city was largely benefitted by the payment of fines for discharge from service. [Journal 41, fos. 74, 74b, 75, 77b, 80, 80b; Repertory 62, fos. 154b, 160, 165, 173, 173b, 174b, 185, 190b.] One concession the court of Common Council made to the sheriffs, and that was to relieve them of the payment of certain fee-farm rents due from sheriffs for the time being. [Journal 41, fo. 74.] Nevertheless the shrievalty became so unpopular that an order had to be passed against aldermen who had not already served as sheriff resigning their gowns for the purpose of avoiding service. [23 Nov., 1652.—Repertory 62, fo. 221b. By the year 1660 the list of persons exempted for one reason or another from serving the office of sheriff included more than 100 names.—Journal 45, fo. 33.]

[The Scottish army enters England, Aug., 1651.]

Notwithstanding Leslie's defeat at Dunbar, there still remained a strong royalist army in Scotland, which, in August of the following year, was pushed on into England with the hope of raising an insurrection in favour of Charles before Cromwell could overtake it. As soon as this sudden movement became known Cromwell wrote (4 Aug.) to parliament to gather a force together with all possible speed to hold the enemy in check until his arrival. [Cromwell to Lenthall, 4 Aug.—Carlyle, "Cromwell's Letters and Speeches," iii, 188-191.]

[Measures taken by parliament, Aug., 1651.]

The House at once (11 Aug.) communicated with the Common Council, who pledged themselves, with God's grace, to adventure their lives and estates, and to use their best endeavours in the defence of parliament and the Commonwealth against the king of Scotland and all who should invade England on his behalf.[^88] The City's Records are again provokingly meagre at this period, yielding us but scanty information on matters which must have deeply affected the citizens in general. From other sources, however, we learn that three regiments of volunteers were formed in London and its suburbs for the special purpose of serving as a guard to parliament. The powers of the Committee for the Militia of the City were enlarged, and the number of members increased by fifteen individuals, among whom was Lieutenant-Colonel John Fenton, who had been removed from the Common Council by order of parliament. The militia throughout the country was called out, and a month's pay ordered to be advanced by "each person who finds horsemen or footmen," the same to be repaid by assessments authorised by parliament. Anyone joining the Scottish army or inducing others to join, anyone found with papers or declarations of the Scottish king in his hands, or discovered inciting to a breach of the peace, was declared to be a traitor, and as such would be executed. Within the late lines of communication strict supervision was to be kept over all houses. Lodgers' names were to be taken and registered; servants and children were to be allowed out of doors only at certain hours. The execution of these and similar orders was entrusted to the lord mayor and the rest of the Committee for the Militia of the City in conjunction with the Commissioners for the Militia of Westminster, the Hamlets and Southwark, who were required to meet and sit daily for the purpose. A troop of horse was to be forthwith despatched to meet the invaders, the men to be mounted on horses lately seized in London and its neighbourhood, the proprietors of which were to receive tickets for payment of their value in case any of them should be "lost or spoiled." [Journal House of Commons, vi, 619-622. Proceedings of Council of State. 14 Aug.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1651), p. 329. Council of State to mayor, etc., of London, 19 Aug.—Id., pp. 342-343.]

[^88: Journal 41, fo. 62.—"The Council [of State] sent a committee to the Common Council to stir them up in this conjuncture to do what becomes them for their own and the public safety, and they are at present in a very good and complying temper, and ready to do anything they shall be directed to" (the Council of State to Major-General Harrison, 13 Aug.).—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1651), p. 327.]

[A letter from Charles to the City to be burnt by the common hangman, 25 Aug.]

On the 25th August a letter (dated 16 Aug.) from Charles, addressed "to our trusty and well-beloved the lord mayor, aldermen and sheriffs of our city of London," was read before parliament. The character of the letter was such that the House ordered it to be publicly burnt by the common hangman at the Exchange on the following day. [Journal House of Commons, vii, 6.] A copy of it was afterwards burnt (2 Sept.) at the head of every regiment of the trained bands on the occasion of a muster in Finsbury Fields in the presence of Lenthall, the Speaker, the lord mayor and the sheriffs, amid shouts and acclamations. [Whitelock, p. 506.] On the same day Charles, who had recently (22 Aug.) set up his standard at Worcester, and all his aiders and abettors were denounced by parliament as rebels and traitors.

[Battle of Worcester, 3 Sept., 1651.]

On the evening of Wednesday, the 3rd September—the anniversary of his victory at Dunbar Cromwell made himself master of Worcester after "as stiff a contest for four or five hours" as he declared himself ever to have seen; [Cromwell to Lenthall, 3 Sept.—Carlyle, op. cit., iii, 201.] and Charles was driven forth to wander up and down the country with a price put on his capture, [Journal House of Commons, vii, 15.] until, by the aid of still faithful friends, he managed to slip over to France. A day for solemn humiliation (23 Sept.), as well as a day for public thanksgiving (2 Oct., afterwards changed to 24 Oct.) was set aside by parliament for deliverance from threatened danger, [Journal House of Commons, vii, 12-13, 18-21, 30-31.] whilst the City not only appointed a day for thanksgiving (16 Oct.) for the "several victories" obtained by the parliamentary forces, but kept the anniversary of the battle of Worcester by performing "the exercise of that day in Laurance Church." [Journal 41, fos. 64b, 74.]

[Scottish prisoners brought to London.]

For some days following the battle of Worcester the streets of the city were filled with Scottish prisoners of every degree passing on their way to the Tower or to the new artillery ground at Tothill Fields. Among those conveyed to the Tower were the Earls of Cleveland and Lauderdale. As they passed along Cornhill in their coaches, with a guard of horse, the Earl of Lauderdale was addressed by a by-stander—"Oh, my lord, you are welcome to London! I protest, off goes your head as round as a hoop!" [Carlyle, iii, 205-206.] The ill-timed jest, which the earl passed off with a laugh, was wanting in fulfilment, for he lived to witness the Restoration and to earn the universal hatred of his countrymen.

[Cromwell's reception in London on his return from Worcester, 12 Sept., 1651.]

On Friday, the 12th September, Cromwell himself reached London, being brought on his way by the Speaker, the Lord President and many members of parliament and Council of State, as well as by the lord mayor, sheriffs and aldermen of the city, amid shoutings and vollies of ordnance and muskets. The modesty and affability of the Lord General was much marked. Of the part he had himself taken in the battle of Worcester he seldom made mention, but of the gallantry of the officers and soldiers he was full of praise, "and gave (as was due) all the glory of the action unto God." On the 16th he and his companions in arms received the thanks of the House, and were afterwards entertained by the City. [Whitelock, pp. 509, 510; Journal House of Commons, vii, 18.] Cromwell's sword was now sheathed never to be drawn by him again; the rest of his life was devoted to work requiring weapons of a different kind.

CHAPTER XXVII.

[The Navigation Act, 1651.]

The attempt made to cripple the carrying trade of the Dutch by the passing of the Navigation Act (Oct., 1651) found little favour with the merchants of the city. What they of all things desired to see was free trade in the port of London; and to this end they presented a petition to the Council for Trade, and appointed (9 Dec.) a committee to maintain it "with the best reasons they could." [Journal 41, fo. 68.]

[The war with Holland, 1652-1653.]

This Act failed in its purpose, and only led to retaliation and war. In the spring of the following year (1652) the fleet was got ready to put to sea. On the 26th March the Council of State wrote to the mayor and aldermen and Militia Committee of the city [Cal. State Papers Dom. (1651-1652), p. 196.] asking that certain brass guns laid up at Gresham College and other places in the city should be forthwith delivered to the ordnance officer, as the guns formerly used in the fleet during the late wars had been dispersed among various garrisons. By way of postscript—as if an afterthought—the council added: "As there is a pretension of right made to such guns on behalf of the city we shall be ready to receive and consider any claim which they shall make to them; and if it appear that they belong to the city we will take care, after the service is past to which they are designed, that they are either restored or satisfaction made according to their value." In May it was found that the store of gunpowder in the Tower was likely to run short owing to a breach of contract, and again application for assistance was made to the City, who were asked to lend such gunpowder as lay in the Companies' halls. [Proceedings of Council of State, 24 and 29 May, 1652.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1651-1652), pp. 255-267.] In March of the following year (1653) the request for guns in the City's magazines to be delivered to the ordnance officers for the public service was repeated, [Proceedings of Council of State, 30 March, 1653.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1652-1653), p. 242.] and by November they were all in the custody of the lieutenant of the Tower. [Journal 41, fo. 90b; Cal. State Papers Dom. (1653-1654), pp. 260, 269.] By that time a victory had been gained over the Dutch admirals Tromp and De Ruyter off Portland (18 Feb., 1653) by Blake and Monk, the latter having for a time exchanged land service for the sea. This success was the more welcome inasmuch as Blake had previously suffered a signal defeat (28 Nov., 1652) at the hands of the Dutch admirals and had himself been wounded. Moreover Tromp had been so elated at his victory that in bravado he had fixed a broom to his masthead, in token of his resolution to sweep the sea of English vessels.

[Subscriptions opened in the city for wounded soldiers and sailors, 4 March, 1653.]

The example set by parliament of opening a subscription for those wounded at sea was followed by the Common Council of the city. Each member of the court was ordered (4 March) to take steps to "collect the benevolence of the inhabitants in money and old linen, for relief of the wounded soldiers and mariners which God hath made instrumental in the late great success of the Commonwealth at sea against the Dutch." In reporting to the court the total amount thus gathered (£1,071 9s. 5d.) Alderman Fowke intimated that it was the express wish of many of the contributors that the widows and children of those that had been killed should share in the charity. To this the court agreed. [Journal 41, fos. 82-82b. In a subsequent rendering an account of the money the amount collected is given as £1,072 16s. 5d.—Id., fo. 97.] The money was despatched to the fleet by the hands of Alderman Tichborne, and gratefully acknowledged by the admirals Deane and Monk in a letter addressed to the lord mayor (2 April). [Journal 41, fo. 83.] Two months later Deane was dead, having been killed in another engagement with the Dutch, when the English fleet again came off victorious. For this success a general thanksgiving at St. Paul's was voted by the Court of Aldermen, who were invited to attend the public funeral of the late gallant admiral. [Repertory 62, fo. 317; Whitelock, p. 557; Cal. State Papers Dom. (1652-1653), pp. 429, 434.]

[Conflict between parliament and the city touching elections, Feb.-March, 1653.]

A few weeks before the Long Parliament was so rudely "interrupted" by Cromwell (20 April, 1653) it raised the ire of the Common Council of the city by the action of its commissioners, sitting at Haberdashers' Hall, who had prosecuted and fined certain inhabitants of the ward of Farringdon Within for having contravened the Act touching election of officers upon the Treasonable Engagement. [The Act which forbade anyone to be elected an officer in the city who had been in favour of entering into a private engagement with the late king.—Journal House of Commons, vii, 53.] A deputation from the court was ordered to wait upon the commissioners and to get some explanation of their conduct and to report the result of their interview. The commissioners assumed a very haughty tone. They were, they said, entrusted with full powers to deal with such matters by parliament, but expressed their intention to "be tender to passe severe sentence upon any well affected citizen. For that they have power to doe it or not to doe it." This was not at all to the mind of the Common Council, who thereupon resolved (4 March, 1653) to ask parliament to explain who were promoters and abettors of the Treasonable Engagement, and whether the citizens were to be considered as promoters and abettors for having obeyed the orders of the militia authorised by parliament in manning forts and appearing in arms, as they so often had done, in defence of parliament as well as of themselves. [Journal 41, fos. 81b, 82.] Before any answer was given to this awkward question the Long Parliament had ceased to exist, to be succeeded by another of a very different character.

[Barebone's or the "little" parliament, 4 July-12 Dec., 1653.]

"Praise-God Barebone, Esquire," who gave a nick-name to the next parliament, was a leatherseller of London, and was summoned by Cromwell to sit as member for the city. "I, as commander-in-chief of the armies of the Commonwealth," wrote Cromwell to him, "summon you ... to appear at the council chamber, Whitehall, on 4th July, and take upon you the said trust for the city of London." [Gen. Oliver Cromwell to Praise-God Barebone, Esq., 6 June.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1652-1653), p. 386.] The rest of the members of this Puritan parliament were for the most part also Cromwell's nominees. It was destined to be short lived. It attacked the law and the Church and threatened the universities. To save the last mentioned institutions the city of London intervened and received the thanks of the university of Oxford. [Journal 41, fos. 86-88.] Afraid of their own acts, which they felt were displeasing to Cromwell, they agreed to dissolve parliament and to transfer their powers to the man from whom they had received them. This took place somewhat suddenly and unexpectedly on the 12th December.

[Cromwell created Lord Protector, 16 Dec, 1653.]

On the 16th Cromwell was solemnly installed as Lord Protector, the lord mayor, the aldermen and the Recorder being invited to be present, and in due course his new title was proclaimed in the city. [Journal House of Commons, vii, 363; Whitelock, p. 571. The council to the lord mayor, 19 Dec., 1653.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1653-1654), p. 299.] The lord mayor, Thomas Vyner, happening to be a goldsmith, the Council of State commissioned him to supply two services of plate for the use of the "Lord Protector and his lady." [Proceedings of Council of State, 15 Feb., 1654.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1653-1654), p. 402.]

[The Lord Protector invited to dine in the city, Feb., 1654.]

Having recognised the new order of things and caused the Lord Protector to be proclaimed at the Old Exchange and other places in the city, [Whitelock, p. 578.] the Common Council proceeded to ask him to a banquet to be given in his honour at Grocers' Hall. [Journal 41, fos. 92b-93.] The invitation was accepted, and the dinner took place on the 8th February, 1654. The entertainment was given in right royal style, the mayor and his brother aldermen riding out in state to meet his Highness, who exercised the privilege of his new position by knighting the chief magistrate of the city on his departure. [Whitelock, p. 581.]

[The first parliament under the Protectorate, Sept., 1654-Jan., 1655.]

In July (1654) when there was some talk of sending the city's Recorder, William Steele, to Ireland on affairs of State, the Common Council addressed a petition to the Lord Protector praying him not to deprive the city of the services of so excellent an officer, and one who was likely to prove particularly useful both to the city and the whole Commonwealth in the forthcoming parliament, [Journal 41, fo. 100b.] the first parliament under the Protectorate and one of the very few parliaments to which the city sent as many as six burgesses.[^89]

[^89: With the exception of the parliament of 1284 it is doubtful if the City sent that number of burgesses to any other. As to the parliament of 1654, the names of five members only have come down to us (see Loftie's "History of London," Appendix B). But that the city did send six members to this parliament is the more probable from the fact that in June, 1657, the Common Council prepared a petition to parliament praying to be allowed to send "their full number" of six burgesses "already chosen" to parliament.—Journal 41, fo. 156. Moreover, the fact that in March, 1653, the Common Council ordered a petition to be prepared for parliament "touching the number of future burgesses for this city in parliament," points to some probable alteration in the number of city members.—Id., 41, fo. 83.]

[Alderman Pack and his "remonstrance," Feb., 1657.]

This parliament, like its predecessor, was of short duration, lasting little more than five months. One other parliament and no more was summoned by Cromwell (17 Sept., 1656). It was before this parliament that Alderman Sir Christopher Pack (the only member for the city, so far as we have any authentic record), brought forward (23 Feb., 1657) his famous "remonstrance," desiring the Protector to assume the kingly dignity and to restore the House of Lords. The question whether the "remonstrance" should be read was answered in the affirmative by a majority of nearly 100 after some hours' debate. [Journal House of Commons, vii, 496.] Before it was taken into consideration a day was appointed for prayer and fasting and to seek directions from the Lord. [Sec. Thurloe to Ambassador Lockhart, 26 Feb., 1657.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1656-1657), p. 292.] The proposal was particularly obnoxious to the army, and Colonel Pride had no difficulty in obtaining a large number of signatures against it.

After many days' debate, in the course of which the title of the "remonstrance" was changed to that of "petition and advice," [Journal House of Commons, vii, 512.] the document received the assent of the Commons, and on the 31st March a copy of it engrossed on vellum was presented to the Protector at Whitehall in the presence of the whole House. Its main feature was the creation of a second House, the members of which were to enjoy their seats for life and exercise some of the functions of the former House of Lords. Cromwell was asked to assume the title of king with the right of naming his own successor. The kingship after considerable hesitation he declined (8 May): "I cannot undertake this government with the title of king. And that is mine answer to this great and weighty business." [Id., vii, 533.] The rest of the terms he accepted, and on the 28th June he was again installed as Lord Protector in the presence of the mayor and aldermen, the mayor to the left of the Protector bearing the civic sword, with the Earl of Warwick to the right bearing the sword of state. [Whitelock, p. 662.] On the 1st July public proclamation was made in the city with great solemnity. [Whitelock, p. 664. President Lawrence to the lord mayor, 29 June.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1657-1658), p. 19.]

[Some members of Cromwell's House of Lords.]

In due course writs were issued to more than sixty persons—many of them members of the House of Commons, whilst others were men of the lower orders, Puritan officers or parliamentary supporters of Cromwell—to form a new House, a "Peerage of fact," not of descent. [Carlyle, "Cromwell's Letters and Speeches," iv, 321-322.] Among them was Glyn, the city's late Recorder, now a chief justice; two city aldermen, viz., Christopher Pack, the prime mover in the restoration of the second House, and Robert Tichborne, who, in honour of his promotion, it may be, presented in the following year a silver bason and ewer weighing 110 ozs. to the City for the use of the lord mayor and his successors. [Repertory 66, fo. 140b.] Colonels Pride and Skippon, soldiers of fortune who had done good service both in parliament and on the field, also found seats among Cromwell's new peers, as also did John Hewson, erstwhile a shoemaker and still a member of the Cordwainers' Company, which honoured him with a banquet at which special dishes, we read, were provided for "my lord Hewson."

[Dissolution of the second parliament under the Protectorate, 4 Feb., 1658.]

The new House was not a success. It soon began to give itself the airs of the hereditary House of Lords and fell foul of the Commons. Cromwell saw no other course open but to dissolve his second Protectorate Parliament, which he did on the 4th February (1658).

[Precautions taken against a royalist rising, March, 1658.]

On Friday, the 12th March (1658), the civic authorities were sent for to Whitehall, where they were informed by Cromwell that Charles meditated an invasion, and that Ormond had recently been engaged in enlisting support for the royalist cause in and about the city. They were asked to put the city into a state of readiness for the suppression of tumult and disorder if any should arise, and to place the militia in trustworthy hands. ["Cromwelliana" (Guildhall Library, A, 2, 4), pp. 170, 171. Robinson to Williamson, 15 March.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1657-1658), p. 328.] The warning came just in time, for the Common Council had that very day given orders for the sale of broken carriages, guns and other war material stored at Gresham College, the Leadenhall and in the Guildhall Chapel, and for the proceeds to be paid into the Chamber. [Journal 41, fo. 169b.] On the 15th the Common Council appointed a committee to draw up a representation or petition expressing the City's thanks to the Protector for the favour thus shown to them. [Id., fo. 170.] On the 16th the document was presented to the court for approval, and on the following day carried by a deputation to Cromwell. Its terms were very flattering. After alluding to the blessings which had accompanied the Protector's government and the recent news that "the old restless enemy" was preparing to execute his wrath against God, his highness and the nation, the citizens concluded by assuring him that his enemies would be considered the City's enemies and his friends its friends. [Id., fo. 170b.] The deputation was instructed by the Common Council to disavow to Cromwell a certain petition which had been addressed to him purporting to come from "divers citizens and inhabitants in and about the city of London," and to humbly desire his highness not to look upon any petition as the petition of the city of London except such as came from the Common Council in the name of "the mayor, aldermen and commons of the city of London in Common Council assembled." [Journal 41, fo. 171.]

[Aldermen Chiverton and Ireton knighted by Cromwell, 22 March, 1658.]

So pleased was Cromwell with the City at this critical time that he conferred the honour of knighthood upon the lord mayor (Richard Chiverton) and upon John Ireton, a brother of Henry Ireton, his own son-in-law and fellow campaigner, now deceased. ["Cromwelliana," p. 171.]

[The royalist rising in the city of 15 May.]

Thanks to the Protector's caution and advice a royalist émeute in the city, in which Dr. Hewet, a preacher at St. Gregory's by St. Paul's, was implicated, and for which he and Sir Henry Slingsby lost their heads, was prevented, the ringleaders being arrested on the eve of the outbreak. It was remarked at the time that the apprentices engaged in this rising were for the most part "sons of cavaliers, or else such debauched fellows that their masters could not rule or govern them." [Id., 172.] On the 6th July the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, with the city's Recorder, Sir Lisleborne Long, waited on the Lord Protector to congratulate him upon "the deliverance of his person, the city and the whole nation" from the dangers of the late conspiracy. [Id., 174.]

[Death of Cromwell, 3 Sept.]

Cromwell's days were fast drawing to a close, although scarce sixty years of age. The death of his favourite daughter in August of this year cast a gloom over his mind and affected his health, and within less than a month he followed her, dying on the 3rd September—his "fortunate day," as he called it—the day of Dunbar and of Worcester. The lord mayor and city officers were allowed each nine yards of mourning cloth, and eighty other persons of the city four yards each, as on the demise of a sovereign. [Cal. State Papers Dom. (1658-1659), p. 131.] On the 4th Richard Cromwell was proclaimed in succession to his father at Westminster and in the city, four heralds attending the mayor on that occasion. [Cal. State Papers Dom. (1658-1659), pp. 129, 135. Sec. Thurloe to Capt. Whitstone, 10/20 Sept.—Id., p. 136.]

[The Rump restored, 7 May, 1659.]

After a brief trial of a new parliament (29 Jan.-22 April, 1659) the Rump was restored and its restoration duly proclaimed in the city. [Journal House of Commons, vii, 644.] The citizens affected to see a special interposition of Providence in the new order of affairs and lost no time in preparing a petition for the preservation of the privileges and estates as well of corporations as of individuals, for the speedier despatch of business in the courts of law and equity, for greater liberty of religious worship, for protection of universities and schools in their work of education, and for relief from excessive taxation. [Journal 41, fo. 204b; Journal House of Commons, vii, 671.] No long time elapsed before the old jealous feud between parliament and the army was renewed by the former resolving that all commissions should be received from the Speaker of the House. One of the first desires of the House was to settle the trained bands of London, [Journal House of Commons, vii, 647, 708.] for upon the goodwill of the militia of London and its neighbourhood much depended. But although the citizens were zealous in displaying their loyalty to the government, [Id., vii, 647, 649, 650.] they had no mind that the services of their trained bands or of cavalry raised in the city should be employed beyond the city's walls, or that they should be placed under the command of any but "persons of quality, freemen and inhabitants of the city." [Journal 21, fo. 206; Journal House of Commons, vii, 721.]

[Royalist rising in Cheshire supported by a party in the city, Aug., 1659.]

Dissension between parliament and the army was for a time hushed by the threat of a common danger. On the 9th August it was reported to the House that the lord mayor had discovered the existence of a party in the city in favour of the rising which had recently occurred in Cheshire with the view of bringing in Prince Charles.[^90] The mayor, aldermen and Common Council were thereupon ordered to attend the Council of State at Whitehall on the following afternoon, when they were formally thanked for the support they had given to parliament and encouraged to continue in the same course. [Journal House of Commons, vii, 753, 754; Whitelock, p. 682.]

[^90: "We understand from examinations of prisoners before the lord mayor yesterday that a rising of apprentices in London was intended at five this evening to prevent the troops from marching to Chester, when the calling of a Common Hall was to have been obtruded on the lord mayor, but these designs were frustrated by the lord mayor's vigilance" Whitelock to the commissioners of parliament in Ireland, 9 Aug.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1659-1660), p. 90.]

[Parliament desires the re-election of John Ireton mayor, 2 Sept., 1659.]

[Opposition of the Common Council.]

Nevertheless, when the danger was over the House thought fit to run the risk of alienating the favour of the City by an attempt to force the re-election of John Ireton as mayor for the coming year upon the unwilling citizens. On the 2nd September the House resolved that "John Ireton" [thus ignoring his knighthood], then lord mayor of the city of London, should continue to execute the office of lord mayor for the year ensuing, and ordered "that it be recommended to the city of London to see the same done accordingly." [Journal House of Commons, vii, 773; Repertory 66, fo. 310b.] The Common Council being in no mood to comply with such request drew up a long petition to parliament, [Journal 41, fo. 208.] in which the government of the city was shown to depend upon "two strong supports," viz., the customs of the city and its charters, confirmed as they had been by divers Acts of Parliament; that by virtue of these charters and customs the mayor was chosen by the citizens, that he remained in office for no more than one year, and was presented to the supreme power of the nation for approbation. The petition went on to remind the House how on various occasions, and notably on the 13th January, 1644, and the 6th and 18th May of the same year, parliament had formally acknowledged the constant affection and assistance it had received from the city, and concluded by praying the House to lay no restraint upon the free election of their mayor by the citizens nor infringe the ancient customs and charters of the city, a breach of which "would exceedingly hazard, if not totally destroy, the peace, good order and happiness of the most ancient and well governed city" in the nation, if not in the whole world.

[Parliament gives way, 28 Sept., 1659.]

The House taking this petition into consideration on the 28th September—the day preceding that on which the election was to take place—resolved by thirty-eight votes to thirteen "that the city of London be left at liberty to make choice of their mayor according to their charter, notwithstanding the previous vote of the House of the 2nd September instant." [Journal House of Commons, vii, 787, 788.] The citizens thereupon showed their independence by electing Thomas Aleyne.

[Parliament invited to dinner at Grocers' Hall, 6 Oct., 1659.]

A good understanding or "correspondence" between parliament and the city having thus been arrived at, the Common Council resolved to ask the House to a dinner at Grocers' Hall to commemorate Lambert's defeat of the royalists. The invitation was accepted, and Thursday, the 6th October, named as the day on which the House would be prepared to go to the city to hear a sermon at Christchurch, Newgate, and afterwards dine with the municipal authorities. [Journal 41, fo. 209b; Journal House of Commons, vii, 790.]

[Parliament closed by Lambert, 13 Oct.]

On that day week (13th October) the House suffered another indignity at the hands of the army. No sooner had Lambert defeated the royalist insurgents in Cheshire than he and his fellow officers made extraordinary demands of parliament. When these were refused they betook themselves to brute force and sent troops to shut out members from the House. [Journal House of Commons, vii, 797; Whitelock, p. 684.] So arbitrary a proceeding was distasteful to the citizens of London as well as to the nation at large.

[Fears of a disturbance in the city on lord mayor's day.]

When lord mayor's day came round and Thomas Aleyne was to enter upon his year of office there was some apprehension in the minds of Fleetwood and the Council of Officers, who were now supreme, lest the day should be made an opportunity for display of popular feeling in favour of parliament. It was suggested, therefore, to the Court of Aldermen by Fleetwood that it might be well to omit the usual shows and attendance of the companies on that day. The court, however, thought otherwise, and directed a deputation to wait upon his excellency and acquaint him with the preparations that had already been made, and with the disappointment which the citizens would feel if they had to forego the customary solemnities, which could be carried out, in the opinion of the court, without any risk of disturbance. [Repertory 66, fo. 330b.]

[Monk prepares to march southward, Nov., 1659.]

Monk, who was in Scotland, disapproved of the action of Lambert and his fellow officers, and prepared to march southward for the purpose (he said) of vindicating the rights of parliament. Whether he had any ulterior motive in view at the time is not known. Every effort was made by the officers of Lambert's army to secure the support of the City before Monk's arrival. On the 4th November and again on the 8th, Fleetwood, Whitelock and others conferred with the civic authorities. On the latter occasion Whitelock did not hesitate to declare that Monk's real design was the king's restoration at the risk of a civil war. "I shewed the danger of it to the city and nation and counselled them to provide for their own safety, and to join for the safety of the whole nation and for preservation of the peace." The Common Council expressed their thanks, and resolved to follow the advice thus given. [Whitelock, p. 686.]

[Monk's letter to the City, 23 Nov., 1659.]

On the 23rd November the Common Council received a letter from Monk, which Whitelock describes as "not relished well by them." ["Memorials," p. 689.] The letter is not mentioned in the minutes of the court held on that day, which are confined to an order for the repair of the wall of Richmond Park and to the appointment of a day (2 Dec.) for a solemn humiliation with fasting and prayer, that God might bring them through all their "fears, troubles and darkness unto true rest, peace and settlement." [Journal 41, fos. 211b, 212.]

[Rising of apprentices in favour of a free parliament, 5 Dec., 1659.]

Whilst matters were yet in a state of suspense the apprentices of the city again took the lead and presented (5 Dec.) a petition to the Common Council on the subject of "how the peace of this city may be preserved." Their petition was referred to a committee for consideration, [Journal 41, fo. 212; Clarendon (ed. 1839), p. 936.] but the apprentices brooked no delay. Out into the street they ran, in spite of all precautions to keep them indoors, crying out for a "free parliament." Amid the confusion Hewson appeared on the scene with a regiment of soldiers, and there was some little bloodshed, two men being killed. This brought the army into greater disrepute than ever, and the cry became general that "it was only kept on foot for the murder of citizens." The next day (6 Dec.) the Court of Aldermen sent a deputation to the Committee of Safety to excuse the recent outbreak and to disavow any complicity in it. [Whitelock, p. 689.] The Committee desired to know particulars as to how the men came by their death, and to understand how far the Court of Aldermen would be responsible for the peace of the city. The Committee was told in reply that the recent deaths were under the consideration of the coroner, and that as to the steps about to be taken for the preservation of the peace of the city, further information would shortly be given. [Repertory 67, fo. 22b.]

[A committee to confer with Fleetwood for the security of peace and the safety of the city, 8 Dec.]

On the 8th December a Court of Aldermen sat and appointed a committee to confer with Fleetwood for preserving the peace and safety of the city and "for a right understanding between the city and army." He was to be desired in the meantime to keep his soldiers within barracks whilst the court of Common Council was sitting, unless the mayor or sheriffs expressed a wish to the contrary, and to cause the removal of certain "granadoes" recently stored at Gresham College and elsewhere in the city, which had caused strange apprehensions among the inhabitants. A petition to the Common Council for a parliament as in 1642 was unfavourably received, and handed back to the petitioners with a request to them not to print it. [Repertory 67, fo. 23; Whitelock, p. 689.] Anxious as the citizens were to get rid of the army's ammunition stored in the city, they were not so anxious to part with their own little stock of gunpowder, and hesitated to lodge it in the Tower as requested, lest it should be some day used against themselves. The City Remembrancer was instructed (17 Dec.) to see Fleetwood on the matter, and to represent to him the feeling of the inhabitants, that order might be taken for securing public peace and quiet. [Repertory 67, fo. 27.]

[Fleetwood promises a free parliament.]

By the 19th matters were accommodated between Fleetwood and the City. A parliament was to be summoned which should be free from military influence or interference. The Common Council, on hearing of the success of the committee appointed to confer with Fleetwood, were so satisfied with the manner in which it had carried out its duties that they authorised it to continue to confer with his lordship from time to time as it should see cause for prevention of all misunderstandings between the city and the army. [Journal 41, fo. 213.] The action of the mayor, the common council and the committee in the matter was much canvassed, however, by a certain section of the community, and they were accused of betraying the rights and liberties of the city. A "declaration" was therefore drawn up in vindication of their conduct. [Id., fo. 213b.]

[A fresh committee appointed, 22 Dec., 1659.]

On the 22nd a fresh committee was appointed to consult for the peace and safety of the city as well as to consider what answers should be sent to Monk, to the officers at Portsmouth and to Lawson, who was in command of a squadron in the Thames, all of whom were opposed to the army in London and in favour of a parliament.

[Recommendation of the committee, 23 Dec.]

No time was lost; on the following day (23 Dec.) the committee reported to the Common Council recommending, among other things, that six regiments of trained bands should be at once called out and placed under the command of officers, whose commissions should be under the common seal of the city; that commissioners should be appointed to confer with Haslerigg, Morley, Walton and Vice-Admiral Lawson touching the safety of the city and the peace and settlement of the nation, and "in due time" to give an answer to General Monk's letter; and that the commissioners should be authorised to propound the convening of a free parliament according to the late "declaration" of the court. These recommendations being approved, commissioners were there and then appointed, and instructions drawn up for their guidance. [Journal 41, fos. 214b, 215. The committee's report will be found printed in Maitland, i, 423.]

[Nomination of officers for the trained bands, 24 Dec., 1659.]

The next day (Saturday, 24 Dec.) the Common Council was busy nominating officers of the trained bands. It also ordered the city's chains and posts to be set up in the several precincts, and the gates, portcullises and posterns to be looked to; but the council afterwards changed their minds on this matter, and the order was countermanded before the court rose. [Journal 41, fo. 215b.]

[The royalists' hopes centred in the city.]

The revival of the city's militia was a welcome sign to the royalists. "What does the city?" wrote secretary Nicholas from Brussels about this time. "We know they talk of setting up a militia of their own, and that some of them say, as they helped to drive out the father, they will help to bring in the son." [Nicholas to Lipe, 10/20* Dec.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1659-60), p. 280.] And again, a few days later, "The city should be made to understand how much their interests are concerned to suppress the illegal and boundless authority usurped by the army which cannot be done but by force, and by no force so well as that of the city and counties adjacent; for if the army shall ... get again to be absolute masters in London, no citizen or inhabitant there will be secure of anything they possess longer than it pleases the soldiery, which will soon make the citizens their absolute slaves." Once more, "The city cannot be secure," he repeats, "if the army continue their quarter and soldiers still among them, nor can any parliament be free whilst awed by an army.... Until it [the army] shall be made to obey orders from a power superior to it, there can be no security or peace, either in city or country." [Nicholas to Mills, 24 Dec./3 Jan.*—Cal. State Papers, pp. 286, 287.]

[The Rump again restored, 26 Dec., 1659.]

The spirit that had moved Haslerigg, Morley, Walton and Lawson at length moved the rank and file of the army in London. The soldiers placed themselves at the command of their cashiered officers. On the 24th December they marched to Lenthall's house in Chancery Lane, expressed their sorrow for the past, and promised to stand by parliament for the future. On the 26th the Rump was for the second time restored to power. [Whitelock, p. 691; Clarendon, p. 936.]

[Draft petition to the Rump, 28 Dec., 1659.]

[Presentation of petition postponed, 29 Dec., 1659.]

The citizens had obtained their desire to have once more a parliament, but the parliament they got was far from being the free parliament they had been looking for. They wished to take an early opportunity—lest their action should be misinterpreted—to inform the Rump that the measures they had taken for "settling" the trained bands had been taken before "their honors came together this last time." They desired to explain the reasons for undertaking the work, and to show that in so doing the city had only acted within its rights. A petition was accordingly drawn up on the 28th December, setting forth that disorders in the city had increased "by the exorbitant actings of many of those men who at first being appointed by parliament a Committee of Militia within the city of London for their security and safety, have since their last interruption acted by a commission under the Great Seal of England against the same parliament," and that for the prevention of any disorder that might arise they had fallen back upon their ancient rights and usages, and had put themselves in a posture of defence, not for the purpose of acting against parliament, but for it. Whilst offering these explanations the City was anxious that parliament would receive into its House all such members as were still alive and fill up the places of all who were dead. On the 29th the Common Council resolved that this petition should not be laid before the House until further order. [Journal 41, fos. 216-217.] The commissioners appointed by the City to confer with Haslerigg, Morley and Walton at Portsmouth had returned, and their report made to the Common Council on that day may have given rise to the postponement.

[The City's reply to Monk's letter, 29 Dec.]

Monk's letter to the City, sent in November, had all this time remained unanswered. At last (29 Dec.) a reply was drawn up, and, after receiving the approval of the Common Council, was despatched to the general by the hands of the City Swordbearer. [Id., fo. 217.]

[A deputation from Parliament to the Court of Aldermen, 31 Dec.]

On the last day of the year a deputation from the House, including Lenthall, Haslerigg, Morley and others, waited upon the Court of Aldermen to confer with them about the safety of the city. The erection of the city posts and chains, which apparently had been proceeded with, and the calling out of the trained bands troubled parliament. By the 2nd January Haslerigg was able to satisfy parliament on the first head. It was contrary (he said) to the mind of the lord mayor, aldermen and Common Council to have any posts or chains set up, and those that were set up should be taken down. [Journal House of Commons, vii, 800, 802.] Two days later (4 Jan.) the Common Council ordered the settlement of the trained bands to be proceeded with, and nominated a committee to lay before parliament the grounds and reasons for so doing, the committee being instructed to again press for a full and free parliament. [Journal 41, fo. 218.] The attitude of the City towards the restored Rump was keenly watched by royalists abroad. "Let me know certainly the Londoners' intentions about the Rump," wrote secretary Nicholas, "and settling their own militia, and also the proceedings of Monk and Lambert, and how each of them approves the restoring of the Rump." [Nicholas to Mills 7/17* Jan.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1659-60), pp. 304-305.]

[The citizens decline to pay taxes until parliament be filled up.]

The City's anxiety for a return of a full and free parliament in the place of the Rump was occasioned in some degree by the fact that in the existing House they had but a single representative, viz., Alderman Atkin, and without due representation the citizens refused to be subjected to taxation. "They were resolved," Pepys notes in his diary (13 Jan.), "to make no more applications to the parliament, nor to pay any money, unless the secluded members be brought in or a free parliament chosen."

[Monk's second letter to the City, 6 Jan., 1660.]

[A deputation from the City appointed to meet Monk, 19 Jan., 1660.]

In the meantime Lambert, who had set out for the north of England with the intention of stopping Monk's passage from Scotland, had been recalled, and by the middle of January Monk and his army were well on their way to London. On the 6th January he had despatched a letter [Pepys, under date 13 Jan., describes this letter as "a cunning piece," which the Londoners did not "much trust to."] to the Common Council by the hands of the City Swordbearer, who having handed to the general the city's late missive, was about to return. [A gratuity of £20 was granted to the Swordbearer for his journey and another of £5 to his attendant.—Journal 41, fo. 219.] As Monk approached London Alderman Fowke and two other commissioners were ordered (19 Jan.) to go out to meet him and thank him for his second letter, and for his cheerful concurrence with the declaration of the Common Council, and to desire the continuance of a good understanding between his excellency and the court for the settlement of the nation and peace of the city. By the 30th they had returned and were able to report to the Common Council the result of their interview. [Journal 41, fos. 219, 219b.] The nature of their report has not been recorded.

[Monk desires the removal of certain regiments from London before he will enter.]

[Monk enters London, 3 Feb., 1660.]

In order to avoid as much as possible the appearance of entering London as a conqueror, Monk brought with him no more than 5,000 men, a force considerably less than that which was quartered in London and Westminster. Having reached St. Albans, he wrote to the Speaker asking that five of the regiments in the capital might be removed to a distance before his arrival lest his troops should become disaffected by intercourse with those who had been so recently engaged in rebellion. The House acquiesced and gave orders to that effect, but the soldiers refused to leave their quarters, swearing that they would not go without their money, and threatening if their pay was not received to "go where they might have it, and that was the city." [Pepys, Diary, 1 Feb.; Journal House of Commons, vii, 826; Lingard, xi, 420, 421.] A sum of money having been hastily raised to satisfy their demands, they consented to march out, and the next morning (3 Feb.) Monk entered at the head of his force—"in very good plight and stout officers"—and proceeded to the quarters assigned to him at Whitehall recently occupied by Bradshaw.[^91]

[^91: Bradshaw had died 31 Oct., 1659. The place of under Sheriff or Judge of one of the Sheriffs' Court rendered vacant by his decease was filled up (9 Nov.) by the appointment of Francis Philips.—Journal 41, fo. 211b.]

[A City deputation to Monk, 8 Feb.]

Monk was anxious to feel the pulse of the City before committing himself to any definite policy. He had not long to wait before he was assured of its favour. On the 8th February the Common Council agreed to send a deputation to the general to congratulate him upon his coming to London and to thank him for his courtesy to the City's commissioners recently despatched to him, as well as to express a hope that the good understanding which had prevailed between his excellency and the City might continue. [Journal 41, fo. 219b.]

[The Common Council dissolved by order of the Rump, 9 Feb.]

The friendly attitude of the City towards Monk, and its recent hostile attitude towards parliament—some of the Common Council, we are told, had been "very high" at the last court, and refused to pay taxes until the House should be filled up [Pepys, Diary, 9 Feb.]—was so marked that the Rump determined upon dissolving the Common Council, although it commended the "discreet carriage" of the lord mayor in conducting the business of the court. [Journal House of Commons, vii, 838.] Not content with this the House went further, and ordered troops to be quartered in the city "for reducing the city to the obedience of the parliament." The city's gates and portcullises, moreover, were to be removed, and eleven citizens, including an alderman, were ordered into custody. [Journal House of Commons, vii, 837.]

[Monk in the city.]

The unenviable task of seeing these orders executed was, by a clever stroke of policy, committed to Monk himself. There was no alternative open to him but to obey, and to carry out the orders of parliament with as little friction to the citizens as was possible. No sooner had he taken up his residence in the city for this purpose than he was asked by the mayor to delay removing the city's gates until the matter should be communicated to the Court of Aldermen.

[Monk confers with the Court of Aldermen, 10 Feb.]

A special court having been summoned Monk attended in person (10 Feb.) and informed the members of the commands that had been laid upon him by parliament touching the city's gates and portcullises. Being told that the execution of such commands would be "of very ill consequence both to parliament and the city" the general could only reply that the commands of the House were so positive that he could only hold his hand on one condition, and that was that the city should acknowledge the Rump that so he might have ground for writing to and mediating with the House. The court was allowed to consider the matter whilst Monk withdrew. Upon his return he was informed that the Court of Aldermen could not speak on behalf of the whole body of citizens, "and that the Common Council being now disabled to meet, there was none in capacity to do it." But, said his excellency, the Court of Aldermen might declare their own minds? Again Monk withdrew, only to be told, however, on his return that the court was of opinion that their doing so "would not at this time be a service either to the parliament or city." [Repertory 67, fo. 42b.]

[Monk's letter to parliament, 11 Feb.]

The next day (11 Feb.) the Court of Aldermen again met. Monk, too, was there. He had just despatched a letter to the Speaker of the House complaining of the invidious work he and his soldiers had been set to do—a work which served only to bring them into discredit with the city—and peremptorily demanding that every seat in the House should be filled up by the following Friday (17 Feb.) as a preliminary to the calling together of a new parliament. When the aldermen heard of this letter they were delighted, and ready to accede to anything Monk might suggest. He proposed quartering troops in the city "for a few days." The aldermen raised no objection, but asked his excellency to utilise as far as possible the inns and public victualling houses, "so as may be least offence to the citizens." [Id., fo. 43.] They even displayed a readiness to give up their own houses to the use of the general and his officers, and promised that his soldiers should lack nothing. [Pepys, Diary, 11 Feb., 1660.] On his quitting the court such a shout was raised of "God bless your excellency" as had been seldom heard. Bonfires were lighted that evening from Cheapside to Temple Bar, bells were set ringing, and rumps carried in mock procession and solemnly roasted in token of the approaching dissolution of parliament. So great was the hospitality offered to the soldiers that most of them got gloriously drunk. [Pepys, Diary, 11 and 13 Feb.]

[Monk attends divine service in the city, 12 Feb., 1660.]

The next day being Sunday (12 Feb.) Monk, whose wife had joined him in his lodgings in the city, attended morning service at St. Paul's, and in the afternoon went to a church in Broad Street, probably that of St. Peter le Poor, in the neighbourhood of his lodgings. [Id., 12 Feb.]

[Interview between Monk and the Court of Aldermen at Drapers' Hall, 13 Feb.]

On Monday (13 Feb.) he held a conference with the mayor and aldermen at Drapers' Hall, a stone's throw from where he lived, with reference to the peace and safety of the city. Alderman Atkin, a member of parliament, was sent for to be informed of "sundry matters of great danger to the city," of which information had reached the ears of the Court of Aldermen, and which he was to communicate to the House. But particulars are not recorded. [Repertory 67, fos. 43-43b.]

[The Council of State invite Monk to leave the city for Whitehall, 13 Feb.]

The Council of State were far from being pleased with Monk for taking up his quarters in the city, and repeatedly urged him to leave the city for Whitehall, where they could keep a better watch on his movements. They particularly desired his company at Whitehall on Tuesday morning for the purpose (they said) of consulting him on matters relating to public safety, and in order that they might have an opportunity of communicating to him the recent proceedings of parliament. [Council of State to General George Monk, 13 Feb., 1660.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1659-1660), p. 360.]

[Monk prepares to quit the city, 15 Feb., 1660.]

Monk was in no hurry to quit the city. On Wednesday (15 Feb.) he sent for Alderman Fowke to say that he purposed marching out of the city with his forces on the following afternoon, but that in so doing he had no intention of receding from his promise to secure the safety of the city. He would also endeavour to bring about a right understanding between parliament and the city. Fowke having reported this to the Court of Aldermen there was great alarm, and a deputation was despatched, with Fowke at its head, to beg the general to let his soldiers remain in the city "if it may consist with his trust." Word was brought next day to the court that in the event of his excellency quitting the city he would leave behind two regiments for its safety, and that if the court would give him the names of persons fit to be officers he would endeavour to get two regiments of their own appointed by parliament. [Repertory 67, fos. 45-46b.]

[Monk remains in the city but changes his quarters.]

Instead of quitting the city Monk only changed his quarters to the house of William Wale, alderman of the ward of Farringdon Without, whither he caused his goods to be removed from Whitehall, as to a more or less permanent residence. [Pepys, Diary, 17 Feb.] There he remained, holding frequent interviews with the leading citizens and preparing to carry into effect the project of restoring the king. [Whitelock, p. 696.]

[The return of the excluded members to parliament, 21 Feb.]

In the meanwhile parliament had been busy completing the bill for the qualifications of electors and candidates for the new parliament, and on the day fixed (17 Feb.) by Monk writs were ready to be issued. According to the qualifications passed by the House, no one could be elected a member of the forthcoming parliament unless pledged to support a republican form of government. As this meant the exclusion of the members shut out by Pride's Purge in 1648 it gave rise to much dissatisfaction, and Monk was appealed to. A deputation of the sitting members met a deputation of the excluded members at Monk's new quarters, when it was decided that the Presbyterian members shut out by Pride's Purge should again be allowed to take their seats. Four days later (21 Feb.) they attended parliament at Monk's invitation and were admitted without opposition.

The day passed off without any disturbance, although it was feared that the "secluded" members might attempt to force their way into parliament. It was also feared that if such an attempt were made it would be backed up by some inhabitants of the city. The council had therefore asked Monk to take precautions for securing the freedom of parliament as well as maintaining peace within the city. [Council of State to Monk, 20 Feb., 1660.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1659-1660), p. 372.]

[The Common Council restored, 21 Feb., 1660.]

The recent order of parliament dissolving the Common Council of the city was declared null and void, the municipal authorities were allowed to set up the city's gates and portcullises again, and the imprisoned citizens were liberated. [Journal House of Commons, vii, 846, 847, 848.] That night was a joyous one in the city. Bells were rung and bonfires were lighted, so that the sky was ablaze with illuminations, "a most pleasant sight to see." [Pepys, Diary, 21 Feb., 1660.]

On the 28th February—a day set apart for public thanksgiving—Monk was invited to an entertainment at Grocers' Hall in honour of the restoration of a full parliament and of the Common Council of the city; but party spirit was so rife that it became necessary to warn the general against receiving anything that he might hear "as the sense of the city." [Journal 41, fo. 221.] Bonfires were forbidden to be lighted in the city that night by order of the Council of State, lest some discontented spirits might seize the opportunity to raise a disturbance. [Council of State to the mayor, 27 Feb., 1660.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1659-1660), pp. 375-376.]

[Parliament desires a loan of £60,000, 22 Feb., 1660.]

The day that the Common Council re-assembled (22 Feb.) it received a deputation from the restored House asking for a loan. With little hesitation the court voted a sum of £60,000 on the security of the monthly assessments. It was left to the aldermen, deputies and common councilmen of the wards to raise the money by subscription, and they were further instructed to take the best course they could for raising a sum of £100,000 upon the same account. [Journal 41, fo. 220b.] It was subsequently (1 March) arranged that the sum of £27,000 should be advanced upon security of the six months' assessment, and in case the same should not be fully collected out of the assessment, the deficit, as well as the cost of repairing and setting up the gates, portcullises, etc., should be secured by Act of Parliament. [Journal 41, fo. 221b; Journal House of Commons, vii, 858, 859-860.]

[Monk appointed Sergt.-Major-General of the city's forces, 3 March.]

The House acceded to the City's request that its militia might be placed in the hands of commissioners of its own choice. Monk himself was nominated by the Common Council (3 March) Sergeant-Major-General of the city's forces, a post which he signified his willingness to accept. [Journal 41, fos. 221, 221b, 222b, 223; Journal House of Commons, vii, 850, 856, 867, 868, 871.] The sooner the militia was settled the sooner would the city be rid of Monk's soldiers, of whose excesses the Common Council had had recent cause to complain. [Journal 41, fo. 221b.] Armed once more with parliamentary powers, the commissioners for the militia of the city prepared to raise six regiments of auxiliaries and some cavalry, as well as a month's tax at the rate of £35,000 a month over England for their maintenance or "trophies." [Id., fo. 224.]

[The Long Parliament dissolved, 16 March, 1660.]

Having settled the militia of the kingdom as well as that of London, parliament—the Long Parliament, which during its actual or nominal existence for nearly twenty years had experienced every vicissitude of fortune—was at length dissolved (16 March) by its own act, and writs were issued for a fresh parliament to meet on the 25th April. [Journal House of Commons, vii, 880.] The new parliament was known as the Convention Parliament on account of its members having been elected without the king's writs.

[Application to the City for an advance of £500,000, 26 March.]

Ten days after the dissolution of the Long Parliament there came to the Common Council of the city a deputation from the Council of State, in whose hands the sole government of the kingdom then lay, with a proposal to borrow the sum of half a million of money (£500,000) upon the security of a moiety of the excise. The court, after deliberation, agreed (2 April) to lend a sum of money (amount not specified) to the Council of State upon security of the moiety of the excise "and the honour of the said Council of State," and ordered that subscriptions should at once be set on foot in the several wards. [Journal 41, fos. 224-224b.]

[The king's restoration freely spoken of.]

Scarcely had the House broken up before people began to talk freely of the king and his probable restoration, a subject on which they had hitherto dared only to speak in a whisper. So bold indeed did they become that on the very day of the dissolution a man came with a ladder to the Exchange—not "Royal," but "Great" Exchange—in the city and obliterated with a brush the inscription, Exit Tyrannus Regum Ultimus, which had been set up in August, 1650, near the site of the late king's statue, destroyed by order of the then Council of State, as already narrated. Before the end of the month another statue was in course of making to take the place of the one that had been thus destroyed. [Pepys, Diary, 16 and 29 March, 22 April.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1659-1660), p. 393.] As time went on, and Monk's design to bring in Charles became more apparent, the citizens grew yet bolder. The Skinners' Company went so far as to set up again the royal arms in their hall on the occasion of an entertainment given to Monk himself. [Pepys, 11 April.]

[The City's declaration and vindication, 30 April, 1660.]

Towards the close of April, when it was evident that the king's restoration was a mere question of time, the Common Council showed an anxiety to place on record an account of the attitude taken up by the City, and to vindicate its action throughout the late troublous times. It appointed (26 April) a committee "to peruse the records of this court and report what of them are fit to be considered of, and their opinions thereupon; and also to prepare a narrative for the vindication of this court and city touching the same." The committee at once set to work, and in four days were ready with a draft of "a declaration and vindication of the lord mayor, aldermen and commons of the city of London in Common Council assembled," which received the approval of the court (30 April), and a printed copy of which was ordered to be sent to every member of parliament and Council of State.[^92]

[^92: Journal 41, fos. 225-229b. "The city of London have put out a declaration wherein they do disclaim their owning any other government but that of a king, Lords and Commons."—Pepys, Diary, 2 May. Four printed copies (out of the 1,000 ordered by the court to be printed and published) are preserved in the Guildhall library.]

After expressions of satisfaction at the thought of an end having been put to the distractions of the kingdom by General Monk, and at the hopeful prospect of a return to the old form of government by king, lords and commons, under which the country had so long prospered at home and been respected abroad, this declaration proceeded to disavow the various Acts of the Common Council as established in 1648, when, "in the general deluge of disorder introduced upon these kingdoms" in that year, the government of the city passed into the hands of "men of loose and dangerous principles," who proceeded to pass Acts "tending to the murder of the late king and total extinguishment of kingly government," and who by no means were a fair representation of the city. It set forth various proceedings of the Common Council in connection with parliament and the city's Engagement to guarantee the personal safety of the late king from the 22nd June, 1648, down to the 13th January, 1649, when the lord mayor Reynardson was constrained to leave the council. The terms of this Engagement the City was prepared to carry out, "but it pleased Almighty God to permit their good intentions and endeavours to be frustrated by the destructive counsels and actings of those who had designed to build upp their dominion and fortunes on the ruin of the king and kingdom." The House of Lords was dissolved, and all the best members excluded from the House of Commons. By "pretended ordinances" of parliament, all those worthy citizens who, according to their allegiance and covenant, had engaged to procure and secure a personal treaty with the king, were rendered incapable to be elected into the Common Council or any other office of trust in the city.

What could be expected of a body thus emasculated? They declare themselves unable to find words to express their abhorrence of the proceedings that had taken place in the Common Council of the 13th January, 1649, and "profess their thankful memory of the noble gallant resolutions of the then lord mayor, Alderman Reynardson, and his brethren the aldermen, who so valiantly resisted the turbulent disorders of that mechanicke juncto during many hours' assault and at last prudently retreated and washed their hands from the guilt of those bloody resolves." In conclusion they express a hope and trust that since the recovery of the right of free election the Common Council had manifested an eagerness to act cordially and strenuously with parliament in everything tending towards good government, and that soon, by the aid of the parliament recently convened, they would be put under the protection of the first and fundamental government of hereditary monarchy according to the ancient laws of the nation.

[Letter from Charles to the City read before the Common Council, 1 May, 1660.]

The City's declaration and vindication was scarcely printed and published before a letter from Charles himself [Journal 41, fo. 230; Remembrancia ix, 1 (Index, p. 423.)] was brought to the Common Council by Lord Mordaunt and Sir John Grenville (1 May), in which the prince expressed a wish that the City should know how little he desired revenge and how convinced he was that the peace, happiness and security of the kingdom were only to be secured by gaining the hearts and affections of his subjects. He felt that he could count upon the City to assist him in re-establishing those fundamental laws upon which the happiness of the country so much depended, and he avowed a "particular affection" for his native city, the charters of which he was not only ready to renew and confirm, but to grant such new favours as might advance its trade, wealth and honour.

[The Declaration of Breda, 4 April.]

Enclosed in this letter was a declaration known as the Declaration of Breda, from the place where Charles had signed it on the 4th April (o.s.) [Journal 41, fo. 230b; Remembrancia ix, 2 (Index, p. 423).] It offered a general pardon to all except those specially exempted by parliament and promised liberty of conscience in matters of religion. Charles further expressed his willingness to leave questions of title to estates acquired during the late troublous times to be decided by parliament. He assured the soldiers of arrears of pay and promised to continue them in his service on the same terms as they then enjoyed.

[Thanks of the city for the king's letter and declaration, 1 May, 1660.]

The letter and declaration having been read (1 May), the Common Council returned thanks to Charles for his condescension towards the City, and expressed their willingness to submit to his majesty's government, in token of which the arms of the Commonwealth (he was informed) had already been taken down and orders given for those of his majesty to be set up. A committee was appointed to draw up a formal answer in writing for conveyance to Charles by the same hands that had brought his letter, provided parliament would allow the City to return an answer. The late king's statue, which had been removed from the Guildhall chapel, was to be forthwith set up again. [Journal 41, fo. 231; Cal. State Papers Dom. (1659-1660), p. 430.]

[The Convention Parliament sends to borrow £100,000 of the city, 2 May.]

Charles having shrewdly thrown upon parliament the burden of naming the terms on which his restoration was to take place, it became necessary that a parliament should meet forthwith. Another Convention Parliament had accordingly met on the 25th April. The declaration of Breda reached it on the 1st May, and on the following day it sent to borrow £100,000 from the City. The Common Council at once took steps for raising the money. [Journal 41, fo. 231b.] One half of this sum was destined for the king's own use, and sorely he stood in need of it. Pepys, who had it from an eye-witness, records "how overjoyed the king was when Sir J. Grenville brought him some money; so joyful that he called the Princess Royal and Duke of York to look upon it as it lay in the portmanteau before it was taken out." [Diary, 16 May.]

[City gifts to the king, the Dukes of York and Gloucester, etc.]

The same day (2 May) that the Common Council undertook to raise the loan for parliament it voted on its own account a gift of £10,000 to Charles. It also voted a sum of £2,000 for expenses in sending a deputation to the Hague; but it was subsequently resolved to divide the sum between the Dukes of York and Gloucester, and that the members of the deputation should discharge their own expenses. A further sum of £300 was voted for Lord Mordaunt and Sir John Grenville, the bearers of the king's letters, for the purchase of a ring apiece. The sum of £12,000 was raised among the livery companies on the understanding that this was an exceptional occasion and was not to be drawn into precedent. [Journal 41, fos. 231b, 232, 232b, 233b; Pepys, Diary, 4 May.]

[Commissioners to the Hague, May, 1660.]

Besides returning an answer by the hands of the king's messengers, the Common Council appointed sixteen commissioners to wait upon the king at the Hague with the City's formal answer.[^93] By the 28th May the commissioners returned and reported the success of their expedition to the Common Council. They had been very graciously received by Charles, who had conferred knighthood upon those who had not already received that honour. The court gave them a hearty vote of thanks for the great pains and charges they had been put to. [Journal 41, fo. 234; Clarendon (ed. 1839), p. 962.]

[^93: The commissioners appointed (3 May) were the following:—Thomas Adams, alderman; William Wild, esq., Recorder; John Robinson and Antony Bateman, aldermen; Theophilus Biddulph, William Vincent and Thomas Bludworth, esquires; Major Thomas Chamberlen, Mr. Richard Ford and Colonel Bromefield. Of these Alderman Robinson, Recorder Wild, Biddulph and Vincent were members of parliament, the consent of which had to be obtained before they set sail. Six more commissioners were added the following day (4 May), viz., Alderman Reynardson, Alderman Langham, Sir Thomas Foote, Sir James Bunce, Alderman Wale and William Bateman, esquire. Foote declined the honour.—Journal 41, fos. 231b, 232.]

[Charles proclaimed in the city, 8 May, 1660.]

In the meantime Charles had been publicly proclaimed king in the city by the lord mayor (8 May), who, in honour of the occasion, had been specially provided with a new crimson velvet gown, whilst his Swordbearer in attendance was scarcely less gorgeous in a damask gown of the finest "branch." [Pepys, Diary, 8 May; Repertory 67, fo. 74b. "Branch" denotes the figured pattern of the damask.] The Commons of England joining with them, the lord mayor, aldermen and commons of London unanimously acknowledged and proclaimed that by inherent right the crown had devolved upon Charles II immediately on the decease of his father as next heir. [Journal House of Commons, viii, 16.]

[Charles enters London, 29 May.]

On the 25th May Charles landed at Dover, and four days later entered London, being met at St. George's Fields[^94] by the mayor and aldermen. The City's sword having been offered to the king and returned, Charles conferred the honour of knighthood upon Thomas Aleyne, the lord mayor, and partook of refreshment in the lord mayor's tent, set up for the purpose. From there to Whitehall the journey was one long triumphal procession through streets strewn with flowers and lined with members of the companies in their handsome liveries. Never was there such a restoration, wrote John Evelyn, since the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity. [Evelyn's Diary (2nd ed.), i, 322; Whitelock, p. 702.]

[^94: The sum of £30 was afterwards voted as compensation for damage done to private grounds by making a passage through them for the royal procession to pass on its way from St. George's and Walworth Fields to the city.—Repertory 67, fos. 91b, 122b.]

CHAPTER XXVIII.

[Richmond Park restored to Charles II, 2 June, 1660.]

On the afternoon of Saturday, the 2nd June (1660), the mayor and aldermen, accompanied by the Recorder, waited upon the king to congratulate him on his return and to restore to him Richmond Park, according to a resolution of the Common Council. [Journal 41, fo. 232b.] Speaking on behalf of the City, the Recorder expressly declared that it was done by way of restitution and not as a gift. He assured the king that it was well that the park had been in the City's hands, for they had preserved the wood, vert and game. Not to be outdone in courtesy the king replied that "the city of London were still loading him with their kindness, and that he looked upon the said park to be kept for him, and that he accepted it not as restored, but as freely given unto him by the city, and thanked them for the same." [Id., fo. 234b.]

[The citizens take the oath of allegiance and supremacy.]

The early days of June were busy days for lord mayor Aleyne, to whose house the citizens flocked in order to signify their acceptance of his majesty's offer of pardon. [Pepys, Diary, 3 June.] On the 5th June the mayor himself and those aldermen who were not barred by the Statute of Indemnity and Oblivion (12 Charles II, c. 11), subscribed a declaration of pardon, whilst members of the Common Council took the oaths of supremacy and allegiance pursuant to the king's orders.[^95] Later on the master and wardens of the livery companies, the presidents of the hospitals, the president and governors of the Irish Society, as well as the governors of the Merchant Adventurers and other trading companies, were called upon to do the like. [Repertory 67, fo. 87.]

[^95: Repertory 67, fo. 83b; Journal 41, fo. 235. The king to the lord mayor and court of aldermen requiring all persons holding public office to take the oaths, 5 June.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1660-1661), p. 38.]

[Sir John Weld restored to office of town clerk.]

Sir John Weld, who had been dismissed in 1642 from the office of town clerk [15 Sept., 1642.—Journal 40, fo. 38b.] for failing to attend the Common Council, a duty which he was rendered incapable of fulfilling owing to his having been appointed at that time high-sheriff of Shropshire, seized the opportunity of presenting a petition to the court of Common Council (5 June) to be re-instated in office. A committee to whom the matter was referred reported to the council that they found that it had been by special command of the late king that Weld had been prevented carrying out his duties, and recommended that he should now be restored. The court, however, seemed loth to re-instate him, and it was not until after the receipt of a letter from secretary Nicholas and a writ of restitution had been issued that it consented (21 Sept.) to re-admit him to office, and then only by deputy. [Journal 41, fos. 235, 236, 242: Remembrancia, ix, 3 (Index, p. 306); Cal. State Papers Dom. (1660-1661), p. 42.]

[Sadler, town clerk, removed.]

John Sadler, who held the office of town clerk at the time, was promptly got rid of on a charge of having given judgment in "a late pretended court of justice," and of having signed the death-warrant of Christopher Love, a zealous Presbyterian and minister of the church of St. Lawrence, Jewry, who had been accused of treason in 1651 and beheaded on Tower Hill in the midst of ominous thunderings and clouds of darkness.[^96]

[^96: Journal 41, fos. 240b, 241, 241b; Carlyle, "Cromwell's Letters and Speeches," iii, 173, 177, 192. So popular was Love in the city that there was some talk of giving him a public funeral, the procession to start from Merchant Taylors' Hall. This was, however, put a stop to by peremptory orders from the Council of State to the mayor (25 Aug., 1651).—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1651), p. 368.]

[The deposed aldermen restored pursuant to the king's wishes, 4 Sept., 1660.]

On the 4th September the king wrote to the City stating that as by the passing of the Act of Indemnity many of the aldermen were rendered incapable of continuing in office, it was his wish that their places should be filled by restoring those aldermen who had in times past been removed for their allegiance to him. As many of the latter had submitted to pay fines rather than continue in office against their conscience, he further recommended that these fines should be returned to them. [Remembrancia, ix, 7 (Index, pp. 8-9). A draft of the king's letter by Lord Chancellor Hyde is preserved among the State Papers.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1660-1661), p. 255.] Pursuant to the king's wishes, the Common Council formally declared "that Sir Thomas Adams, Sir Abraham Reynardson, Sir Thomas Soame, Sir John Langham, Sir James Bunce and Sir Richard Browne are aldermen of this city," and called upon them to take upon themselves the execution of their respective places. [Journal 41, fo. 240b.]

[Langham excused on his own petition.]

One of these, Sir John Langham, then in his seventy-eighth year, wrote from Crosby House to the Court of Aldermen asking to be excused on the score of his advanced age. He had been, he said, laid aside about twelve years since and imprisoned in the Tower by order of parliament [Langham calls it the "Rump Parliament," but the "Rump" did not come into being until after Pride's Purge, which took place 6 Dec., 1648.] (24 Sept., 1647), chiefly to prevent his being chosen lord mayor, and had been released on the following 6th June without any effort being made on his part. He had afterwards (7 April, 1649) been removed from office with Sir John Gayer, Alderman Adams and "brother" Bunce by resolution of "that remain of a House of Commons that presumed to sit as a parliament," and others had been chosen in their stead. [Remembrancia, ix, 8 (Index, p. 9).] The Court of Aldermen acceded to the veteran's request [Repertory 67, fo. 130b.]

[Reynardson re-elected mayor, but declines office, 1 Oct., 1660.]

At Michaelmas the citizens would again have placed the royalist Reynardson in the mayoralty chair, but he excused himself on the ground of ill-health, [Journal 41, fo. 243.] and the gallant Alderman Sir Richard Browne was elected in his stead. A twelvemonth later Reynardson was dead, having passed away on the 4th October, 1661.

[The king and parliament entertained in the city, 5 July.]

In the meantime (5 July) the king and parliament had been entertained at dinner by the City with great magnificence. The day was unfortunately rainy, and Pepys, who seems never to have quite forgotten that he was the son of a tailor, and never put on a new suit of clothes without recording the fact in his diary, remarks that the rain that day "spoiled many a fine suit of clothes." The entertainment on this occasion took place at the Guildhall instead of at the hall of one of the great city companies. The mayor took the opportunity in the course of the dinner to present the king with a "welcome cupp according to the usuall custome," as a token of loyalty and duty. On the following day the members of the Common Council and the masters and wardens of those companies which had advanced money to defray the cost of the entertainment dined together in the hall, when there was "the same musicke as was the day before at the entertainment of his majesty." [Journal 41, fos. 235b, 236, 236b, 237.]

[Sir Richard Browne major-general of the city's forces, vice Monk resigned, 6 July, 1660.]

When the Entertainment Committee waited on his majesty to thank him for his condescension in accepting the City's entertainment and to crave his pardon for whatever had gone amiss, they took the opportunity of satisfying him on certain matters—viz., the repair of St. Paul's and the building a drawbridge on London bridge—about which his majesty desired to be informed. They at the same time reported the City's choice of Sir Richard Browne to be major-general of the City's forces in the place of Monk, recently created Duke of Albemarle, who had been obliged to resign his commission "by reason of the multiplicity of affairs in his majesty's service." [Id., fos. 237, 238.]

[Demand of a loan of £100,000, 14 Aug.]

On the 14th August a deputation from the Lords and Commons attended a court of Common Council and desired a loan of £100,000 on the security of the poll tax. The court declined to commit itself to any promise. It was much dissatisfied, and more especially with the inequality of the poll tax; it therefore preferred submitting the matter to a committee for investigation before giving an answer. [Id., fos. 240, 240b.] A committee was then and there nominated to consider the question.

By October matters were so pressing that Charles himself wrote to the City, insisting upon the money being advanced within ten days upon the security of the Act for two months' assessment about to be levied on the whole kingdom, and out of which he solemnly promised, "on the word of a king," that the loan, both principal and interest, should be repaid before any other disbursements were made. The money was wanted for the purpose, he said, of disbanding the army. [Journal 41, fo. 243b; Remembrancia, ix, 11 (Index, p. 199).]

[The city companies' petition touching their Irish estates, Sept.]

[The king's gracious reply, Oct., 1660.]

Notwithstanding this pecuniary difficulty and the existence of certain grievances of which the City complained, more especially the abolition of the Court of Wards, [By Statute 12, Charles II, c. 24, abolishing tenure by knight service.—Journal 41, fos. 239b, 240b, 244b.] for which the king was to receive another £100,000 by way of compensation, the good relationship between Charles and the City still continued; so that when a deputation waited on him with a petition from the livery companies relative to their Irish estates, the following gracious reply was given:—"That his majesty would perform what his father had promised and more, and that his majesty would deny the city nothing; that his majesty found they dealt honestly with him, and his majesty would deny them nothing." [Journal 41, fos. 242b, 243.]

[Outbreak of fanatics or Fifth Monarchy men. 6 Jan., 1661.]

Thus far all had gone well with Charles. Within a month of his first letters from Breda he had recovered his father's throne without shedding one drop of blood. Of his enemies the more powerful were either in prison or had fled the country, whilst others had paid the penalty for their implication in the death of the late king with their own heads. Danger, however, lurked where least expected. A small band of fanatics known by the name of Fifth Monarchy men, who believed in the immediate coming of Christ upon earth to rule the world, were in the habit of holding meetings in Coleman Street. On Sunday, the 6th January, 1661, excited by a harangue uttered by their leader, a wine-cooper named Venner, they broke out, and with arms in their hands hurried to St. Paul's. There they posted sentries, and demanded of passers-by whom were they for? Upon one of them replying that he was for King Charles, he was at once shot by the fanatics, who cried out that they were for King Jesus. Luckily the city was at the time in the hands of that staunch soldier Sir Richard Browne. Upon his appearance on the scene with an armed force the rioters retreated to Highgate, but not before they had killed at least half-a-dozen men. During the next two days the streets were strongly patrolled; travellers abroad were strictly examined as to the nature of their business before being allowed to pass on their way, and suspected persons were disarmed and compelled to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy. [Letter from the lords of the council to the mayor and aldermen, 7 Jan.—Remembrancia, ix, 16 (Index, p. 424).] Every moment the return of the rioters was expected, but Monday and Tuesday passed and none appeared. One of their meeting houses (probably that in Coleman Street) was ordered to be pulled down. At six o'clock on Wednesday morning the inhabitants were aroused by hearing again the cry of the fanatics, "The King Jesus and their heads upon the gates," as they madly attacked the king's life guards. Their whole number, it is said, did not amount to much more than thirty, of whom twenty were killed, whilst Venner and nearly all the rest were made prisoners. When questioned the prisoners one and all refused to make any confession, saying that they would not betray the servants of the Lord Jesus. [Sir John Finch to Lord Conway, 11 Jan.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1660-1661), pp. 470-471; Pepys, Diary, 7-10 Jan.] Ten days later they expiated their crime on the scaffold, and the lord mayor, having received orders to seize all suspected persons in the city, proceeded to imprison a number of Quakers. These he kept in confinement until the following March, when all fear of further disturbance having passed away, they were discharged. [The lords of the council to the mayor, etc., 22 Jan., 4 March, 1661.—Remembrancia, ix, 18, 21 (Index, pp. 424, 425).]

[Vote of thanks to mayor and sheriffs for stopping outbreak, 25 Jan., 1661.]

The Common Council passed a vote of thanks (25 Jan.) to the lord mayor and sheriffs for their vigilant conduct during the outbreak, [Journal 41, fo. 244b. "My lord mayor, Sir Richard Browne, hath carried himself honourably."—Pepys.] and appointed a deputation to wait on his majesty to know his pleasure as to when a day of public thanksgiving should be kept for its timely suppression. It also appointed a committee (28 Jan.) to enquire as to the number killed and the best means of raising money for the relief of their widows and children. [Journal 41, fos. 245, 247b. Collections were afterwards made in the city churches. See letter from Sir William Morice or Morrice to the mayor, 15 March.—Remembrancia, ix, 27 (Index, 425).]

[A loan for paying off the navy, 11 March.]

Having successfully paid off and disbanded the army,[^97] the king turned his attention to paying off the navy, for which purpose he sent a deputation from the Privy Council to the City (11 March) with a letter asking for a speedy loan of £100,000. The city fathers at once took steps to raise the money in the several wards, and any able inhabitant refusing to subscribe was ordered to be reported to the lord mayor; but three days later the king again wrote saying that, as money was coming in from the country quicker than had been anticipated, the loan would not be required. [Journal 41, fos. 247, 247b; Remembrancia, ix, 25, 26 (Index, p. 200).]

[^97: "The army was to be disbanded, but in such a manner, with so much respect and so exact an account of arrears, and such gratuities, that it looked rather to be the dismissing them to the next opportunity and a reserving them till there should be occasion for their service, than a breaking of them."—Burnet. "Hist. of His Own Times" (ed. 1833), i, 289.]

[Another loan, 9 April, 1661.]

A month had scarcely passed before the Duke of Albemarle, the Earl of Manchester, the Earl of Sandwich, Viscount Valentia, Denzill Holles, and Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper appeared before the court of Common Council (9 April) with a letter from the king asking for another loan of £60,000. As the City was anxious to have its rights and liberties ratified and confirmed by a new charter, it did wisely in giving an unanimous assent to this demand, more especially as the loan was to be made upon parliamentary security. [Journal 41, fos. 248, 248b; Repertory 67, fo. 249.]

[Preparations for the coronation.]

The City had other expenses to meet. The day fixed for the king's coronation (23 April) was drawing near, and preparations had been going on since February.[^98] The sum of £6,000 had already been spent in "preparing ornaments for his majesty's passage through the city to his coronation," and £3,000 more was wanted. The money was immediately voted. [Journal 41, fos. 245b, 248b; Journal 45, fo. 100. N.B.—There are no Journals numbered 42, 43 or 44.] On the 1st April the Court of Aldermen nominated twelve citizens to assist the chief butler on the day of the coronation, [Repertory 67, fo. 225.] whilst the court of Common Council voted a sum of £1,000 in gold as a gift to be made by the City to the king on that occasion. [Journal 41, fo. 248.]

[^98: On the 9 Feb. the lord chamberlain informed the lord mayor by letter that the coronation day had been fixed and that it was his majesty's intention to come on the day before from his Tower of London through the city to his palace at Whitehall, with such magnificence as became the majesty of so great a king. The mayor and aldermen were directed to be in attendance, and timely notice would be given to others whose attendance should be thought necessary.—Remembrancia, ix, 20 (Index, pp. 116-117).]

[Alderman Vyner commissioned to provide new regalia for the occasion.]

The old regalia having been dispersed, broken up or lost after the death of Charles I, a commission was given to Sir Robert Vyner, alderman of the city and the king's goldsmith, to make a new set for the coronation of Charles II. This was accordingly done, care being taken to follow the old patterns as far as possible. The new regalia comprised two crowns, three sceptres, an orb, a mace and a quantity of collars, Georges and garters for the order of St. George. Vyner also supplied the king with plate for new year's gifts and for his majesty's own use, the entire cost amounting to over £30,000.[^99]

[^99: The precise sum was £31,978 9s. 11d., of which £21,978 9s. 11d. was paid by warrant dated 20 July, 1661.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1661-1662). pp. 35, 41. On the other hand, it appears from a receipt by Vyner printed in Archæologia (xxix, 266) that the money or some portion of it remained unpaid as late as July, 1662.]

[Procession from the Tower to Whitehall, 22 April. 1661.]

On the day before the ceremony (22 April) Charles set out from the Tower to Whitehall. The procession was one of exceptional splendour as it passed through the streets new gravelled for the occasion.[^100] A special gallery was erected in Cheapside for the city aldermen, as well as a triumphal arch. [Repertory 67, fo. 223b.] Pepys, who dearly loved a gala day as affording him an excuse for putting on new finery, was lost in admiration at the sight which presented itself to his eyes as he viewed the procession from the windows of "Mr. Young's, the flagmaker," in Cornhill, and declared it to be "impossible to relate the glory of this day, expressed in the clothes of them that rid and their horses and horse-clothes." The mayor himself was provided with a crimson velvet gown for the occasion. [Id., fo. 218.]

[^100: Letter from Sir William Morice or Morrice (Secretary of State) to the lord mayor, desiring the streets of the city to be railed off where convenient and gravelled against the day of his majesty riding through the city to his coronation, 4 April, 1661.—Remembrancia, ix, 28 (Index p. 117).]

[Coronation day, 23 April.]

[Accident to a former City Recorder.]

The coronation ceremony was carried out the next day with all the customary formalities, and the evening was given up to bonfires and fireworks, not to mention also a considerable amount of tippling. Even Pepys himself was obliged to confess that he got to his bed only "pretty well." There was but one accident worth mentioning during the entire day. Sergeant Glyn, who had formerly been the City's Recorder, and had afterwards been raised to the Bench, was nearly killed by his horse falling on him whilst riding in the cavalcade with Maynard, another eminent lawyer. Had they both been killed the populace (we are told) would have only looked upon it as a judgment of a just God for their action under the Commonwealth. [Pepys, Diary, 23 April.]

[The meeting of the Cavalier Parliament, 8 May, 1661.]

Meanwhile the Convention Parliament had been dissolved and a new one summoned to meet in May (1661). When the elections took place there was a hot contest in the city between Presbyterians and Episcopalians, resulting in the discomfiture of the latter, "who went away cursing and swearing and wishing they had never come." [Letter to Edward Bowles, 19 March.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1660-1661), p. 538.] One writer describes the election as having been "the greatest appearance that ever the oldest men alive saw." [J.C. to Tho. Powell, 19 March.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1660-1661), p. 537.] Great efforts were made to obtain the re-election of those who had served the city in the last parliament. [Letters to Edward Bowles and John Woolwich, 19 March.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1660-1661), pp. 538, 541.] Unfortunately their names are not known to us with any certainty. The successful candidates consisted of three aldermen, viz., William Thompson, William Love and John Fowke and Captain John Jones. Thompson and Love are described as "godly men and of good parts, Congregationalists," Captain Jones as "a Presbyterian man," and Fowke as one "not much noted for religion, but a countenancer of good ministers," and as "deeply engaged in Bishop's lands." [Letter to Rev. Mr. Roger, 19 March.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1660-1661), p. 539.] Pepys, [Diary, 20 March.] who lived in the heart of the city, was himself surprised at the "strange election," and at the discomfiture of the Episcopalian party, "that thought themselves so strong. It do so make people to feare it may come to worse by being an example to the country to do the same. And, indeed, the bishops are so high that very few do love them."

[The City an example to the rest of the country.]

Others besides Pepys recognised the effect likely to be produced in the country by the example set by London; and those who, unlike Pepys, were of a Presbyterian turn of mind freely expressed their hopes that the keynote of the election struck by the City would be taken up by the country at large. "God has overruled the hearts of men and heard the prayers of his people in the city election, though the Episcopals were high and thought to have the day; a precedent is given to the whole country," writes a contemporary to a friend. [William Beauchamp to Dan. Crosse, 19 March.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1660-1661), p. 539.] "The city of London has set a good example," writes another. [Buxton to Bowles, 19 March.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1660-1661), p. 536.] Another expresses a hope that "other places will be encouraged by the example of this to choose sober and moderate men for parliament men"; whilst another declares "the city was very unanimous and courageous in its choice," and that "if the country do the same, profaneness and superstition will no longer prevail, but Godly magistrates and ministers be settled in every place." [Royle to Gibbons, 19 March; Letter to Fran. Darley, 19 March.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1660-1661), pp. 536, 537.]

[The court party afraid.]

[Letters intercepted at the post office.]

That the court party were afraid of the effect that the result of the city election would have upon the rest of the kingdom, where elections were still going on, is evidenced by the fact that these letters just cited, as well as numerous others despatched to various parts of the country with details of the election, were intercepted at the post office. [Cal. State Papers Dom. (1660-1661), p. 536, editorial note.] Neither the hopes of the one party nor the fears of the other as to the effect of the City's choice of members upon others were destined to be realised to the extent anticipated. The electors proved loyal, and the members returned to the new parliament which met on the 8th May were for the most part too young to remember the tyranny of the Stuarts.

[The Corporation Act, 1661.]

The new parliament agreed that neither House could claim the command of the militia nor lawfully make war upon the king. Act after Act was passed against those who refused to conform to the Established Church. Before the close of the year (1661) the Corporation Act received the assent of both Houses. [Although it passed the Commons on the 5th July it did not receive the assent of the Lords until December.—Journal House of Commons, viii, 291, 339.] Thenceforth no one was to be allowed to hold any municipal office unless he renounced the covenant, took the oath of non-resistance, and received the Sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England. By thus excluding Nonconformists (or "Dissenters," as they began now to be called) from municipal corporation, parliament indirectly excluded them from seats in the House of Commons.

[Petition for confirmation of City's charter, 9 July, 1661.]

On the 9th July the Common Council approved of the presentation of a petition to the king for a confirmation of the City's charter. [Journal 41, fo. 254.] The time was not inopportune, inasmuch as a "free and voluntary present" to Charles had recently been set on foot,[^101] and the maxim of do ut des was one well understood between the City and the Crown. It is not surprising, therefore, that on the 17th an Order in Council was passed to the effect that the lord treasurer should assure the City that his majesty was highly sensible of their loyalty and affection, and would renew their charter with additions if desired and found fit. [Cal. State Papers Dom. (1661-1662), p. 38.] The lord chancellor happening to be in the city one day (8 Aug.) on the business of the "free and voluntary present," the civic authorities embraced the opportunity of urging him to press their suit with the king, whereupon "it pleased my lord chancellor to express much affection and forwardness to this great concernment of the city," and he promised to see the king on the matter that same evening, and to get the attorney-general, who was about to leave town, to defer his journey if the City would at once forward its old charter to Mr. Attorney for the purpose of renewal. This the Common Council readily agreed to do. [Journal 41, fo. 235b; Letter Book UU, fo. 51b.] In spite, however, of the exertions of the lord chancellor and of the City, no renewal of the charter of Charles I was obtained until nearly two years had elapsed.

[^101: Journal House of Commons, viii, 302. "Great talk now," wrote Pepys on the 31 May, "how the parliament intend to make a collection of free gifts to the king throughout the kingdom, but I think it will not come to much." Pepys's surmise proved correct. On the 31st August he makes the following entry in his diary:—"The Benevolence proves so little, and an occasion of so much discontent everywhere, that it had better it had never been set up." His own subscription towards it was £20.]

[The mayor and aldermen attend the king touching renewal of charter, Oct., 1661.]

In October the mayor, aldermen and recorder attended his majesty in council, by request, when Charles repeated the promise made in his letter from Breda not to diminish or alter the rights of the City; but at the same time he informed them of his intention to make one exception, pro hac vice, by removing four or five of the aldermen who had been "faulty in the late troubles," and of putting others "of known worth and ability" in their places. He promised also to safeguard the City's interest in the Act then pending in parliament relative to corporations. [The Corporation Act (2 Stat. 13 Charles II, c. i) mentioned above.] The City could not do otherwise than submit, [Journal 45, fos. 142, 142b.] and the king carried out his threat. The commissioners who had been appointed under the Great Seal to "regulate" the Corporation removed at least two of the aldermen, viz., Tempest Miller, of Candlewick ward, and William Love, of Portsoken, who had recently been elected one of the city's representatives in parliament, their places being filled up by Sir Thomas Rich and Sir Thomas Bludworth, the king's own nominees. [The king to the mayor and commissioners, 5 May and 16 June, 1662.—Remembrancia, ix, 45, 46 (Index, pp. 64, 65); Cal. State Papers Dom. (1661-1662), pp. 362, 408.]

[Fear of more disturbance by Presbyterians and fanatics, Sept., 1661.]

Pending the negotiations for a renewal of the City's charter, the Presbyterians of the city and their ultra-radical brethren the Fifth Monarchy men again caused disquietude. The latter had been "scotched not killed" after Venner's outbreak: "they are as bold in their meetings as before Venner's plot; Fifth Monarchy men preach and visit with Presbyterians, and encourage the people to withstand the common prayer and the oppression and idolatry of the court." [Capt. William Pestell to Sec. Nicholas, 26 September, 1661.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1661-1662), pp. 97-98.] The mayor had recently succeeded in breaking up a meeting and capturing ten men and thirty women, whom he lodged in Newgate. When remonstrated with they told the mayor that they had met to serve God, and when told that he best served God who obeyed the king, replied that they were not bound to obey him when the Spirit commanded the contrary. [Sir Richard Browne, the lord mayor, to Sec. Nicholas, 24 August, 1661.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1661-1662), p. 70.] It was reported that there were no less than 3,000 men about the city maintained by Presbyterian ministers. [Examination of Gracious Franklin and Joshua Jones, 24 October.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1661-1662), p. 121.] The danger was increased by the large number of cashiered officers and soldiers who frequented the city. [Cal. State Papers Dom. (1661-1662), pp. 160, 161.] The king became anxious and wrote to the lord mayor (24 Oct.) complaining of the want of care and vigilance in setting the night watches, which consisted chiefly of feeble men unable to suppress such disorders as were likely to arise in those seditious times, and who broke up their watch some hours before daybreak, thereby giving encouragement to thieves and robbers. He therefore desired that the number of men should be increased, that only able men should be appointed, and that the watch should continue until daybreak. [Remembrancia, ix, 34 (Index, p. 550); Cf. Cal. State Papers Dom. (1661-1662), pp. 123-124, where the date of the letter is given as 25 October.]

[Election of Sir John Frederick, mayor, 29 Sept., 1661.]

On Michaelmas-day Sir Richard Browne was succeeded in the mayoralty chair by Sir John Frederick. [Journal 45, fo. 115b.] The banquet of the mayor and sheriffs, which had been allowed to drop in the time of trouble and scarceness, was again held at the Guildhall, [Repertory 67, fo. 314b.] and the new mayor revived the ancient custom of visiting St. Paul's on the day of his taking the oath of office, and offering a prayer for the soul of the good bishop by whose kind offices the citizens obtained their first charter from the Conqueror.[^102] Charles did not attend the banquet which took place on the 29th October, but viewed the pageants on lord mayor's day from the windows of a private house in Cheapside, where he was supplied with refreshments at the City's charge. [Repertory 67, fo. 326.]

[^102: "This lord mayor it seems brings up again the custom of lord mayors going the day of their instalment to St. Paul's and walking round about the Crosse and offering something at the altar."—Pepys, Diary, 29 Oct., 1661; as to the ancient custom, see Liber Albus (Rolls Series), i, 26.]

[Letter from the king touching election of Common Council, 13 Dec., 1661.]

When St. Thomas's day [21 Dec]—the day for the election of a new Common Council—was approaching, the king took occasion himself to write to the Court of Aldermen warning them to "take special care and give strict orders in your several wards that a peaceable and quiet election be made, and that the choice be of such persons as are every way well affected to the established Government, both in Church and State"—otherwise he would be forced to make a change in such elections. [Remembrancia, ix, 37 (Index, p. 90).]

[Order for expurgation of city's records. 26 Feb., 1662.]

That the new council was favourable to the king is shown by the court passing a resolution (26 Feb., 1662) for expunging out of the city's records all acts, orders and other matters passed, made or registered either in the court of Common Council or the Court of Aldermen since the beginning of the late troubles "which savour of the disloyalty of those times and may continue the sad remembrance of them to posterity to the reproach and dishonour of this city." [Journal 45, fo. 161b; Letter Book UU, fo. 91b; Cf. Cal. State Papers Dom. (1661-1662), p. 287, where the date of the resolution is given as the 27th February.] This resolution was made on the king's own suggestions, but although a committee was at once appointed to carry it out, it remained a dead letter for twenty years.

[Demand of a loan of £200,000, 7 Feb., 1662.]

The Common Council had previously (7 Feb.) shown its compliance by acceding to a demand for a loan of £200,000. [Journal 45, fos. 159-160b; Cf. Letter Book UU, fo. 90.] But although the security offered was undeniably good, and every effort was made to get the inhabitants of the city to subscribe, no more than £60,000 or £61,000 at the most was collected by the 14th March, [Journal 45, fos. 187, 188b, 192b.] and a month later scarcely £100,000 had been subscribed. The king made no attempt to disguise his annoyance, and ordered the mayor to call a Common Council and request them to take steps for the collection of the whole sum. [The king to the mayor, 25 April, 1662.—Journal 45, fo. 214b; Letter Book UU, fo. 125; Cal. State Papers Dom. (1661-1662), p. 350.]

[City gift to Queen Catharine, 3 June, 1662.]

According to Pepys, who got his information from a city alderman, the finances of the Corporation were at such a low ebb that considerable difficulty was experienced in raising so small a sum as 1,000 gold pieces and the price of a gold cup to be presented to Catharine of Braganza on her arrival in England "and that they were fain to call two or three aldermen to raise fines to make up the amount."[^103]

[^103: Pepys, Diary, 3 June, 1662. Pepys, or his informant, however, appears to have erred in more than one point. The gift was only voted by the Common Council on the 1st June (Journal 45, fo. 215; Letter Book UU, fo. 136), and no one is recorded as having fined for alderman (if indeed an aldermanry happened to be then vacant) between that day and the 3rd June. The money, moreover, is recorded as having been presented in a purse and not in a gold cup.]

[The Hearth or Chimney tax, 1662.]

Whilst the civic authorities were vainly struggling to raise the last loan for the king, the House of Commons came to his assistance and voted him a tax of two shillings upon every chimney. [10 March, 1662.—Journal House of Commons, viii, 383.] The inquisitorial nature of the tax made it very offensive. Returns were to be made of the number of hearths and stoves in each dwelling by the end of May. As they did not come in as quickly as was desired an extension of time was granted until Midsummer Assizes. [Journal 45, fo. 195; Cal. State Papers Dom. (1661-1662), p. 402.] Even when sent in many of the returns were manifestly untrue. The returns made for the city of London and Bills of Mortality drew forth a remonstrance from Charles, who refused to attribute it to anything else but gross negligence or deceit. [The king to the mayor, aldermen and Justices of the Peace within the Bills of Mortality, 13 Aug., 1662.—Remembrancia, ix, 49 (Index, p. 167); Cal. State Papers Dom. (1661-1662), p. 459.] He was afraid lest the ill example set by London should influence the rest of the kingdom. He expressed himself as willing to bear the expense of finding two or three honest persons in each ward, if required, to join the constable in an "ocular view." But in spite of every precaution fraudulent returns continued to flow in, and the collection of the tax to be slow and precarious. [The Lord Treasurer and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the mayor, etc., 7 Oct., 1663, and 8 Feb., 1664.—Remembrancia, ix, 67, 97 (Index, p. 167).]

[The Act of Uniformity, 1662.]

The passing of the Uniformity Act [8 May, 1662.—Journal House of Lords, xi, 450.] which condemned every minister to lose his benefice unless he signified his assent to everything contained in the book of common prayer by the 24th August (1662) caused great dissatisfaction in the city—always a stronghold of Presbyterianism—and many a sad scene was witnessed in city churches on Sunday the 17th as ministers took farewell of their congregations. ["I hear most of the Presbyters took their leaves to-day, and that the city is much dissatisfied with it."—Pepys, Diary, 17 Aug., 1662.] Driven from the national Church, the Presbyterians, like the Baptists, the Quakers and other "dissenters" formed a separate community, happy if only they were granted toleration. Many of the inhabitants of the city were already suffering confinement for attending "unlawful assemblies." On the occasion of the queen's first visit to Westminster the king gave directions to the mayor and sheriffs to release those Quakers and others who were in gaol in London and Middlesex for having been present at such assemblies, provided they professed allegiance and had not been ringleaders or preachers, "hoping thereby to reduce them to a better conformity." [The king to the lord mayor and sheriffs, 22 Aug.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1661-1662), p. 466.]

[Sir John Robinson elected mayor. Michaelmas, 1662.]

When lord mayor's day came round Charles again viewed the pageant from a house in Cheapside. This time he was accompanied by the queen. The City supplied the royal party with refreshments as before. [Repertory 68, fo. 219b.] The new mayor, Sir John Robinson, [Journal 45, fo. 234.] had been a promoter of the king's restoration, and in return for his services received an augmentation of arms. [Warrant to Garter King-at-Arms, 13 Oct., 1663.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1663-1664), p. 299.] He was a nephew of the late Archbishop Laud, and full of his own self-importance "a talking, bragging, buffle-headed fellow," Pepys calls him—boasting of his powers over his brother aldermen, but nevertheless attentive to the wants of the city. [Pepys, Diary, 17 March, 1663.]

[The reception of the Russian ambassador, 27 Nov., 1662.]

A few weeks latter (27 Nov.) the streets of the city again presented a gala appearance, the occasion being the reception of the Russian ambassador. For the last three winters there had been, we are told, scarce any frost, and the opening of the year 1662 had been so exceptionally mild as to cause apprehension of dearth and disease. [Journal 45, fos. 187-191.] But now, on the very day that the Russian ambassador was to pass through the city from Tower wharf, where he had landed, he was reminded of his own country by seeing the roofs of the houses covered with snow. [Pepys, Diary, 27 Nov., 1662.] At eight o'clock in the morning 500 men "apparelled in velvet coats with chains of gold, well mounted on horseback," from the several livery companies made their way to Tower Hill to escort the ambassador. [Journal 45, fo. 247b.] The streets were lined with the city trained bands and the king's Lifeguards. Pepys was there of course; he rarely missed any sight. He had been disappointed at not getting a better view of Sir Harry Vane's execution, which had taken place in June. [Pepys, Diary, 14 June, 1662.] This time he was more fortunate. The ambassador to be sure was late, but Pepys beguiled the time with dinner. "And after I had dined"—he records in his diary [Id., 27 Nov., 1662.]—"I walked to the conduit in the quarrefowr, at the end of Gracious Street and Cornhill and there (the spouts thereof running very near me, upon all the people that were under it) I saw them pretty well, go by." He failed to catch sight of the ambassador himself, but was struck with the handsome appearance of the ambassador's attendants, most of whom carried hawks on their "fists" as a present to Charles. The strangeness of this sight caused the mob to jeer, upon which the diarist characteristically remarks, "but lord! to see the absurd nature of Englishmen that cannot forbear laughing and jeering at every thing that looks strange." Later on he makes a note of having seen the ambassador's retinue at York House engaged in a manner that does not speak well for their habits of cleanliness. [Pepys, Diary, 6 June, 1663.]

[Grant of the Inspeximus Charter by Charles II, 24 June, 1663.]

On the 2nd February, 1663, the fiat went forth for the confirmation of the City's charter, "they having fulfilled the required condition of displacing four or five of the aldermen." [Cal. State Papers Dom. (1663-1664), p. 37.] The charter itself bears date the 24th June. [Preserved at the Guildhall. A docquet of the charter among the State Papers appears to be dated March.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1663-1664), p. 94.] It is of all the City's charters the most ample, reciting and confirming as it does the entire Inspeximus Charter of Charles I, as well as the latter king's letters patent, granted in the 16th year of his reign, confirming to the mayor and citizens the offices of package and scavage.

[City loan of £50,000, Sept., 1663.]

Notwithstanding the supplies voted to him by parliament, the advances made to him by the City, and the handsome dowry he received with his wife, Charles was continually in want of money. In November, 1662, he had sold Dunkirk to the French king for £200,000, much to the disgust of the English nation. Nevertheless, his extravagance soon reduced him to want, and by the following September (1663) he was in such straits that he sent to the City to borrow the comparatively small sum of £50,000. Seeing that the City had so recently received a confirmation of its charter, it could not refuse; and the money was raised among the aldermen as being a speedier way than applying to the Common Council. [Remembrancia, ix, 66 (Index, p. 201): Repertory 69, fo. 190b. Warrant to secure repayment of the loan, 28 Sept.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1663-1664), p. 280.]

[The king's return to London after a progress, Oct., 1663.]

On the occasion of the king's return from a "great progress" in October, he was met by the mayor and aldermen and 500 members of the several livery companies, well and substantially horsed and apparelled in velvet coats and chains of gold according to custom.[^104]

[^104: Precept of the mayor to the companies to prepare for the event, 28 Sept.—Journal 45, fo. 316b. Letter from Sir John Robinson, the mayor, to Williamson enclosing one to the Lord Chamberlain, 23 Sept.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1663-1664), p. 278; Pepys, Diary, 28 Sept.]

[The French ambassador insulted at the lord mayor's banquet. 29 Oct., 1663.]

On the 29th October the new lord mayor, Sir Anthony Bateman, entered upon his mayoralty, [Journal 45, fo. 332b.] with the customary procession and pageant, followed by a banquet at the Guildhall. The banquet was made the occasion of what appears on the face of it to have been a studied insult offered—not by the municipal authorities, but by the lord chancellor, the bishops and lords of the council—to the French ambassador. Whether the lord chancellor and other high officers of state arrived at the Guildhall before their time, or the French ambassador came late, one cannot say. But, however that may have been, it appears that on the latter's arrival the others had already commenced dinner, with the exception of the mayor himself and the municipal authorities, who had not yet taken their places. On the ambassador approaching the table where the lords sat at dinner, intending, as he informed the French king by letter, [Letter from the Comte de Comminges to Louis XIV, 9 Nov., 1663, printed in Appendix to Pepys's Diary, 4th ed. (1854), pp. 346, 347.] to rally them on their good appetite, he met with such a cold reception that he left the hall to go home and dine by himself, in spite of every endeavour on the part of the civic officials to smooth matters over. Two hours later the sheriffs presented themselves at the ambassador's house, accompanied by a deputation from the Common Council, for the purpose of offering excuses for the recent contretemps. The excuses they had to offer were, however, of the lamest character, as the ambassador took care to show. Firstly, they said they had been taken by surprise. This was manifestly false, as the ambassador attended at the Guildhall upon invitation. They next pleaded ignorance and incapacity in receiving one of so high degree, when the ambassador reminded them that they had recently done honour to the Spanish ambassador; and lastly they endeavoured to throw the whole of the blame upon the master of the ceremonies. This excuse, however, like the others, was easily shown to be false, inasmuch as that official was personally engaged in escorting the ambassador to the Guildhall and had nothing to do with the banquet. The deputation thereupon withdrew, being all the more discomforted by the excess of courtesy shown to them by the ambassador, who himself insisted on escorting them to the door (je leur dis que je voulois passer plus avant, et payer un assez mauvais traitement par une civilité extraordinaire).

[State visit of the lord mayor to the French ambassador, 11 Nov.]

On the 11th November the lord mayor went in state to pay a visit to the ambassador and to beg his forgiveness. Not being able to speak French himself, he took with him an interpreter, who explained to the ambassador on his behalf that unless he (the ambassador) would set the example of forgiveness eternal shame would rest upon the citizens and they would incur the displeasure of the king and nation. Thereupon the ambassador showed himself satisfied and attended the lord mayor to his carriage with marked courtesy. [The French ambassador to Louis XIV, 12/22* Nov.—Appendix to Pepys' Diary, (4th ed.), pp. 347-348.]

[War declared, against the Dutch, 22 Feb., 1665.]

In view of a war with the Dutch, which seemed inevitable, owing to their interference with English trade, Charles began taking steps to replenish his exhausted exchequer. In June and again in October (1664) he borrowed from the city sums of £100,000.[^105] In November the Commons voted him a sum of two millions and a half, a larger supply than any that had ever yet been granted to a king of England, and the thanks of both Houses were tendered to the city for its assistance. [Journal House of Commons, viii, 568.] On the 22nd February, 1665, war was formally declared. Two heralds, in their coats of arms, with four mace-bearers, nine trumpeters and two troops of horse, assembled at Westminster, where the trumpet sounded and the declaration was read amid shouts of joy. "Thence they went to Temple Bar, where the lord mayor and aldermen, in scarlet gowns on horse-back, conducted them to Temple Gate over against Chancery Lane, where it was read with more acclamation than before, the Horseguards drawing their swords and clattering them; then again in Cheapside and before the Royal Exchange with great demonstration of joy and sounding of trumpets, after which many nobles of the court came into the city to dine with the lord mayor." [Ambassador Van Goch (or Gogh) to the States General, 6/16* March, 1665.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1664-1665), p. 242.] A day for a public fast was appointed to invoke the Almighty's blessing upon the ignominious war about to commence, and all commercial intercourse with the States was interdicted. [Journal 46, fos. 19b, 43b, 44.]

[^105: Journal 45, fos. 389b, 398, 423b; Repertory 70, fo. 5b. "The city did last night very freely lend the king £100,000 without any security but the king's word, which was very noble."—Pepys, Diary, 26 Oct., 1664. In making the second advance the Common Council desired to express their sense of his majesty's recent favour towards the city in preventing a new bridge being built over the Thames between Lambeth and Westminster, "which as is conceived would have been of dangerous consequence to the state of this city."—Cf. Cal. State Papers Dom. (1664-1665), p. 43.]

[The loss of the ship "The London."]

At this juncture an unfortunate accident occurred which deprived the fleet of one of its most valuable ships—the ship known as "The London," in which Sir John Lawson was about to put to sea—and caused the death of nearly 300 seamen. "The London" was being brought round from Chatham to the Hope, where she was to take on board her commander, when for some unaccountable reason she blew up and became a total wreck, all her ordnance, numbering 80 brass pieces, going to the bottom. The news of the disaster caused much excitement in the city. [Pepys, Diary, 8 March, 1665.]

[The City's offer to replace her.]

The Common Council (17 March) immediately offered its services to the king, and engaged to build another ship of the same tonnage to supply the place of the one that was lost. The king gladly availed himself of the offer of the City, promising "to retain the same in memory for the advantage of this royal chamber upon all occasions." [Journal 46, fo. 68; Repertory 70, fo. 74.] Pepys's acquaintance with the jobbery of the day, more especially in connection with naval matters, had his misgivings about the City's offer. It was a handsome offer he acknowledged, "and if well managed might be done," but he had his fears lest the work should be put into ill hands. [Diary, 10 March, 1665.] The work was put out to tender, but the final selection of a contractor was left to the king.[^106] Precepts were issued to the livery companies to "excite and persuade" their members in every possible way to subscribe to the undertaking. [Journal 46, fo. 26.] The money, however, was very slow in coming in, no more than £4,200 having been subscribed by May, 1666, when at least £10,000 was estimated to be required. [Id., fo. 99.] Nor is this to be wondered at when it was a matter of public notoriety that the money voted expressly by parliament for fitting out a navy had been uselessly squandered. It was said at the time, although not credited by all, that many showed a willingness to advance a large sum of money if the Duke of York would guarantee its being employed on the navy by himself becoming treasurer of the fund; the Duke declined and the offers fell through.[^107]

[^106: Captain John Taylor, who was selected immediately, expressed his willingness to abate £1,000 of the whole sum to be paid for the ship, the contract price being £12 per ton.—MS. Record "Ship London," fos. 3b-5b.]

[^107: "He [Major Halsey, 'a great creature of the Duke of Albemarle's'] tells me also, as he says of his own knowledge, that several people before the duke went out did offer to supply the king with £100,000, provided he would be treasurer of it, to see it laid out for the navy: which he refused, and so it died."—Pepys, Diary, 24 June, 1666.]

[The "Loyal London" launched, 10 June, 1666.]

Pepys's misgivings about the City's new ship, called after its predecessor "Loyal London," appear to have been justified. The ship had to be launched in an unfinished state, and when her guns came to be tried every one of them burst. And yet the vessel was commended by Sir William Coventry, a navy commissioner and secretary to the Duke of York, admiral of the fleet, as "the best in the world, large and small." [Pepys, Diary, 10 and 26 June and 23 July. 1666.]

[The Duke of York's victory over the Dutch fleet, 3 June, 1665.]

At the outset of the war the British fleet was not unattended with success. On the 3rd June, 1665, the Duke of York gained a signal victory over Opdam, admiral of the Dutch fleet, in an action fought off the coast of Suffolk. The report of the guns could be frequently heard on the Thames and caused much excitement in the city,[^108] to allay which the king caused a letter to be despatched to the lord mayor as soon as possible, giving details of the engagement and the losses on either side, and assuring the citizens of the safety of the Duke of York. [Lord Arlington to the mayor, 5 (?) June.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1664-1665), p. 408.] Tuesday the 20th was appointed a day of public thanksgiving. [Journal 46, fo. 64b.]

[^108: "All this day by all people upon the river, and almost every where else hereabout were heard the guns, our two fleets for certain being engaged; which was confirmed by letters from Harwich, but nothing particular; and all our hearts full of concernment for the duke."—Pepys, Diary, 3 June.]

[Precautions against the plague, 1663-1664.]

Such a victory at another time would have been hailed with unbounded joy. As it was the enthusiasm of the citizens was damped by the presence among them of the most awful scourge that had ever yet visited the city. Towards the close of 1663 there had been rumours of an outbreak of plague on the continent, and more especially at Amsterdam and Hamburgh. The king communicated with the lord mayor to learn what measures had formerly been taken in like case to prevent the spread of infection. It was suggested by the Court of Aldermen that, after the custom of other countries, vessels coming from infected parts should perform quarantine at Gravesend or the neighbourhood, where a lazaretto should be established. The proposal was accepted,[^109] and to these precautions, taken on the instigation of the city authorities, was largely due the immunity from infection which the city enjoyed for the next fifteen months. In June, 1664, the lords of the council adopted similar precautions as their own and wrote to the lord mayor, in view of the increase of the plague in the Netherlands, desiring him "by all waies and meanes possible to be careful that no person or persons, goods or merchandises whatsoever be permitted to be received or harboured within the citty of London which come from Holland, Zealand or any other places infected with the plague, without certificates from the farmers of the customs or their officers that they have performed their quarantain." [Original letter from the lords of the council to the lord mayor, 27 June, 1664, preserved in the Town Clerk's office.]

[^109: Secretary Morrice to the lord mayor, 18 Oct., 1663; the lord mayor's reply, 22 Oct.; the lords of the council to the mayor and aldermen, 23 Oct., and their reply.—Remembrancia, ix. 69, 70, 73, 74, (Index, pp. 348-349).]

[The Plague of 1665.]

The plague made its first appearance in the city in June, 1665. The atmosphere had been very sultry—the 7th June being recorded by Pepys as the hottest day he had ever felt in his life—and the heat caused the infection to spread among the crowded population of the city with amazing rapidity. Many followed the example set by the king and court and fled to the country. [Van Goch (or Gogh) to the States General, 24 July.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1664-1665), p. 488.] The lord mayor, however, stuck to his post, and the aldermen were forbidden to leave the city without giving notice of some reasonable cause, those who had already absented themselves being ordered to return. [Repertory 70, fo. 141.] The good example thus set was unhappily not followed by the city rectors. Many of them, to their shame, forsook their cures in abject fear, leaving their parishioners to die without the consolations of the Church, whilst their pulpits were seized upon by Presbyterian ministers, who embraced the opportunity of publicly declaiming against the sins of the court and the ill usage to which they had been compelled to submit. [Burnet, i, 411.] The first Wednesday of every month was appointed to be kept as a solemn fast day of humiliation until it should please God to put an end to the sickness. [Journal 46, fo. 79.] Schools were closed and inns and taverns kept open only for citizens. The streets were cleansed and kept free from vagrant dogs—always suspected of spreading infection. Nevertheless, the death rate rapidly increased. Pest-houses or hospitals were opened and the best medical aid supplied, whilst subscriptions were set on foot for the benefit of the poor. [Repertory 70, fos. 136, 136b, 143b, 144, 144b, 147, 150b, 151; Journal 46, fos. 61, 98, 98b.] The last week of August claimed 700 victims within the city's walls, whilst in the week ending the 19th September no less than 1,189—the highest number recorded perished within the same limited area.[^110] The number of deaths that occurred outside the city, but within its liberties, was often three or four times larger than of those within the city's walls. Thus for the week last mentioned the number of deaths from the plague alone in parishes outside the city, but within its liberties, is returned in the Bills of Mortality as having exceeded 3,000. [The exact figures in the London Remembrancer are 3,151.] The continued increase in the number of deaths in the first half of September was a matter of surprise, for cold weather had set in and the lord mayor had caused fires to be lighted in the open thoroughfares for the benefit of the poor that lay starving in the streets, as well as (perhaps) with the view of purifying the atmosphere. [Pepys, Diary, 6 and 20 Sept.] When the plague was at its height deaths followed in such rapid succession that the work of burying its victims had to be carried on night and day. Even then there was only time to huddle the corpses together in a fosse commune, and to cover them with a scanty supply of earth. Small wonder if complaints were made to the Court of Aldermen of noisome smells arising from the churchyard of St. Mary's Bethlem. The court immediately (5 Sept.) gave orders for remedying the evil. No more pits were to be dug, but each corpse was to occupy a separate grave, fresh mould was to be laid over places complained of, and bones and coffin-boards found above ground were to be interred in the middle of the churchyard. [Repertory 70, fo. 153b.]

[^110: "London Remembrancer, or a true accompt of every particular week's christnings and mortality in all the years of pestilence within the cognizance of the Bills of Mortality, being xviii years, taken out of the Register of the Company of Parish Clerks of London," 1665.]

The worst was now over. From the middle of September the number of deaths in the city began to decrease almost as rapidly as they had risen. In the first week in November there was a sudden increase on the return of the previous week, but in the following week there was again a fall, and this continued until in the first week of December the deaths in the city numbered only twenty-four. Nevertheless it was thought advisable to prohibit the usual entertainments which took place after the wardmote elections on St. Thomas's day, in order to minimise the risk of infection. [Journal 46, fo. 97b.] The mayor was justified in taking this precaution, for the very next week the number of deaths more than doubled itself (57). That the city of London was at this time one of the healthiest places in the kingdom is shown by the fact that just as it was one of the last places attacked by the plague, so it was one of the first to become free, in spite of its having been made "the receptacle of all the people from all infected places." [Pepys, Diary, 6 Aug., 1666.]

The total number of victims in the city proper during the twelve month ending the 19th December, 1665, is officially given as 9,887. When we consider that the entire population within the city walls—comprising an area of one square mile, more or less—could scarcely have reached 100,000,[^111] the extent of the calamity becomes appalling; the city was literally decimated.

[^111: The number of inhabitants of the city and its liberties in the reign of Elizabeth has been estimated at 150,000 (Motley, "United Netherlands," i, 306). As the suburbs grew the population of the city would become less. Hence, in 1682, the city's Recorder, speaking on the Quo Warranto case, mentions the number of inhabitants for whom the municipal authorities had to supply markets as a little over 50,000 (Journal 50, fo. 41).]

[Naval engagement with the Dutch, June, 1666.]

[A city loan of £100,000.]

Whilst the plague was raging the English fleet had remained in the Thames, leaving the Dutch masters of the sea. The opening of the new year (1666) found England engaged in a war with France, as well as with the Dutch. Louis, however, was content to leave the English and the Dutch to settle matters between themselves at sea. On the 1st June a desperate naval battle commenced off the North Foreland and continued for four days, at the end of which neither party could claim a victory. Both fleets withdrew for repairs. It was at this crisis that the "Loyal London" was hastily launched and application made to the city for a loan of £100,000. The money was readily voted, contrary to expectations. [Journal 46, fo. 99; Letter Book WW, fo. 78; Pepys, Diary, 10 and 21 June, 1666.]

[The Fire of London, Sept., 1666.]

When the last instalment (£1,500) of the loan was paid into the exchequer, the Guildhall and its surroundings were being threatened with destruction by the Great Fire, [Repertory 71, fo. 172b.] which, breaking out on the night of Saturday, 1st September, 1666, or early on Sunday morning, at a baker's shop in Pudding Lane, within five days reduced the greater part of the city to ashes. The king had long ago anticipated such a calamity, arising from the narrowness of the streets and the overhanging houses built for the most part of wood. More than a year before (11 April, 1665) he had written to the mayor, recorder and aldermen of the city [Cal. State Papers Dom. (1664-1665), p. 303.] warning them of the danger and recommending a more diligent execution of the Act for the repair of highways and sewers. He authorised them to imprison such persons as, after due warning, continued to erect buildings in contravention of the Act, and to pull the buildings down. He further desired them to open Temple Bar and the passage and gatehouse of Cheapside in St. Paul's Churchyard, as mentioned in the Act, and he would himself inspect what progress was being made in carrying out these improvements. He concluded by declaring that he had made the city his royal residence, [Charles II is said to have been the last English sovereign to occupy rooms in the Tower of London, as he did on the night previous to his coronation.] and had received from it such marks of loyalty and affection as would ever make him concerned for its wealth, trade, reputation, beauty and convenience.

The outbreak of the fire at first caused no uneasiness, such sights being only too common. But when no less than 300 houses had been destroyed within a few hours, and the flames, carried by a strong east wind that prevailed, threatened others, the inhabitants began to take alarm. The mayor, Sir Thomas Bludworth, was early on the scene, but he lacked decision of character and failed to keep his head. He endeavoured to carry out the king's orders by pulling down houses to prevent the fire spreading, but as often as not he was overtaken by the flames. "Lord, what can I do?" he lack-a-daisically exclaimed in answer to a message from the king; "I am spent; people will not obey me. I have been pulling down houses; but the fire overtakes us faster than we can do it." [Pepys, Diary, 2 Sept., 1666.] The inhabitants were too busy removing their furniture and effects to a place of safety to render much assistance to the mayor, but he found willing hands in the soldiers supplied by the king and the Duke of York, both of whom displayed great personal energy. "The Duke of York," wrote an eye-witness of the mournful scene, [Letter of John Rushworth, 8 Sept., 1666.—"Notes and Queries," 5th series, v. 307.] "hath wonn the hearts of the people wth his continuall and indefatigable paynes day and night in helping to quench the fire, handing bucketts of water with as much diligence as the poorest man that did assist; if the lord maior had done as much his example might have gone far towards saveing the citty."

[The extent of the ravages of the fire.]

In spite of every effort to stay its progress the fire continued to rage throughout the whole of Monday and Tuesday. By this time Lombard Street, Cannon Street and Gracechurch Street had been reduced to ashes. The houses on London Bridge were attacked and Southwark threatened with destruction. On Wednesday the flames devastated Cornhill and the Exchange. The following day they got hold of St. Paul's (at that time undergoing repairs and surrounded with scaffolding), and were carried by the east wind towards the Temple and Hatton Garden. The brick buildings of the Temple offered a more stubborn resistance than the wooden buildings of the city, and prevented the fire spreading further westward. ["London's lamentation on its destruction by a consuming fire, began Sept. 1, 1666...."—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1666-1667), p. 103 and Preface, pp. x, xi.] In the meantime resort was had to gunpowder for the quicker destruction of houses in the city, and by this means much was eventually saved which otherwise would inevitably have been lost. But this was not done without considerable opposition from the owners of houses who objected to their property being blown up if there was a chance of it being saved. [Pepys, Diary, 4 Sept., 1666; Evelyn, Diary, i, 393.] At last the "horrid, malicious, bloody flame," described by Pepys as so unlike the flame of an ordinary fire, burnt itself out, and at the close of Thursday, the 6th September, the inhabitants of the city were able for the first time since the outbreak to seek a night's rest without fear of further danger. When they rose the next morning and contemplated the extent of the havoc wrought on their city by the fire, the hearts of many must have fairly sunk within them. At least four-fifths of the whole of the buildings situate within the walls had been reduced to ashes. The official report was that no less than 13,200 houses and eighty-nine parish churches, besides St. Paul's and divers chapels, were destroyed, and that only seventy-five acres out of a total of 373 acres of ground within the walls escaped the conflagration. ["History of the Monument," by Charles Welch, F.S.A., Librarian to the Corporation of London, 1893, p. 79.] These seventy-five acres chiefly lay in the vicinity of Aldgate and Tower Hill, and probably owed their immunity from the fire to the free use of gunpowder, for it was in Tower Street, Pepys tells us, that the practice of blowing up houses began. Most of the livery companies lost their halls. Clothworkers' Hall burned for three days and three nights, the flames being fed with the oil that was stored in its cellars. The Leaden Hall was partly saved. Gresham House also escaped; but the Guildhall suffered severely, its outer walls only being left standing.

[Lord Mayor Bludworth.]

Much dissatisfaction was displayed against Bludworth for his want of resolution during the crisis, ["People do all the world over cry out of the simplicity of my lord mayor in generall; and more particularly in the business of the fire, laying it all upon him."—Pepys, Diary, 7 Sept.] and when Michaelmas-day arrived, and he was about to go out of office, he was called to account for his conduct. In anticipation of lord mayor's day he wrote to Joseph Williamson, afterwards Secretary of State, bespeaking his favour and support. He professed not to live by popular applause (he said), but he needed and desired the support and esteem of government, "having had the misfortune to serve in the severest year that ever man did." [Bludworth to [Williamson], 29 Sept.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1666-1667), p. 167.]

[The fire attributed to the Papists.]

As to the origin of the fire the wildest rumours at the time prevailed, and for years afterwards it was commonly attributed to Papists wishing to destroy the stronghold of the reformed religion, notwithstanding the fact that not a scintilla of evidence was forthcoming in support of such a charge, after a most careful investigation.[^112] The citizens were not satisfied with the first inquiry, and in March, 1668, a petition was prepared to lay before parliament to re-open the question and to receive fresh evidence. [Journal 36, fo. 219.] Thirteen years later the belief that the Papists had a hand in causing the wholesale destruction of the city was formally promulgated by the House of Commons (10 Jan., 1681), [Journal House of Commons, ix, 703.] and the same belief was perpetuated by an inscription on the Monument commemorating the fire, an inscription which met with the approval of the municipal authorities of the day. [Journal 49, fos. 156b, 224; Repertory 86, fos. 151, 162.]

[^112: Memorandum [by Williamson] that after careful examinations by the council and others, nothing had been found to argue the fire to have been caused otherwise than by the hand of God, a great wind and a very dry season. Sept., 1666.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1666-1667), p. 175.]

[Sir Patience Ward and the inscription on the Monument.]

Sir Patience Ward happened to be mayor at the time, but was probably no more responsible for the inscription than any other member of the Court of Aldermen or Common Council, notwithstanding the severe reflection passed upon him by his namesake Thomas Ward, ["England's Reformation, from the time of Henry VIII to the end of Oates's Plot," Canto iv, p. 100, ll. 21-32.] who, speaking of Titus Oates and his bogus "discoveries," wrote:

"He swore—with flaming faggot sticks,
In sixteen hundred sixty-six,
That they through London took their marches,
And burnt the city down with torches;
Yet all invisible they were,
Clad in their coats of Lapland air.
The sniffling Whig-mayor Patience Ward
To this damn'd lie paid such regard,
That he his godly masons sent,
T' engrave it round the Monument:
They did so; but let such things pass—
His men were fools, himself an ass."

[The inscription finally removed, 1830.]

On the accession of James II the obnoxious inscription was removed, but the feeling against Papists had obtained so strong a hold over the popular mind, that it was again set up as soon as William III came to the throne. [Resolution of Common Council, 16 Sept., 1689.—Journal 51, fo. 11.] There it remained until 1830, when, wisdom having come with years, it was finally removed by order of the Common Council (6 Dec.). [Journal 104, fo. 413b.] No longer is it true, in the words of Pope, that

"... London's column pointing at the skies
Like a tall bully lifts the head and lies."

[Provisions ordered for the city, 5 & 6 Sept., 1666.]

As soon as the fire began to abate measures were taken to provide food for the houseless poor. A detachment of 200 soldiers was ordered to London from Hertfordshire with carts laden with pickaxes, ropes, buckets, etc., to prevent any further outbreak, whilst the justices of the peace and deputy lieutenants were instructed to forward provisions to the city, especially bread and cheese, lest the much suffering inhabitants should perish from starvation. [Proclamation, 5 Sept.; letter from Lord Arlington to the Lord Lieutenant of Hertfordshire, 6 Sept.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1666-1667), pp. 100, 104.]

[Letter of condolence and assistance from York, 17 Sept., 1666.]

The City received much sympathy and no little assistance from other cities, both in England and Ireland. The city of York not only despatched its town clerk to London to express its condolences with the Londoners in their great loss, but the lord mayor of York wrote (17 Sept.) to the lord mayor of London to tell him that a small sum of money—"as much as this poore decayed citty could furnish us with"—was on its way to London for the relief of the most necessitous and distressed. [Original letter preserved in the Town Clerk's office.]

[Similar letters from the Lord Lieutenant and Council of Ireland, 27 Sept.]

Ten days later (29 Sept.) Lord Ormond and the Lords of the Council of Ireland wrote to Bludworth expressing their hearty sorrow at the calamity that had befallen the citizens of London, who had shown so much humanity and kindness to the Protestants of Ireland in the late rebellion. They desired to assist the city in its distress, but money was so scarce in Ireland that they were compelled to ask the city to accept the greater part of such assistance as that country could offer in cattle, which should be despatched either alive or slaughtered, as his lordship should prefer, to any port in Ireland. But before this could be done the assent of parliament would have to be obtained.[^113]

[^113: Original letter preserved in the Town Clerk's office. A Bill was before parliament at the time against the importation of cattle from Ireland. The City petitioned that a proviso might be added to the Bill allowing such importation "by way of donation and charitable loane," but December came and parliament still withheld its assent.—See copies of City's answer to letter from Ireland, preserved in Town Clerk's office; also Repertory 72, fos. 2b-3b; Journal 46, fo. 132b.]

[Similar letter from Londonderry.]

The inhabitants of Londonderry sent a deeply sympathetic and affectionate letter to their "deare mother citty," and forwarded a sum of £250 to assist those "who buylt or howses now their oune are in ashes." They could not send more (they said) because of the deep poverty that lay upon their city and the general want of money throughout the country. What they did send they sent as an expression of their love and duty to their "honoured mother." [Original letter (undated) preserved in the Town Clerk's office. The letter was read before the Common Council, 14 Nov., 1666.—Journal 46, fo. 130.]

[Municipal offices removed to Gresham House.]

In the meantime a special Court of Aldermen had met in the afternoon of Thursday, the 6th September, and appointed Gresham House for the meetings of the Court of Aldermen and Common Council, and for transacting the general municipal business of the city until further order. The mayor and the sheriffs, whose houses had been destroyed, were also to take up their lodging there during the remainder of their year of office. The Exchange, too, was ordered to be kept in the gardens or walks of Gresham House. The house was to be got ready with all speed, and the governor of the East India Company was to be desired to see that the pepper stored in the walks was removed without delay. Temporary sites were at the same time appointed for the various markets until better accommodation could be found. Those who had been rendered houseless were allowed to erect sheds on the void places of London Bridge. It was further resolved to entreat his majesty to send tents into Finsbury Fields for housing the poor until they could provide themselves with habitations. The other wants of the poor were to be supplied as far as possible by the masters, wardens and assistants of the several companies of which they happened to be members. [Repertory 71, fos. 168-169b.] On Friday the court again met at Gresham House, when it gave orders for the ruins of the Guildhall to be cleared of all rubbish. Melted lead, iron, and such other materials as were of value were to be picked out and stored for further use. The passages to the Guildhall were to be boarded up. The chamberlain was ordered to remove his office to Gresham House; and thither also were to go the deputy town clerk and the city swordbearer, whose houses had been consumed. They were to take with them the city's records and such books and papers as were in actual use. [Id., fos. 169b, 170, 171.]

[Freemen allowed to erect tents or sheds for trade purposes in certain parts of the city.]

The next day (8 Sept.) the court gave permission for any freeman of the city to erect a tent or shed wherein to carry on his trade or craft on any part of the artillery ground, or if he so wished, either outside London wall between the postern near Broad Street and Moorgate, or within the wall between the said postern and Coleman Street. He might also erect his tent or shed in the "Round" at Smithfield. But in every case the ground was to be set out as apportioned by the mayor and sheriffs with the assistance of "Mr." [Peter] Mills. Those who had formerly kept shop in the upper "pawne" of the Royal Exchange were at the same time permitted to erect sheds under certain conditions. [Repertory 71, fo. 170b.]

[Order of Common Council for clearing rubbish from the streets, 10 Sept.]

On Monday, the 10th September, the Common Council met. It is the first court since the fire of which any record has come down to us. Its first care was to order every street and lane in each ward to be cleared of all rubbish by the late inhabitants, "every one before his grounds," and by no one else. It next proceeded to nominate a committee of aldermen and commoners to consider the best means of raising the city out of its ruins, and it was agreed that the Common Council should sit every Wednesday at Gresham House. [Journal 46, fo. 120.]

[Proclamation for the recovery of goods stolen or lost during the late fire, 19 Sept.]

When the fire was at its height the king had been anxious to send for the Duke of Albemarle, but hesitated to do so fearing lest he would be unwilling to be ordered home whilst engaged in the Dutch war. [Lord Arlington to Sir Thos. Clifford, 4 Sept., 1666.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1666-1667), p. 99.] Representations of the king's wishes, however, having been made to the duke, he hurried home. On the 12th September a committee was appointed by the Court of Aldermen to wait upon him with a draft proclamation for the discovery and restoration of goods taken either wilfully, ignorantly, or of purpose during the confusion consequent on the late fire. [Repertory 71, fo. 172. The proclamation came out on the 19th Sept.—Journal 46, fo. 124; Cal. State Papers Dom. (1666-1667), p. 140.] The quantity of plate, money, jewels, household stuff, goods and merchandise discovered among the ruins was very great, and much of it had quickly been misappropriated. The proclamation ordered all persons who had so misappropriated property to bring the same within eight days into the armoury in Finsbury Fields; and by order of the Common Council no such property was to be given up to any claimant without permission of the Court of Aldermen or the lord mayor and sheriffs for the time being. [Journal 46, fo. 121.]

[Letter from the Primate and lords to the mayor touching the property of ruined churches, 19 Oct., 1666.]

A month later (19 Oct.) a letter was addressed to the mayor signed by the archbishop of Canterbury, the lords Clarendon, Albemarle, Manchester, Arlington and others, complaining that sundry materials of city churches destroyed by the fire had been embezzled and stolen, and also that smiths' forges and other artificers' shops and even alehouses were kept within the sacred ruins. The mayor was directed, with the assistance of the Court of Aldermen, to obtain inventories of all communion plate, vestments, records, books and other goods belonging to each church that the fire had destroyed, and of all that remained to each church after the fire, and he was to cause the plate and goods that survived the fire to be preserved for future use in their respective churches. He was further directed to collect and preserve the lead, bells and other appurtenances and materials of the various churches in order to assist in repairing and re-building them, and to prohibit any trade or selling of ale, beer, tobacco or victuals within their precincts. [Original letter preserved in the Town Clerk's office.]

[Lord mayor's day shorn of its pageantry, 29 Oct., 1666.]

One effect of the fire, which was estimated at the time to have destroyed houses of the rental value of £600,000 a-year, [Pepys, Diary, 15 Sept., 1666.] was seen in the lack of pageantry which usually marked the day when the newly elected mayor proceeded to the Exchequer to be sworn. When Bludworth's successor—Sir William Bolton—went to take the oath on the 29th October, the meanness of the appearance of the civic fathers was remarked by the on-lookers, who reflected "with pity upon the poor city ... compared with what it heretofore was." [Id., 29 Oct., 1666.]

[No elections on St. Thomas's day.]

Another result was that when the day for election of members of the Common Council was approaching, the Court of Aldermen, considering how difficult it would be, if not absolutely impossible, to hold the customary wardmotes, resolved to present a Bill to Parliament for permitting the sitting members to continue in their places for the year next ensuing without any election being held.[^114]

[^114: Repertory 72, fo. 26b. The king had previously (in September?) written to the city bidding them take special care that the members to be elected in December observed the Act for regulating corporations, by which no one was allowed to be a mayor, alderman or common councilman without taking the Lord's supper, the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, etc.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1666-1667), p. 173.]

[The City's scheme for insurance against fire, 1681.]

Fourteen years after the fire (i.e., towards the close of the year 1680) the City projected a scheme for insurance against fire, and in 1681 a deed of conveyance of city lands of the estimated value of £100,000 was executed by the City to certain trustees as security to persons effecting insurances against fire. [Journal 49, fos. 224b, 254b, 255b, 267, 277, 293b. Deed preserved in Town Clerk's office (Box No. 31).—See also Printed report on Corporation Records, 16 Dec., 1869 (Appendix iii, p. 48).] That the municipal body of the city should undertake a business of insurance and thus compete with private enterprise gave rise to no little discontent among the "gentlemen of the insurance office" carrying on business "on the backside of the Royal Exchange," who claimed to have originated the idea.[^115]

[^115: See a scarce tract (preserved in the Guildhall Library, M 4, 5), entitled "Observations on the Proposals of the City to insure houses in case of fire," and printed "for the gentlemen of the insurance office on the backside of the Royal Exchange, where these papers are to be had gratis, 1681."]

CHAPTER XXIX.

[Preparations for re-building the city.]

The Great Fire had scarcely ceased smouldering before the inhabitants of the city set to work re-building their devastated houses. Information having reached the ear of the king that building operations were about to be carried out on the old foundations, he instructed Sir William Morice, secretary of state, to write to the lord mayor to put a stop to them until further orders, as his majesty had under consideration certain models and plans for re-building the city "with more decency and conveniency than formerly." [Sir William Morice to the lord mayor, 10 Sept., 1666 (original letter preserved in the Town Clerk's office).] Charles himself also wrote at the same time to the mayor and aldermen desiring them to afford every assistance to Wenceslas Hollar and Francis Sandford, whom he had appointed to make an exact survey of the city as it stood after the fire. [The king to the mayor, etc., 10 Sept., 1666.—Cal. State Papers Dom.(1666-1667), p. 111.] The civic authorities on their part instructed Robert Hooke to devise a scheme for re-building the city, and on the 21st September he presented to the Common Council "an exquisite modell or draught" which found much favour with the court. [Journal 46, fo. 121.] Early in the following month (4 Oct.) the Common Council was informed that for the greater expedition in carrying out the work of re-building the city, the king had appointed Wren and two others to make a survey, with the assistance of such surveyors and workmen as the civic authorities should nominate. The city's choice fell upon Robert Hooke, described as "Reader of the Mathematicks in Gresham Colledge," Peter Mills and Edward Jermyn or Jarman. By way of preparation for the survey, the owners of houses that had been destroyed were again ordered (9 Oct.) to clear their foundations of rubbish, and to pile up the bricks and stones within fourteen days, so that every man's property might be "more exactly measured and asserted." [Journal 46, fo. 123.]

[A special Court of Judicature created by Stat. 19 Car. II, c. 2.]

The impracticability of re-building the city except on old foundations soon become manifest, and the handsome design which Wren prepared had to be dismissed. There was difficulty enough as it was, and the four sworn viewers of the city whose duty at ordinary times was to guard against encroachments and other nuisances were unusually busy. Sometimes the old foundations proved too weak to support a new building, sometimes the new building threatened to encroach on the public thoroughfare. Such matters required the constant attention of the viewers. Disputes would also arise between the landlords and tenants of houses destroyed by the fire. In order to settle all differences that arose, a special Court of Judicature was established by Act of Parliament (31 Jan., 1667). [Stat. 19 Car. II, c. 2.] The court sat at Clifford's Inn, and the decrees signed by the judges, as well as the portraits of the judges themselves, are preserved at the Guildhall.[^116] The city authorities were very urgent in getting this Act passed, and pressed the judges to give the Bill all dispatch they could, "as a matter of principal concernment and encouragement to the great worke of re-building the citty." This their lordships promised to do. [Repertory 72, fo. 1b; Journal 46, fo. 129.]

[^116: The judgments of the court—known as "Fire Decrees"—extend from 1667 to 1673, and are contained in 9 volumes. The portraits of the judges were painted by Michael Wright, by the order of the Court of Aldermen, 19 April, 1670 (Repertory 75, fo. 160b). Warrants for the payment of the artist, and also Jeremiah Wright for painting arms and inscriptions on the frames, are preserved in the Chamberlain's office.—See Report on Corporation Records, 16 Dec., 1869, Appendix iii, p. 49.]

[Gift of £100 to the Speaker. 4 Dec., 1666.]

It was not deemed in any way derogatory in those days to give and receive presents for services either past or prospective. We need not be surprised therefore to find that whilst this and other Bills in which the City was interested were before Parliament, the Court of Aldermen voted a sum of £100 in gold as a gift to the Speaker of the House of Commons, "as a loving remembrance from this court for his many kind offices performed to the State of this citty." [Repertory 72, fo. 20b.]

[Building Act, 19 Car. II, c. 3, 1667.]

Whilst a Bill for re-building the city was being prepared for parliament the civic authorities were busy considering how to find the money necessary for re-building the Guildhall, the city's gates, the prisons and other public buildings. On the 6th November (1666) the Court of Aldermen resolved to sit every Wednesday afternoon at the house of the new lord mayor (Sir William Bolton) to consider this important question, and to continue such weekly sittings until the matter was settled. [Id., fo. 2.] It was not long before the court determined to apply to parliament for an imposition of twelve pence a chaldron on coals brought into the Port of London, wherewith to meet the expense. The advice and assistance of the solicitor-general and of Sir Job Charlton were to be solicited, and £10 in "old gold" given to each of them, in addition to "such other charges and rewards" as might be necessary for the furtherance of the business. [Repertory 72, fo. 8.] Later on the court resolved to approach the Lord Chancellor and to entreat him to recommend the City's proposals to his majesty and to the House of Lords. [Id., fo. 20b.] By the end of November the Common Council had agreed to certain "heads thought requisite to be inserted" into the Bill for re-building the city, [Journal 46, fos. 132b-133b.] and on the 29th December the Bill was brought in and read the first time.

For fear lest some of the clauses might offend the king a petition was drawn up for presentation to his majesty, in which matters were explained, and his majesty's favourable interpretation and pardon asked for anything omitted in the Bill or done amiss. [Id., fo. 136.] A report had got abroad that the City had caused a clause to be inserted in the Bill forbidding any one to engage in building operations who refused to abjure the Covenant. This made the Common Council very angry, and the mayor and sheriffs were desired to investigate the matter. [Id., fo. 137.] On the 5th February (1667) the Bill passed the Commons, and two days later received the assent of the Lords. [Journal House of Commons, viii, 689; Journal House of Lords, xii, 105.]

In the meantime the Court of Aldermen had drafted (22 Jan.) a petition to the king for permission to introduce a Bill for an impost on coals, to assist the City in re-building the conduits, aqueducts and other public works, as it had "no common stock, nor revenue, nor any capacity to raise within itself anything considerable towards so vast an expense." [Repertory 72, fos. 43b-44b; Cf. Cal. State Papers Dom. (1666-1667), p. 469.] But instead of a new Bill for this purpose, a clause was inserted in the Bill for re-building the city (Stat. 19 Car. II, c. 3), authorising such an impost as was desired. [Journal House of Commons, viii, 688.]

[Vote of thanks to the king and the Duke of York, 19 Feb., 1667.]

The Common Council directed (19 Feb.) the lord mayor, the recorder and the sheriffs to attend the king and the Duke of York with the most humble thanks of the court for the favour they had shown the City in passing the Bill, and to learn his majesty's pleasure as to the enlargement of the streets of the city in pursuance of the recent Act. [Journal 46, fo. 142.]

[Appointment of four city surveyors, 13 March, 1667.]

On the 12th March certain proposals for widening streets which had received the approval of the Common Council were submitted to Charles at a council held at Berkshire House, now Cleveland House, St. James's. On the following day they were returned to the Common Council with his majesty's recommendations and suggestions thereon. The same day (13 March), the City nominated Peter Mills, Edward Jarman, Robert Hooke and John Oliver to be surveyors and supervisors of the houses about to be re-built; the king's commissioners, Christopher Wren, Hugh May and "Mr." Prat being ordered by his majesty to afford them their best advice and assistance whenever it should be required. [Journal 46, fos. 147b-148.]

In September the king suggested the appointment of Sir William Bolton, the lord mayor, as surveyor-general for the re-building of the city. The suggestion was referred to a committee, who reported to the Common Council (25 Oct.) their opinion that there was "noe use or occasion for a surveyor-generall," as the work could be well and sufficiently managed by the surveyors already appointed.[^117]

[^117: Journal 46, fos. 170b, 189. According to the evidence of the State Papers the king appears to have suggested Bolton's appointment as surveyor-general by letters to the Common Council, dated the 31st May and the 5th June, 1667 (Cal. State Papers Dom., 1667, pp. 133, 151). It does not, however, appear to have been considered by the Common Council until the 14th Sept. There may have been good reason for the City declining to place the mayor in such a responsible position of trust, for a few weeks later (3 Dec.) he was suspected of misappropriating money subscribed to assist the poor of the city, and pending enquiry was forbidden to attend the Court of Aldermen or any public function (Repertory 73, fos. 28b, 61, 93b, 95, 95b, 107b). After bringing a charge against the Bishop of London in September, 1668, of misappropriating the sum of £50, and afterwards withdrawing, he was himself convicted in 1675 of having embezzled large sums of money intended for the poor (Repertory 73, fos. 260b, 264, 292b, 303; Repertory 80, fo. 119b). Reduced to poverty, he was granted by the City an allowance of £3 a week, which after his decease was continued to his widow (Journal 49, fo. 100b).]

[Classification of streets, lanes, etc., 21 March. 1667.]

Pursuant to the Building Act the Common Council proceeded (21 March) to parcel out the streets of the city, placing them under the several categories of "high and principal streets," "streets or lanes of note," and "by-lanes." [Journal 46, fos. 148b, 149.] The scheme met with the approval of the king and council. [Original notification from the court at Whitehall, 22 March, 1667, preserved in the Town Clerk's office.] Towards the end of the following month (29 April) a schedule was drawn up of streets and narrow passages which it was proposed to enlarge. [Journal 46, fos. 151-152.] For the next few months the authorities were busy seeing to the clearing and staking out of the various streets. [The sums of money disbursed by the chamberlain between June and November, 1667, for this purpose are kept on record.—See Report on Corporation Records, 1869, Appendix iii, "Chamberlain's Strong Room."] In September the Common Council resolved that the new street which it was proposed to make from the Guildhall to Cheapside should be called King Street, whilst its continuation from Cheapside to the river should be known as Queen Street. [Journal 46, fo. 172.]

[Allotment of market sites.]

A fresh distribution of markets and market places was proposed (21 Oct.). [Id., fos. 187b-188.] Three markets and no more were to be allotted for the sale of flesh and other victuals brought into the city by country butchers and farmers, viz., Leadenhall and the Greenyard for the east end of the city, Honey Lane for the centre, and a market near Warwick Lane, which was to take the place of Newgate Market, for the west end. Two places were to be assigned for herb and fruit markets, viz., the site of the king's wardrobe (if the king would give his consent) and the ground whereon recently had stood the church of St. Laurence Pulteney. The markets formerly held in Aldersgate Street and Gracechurch Street were to be discontinued. A place was to be found at or near Christ Church as a site for the meat market, hitherto kept in Newgate market. These suggestions were with slight alteration accepted in the following February (1668), when provision was also made for a fish market on the site of the ancient stocks and the Woolchurch and churchyard. [Journal 46, fos. 210, 210b.] On the 23rd Oct. (1667) the king went in state into the city to lay "the first stone of the first pillar of the new building of the Exchange." [Pepys, Diary.]

[The coal duty raised to 2 s. a chaldron. 1670. Stat. 22 Car. II, c. 11.]

The impost of twelve pence a chaldron on coals brought into the port of London was soon found inadequate to meet the expense of re-building the Guildhall, the prisons and other public edifices of the city, and in 1670 it was raised by statute (22 Car. II, c. 11) to two shillings a chaldron. Great irregularities, however, were allowed to take place in collecting and accounting for the duty thus imposed, and between 1667 and 1673 the City was obliged to borrow no less than £83,000. [Journal 47, fos. 2b, 20b, 43b, 72-73, 146b, 291.—See Report on Corporation Records, 16 Dec., 1869, Appendix iii, p. 49.] In March, 1667, the Court of Aldermen resolved that all fines paid by persons to be discharged from the office of alderman between that day and Midsummer next should be devoted to the restoration of the Guildhall and the Justice Hall, Old Bailey. [Repertory 72, fo. 81b.] Not only money but material also was required to enable the City to carry out its building operations. To this end a Bill was introduced into parliament to facilitate the City's manufacture of lime, brick and tile. [Journal 46, fo. 129b; Journal House of Commons, viii, 654, 657.] A sub-tenant of the City holding five acres of land in the parish of St. Giles in the Fields obtained permission from the Court of Aldermen to "digg and cast upp the said ground for the making of bricke any covenant or clause in the lease of the said ground to the contrary notwithstanding." [Repertory 72, fo. 6b.] Application was made to Charles for liberty to fetch Portland stone for the City's use, but this was refused as the stone was required for works at Whitehall. [The officers of the works to the king, May (?), 1667.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1667), p. 140.]

[The Dutch fleet in the Medway, June, 1667.]

In the meanwhile negotiations for a peace had been opened at Breda. The Londoners more especially desired peace ["Towards noon I to the Exchange, and there do hear mighty cries for peace."—Pepys, Diary, 9 April, 1667.] in order to devote their energies to re-building their city. In anticipation of a cessation of hostilities Charles set about discharging his navy, leaving the Thames and Medway open to attack. The Dutch took advantage of his precipitancy and at once sailed up the Medway, burnt three men-of-war, among them being the "Loyal London," and carried off a fourth. [John Conny, surgeon, to Williamson, 14 June.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1667), pp. 187-188; Pepys, Diary, 13 June, 1667.] This took place in June (1667). The city never presented so dejected an appearance as on the arrival of the news of this disgrace. The cry of treason was raised and endeavours made to fasten the blame upon any one and every one. The Dutch fleet was every hour expected up the Thames, ["We do not hear that the Dutch are come to Gravesend, which is a wonder."—Pepys, Diary, 14 June.] and vessels were sunk in the bed of the channel at Barking, Woolwich and Blackwall to stop its progress. But so great was the confusion that one of the king's store ships for victualling the navy is said to have been sunk among the rest, as well as vessels that had been fitted out as fire-ships at great expense. The Common Council interposed on behalf of interested owners of merchandise on board the ship "Diana," lying in the Thames, to prevent if possible the sinking of that vessel. [Journal 46, fo. 163.]

[Auxiliaries raised in the city, 13 June, 1667.]

The Common Council ordered (13 June) every able-bodied man in the city forthwith to enlist, and resolved to petition the king that the auxiliaries then to be raised might remain as a guard to the city. [Id., ibid.] The same day the city's militia was reviewed by Charles himself on Tower Hill. He addressed them in a speech assuring them that he would personally share their danger. But here, too, was confusion and lack of organization. "The city is troubled at their being put upon duty," wrote Pepys (14 June), "summoned one hour and discharged two hours after: and then again summoned two hours after that; to their great charge as well as trouble."

[The Dutch fleet retires, 19 June.]

Above all there was a lack of money to pay the seamen. Had the Dutch fleet sailed up the Thames immediately after its success at Chatham, instead of wasting its time at Portsmouth and Plymouth and other places on the south coast, matters would have gone hard with the capital. As it was the delay gave time for recovery from the recent scare and for measures to be taken against its approach, with the result that after getting up the river as far as Tilbury it was compelled to retire. ["The enemy drew off last night: none are now in view." John Conny to Williamson, 20 June.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1667). p. 217.]

[A City loan of £10,000 for fortifying Sheerness, 21 June, 1667.]

On the morning of the 20th June the Dutch fleet was believed to be sailing homewards, but by midday news arrived of its appearance off Harwich, which was threatened with an immediate attack. [Silas Taylor to Williamson, 20 June.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1667), p. 217 Tb.] The next day (21 June) the mayor and aldermen obeyed a summons to attend upon the king in council, when, a proposal having been made to fortify Sheerness and other places on the river, they agreed to raise the sum of £10,000 for the purpose. [Repertory 72. fos. 124, 126b, 135b, 146. Letter to the mayor, 1 July—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1667), p. 256. The king to the same, 12, 20 and 29 July.—Id., pp. 288, 310, 339.] That the government should be driven to borrow so small a sum excited the contempt of Pepys, who thought it "a very poor thing that we should be induced to borrow by such mean sums." That the City could afford no more is not surprising when we consider what had been the state of trade during the last three years. As it was the money was paid by small instalments. The coffers of the city merchant or goldsmith keeping "running cashes" were well nigh empty, and the credit of some of the best men was shaken.[^118]

[^118: Sir Robert Vyner himself was called upon to give security for deposits left in his hands by the Duke of Albemarle and others—"no good sign when they begin to fear the main."—Pepys, Diary, 17 June, 1667.]

[The companies of Masons and Bricklayers to furnish workmen.]

There was another difficulty besides the want of money. There was a deficiency of workmen to carry out the works at Sheerness. Application was accordingly made to the wardens of the several companies of masons and bricklayers to furnish able men so that the fortifications might be completed before the cold weather came on. [The king to the lord mayor, 22 Aug.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1667), p. 408.]

[The Treaty of Breda signed, 31 July, 1667.]

At last negotiations for a peace were concluded and the Treaty of Breda was signed (31 July). The peace was proclaimed at Temple Bar in the presence of the lord mayor on St. Bartholomew's Day (24 Aug.).

The bells were set ringing in honour of the event, but there were no bonfires at night "partly"—writes Pepys—"from the dearness of firing, but principally from the little content most people have in the peace." Yet the terms of the treaty were not wholly ruinous to the country. England, at least, gained New York, hitherto known as New Amsterdam.

[Report on state of the City's Chamber, 23 Nov., 1668.]

The lull in the storm afforded the municipal authorities an opportunity of taking stock of their own Chamber. To this end a committee was appointed on the 12th February, 1668. For nine months that committee was employed examining the state of the City's finances, and then had not finished their task. Nevertheless, on the 23rd November they made a report to the Common Council of the result of their labours so far as they had gone. [Journal 46, fo. 251.] The state of the Chamber, they said, was so low that it would require the utmost care and industry to restore it and save it from utter decay and ruin, "for what by misemployment of the treasure in the late troubles and other ill managements," as well as by extraordinary expenses occasioned by the Plague and Fire, the City's debt had still increased notwithstanding its income having been largely augmented by fines of aldermen and chamber and bridge-house leases, which within the last fifteen years had exceeded £200,000. It was clear that when these extraordinary accessories to the City's income ceased—and they had already begun to decline—the City's debt would increase and would indeed become desperate unless some remedy were found. The committee, therefore, made certain suggestions with the view of cutting down expenses. The City Chronologer,[^119] in the first place, could be dispensed with altogether. The salary of the City Waits, which had lately been increased, should be reduced to its former amount. Some saving might be made in allowance of stationery in the various offices, in expenses attending Courts of Conservancy, in allowance of boots to City labourers and artificers. The personal expenses of the City's Remembrancer for diet, coach hire, boat hire, etc., should be no longer allowed; and the Chamber should not be called upon to make any disbursement for military purposes beyond the sum of £4,666 13s. 4d., for which the City was yearly liable by Act of Parliament. Lastly, neither the court of Aldermen nor the court of Common Council ought to have power to draw upon the Chamber for a sum exceeding £500, except it were in connection with the re-building of the Guildhall and other specified objects. These and other recommendations of the committee, being carefully considered by the court, were for the most part accepted with certain amendments.

[^119: What his duties were is a matter of surmise. The office was successively held by Thomas Middleton, Ben Jonson and Francis Quarles. Ben Jonson's salary (100 nobles per annum) was stopped in 1631 by order of the Court of Aldermen "until he shall have presented to the court some fruits of his labours in that place" (Repertory 46, fo. 8); but it was renewed in 1634 at the intervention of the king (Repertory 48, fo. 433). Further particulars relating to holders of this office will be found fully recorded in the printed Index to Remembrancia (p. 305, note).]

[Alderman Backwell.]

On the other hand there was due to the city's Chamber no less a sum than £77,409 6s. 6d. for principal and interest on former loans to the king. This sum Alderman Backwell undertook himself to pay to the City, accepting a transfer of the Treasury Bills in the hands of the City Chamberlain. The Common Council was only too ready to accept the offer. [Journal 46, fo. 252.] Edward Backwell, alderman of Bishopsgate Ward, was one of those city princes whose wealth brought them into close relation with the Crown. A goldsmith by trade, he, like others of his class, took to keeping "running cashes" and transacting generally the business of a banker at his house known as the "Unicorn" in Lombard Street. Pepys mentions him frequently in his Diary. In the days of the Commonwealth he was paymaster of the garrison at Dunkirk, and continued to act as financial agent in all matters connected with that town until it was sold to the French king. His house in Lombard Street having perished in the Great Fire, he was, by the king's special command, accommodated with lodgings in Gresham College, in order that his business relations with the king might not be interrupted pending the re-building of his premises. [The king to Dr. Goddard, 10 Sept., 1666.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1666-1667), p. 112.]

[The rights of the mayor within the precincts of the Temple.]

In March, 1669, a riot occurred in the Temple on the occasion of the mayor and aldermen going to dine with the reader of the Inner Temple. The question whether the Temple is situate within the city and liberties or not was then a debateable one, whatever it may be at the present day. The lord mayor of that time (William Turner) evidently thought that it lay within his jurisdiction, and insisted upon being preceded by the city's sword-bearer carrying the sword up. To this the students strongly objected. The story, as told by Pepys, is to the effect that on Wednesday, 3rd March, "my lord mayor being invited this day to dinner at the readers at the Temple, and endeavouring to carry his sword up, the students did pull it down, and forced him to go and stay all the day in a private counsellor's chamber until the reader himself could get the young gentlemen to dinner; and then my lord mayor did retreat out of the Temple by stealth with his sword up. This do make great heat among the students, and my lord mayor did send to the king, and also I hear that Sir Richard Browne did cause the drums to beat for the trained bands; but all is over, only I hear that the students do resolve to try the charter of the city." From a draft report [Preserved in the Town Clerk's office.] of the incident which was probably made for the purpose of being laid before the Council Board, [Repertory, 74, fo. 116.] we learn that as soon as the civic procession entered the Temple cloisters it was met by a man named Hodges and others coming down the back stairs of the Inner Temple Hall; that Hodges threatened the lord mayor if he would not take down his sword, declaring that the Temple was excepted out of the city's charter, that the sword was not the king's sword, but the lord mayor's, and that "they were as good men as he, and no respect was to be given him there." A struggle then took place for the possession of the sword, in which the sword-bearer was slightly hurt and some of the pearls from the scabbard were lost. The students made a snatch at the "cap of maintenance" worn by the sword-bearer. The marshal's men who were in attendance suffered some rough treatment, and narrowly escaped being put under the pump. The mayor and aldermen in the meanwhile sought refuge in the chambers of Mr. Auditor Phillips, and awaited the return of Sir John Nicholas, who with the recorder and the sheriffs had been despatched to Whitehall to report the matter to the king. As soon as they returned the mayor and aldermen essayed to make their way out of the Temple, but were again opposed by the students, with Hodges at their head. The scene was one of wild excitement and confusion; blows were showered upon the aldermen, and one of the sheriffs was seized by the collar in the frantic attempts of the students to pull down the sword. The mayor and aldermen were called "cuckolds," and their officers "dogs, rogues, rascals and other very bad names." Some of the students are said to have had weapons concealed under their gowns, and to have threatened to draw them. The sheriffs, the recorder and Sir John Nicholas having again been sent to the king, it was intimated to the mayor by some of the benchers, and by Mr. Goodfellow, the Reader, at whose invitation the civic fathers were in the Temple, that he might now leave without any interruption (the "young gentlemen," according to Pepys, had been persuaded to go to dinner), which, after some display of opposition, he was allowed to do. Such is the City's own version of the affair, which concludes with the remark "that the proceedings aforesaid were greatly affrontive and dishonourable to the government of the city," a remark with which most people will be disposed to agree. Nor is it surprising to find that two years later the mayor and aldermen declined a similar invitation from Sir Francis North to attend his "feast" at the Temple, more especially as another disturbance was threatened if the sword should be borne up before his lordship. [8 Aug., 1671.—Repertory 76, fo. 216b.]

[Secret treaty of Dover, 1 June, 1670.]

In July, 1670—at a time when the City could ill afford to part with money—the king sent to borrow £60,000. [2 July.—Journal 47, fo. 55; Letter Book XX, fo. 46.] He had recently entered into a secret treaty with France (1 June), whereby he had pledged himself to assist the French king in subjugating Holland, in return for pecuniary support. The City agreed to advance the money, but in order to raise the sum required it became necessary to draw upon the coal dues. [Repertory 75, fo. 268, 289.] Much opposition was raised to the loan by the inhabitants, [Id., fo. 296b.] so that in November it became necessary for the city Chamberlain to borrow at interest more than £1,000 to complete the loan. [Repertory 76, fo. 9b.] In addition to the loan by the City Charles obtained considerable supplies from parliament when it met in the autumn. The House had been kept in complete ignorance of the arrangement that had been made with France, and voted the money on the understanding that it would be used in assisting the Dutch against Louis and not Louis against the Dutch.

[The Prince of Orange entertained in the city, Dec., 1670.]

In order to keep up the illusion Charles treated the Prince of Orange (afterwards William III of England), who was on a visit to this country at the time, with the highest consideration and insisted on the lord mayor giving "hand and place" to his foreign guest (contrary to city custom) at an entertainment given by the City in the prince's honour.[^120]

[^120: Original letters on the subject from the Earl of Manchester to the lord mayor, 4 and 5 Dec., preserved in the Town Clerk's office.—Cf. Journal 47, fos. 74-74b; Repertory 76, fos. 17, 27, 28-29; Letter Book XX, fo. 61.]

[The Exchequer stops payment, 2 Jan., 1672.]

As soon as parliament had voted supplies it was prorogued (11 Dec.), Charles and his "cabal" being determined to have no restraint put upon them in carrying out the terms of the shameful treaty with France. No long time elapsed before they had to face the difficulty of an empty exchequer. It was useless to declare war without funds. Charles was at his wits' end for money and promised high office to any one who should point out a successful way of raising it. Clifford and Ashley, two members of the cabal, put their heads together and hit upon the bold plan of declaring a moratorium, or suspension of payments out of the royal exchequer. For many years past it had been the custom for the goldsmiths of London and others who had been in the habit of keeping the money of private individuals, either on deposit or running account, to lend it to the king, who could afford to pay them a higher rate of interest than they paid to their private customers. The money was paid into the exchequer, the bankers taking assignments of the public revenue for payment of principal and interest, as it came in. Most of this money had already been spent by Charles in paying off the fleet that brought him over, and in carrying on the late war with the Dutch; [Burnet, "Hist. of His Own Time," i, 560. Burnet omits to mention the sums lavished on his mistresses and illegitimate children.] but the bankers and capitalists who had provided the money were content to abide by the king's frequent assurance that he would continue to make good all assignments until their whole debt should be wiped out. We may judge therefore of their surprise and disappointment when they learnt, as they did on the 2nd January, 1672, that the king proposed to suspend all payments out of the public revenue for one whole year!

[London bankers brought to bankruptcy.]

It is true that he promised to add the interest then due to the capital and to allow six per cent. interest on the whole as some compensation to his creditors for the delay; but this, even if carried into practice, proved unavailing to ward off disaster. The inevitable crash came. Many of the London bankers, and among them Alderman Backwell, who held revenue assignments exceeding a quarter of a million sterling, were made utterly bankrupt. A few of them who had interest at court got wind of the threatened danger and managed to withdraw their money from the exchequer in time, whilst Shaftesbury, one of the prime movers in closing the exchequer, foreseeing the inevitable result, took all of his own money out of his banker's hands and warned his friends to do the same.

[Declaration of war with the Dutch, 17 March, 1672.]

The exchequer having been in this way made richer by £1,300,000, Charles was prepared to declare war. An attempt to intercept a fleet of Dutch merchantmen before any declaration of war had been made—a piratical act admitting of no possible justification—brought matters to a climax and war was declared (17 March, 1672) by England and France. The 27th March was appointed by royal proclamation to be kept as a solemn fast for the purpose of begging the Almighty's blessing on his majesty's forces, the same prayers being used as had been specially ordained for the late war. [Proclamation dated 22 March; precept of the lord mayor dated 24 March.—Journal 47, fos. 168b, 171b.]

[Parliament and the Test Act, 1673.]

The war, which was chiefly remarkable for the noble stand made by the Dutch under the young William, Prince of Orange, Charles's own nephew and afterwards King of England, soon drained the king's resources, and once more he had to face a parliament. The parliament, which met on the 4th February, 1673, showed itself willing to vote a subsidy of £70,000 a month for a period of eighteen months, but only on its own terms. These were (1) the repeal of the Declaration of Indulgence which Charles, who was beginning to show signs of favouring the Roman Church, had by a stretch of prerogative recently caused to be issued, and (2) the passing of a Test Act which should bind all public officers to take the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, receive the sacrament, and abjure the doctrine of transubstantiation. By this means parliament hoped to maintain the supremacy of the Church.

[The City in arrears with assessments.]

The assessments which the City was now called upon to pay were far beyond its powers, seeing that many merchants and traders who had left the city at the time of the Plague and Fire refused to return, preferring to live in the suburbs, and thus a large number of the houses that had recently been re-built were left unoccupied. Every exertion was made to get some remission of the burden, but although the king signified his intention of making some abatement, little appears to have been done. [Repertory 78, fos. 95b. 98b, 136b; Journal 47, fo. 264b; Letter Book XX, fo. 205b.]

[Cardonel's proposals for raising money by annuities.]

In March of this year (1673) an individual named Philip De Cardonel came forward with a scheme for raising money by way of annuities to be granted by the city to every subscriber of £20 or more.[^121] The matter was in the first instance brought before the Court of Aldermen, who, upon consideration, declared that the proposal appeared to them "very faire and reasonable, and in all likelihood of very great advantage to the city," and forthwith resolved themselves into a committee of the whole court to treat with Cardonel and take such further proceedings as might be thought requisite. [Repertory 78, fos. 120, 123b.] In the following month (11 April) the same proposals were submitted to the Common Council, where they met with similar favour. The court also appointed a committee to take them into further consideration, promising in the meantime that no advantage should be taken or benefit derived from the scheme without the special leave and consent of the proposer. [Journal 47, fo. 265.] Although the committee reported favourably on the scheme [The committee's report, though dated 20 Oct., 1673, did not come before the Common Council until May in the following year.—Journal 48, fo. 52b.] it was allowed to drop.

[^121: "An advertisemt and demonstracon concerning ye improvemt of monies to ye great benefitt and advantage of all persons of wt nacon, sex, age, degree or quality soever, willing to advance any sume or sumes according to ye method herein after menconed, propounded to ye right honoble, the lord maior, aldermen and commons in Common Councell assembled."—Journal 48, fos. 52b-56.]

[The City's petition to parliament for relief, Feb., 1674.]

By February of the next year (1674) trade had become so bad that a number of the inhabitants of the city petitioned the Common Council (13 Feb.) to seek some relief from parliament. An address was accordingly drawn up, setting forth the miserable state to which the city had been reduced by the ravages of the plague and the fire, the increase of new buildings in the suburbs, which not only injured the trade of the city, but afforded a retreat for disorderly persons, and excessive taxation (the city being called upon to pay the same amount of taxes as in its most prosperous days), and praying the Commons to apply some timely remedy. The address was to have been laid before the house on Monday, the 23rd February, [Journal 48, fos. 19, 23b; Letter Book YY, fos. 15, 19b.] but no mention of it appears in the Commons Journal. On the 24th the House was prorogued.

[The question of aldermanic veto again raised, Sept., 1674.]

In September (1674) the old question again cropt up as to the power of the Court of Aldermen to veto matters ordained by the Common Council. The question had arisen, it will be remembered, in January, 1649, [Objection appears to have been raised for the first time four years before (Jan., 1645).—Repertory 57 (Pt. 2), fo. 45b; Journal 40, fo. 121b.] when Reynardson, the mayor, got up and left the Common Council, followed by the aldermen, and the court, instead of breaking up according to custom, proceeded to pass measures in their absence. Its action on this occasion was reported to parliament, and the house signified its approval of the court's proceedings and passed an ordinance which practically deprived the Court of Aldermen of all control over the Common Council. Since that time the matter had remained dormant, until jealousy between the two bodies was again excited by the Common Council passing an Act (17 Sept., 1674) for compelling the aldermen to reside within the city under the penalty of a fine of £500. [Journal 48, fo. 90b; Letter Book YY, fo. 62b.] Against the passing of any such Act the Recorder, on behalf of the Court of Aldermen, formally reported their protest to the Common Council, and the Commons as formerly protested against that protest (13 Nov.). [Journal 48, fo. 122; Letter Book YY, fo. 71b.]

It was not that the mayor and aldermen were not fully conscious of the mischief arising from their own non-residence in the city, for they themselves passed an order for every alderman to return with his family into the city before the following Easter on pain of heavy penalty, [Repertory 80, fos. 17b-18.] but they objected to the court of Common Council presuming to dictate to them.

[Report to Court of Aldermen re veto, 20 Oct., 1674.]

In the meantime the Court of Aldermen had appointed a committee (24 Sept.) to examine the question of the right of veto, and this committee had reported (20 Oct.) in favour of the court. [Repertory 79, fos. 377, 405b-407b.] "We find," said the committee, "that the court of Common Council hath always consisted, and still it doth, of three distinct degrees of persons, viz., of the lord mayor in the first place as the chefe magistrate, and secondly of the aldermen as subordinate magistrates, and thirdly of the commons, or of a select number of the commons representing all the commoners of the said city as now is, and for a long time before hath been used." In this respect the committee proceeded to say, "the Common Councill of the city doth much resemble the constitution of the Common Council of the kingdom, and we further find that the order of proceeding in the making of lawes for the good government of the citty doth imitate the paterne sett them by the High Court of Parliament, in making lawes for the government of the nation, in regard that noe ordinance made in the Common Councell of this city can be a binding law to any without the joint consent and concurrence of the Lord Mayor, Court of Aldermen and commoners in Common Councell assembled, they having a joynt power and equal authority in making of lawes. So that the mayor and aldermen cannot impose upon the commoners, nor e converso; each degree having a power to dissent or assent as to them seems best."

The committee next pointed out how Bills for the better government of the city had formerly originated for the most part with the mayor and aldermen, and had been by them transmitted to the Common Council, where, after being read in two several courts (and not twice in one court) and assented to, they became complete acts and binding laws. Such had been the usual and salient practice. Nevertheless, the committee had found that sometimes the Common Council had petitioned the Court of Aldermen for redress of certain grievances and the latter had complied with such petitions, "and so sometimes Acts of Common Council have been made at the desire of the lord mayor and aldermen signifyed to the commons by the Recorder." The conclusion that the committee arrived at was that "the lord mayor and aldermen have negative votes as the commoners also have, and contrary to this order of proceeding in making Acts of Common Council wee cannot find any presedent."

On the 13th November a joint Committee of Aldermen and Commoners was appointed by the Common Council to search the city's Records as to "the respective privileges of the lord mayor and aldermen and of the commons in Common Council assembled, and of the most ancient and decent method in making laws within this citty," and to report thereon. [Journal 48, fo. 122.] Four days later (17 Nov.) the Court of Aldermen instructed their committee to make further search on the question. [Repertory 80, fo. 17.]

[The conduct of Jeffreys the Common Sergeant, 12 March, 1675.]

[Ordered to be suspended from office.]

Matters were brought to a crisis on the 12th March, 1675, when the mayor and aldermen, dissatisfied with the proceedings of the court of Common Council, got up and left the court. The Common Sergeant—the notorious George Jeffreys—refusing to follow the example set by the Common Sergeant in 1649, remained behind, and went so far as to put a question to the court of which the mayor and aldermen had previously disapproved. For this he was shortly afterwards called to account. His defence was that he only obeyed the wishes of the majority; but this being deemed unsatisfactory, the Court of Aldermen ordered him to be suspended from office. [Id., fo. 130b.]

[Offers an apology which is deemed unsatisfactory, 23 March.]

[The matter referred to the king.]

He afterwards (23 March) offered an apology to the Court of Aldermen for his conduct, confessing "that the question by him put at the last Common Council after the lord mayor was out of the chair was altogether irregular," and asked pardon. His apology, so far as it went, was accepted in good part by the court, but upon some explanation being asked of him as to his not refusing to put a question when commanded to refuse, and his offering to put another question at the request of some members of the council, he desired to be allowed time before he made answer. [Repertory 80, fo. 143b.] Meanwhile the dispute between the Aldermen and Common Council had been brought to the notice of the king, [Id., fo. 131b.] who, with his brother the Duke of York, had recently received the freedom of the City. [Journal 48, fos. 122, 123, 129; Letter Book YY, fos, 71b, 72b, 75b; Repertory 80, fo. 18b.]

[Jeffreys questioned by the king, 29 March, 1675.]

[The king recommends his restoration to office.]

A week later (30 March) the Recorder, John Howell, reported to the Court of Aldermen [Repertory 80, fos. 152-153b.] that he and the Common Sergeant had by command appeared before his majesty the previous day touching the unhappy difference existing between the Aldermen and the Common Council; that the Common Sergeant being asked to whom it devolved to put the question on a debate in council, had in the Recorder's hearing replied to the effect "that the question had always been used to be put by the lord mayor or by his lordship's appointment and not otherwise, so far as he had observed," and he had never known the matter disputed; that he had then likewise declared to his majesty that he was "sorry for his deportment at the last Common Council, saying that what he did was a sudden act and rashly done without any intention to make any disturbance, and that he would freely acknowledge the same wheresoever his majesty should command him"; that therefore his majesty had commanded the Recorder to acquaint the court that the best expedient he could suggest, as the case stood, for a settlement of the difficulty, was that the old order of things should be re-established, that (among other things) the suspension of the Common Sergeant should be removed, and that the books and records of the city should be searched by six such aldermen as the lord mayor should appoint, and six such commoners as the Common Council should appoint, in order to satisfy themselves of the respective privileges of the lord mayor and aldermen and commons in Common Council assembled, and to settle the same in a quiet and peaceable manner if they could. Failing this his majesty would appoint a judge to arbitrate in the matter.

[Jeffreys restored, 30 March, 1675.]

The court followed the king's suggestion so far as related to the Common Sergeant, and having listened to his expressions of regret for his late conduct, and his assurances that he would always endeavour to "promote the honour and government of the city," it removed his suspension.

[City Records defective.]

As regards the real issue between the two Courts of Aldermen and Common Council, matters remained much as they were before. Although the Court of Aldermen gave orders (12 April) that the proceedings relative to the dispute between the two courts should be faithfully recorded, the minutes of the Common Council at this period are particularly lacking in information as well on this as on other matters in which the City was concerned.[^122]

[^122: Repertory 80, fo. 154. On the 26th October of this year the Court of Aldermen directed a narrative to be drawn up of what had taken place in the Common Council on the preceding day.—Id., fo. 313b. No such narrative, however, appears to have been drawn up, and on turning to the Journal we find no minute of any court of Common Council held on the 25th October.]

[Standing counsel for the Court of Aldermen.]

One result of the contretemps which had occurred in the court of Common Council of the 12th March was that the Court of Aldermen resolved to retain certain counsel to advise them as occasion should arise on the question of their rights and privileges, and to create a fund by subscription among themselves to meet the necessary expenses. [Repertory 80, fo. 130.]

[Further search to be made amongst the city's archives touching rights of mayor and aldermen.]

In April the Town Clerk and the four clerks of the outer court (i.e. mayor's court) were instructed to search the books and records of the city on the question whether or not it was the province of the lord mayor (1) to direct and put the question in the Common Council, (2) to name committees, and (3) to nominate persons to be put in election to any office. [Id., fo. 174.] This last point especially affected the right claimed by the mayor to nominate (if not to elect) one of the sheriffs by virtue of his prerogative—a claim which had already been more than once canvassed and which was destined shortly to bring the City and the Crown into violent opposition.

[The opinion of counsel on the question of aldermanic veto, 1675-1678.]

On the 7th September, 1675, the Court of Aldermen directed that the opinion of counsel should be taken on the power of the mayor and aldermen to put their veto on matters passed by the Common Council. [Id., fo. 269b.] After the lapse of fifteen months the opinions of Sir William Jones, the attorney-general, Sir Francis Winnington, solicitor-general, Sir John Maynard and Sir Francis Pemberton, sergeants-at-law, and of "Mr. William Steele" (not a former Recorder of that name as some have supposed [Printed report on negative voice of mayor and aldermen, 1724, p. 2. The Recorder, William Steele, had been made chief baron in 1655.]) were presented to the court (5 Dec., 1676); [Repertory 82, fos. 28-33b.] and with the exception of the last mentioned, all the lawyers declared in favour of the mayor and aldermen. There the matter was allowed to rest for a year or more until in February, 1678, the opinions of Sir William Dolben, not long since appointed the city's Recorder, and of Jeffreys, the Common Sergeant, who was destined in a few months to succeed Dolben on the latter's promotion to the bench, were taken and found to coincide with the opinions already delivered with the exception of that of William Steele. [Repertory 83, fos. 117b-123.]

[A cry for war against France, 1678.]

[A City loan of £100,000, afterwards raised to £150,000.]

[Parliamentary vote of £200,000 for disbandment of the army, 4 June.]

[Peace of Nimeguen, 31 July, 1678.]

In the meantime Charles had concluded a separate treaty with the Dutch (19 Feb., 1674), who continued to struggle manfully against the French king, with such assistance as they derived from the emperor and the German states. The Commons were fearful of entrusting the king with either money or troops lest he should employ them against the Dutch, or against their own liberties. The successes of Louis at length provoked a general cry for war against France, and the Commons went so far as to pass a bill (8 March, 1678) imposing a poll tax as part of the supply. [Journal House of Commons, ix, 451.] Charles lost no time in applying to the City for the sum of £100,000 on the security of this tax, and the court of Common Council signified its readiness to advance the money (9 April). [Journal 48, fo. 374.] Finding that parliament hesitated to furnish the supplies it had voted, and without which he assured the members he would have to lay up the fleet and disband some of the newly raised forces, Charles applied to the City for another £50,000. This, too, was granted (14 May); [Journal 48, fo. 380.] and Charles, in order to show his displeasure with the Commons, resorted to his usual tactics and prorogued parliament, but only for ten days. [Journal House of Commons, ix, 480.] A few days after the Commons had again met they resolved (27 May) that if the king would declare war against France they would give him their hearty support, otherwise they would at once proceed to take into consideration the speedy disbandment of the army. [Journal House of Commons, ix, 483.] The king refusing to declare war, parliament proceeded (4 June) to carry out its threat and voted the sum of £200,000 for the disbandment of all the forces that had been raised since the 29th September, 1677.[^123] The disbandment did not take place, however, but in its stead a force was despatched to Holland. Scarcely had it arrived before the peace of Nimeguen was signed.

[^123: Journal House of Commons, ix, 488, 490, 491, 495. According to Burnet ("Hist. of His Own Time," ii, 173, 174), the House refused to entrust the money to Charles, but directed that it should be paid into the Chamber of London, and named a committee for "breaking" the army.]

[The Popish plot, 1678.]

Just when the war was brought so unexpectedly to an end Charles signified his desire for another loan by the City to the extent of £200,000. The matter was brought to the notice of the Common Council on the last day of July, and on the 1st August the lord mayor issued his precept to the aldermen of the several wards to invite subscriptions. [Journal 48, fos. 406, 408.] For what purpose the money was required we are not told. It was generally feared that the king meditated a suppression of the liberties of his subjects by the introduction of foreign troops. This fear was enhanced by the knowledge that if Charles died the crown would fall to his brother, an uncompromising Catholic. The public mind became so unhinged that every breath or rumour created the greatest trepidation. Within a fortnight after the City had signified its assent to the last loan the nation was suddenly surprised by some words let drop by Dr. Tonge, the weak and credulous rector of St. Michael's, Wood Street, and the tool of the infamous Titus Oates. A Popish plot was, he said, on foot and the king's life in danger, in proof of which he produced documentary evidence. Oates, the prime mover in starting the idea of a plot, was ready in the most shameless way with depositions to corroborate all that Tonge had said. These depositions he made before a Middlesex magistrate, Sir Edmondesbury Godfrey. The next morning Godfrey's corpse was found lying in a ditch near Primrose Hill. All London was wild with excitement and jumped to the conclusion that the Middlesex Justice had met a violent death for listening to Oates's evidence, although there is reason for believing him to have fallen by his own hands. The cry against Papists continued unabated for years. [Journal 49, fos. 1-14b, 76, 84, 87b, 153, etc.] The city presented the appearance of a state of siege with its gates kept closed, its streets protected with posts and chains, and an armed watch kept by night and day. [Journal 49, fo. 152b; Repertory 84, fo. 4b.] In October, when according to custom the king was to be invited to the lord mayor's banquet, the Recorder was instructed to congratulate his majesty upon his recent escape and to make arrangements for a deputation to wait upon him in person.[^124]

[^124: Journal 48, fo. 410. Charles was very fond of viewing the pageants on lord mayor's day.—Repertory 77, fos. 270-280b; Repertory 78, fos. 285b, 320, 323b; Repertory 79, fos. 402, 404b; Repertory 80, fos. 295b, 303b; Repertory 81, fo. 329b; Journal 48, fos. 332, 336.]

[The dissolution of the Cavalier Parliament, 24 Jan., 1679.]

When parliament met on the 21st of this month it passed a new Test Act rigidly excluding all Catholics from both Houses. Five Catholic peers were committed to the Tower, and Coleman, the secretary of the Duchess of York, was tried and executed for having in his possession papers betraying a design for forcing the Roman Catholic religion on the nation. It next proceeded to impeach Danby for having been concerned in certain money transactions between Charles and the king of France. Knowing the danger likely to arise from such an investigation, Charles dissolved (24 Jan., 1679) the parliament, which had now sat for more than seventeen years.

[The first short parliament, 6 March-27 May, 1679.]

When the elections for the new parliament were over it was found that the opposition to the king was greater than ever. Of the city members who had sat in the last parliament only one—Alderman Love—was returned, the remaining seats being taken by Alderman Sir Robert Clayton, Sir Thomas Player, the city chamberlain, and Thomas Pilkington, afterwards elected alderman of the ward of Farringdon Without. This second parliament—the first of a series of short parliaments—in Charles's reign met on the 6th March, 1679, but was suddenly dissolved on the 27th May in order to stop the progress of an Exclusion Bill depriving the Duke of York of his right of succession to the crown.[^125] It left its mark, however, on the statute book by passing the Habeas Corpus Act. It also voted a sum exceeding £200,000 for disbandment of the forces raised since Michaelmas, 1677. [Journal House of Commons, ix, 597-8.] Just a week before parliament dissolved the Court of Aldermen was asked (20 May) to forward an address thanking both Houses for their care in securing the personal safety of the king and maintaining the Protestant religion. The address was referred back in order to include the king in the vote of thanks, and was then submitted (23 May) to the Common Council for approval. That body made a further amendment by adding the words: "The Protestant religion according to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England as it is now established by law." [Repertory 84, fos. 122b-124; Journal 49, fo. 41b.]

[^125: During the debate on the Bill, Pilkington had expressed a hope that the duke, who was abroad at the time, would return in order that he might be impeached for high treason.—See "Debates of the House of Commons from the year 1667 to the year 1694, collected by the Honble. Anchitell Grey, Esq...." (London, 1763), vii, 238.]

[The king's illness and recovery, Aug.-Sept., 1679.]

In August the king was confined to his bed with a fever so violent that it was deemed advisable to send for his brother the Duke of York. He recovered however; and on the 11th September a deputation of city aldermen waited on him to learn when the court might come in person to congratulate him on his convalescence. [Repertory 84, fo. 202b.] On the 17th the mayor issued his precept for bells to be set ringing and bonfires to be lighted in the city in honour of his majesty's return from Windsor to Whitehall after his late indisposition. [Journal 49, fo. 61.] The Duke of York did not return to England until February, 1680, when a special Court of Aldermen sat to make arrangements for presenting their congratulations to him and the duchess. [Repertory 85, fo. 88.]

[Proclamation against "tumultuous petitions," 12 Dec., 1679.]

The elections for a fresh parliament which had taken place in the meantime having gone against the court party, parliament no sooner met (17 Oct.) than it was prorogued; and in consequence of repeated prorogations never sat again for a whole twelvemonth (21 Oct., 1680). [Journal House of Commons, ix, 635, 636.] Nor would it in all probability have been allowed to meet even then, had it not been for a constant succession of petitions addressed to the king insisting upon a session being held. So annoyed was Charles with this demonstration of popular feeling in favour of parliament that he issued a proclamation (12 Dec., 1679) prohibiting such "tumultuous petitions." [Journal 49, fo. 85b.]

[Petitioners and Abhorrers.]

This led to the presentation of a number of counter-addresses to the king, expressing the greatest confidence in his majesty's wisdom, the most dutiful submission to his prerogative, and abhorrence of those who had dared to encroach upon it by petitions. The two parties thus became distinguished as Petitioners and Abhorrers; names which were subsequently replaced by Whigs and Tories.

[The petition of Common Hall, 29 July, 1680.]

The citizens were Petitioners. On the 29th July (1680) the Livery assembled in Common Hall for the election of sheriffs took the opportunity of desiring Sir Robert Clayton, the lord mayor, to beseech his majesty on their behalf, that for the preservation of his royal person and government and the Protestant religion he would graciously please to order that parliament, his great council, might assemble and sit to take measures against the machinations of Rome.[^126] Clayton showed himself very willing to comply with the wishes of Common Hall, but pointed out at the same time that he had reason to believe that parliament was to meet in November. "If that be so," said he, "I hope your great concern for that matter might have been spared, being anticipated by his majesties gracious intention. However, I shall not be wanting with all humility to lay the whole matter before him." In spite of Jeffreys, the Recorder, having ruled that such a petition bordered on treason, and in spite of a warning received from the lord chancellor, Clayton insisted on presenting a petition, and for doing so was rewarded with the grateful thanks of the Common Council on his quitting the mayoralty. [Journal 49, fo. 148b; Grey, Parliamentary Debates, vii, 463, 464.] Jeffreys on the other hand was compelled to resign the recordership. [Repertory 89, fos. 17, 24b, 28b.]

[^126: "The proceedings at the Guild-Hall in London, on Thursday, July the 29th, 1680"—a tract preserved in the Guildhall Library (A*). A draft of a petition to his majesty on the subject of parliament had been put forward at the Common Hall held on Midsummer-day. See "A true account of the proceedings at the Common Hall ... on Thursday, the 24th of June, 1680, with a copy of the petitions there offered and own'd by the general acclamation of the Hall for the sitting of the parliament, in a letter to a friend in the country."—A printed tract preserved in the same volume.]

[The City's address to the king, 12 Nov., 1680.]

[The king's reply.]

When parliament was at last allowed to meet the City lost no time in presenting a dutiful address [Journal 49, fo. 156b.] to Charles acknowledging his majesty's favour and their own satisfaction. They besought him to lend a ready ear to the humble advice tendered by his great council for the safety of his royal person and the preservation of the true Protestant religion, and promised to be ready at all times to promote his majesty's ease and prosperity, and to stand by him against all dangers and hazards whatsoever. Had Charles accepted this address in the spirit with which it was made matters might have gone better with him, and the Stuart family might never have been driven from the throne; but he was in no mood to accept advice either from parliament or the city, and the only answer he vouchsafed to the citizens was to tell them to mind their own business. He knew what he had to do, without their advice. [Luttrell, Diary, 12 Nov., 1680, i, 60.]

[The second short parliament, 1680-1681.]

As soon as the House met it commenced an attack upon Papists. The Exclusion Bill was again passed, but was thrown out by the Lords. Thus baulked the Commons revived the impeachment of the Catholic lords. During the trial of Stafford on a charge of a design to murder the king, more than ordinary precautions had to be taken by the mayor to maintain order and prevent too great a crowd assembling at Westminster. [Journal 49, fo. 153b.] Being condemned to death, the king was ready to spare Stafford the grosser indignities attached to a felon's execution, but the royal act of clemency was not allowed to pass unchallenged by the sheriffs of London on the ground that if the king could dispense with some part of the execution why not of all? [Kennet, "Hist. of England," iii, 389.] The House had passed a vote of thanks to the City for its "manifest loyalty to the king" and its care and vigilance for the preservation of his majesty's person and of the Protestant religion, and had got as far as the second reading of a Bill for repealing the Corporation Act of 1661 when it found itself suddenly prorogued from the 10th January to the 20th. [Journal House of Commons, ix, 700-704; Journal 49, fo. 170.]

[The City's petition to the king for parliament to be allowed to sit, 13 Jan., 1681.]

During the interval a petition was drawn up by the Common Council (13 Jan.) and presented to the king, in which the petitioners expressed their surprise at the late prorogation "whereby the prosecution of the public justice of the kingdom ... have received an interruption," and after referring to the action taken by parliament for the defence of his majesty's person and the preservation of the Protestant religion, prayed that the House might be allowed to resume its session on the day to which parliament had been prorogued as being "the only means to quiet the minds and extinguish the fears of your Protestant subjects." [Journal 49, fo. 170-171b. A printed copy is preserved in the Guildhall Library (M 4, 5).] This petition, and more especially that part of it which spoke of the interruption of justice, was highly resented by Charles, and was one of the causes which led to the issue of the writ of Quo Warranto against the city in the following year. In the meanwhile it served only to make the king more determined than ever to dissolve the parliament, which he did by proclamation on the 18th January. A new parliament was summoned for the 21st March; it was not however to sit in London, but in the royalist city of Oxford. [Journal 49, fo. 178.]

[Parliamentary elections in the city, 1681.]

The City sent up to Oxford the same members that had represented them in the last two parliaments. The election took place at a Common Hall held on Friday the 4th February, but no record of the proceedings is to be found in the city's archives. [There is a hiatus in the Common Hall books from 1661 to 1717.] From other sources, however,[^127] we learn that after an opening speech by one of the secondaries, or under-sheriffs, Henry Cornish, one of the sheriffs, addressed the meeting and explained how the mayor (Sir Patience Ward) had been asked to allow himself to be put in nomination but had declined. One or two aldermen were nominated for form's sake, but the choice of the citizens was unanimously in favour of the old members—Sir Robert Clayton, Alderman Pilkington, Sir Thomas Player, the city chamberlain, and William Love. The election over, the Common Hall presented an address to the members, acknowledging their past services and promising to support them in their determination to grant no money supply until they had effectually secured the city against Popery and arbitrary power. To this address Sir Robert Clayton made a brief reply, promising, on behalf of himself and colleagues, to continue their endeavours to attain the ends desired. The fact that the new parliament was to sit at Oxford, a stronghold of the Tory party, caused no little alarm, and this alarm was increased when it became known that Charles was bringing his own guards with him. The city's representatives were brought on their way by a large number of followers with ribbons in their hats bearing the words "No Popery! No Slavery!" whilst Shaftesbury and his supporters made no disguise that they were well equipt with arms. [North's Examen, pp. 101-2; Burnet, ii, 281, note.]

[^127: "A true narrative of the proceedings at the Guildhall, London, the fourth of this instant February, in their unanimous election of their four members to serve in parliament. With their thanks to them and the petitioning lords."—Book of Tracts preserved in the Guildhall Library ("London Pamphlets," vol. 12, No. 7, M 4, 5).]

[Dissolution of the third short parliament, 28 March, 1681.]

Charles soon perceived that he had little to gain from the new parliament, which insisted on having its own way, and refused even the king's humiliating proposal to place the government of the country after his demise in the hands of a regent, leaving the bare title of king to his brother, the Duke of York. It caused an impeachment to be laid against an Irishman named Fitzharris whom Charles had recently removed from Newgate to the Tower in order to prevent the civic authorities taking the prisoner's depositions, [Speech of Sir Robert Clayton in the House, 25 March.—Parliamentary Debates (Grey), v, 305.] and it otherwise proved so uncompromising that at the end of a week (28 March) it was sent about its business. Charles afterwards (8 April) published a "declaration" of his reasons for taking that course. [Printed in "Tracts K" (No. 43), in the Guildhall Library.]

[City's address to the king, presented 19 May, 1681.]

On the 13th May the Common Council passed a vote of thanks to the city members for their faithful services in the last three parliaments, and more especially in the late parliament at Oxford. It also agreed by a narrow majority of fourteen to present an address to the king praying him to cause a parliament to meet and continue to sit until due provision be made for the security of his majesty's person and his people. [Journal 49, fos. 205b-207. A printed copy of the address is to be found among the Tracts preserved in the Guildhall Library ("London Pamphlets," vol. 12, No. 12, M 4, 5).] The first attempt (13 May) to present this address failed, the deputation being told to meet the king at Hampton Court another day (19 May). When it was presented the deputation were told to go home and mind their own business. Other addresses—one from the lieutenancy of London and another from the borough of Southwark—presented the same day, in which thanks were tendered to his majesty for dissolving the last two parliaments, met with a very different reception. Undismayed at the rebuff thus administered to the City, the Grand Jury at the Old Bailey passed a vote of thanks (20 May) to the mayor for the part he had taken in presenting the address, and ordered a similar address to that of the City to be presented to Charles on their own account. [Luttrell. Diary, 13, 19 and 20 May, 1681 (i, 84, 87, 88).]

CHAPTER XXX.

[A re-action in favour of the court party, July, 1681.]

The country seemed to be on the verge of another civil war. A re-action, however, in favour of the king set in. The nation began to view the situation more dispassionately and to entertain serious doubts whether parliament had acted rightly in pushing matters to such an extremity. The religious question after all might not be so important or so fraught with danger as they had been led to believe by professional informers. Addresses of the type of those presented by the lieutenancy of London and the borough of Southwark, among them being one signed by over twenty thousand apprentices of the city,[^128] began to flow in; and proceedings were commenced against Protestants on no better evidence than had previously been used against Catholics.

[^128: Luttrell, Diary, 1 July, 1681 (i, 105). This address, which purported to represent "the act and sense of the generality of apprentices," was disavowed by the Protestant apprentices of the city in an address which they presented to Sir Patience Ward, the ultra-Protestant lord mayor, on the 2nd September (1681), the day appointed for the annual commemoration of the Great Fire, recently proclaimed to have been the work of Papists.—Printed among "Tracts K," No. 74, preserved in the Guildhall Library.]

[Proceedings against College.]

Among the first against whom proceedings were taken was a Londoner named Stephen College, a joiner by trade, who from his zeal in the cause of religion came to be known as the "Protestant joiner." An attempt to get a true bill returned against him at the Old Bailey, where the juries were empanelled by the sheriffs of London and Middlesex, having failed, he was removed to Oxford and tried there on a charge of high treason. After much hard swearing a verdict was at length obtained. [Luttrell, Diary, 8, 12 and 24 July and 17 Aug. (i, 108, 109, 110, 112, 117).]

[Proceedings against the Earl of Shaftesbury, July-Nov., 1681.]

Having secured the conviction of College the council flew at higher game in the person of the Earl of Shaftesbury. He was arrested at his house in Aldersgate Street on the 2nd July, but it was not until November that a bill of high treason was preferred against him at the Old Bailey. The nomination of juries practically rested with the sheriffs, and the court party had recently endeavoured to force the election of candidates of their own political complexion. In this they had failed, although in December last the king had endeavoured to change the character of city juries by ordering the mayor (Sir Patience Ward) to issue his precept to the Aldermen to see that none were returned by their wards for service on juries "of inferior degree than a subsidy man." [Journal 49, fo. 182b.] The sheriffs for the year, Thomas Pilkington and Samuel Shute, who were zealous Whigs, took care to empanel a grand jury which would be inclined to ignore the bill against the earl, and under these circumstances the bill was thrown out (24 Nov.). [Kennet, iii, 400.]

[The manner of election of sheriffs.]

The failure of the court party to obtain a conviction of Shaftesbury owing to the political bias of the sheriffs for the time being, determined them to resort to more drastic measures to obtain the election of candidates with Tory proclivities. In order to understand the method pursued it will be necessary to review briefly the manner in which the election of sheriffs had from time to time been carried out.

[Attempt to restrict the number of electors in the 14th century.]

From the earliest times of which we have any city record until the commencement of the 14th century it had been the custom for the sheriffs of London and Middlesex to be elected by the mayor, aldermen and "the good men of the city" or "commonalty." But a custom sprang up in 1301 of summoning twelve men only from each ward to take part with the mayor and aldermen in such elections, [Letter Book C, fo. 62b.] a custom which found little favour with the bulk of the inhabitants of the city, who insisted upon being present and taking part in the proceedings. An attempt was made by the civic authorities in 1313 to put a stop to the noise and confusion resulting from the presence of such vast numbers at the Guildhall by an order providing that thenceforth only the best men from each ward should be summoned to take part in the elections, and two years later (4 July, 1315) this order was enforced by royal proclamation. [Letter Book D, fos. 3b, 4b.] Nevertheless the practice of summoning representatives from the wards was soon dropt, and for more than thirty years the sheriffs continued to be elected by the mayor, aldermen and the "whole commonalty." Another attempt (made under Brembre in 1384) to restrict the number of the commonalty to "so many and such of them as should seem needful for the time" (tantz et tieux come lour semble busoignable pur le temps) [Letter Book H, fo. 177.] was not more successful.

[The mayor's claim to elect one of the sheriffs.]

In 1347 we meet for the first time with a new method of procedure. In that year one of the sheriffs was elected by the mayor and the other by the commonalty; [Letter Book F, fo. 142.] and this prerogative of the mayor for the time being to elect one of the sheriffs continued to be exercised with few (if any) exceptions down to 1638. Neither in 1639 nor in the following year was the prerogative exercised. In 1641 the mayor attempted to exercise it, but through some negligence on his part was declared by the House of Commons to have forfeited his right, and the election of both sheriffs devolved, pro hac vice, upon the commonalty. [Journal 39, fo. 230b.]

[The mayor's prerogative, 1642-1662.]

From 1642 to 1651 the mayor for the time being exercised his prerogative in electing as well as nominating one of the sheriffs, but the commonalty always challenged his right to elect, although they paid the mayor the compliment of electing his nominee to serve with the sheriff of their own choice. From 1652 to 1660 (or 1661 [There is no record of the election of sheriffs for this year in the City's Archives.]?) the mayor did not attempt to exercise a right either of electing or nominating one of the sheriffs, but in 1662, when the mayor would have elected as well as nominated Thomas Bludworth as sheriff, the commonalty claimed their rights. Bludworth was eventually returned together with Sir William Turner. [Journal 45, fo. 223. Pepys remarks that Bludworth and his fellow sheriff were picked by the king, and so were "called with great honour the king's sheriffes."]

[Appointment of committee of enquiry, 1674.]

In the following year (1663) the prerogative exercised by the mayor passed unchallenged, and so continued until 1674, when, objection being raised, [Journal 48, fo. 68; Letter Book YY, fo. 49.] the Common Council appointed a committee "to consider of the matters in difference and now long debated in this court between ye right honorable ye lord maior and commons of this citty concerneing the eleccon of one of ye sheriffes and to finde out some expedient for ye reconciling ye same." [Journal 48, fo. 72; Letter Book YY, fo. 50b.]

[Custom of the mayor drinking to a future sheriff, 1674.]

We now read for the first time in the City's Records of a custom in connection with the election of sheriffs (although that custom is said to have arisen in the reign of Elizabeth), [Norton's Commentaries (3rd ed., revised), p. 230.] namely, the nomination or election of a sheriff by the mayor drinking to an individual at a public banquet. It appears that the lord mayor had recently drunk to William Roberts, citizen and vintner, thereby intimating that it was his lordship's wish that Roberts should be one of the sheriffs for the year ensuing. The commons objected to the mayor thus exercising his prerogative, whilst the aldermen were no less determined to support him. [Repertory 79, fos. 267-268, 274, 298, 309b.] The committee to whom the matter was referred suggested a compromise, namely, that Roberts should be bound over to take upon himself the office if within the next two or three years he should be either drunk to by the mayor or elected by the commons to be sheriff; and that, further, an Act of Common Council should be forthwith made for settling the shrievalty and all matters connected with it. [Journal 48, fo. 73b; Letter Book YY, fo. 51.]

[The mayor's prerogative unchallenged, 1675-1679.]

No Act of Common Council appears to have been passed pursuant to the committee's recommendation, but in the following year (1675) and down to 1679 the mayor exercised his full prerogative of electing one of the sheriffs without opposition, although the person so elected did not always undertake the office.

[Election of Bethell and Cornish Sheriffs, 24 June, 1680.]

On Midsummer-day, 1680, the mayor elected George Hockenhall, citizen and grocer, to be one of the sheriffs, but Hockenhall refused to serve and was discharged on his entering into a bond for the payment of £400. The commons thereupon stept in and elected Slingsby Bethell, leatherseller, and Henry Cornish, haberdasher. [Journal 49, fo. 111.] At this juncture political influence was brought to bear upon the elections. Bethell was particularly an object of aversion to the court party. He is reported to have declared himself ready to have acted as executioner of the late king if no one else could be found for the job, [Bethell denied having said any such thing, and brought an action for scandal against one who had spread the report.—Luttrell, Diary, 19 May, 1682 (i, 187).] and to have made himself obnoxious in other ways. With Cornish little fault could at present be found. Objection was raised to both these gentlemen acting as sheriffs, on the ground that they had not taken the oath or received the sacrament as prescribed by law, and another election demanded. Before this second election took place (14 July) they had qualified themselves according to the Corporation Act. [Burnet, ii, 249; Luttrell, Diary, 24 June, 1680 (i, 49).] The mayor did not claim his prerogative on this occasion. Bethell and Cornish were put up again for office, and against them two others, Ralph Box, grocer, and Humphrey Nicholson, merchant taylor, who, although nominated like Bethell and Cornish by the commonalty, were in reality candidates put forward by the court party. [Sir William Russell was also nominated, but did not go to the poll.] Bethell and Cornish having been again declared elected, a poll was demanded, which lasted several days. At its close it was found that Cornish was at the head with 2,483 votes, Bethell next with 2,276, whilst Box and Nicholson followed with 1,428 and 1,230 votes respectively. [Journal 49, fo. 112.]

[The character of the new Sheriffs.]

The two first named were declared (29 July) duly elected. Bethell has been described as a "sullen and wilful man," a republican at heart and one that "turned from the ordinary way of a sheriff's living into the extreme of sordidness." Cornish on the other hand was "a plain, warm, honest man and lived very nobly all his year." [Burnet, ii, 248.] It was doubtless Bethell's proposal that the customary dinner to the aldermen on the day the new sheriffs were sworn in should be omitted. If so, Cornish had to give way to the parsimonious whim of his fellow sheriff. "What an obstinate man he was!" remarked Cornish of him, when brought to trial five years later. [Howell, State Trials, xi, 431.] The aldermen refused to accompany the sheriffs to the Guildhall unless they were invited to dinner. [Repertory 85, fo. 224b.]

[Election of Pilkington and Shute sheriffs, 24 June, 1681.]

In the following year (1681) two other sheriffs of the same political character, viz., Pilkington and Shute, were elected over the heads of the same court candidates that had stood the previous year, the defeat of the latter being still more pronounced.[^129]

[^129: Again a poll was demanded, the result being Pilkington 3,144 votes, Shute 2,245, Box 1,266, and Nicholson 82 (Journal 49, fo. 226). The Court of Aldermen considered the demand for a poll as to Pilkington's election to be an invasion of the lord mayor's prerogative, he being already in the opinion of the court duly elected and confirmed according to ancient usage. It passed a resolution, therefore, that before the poll was opened Alderman Pilkington should be immediately called out on the husting and returned into the exchequer as one of the sheriffs for the ensuing year (Repertory 86, fo. 153).]

[The king signifies his displeasure.]

The king did not attempt to conceal his displeasure at the City's proceedings, and when the recorder and the sheriffs came to invite him to dinner on lord mayor's day, [The lord mayor elect being Sir John Moore, who was much inclined to favour the court party.] made the following answer:—"Mr. Recorder, an invitation from my lord mayor and the city is very acceptable to me, and to show that it is so, notwithstanding that it is brought by messengers that are so unwelcome to me as these two sheriffs are, yet I accept it." [Journal 49, fos. 254, 255b, 261b; Kennet, iii, 401.]

[Thanks of the Common Hall to the late sheriffs, 27 June, 1681.]

The outgoing sheriffs were presented (27 June) with an address[^130] from the citizens assembled in Common Hall thanking them for their faithful discharge of their office of trust and complimenting them more especially upon their successful efforts to maintain and assert the undoubted rights and privileges of the citizens and their "continual provision of faithful and able juries." The address concluded with thanks to them for their despatch in carrying out the recent "unnecessary" poll in connection with the election of new sheriffs, and not delaying the matter by troublesome adjournments.

[^130: Neither this address nor the petition which followed is entered in the City's Archives; printed copies of them, however, are to be found in a book of tracts, etc., preserved in the Guildhall Library ("London Pamphlets," No. 12, M 4, 5).]

[The mayor desired to present an address to the king, 27 June, 1681.]

Opportunity was also taken of thanking the lord mayor (Sir Patience Ward) and the members of the Common Council for presenting the recent address to his majesty praying him to confide in parliament, [The address of the 19th May mentioned in the last chapter.] and desired his lordship to assure his majesty that the address reflected the true feeling and desires of all his loyal subjects there assembled in Common Hall, notwithstanding rumours to the contrary. They also desired to join in the vote of thanks which the Common Council had passed to the city members sitting in the last parliament for their faithful services.

[Address to the king, 7 July.]

It required some courage for the mayor to again face the king and his chancellor and to run the risk of another rebuff. Nevertheless, on Thursday, the 7th July, the mayor went to Hampton Court, attended by Sir Robert Clayton, Sir John Shorter and others, as well as by the sheriffs Bethell and Cornish (the new sheriffs not coming into office until September), to present to the king in council another address from the Common Hall. It was received with no more favour than the last. The chancellor affected to believe that it was but the address of a faction in the city, and not the unanimous vote of the citizens at large. "The king takes notice there are no aldermen," he said, whilst Alderman Clayton and Alderman Shorter were at his elbow! In fine they were again told to mind their own business. [Luttrell, Diary, 7 July, 1681.]

[Sir John Moore elected mayor, Sept., 1681.]

Although the court party had twice signally failed to obtain the appointment of sheriffs who should be amenable to its control, they were fortunate in having an adherent in the mayor elected on Michaelmas-day to succeed Sir Patience Ward. The senior alderman who had not already passed the chair happened to be Sir John Moore. It does not often occur that in the choice of a mayor the Common Hall passes over the senior alderman who is both capable and willing to take upon himself the office; but there was some chance of it doing so in this case, inasmuch as Sir John Moore had rendered himself unpopular with a large section of citizens by presenting an address of thanks to the king for the declaration which his majesty had published in defence of his having dissolved parliament. [Luttrell, Diary, 29 Sept. (i, 129, 130).] Two aldermen, Sir John Shorter and Thomas Gold, were nominated with Moore for the office. A poll was demanded, with the result that Moore was elected by a majority of nearly 300 votes over his opponents. [The precise numbers were, for Moore 1,831 votes, Shorter 1,591, Gold 1,523.—Journal 49, fo. 251.] On his being presented (7 Oct.) to the lord chancellor for the king's approbation, he was told that his majesty experienced much satisfaction at the choice of so loyal and worthy a magistrate. [Luttrell, Diary, 7 Oct. (i, 133).] Three days before (4 Oct.) the Court of Aldermen nominated a committee to take informations concerning the scandalous remarks that had been made against him in Common Hall on the day of his election. [Repertory 86, fo. 208b.]

[Issue of a Quo Warranto, Jan., 1682.]

Not content with this success, the king's advisers determined upon bringing the City to book for its recent attitude in the election of sheriffs. The anomaly by which the citizens of London enjoyed the right of electing their own sheriffs, as they had done with short intermissions for the past 500 years, whilst in nearly every county of the kingdom the sheriffs were nominated by the king, must be abolished. A writ in the nature of a Quo Warranto was accordingly issued to the sheriffs in January, 1682, calling upon them to summon the mayor and commonalty and citizens of the city to appear in his majesty's court of King's Bench to answer by what warrant they claimed divers liberties, franchises and privileges of which the writ declared they were impeached.[^131]

[^131: These were (1) the right to be of themselves a body corporate and politic, by the name of mayor, commonalty and citizens of the city of London, (2) the right to have sheriffs of the city and county of London and county of Middlesex, and to name, elect, make and constitute them, and (3) the right of the mayor and aldermen of the city to be justices of the peace and hold Sessions of the Peace.—Howell, State Trials, viii, p. 1040.]

[A committee appointed to take steps for the City's defence, 18 Jan., 1682.]

Notification of service of the writ was formally made to the Common Council on the 18th January. The council showed no signs of dismay; they scarcely realized, perhaps, at the outset the true significance of the writ or the consequence it was likely to entail. They had no cause to think that the mayor, commonalty and citizens had usurped any liberties, franchises or privileges without due warrant or had abused any to which they had lawful title. One thing was plain. It was their duty to maintain the rights of the City. They therefore appointed a committee to consult with counsel learned in the law, and prepare a defence such as they might be advised to make, and ordered the Chamberlain to disburse such sums of money as might be required for the purpose. [Journal 49, fo. 281b.]

[Rival factions touching election of sheriffs.]

More than a twelvemonth was taken up in preparing the long and technical pleadings [The pleadings in the Quo Warranto case, viz., plea, replication, rejoinder, sur-rejoinder, rebutter and sur-rebutter, are set out in Journal 50, fos. 1b-21.] preliminary to trial, and in the meantime another severe struggle took place in assertion of the right claimed by the citizens to elect both their sheriffs. The citizens ranged themselves in separate factions, the Whig party under sheriff Pilkington, the Tories under the mayor. Each leader entertained his supporters at dinner. [Luttrell, Diary, 6 April, 1682 (i, p. 176).] There was to have been a banquet held on the 21st April at Haberdashers' Hall, at which the Duke of Monmouth, Lord Shaftesbury and others of the Whig party were to have been present, but the proposal getting wind, the mayor was strictly enjoined by the Privy Council to prevent it as being a seditious meeting and tending to create factions among the king's subjects. [Luttrell, Diary, 21 April, 1682 (i, 179); Journal 49, fo. 339; Repertory 87, fo. 147; Kennet, iii, p. 407.]

[The Duke of York and Sheriff Pilkington, June, 1682.]

The Duke of York, who had for some time past resided in Scotland, had not increased in favour with the citizens of London. It is true that the mayor and aldermen of the city paid their respects to his highness (10 April, 1682) at St. James's Palace, on his return from the north, after paying a similar visit to the king, who had recently returned to Whitehall from Newmarket; [Repertory 87, fo. 146b; Luttrell, Diary, 10 April (i, 177).] but a proposal to offer an address to the duke praying him to reside in London found but little response in the Court of Aldermen, and was allowed to drop. [Luttrell, Diary, 17 March, 1682 (i, 173).] It was not so long ago that his picture hanging in the Guildhall was found to have been mutilated, an offer of £500 for the discovery of the perpetrator of the outrage being without effect. [Repertory 87, fos. 75, 76b; Luttrell, Diary, 25 and 28 Jan., 1682 (i, 160).] Just when Pilkington was about to lay down his office of sheriff the duke entered an action against him for slander, claiming damages to the extent of £50,000. For a time he managed to escape service of the writ, [Luttrell, i, 192, 195, 196.] but if he was not served before, his presence in the Common Hall on Midsummer-day for the election of new sheriffs afforded ample opportunity to serve him then.

[The election of sheriffs, 24 June, 1682.]

This election is one of the most remarkable elections in the City's annals. The royalist mayor, Sir John Moore, having previously drunk to Dudley North at a banquet at the Bridge House (18 May), thereby intimating that he nominated North as one of the sheriffs for the year ensuing, according to custom, had issued his precept to the several companies (19 June) to meet in Common Hall for the purpose of confirming his nomination and electing another sheriff to serve with his nominee. [Journal 49, fo. 336.] This form of precept was objected to, and when the Common Cryer called upon the livery assembled in Common Hall to appear for the "confirmation" of North, he was met with cries of "No confirmation! No confirmation!" and the rest of his proclamation was drowned in uproar. "Thereupon," runs the City's Record, [Journal 49, fo. 317.] "Thomas Papillon, esq., mercer, John Du Bois, weaver, and Ralph Box, grocer, citizens of London (together with the said Dudley North, so as aforesaid elected by the lord mayor), were nominated by the commonalty, that two of them by the said commonalty might be chosen into the office of sheriffs of the city of London and county of Middlesex." The Common Sergeant having declared Papillon and Du Bois duly elected, a poll was demanded. This was granted and proceeded with until seven o'clock in the evening, when the meeting was adjourned by the mayor until the 27th. The outgoing sheriffs (Pilkington and Shute), however, disregarded the mayor's order for adjournment and continued the poll for some time longer, but at last adjourned the meeting to the day fixed by the mayor.

[Pilkington and Shute committed to the Tower, 26 June, 1682.]

A fresh question thus arose, namely, whether the right of adjourning a Common Hall was vested in the mayor for the time being or in the sheriffs. Sir John Moore reported the conduct of Pilkington and Shute to the king's council, with the result that before the 27th day of June arrived they were both committed to the Tower. They were afterwards admitted to bail. [Luttrell, Diary, 25 and 30 June, 1682 (i, 197, 200).]

[Further adjournment of Common Hall to the 5 July.]

[Again adjourned to 7 July, 1682.]

[Papillon and Du Bois declared elected.]

In the meantime the Common Hall had been adjourned by the mayor from the 27th June to the 5th July. On the latter day the sheriffs duly appeared on the husting, but the mayor being absent through indisposition, the Recorder declared his lordship's order that a further adjournment should take place until the 7th July. The sheriffs again interposed and asked the Common Hall if it was their wish that an adjournment should take place, and the answer being in the negative they proceeded to finish the poll, with the result that Papillon and Du Bois were again declared elected by a large majority. Orders having been given to the Town Clerk to place their proceedings on record, the Common Hall broke up.[^132]

[^132: The fact of a poll having been taken on the 7th July is not mentioned in the Journal; Luttrell (who by the way is often wrong in his figures) gives the result of the poll thus, Papillon 2,754, Dubois 2,709, Box 1,609 and North 1,557 (Diary, i, 203).]

[Counsel's opinion as to right of adjourning Common Hall.]

On the 7th the mayor and aldermen appeared in the Guildhall prepared to proceed with the poll, ignoring all that had taken place two days before. The Hall was very crowded, and soon debate arose as to whom belonged the right of adjournment. The opinion of counsel was taken by both parties then and there,[^133] but with little practical result, and the lord mayor further adjourned the Hall until that day week (14 July).

[^133: Luttrell gives the names of Sir George Jeffreys, the late recorder, and Mr. Sanders as the counsel consulted by the lord mayor, and of Mr. Williams and Mr. Pollexfen for the sheriffs (Diary, i, 204). Another writer remarks that "it is to be observed that on reference to the recorder [Sir George Treby] upon this occasion by the Court of Aldermen he declared, without hesitation, that the full right of election was in the livery. The mode of taking the poll and of adjournment by the sheriffs was strictly consonant to ancient usage" (Norton, "Comment. History of London," 3rd ed., pp. 231-2). From a printed tract preserved in the Guildhall Library (A* No. 27) entitled "An Impartial Account of the Proceedings of the Common Hall of the City of London of Guildhall, June the 24th, 1682, for electing of sheriffs," it appears that the opinion of the recorder had been asked and delivered to the Court of Aldermen on the 23rd June.]

[A fresh election ordered.]

In the meanwhile several aldermen and citizens waited on his majesty in council, and gave him an account of the late proceedings, with the result that an order was sent to the mayor to hold a new election, the last being declared irregular. [Repertory 87, fo. 209b; Luttrell, Diary, 13 July (i, 205, 206).]

[The City's account of proceedings of Common Hall, 14 July, 1682.]

The City's own account of what took place at the Common Hall on the 14th is thus recorded. After the order for a new election had been read, "relation was ... de novo made that Dudley North, esq., citizen and mercer of London, was elected by the mayor by his prerogative, according to the custom, into the office of one of the sheriffs of the city of London and county of Middlesex for the year ensuing, that another might be associated to him by the commonalty. And upon this, after declaration made that the said Dudley North was confirmed and Thomas Papillon, esq., citizen and mercer of London, was chosen sheriffs, certain of the commons demanded that it might be decided by the voices of the commons between the said Dudley North and Thomas Papillon and John Du Bois, weaver, and Ralph Box, grocer (named also by the commonalty), that the two of those four who should have the most voices might be the sheriffs elected for the city of London and county of Middlesex for the year ensuing. Whereupon the sheriffs and other officers of the city in the accustomed manner went into the upper chamber, where declaration of the premisses was made by the common sergeant to the mayor and aldermen there sitting; which said mayor and aldermen, the relation aforesaid well weighing, did declare the said Dudley North to be rightly and duly elected and confirmed according to the law and custom of the said city, and immediately came down upon the place where the Court of Hustings is usually held, and there, in their presence and by their command, the said Dudley North was solemnly called to come forth and give his consent to take upon him the said office. [.Cf. Repertory 87, fo. 209b.] And the said lord mayor did then direct that the poll should be taken only for the said Thomas Papillon, John Du Bois and Ralph Box, by certain persons thereunto particularly appointed by the said lord mayor, that one of those three who had the most voices might be associated to the said Dudley North. And afterwards the said mayor and aldermen departed out of the hall. And the poll for the said three persons last named was immediately begun, and continued until the evening of that day. And then the said congregation was, by order of the lord mayor, adjourned until the next day, being Saturday, the 15th of July aforesaid, at 9 o'clock in the afternoon [sic.]. At which day the said poll being continued was in the afternoon of that day finished. And thereupon relation was made by the common sergeant to the mayor and aldermen that upon the poll taken by the severall persons appointed by the said lord mayor as aforesaid, there were 60 voices for Mr. Papillon, 60 voices for Mr. Du Bois, and 1,244 voices for Mr. Box. By which it appeared that the said Ralph Box had the most voices, and so was elected into the office of one of the sheriffs of the city of London and county of Middlesex for the year ensuing. And the same in the afternoon was so declared by the common sergeant to the commons then and there assembled, which said election of the said Ralph Box was by the aforesaid mayor, aldermen and commonalty ratified and confirmed. And thereupon, according to the form and effect of the Act of Common Council in that case made and provided, publication thereof by proclamation being then made in the place where the Hustings Court is usually held in the presence of the said lord mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, the said Ralph Box was then and there solemnly called, etc."

Very different is the account of the proceedings as given us in a tract of the day. ["The Domestick Intelligence" (Tracts A* No. 18).—Luttrell Diary, 15 July, 1682 (i, 206).] From the latter we learn that a separate poll was opened the same day by the sheriffs, in which all four candidates were submitted to the choice of the citizens, and the result of which was declared by Sheriff Pilkington on the 15th, prior to the mayor's declaration. According to this poll, Papillon and Du Bois were again returned at the head with 2,487 and 2,481 votes respectively. There were only 107 in favour of confirming North's election, whilst 2,414 gave their votes against it. Box found himself with only 173 supporters. It was after the declaration of this result that the mayor ordered the common sergeant to declare the result of the other poll, but the declaration of the large number of votes alleged to have been given in favour of Box caused so much uproar that he could proceed no further. The mayor and aldermen thereupon left the hall, and Papillon and Du Bois were declared by the sheriffs duly elected.

[Petitions for Papillon and Du Bois to be called upon to take office, July, 1682.]

It was expected that Box would attend before the next Court of Aldermen to be held on the 18th July to give bond for holding office as North had already done, but he failed to appear. A petition, therefore, was presented to the court praying that as Papillon and Du Bois had been elected sheriffs the court should call them forth according to custom. The mayor being advised to postpone giving an answer, another petition to the same effect was presented at the next court (20 July), whilst yet a third prayed that a caveat might be entered against North and Box being admitted and sworn sheriffs. The mayor was again advised to take time to consider his answer. [Repertory 27, fos. 212, 214.]

[The mayor's unsatisfactory reply, 27 July.]

A week later (27 July) the mayor made the following reply to the petitioners, by advice of the court:—"Gentlemen, this court hath considered of your petition, and will take care that such persons shall take the office of sheriffs upon them as are duly elected according to law and the ancient customs of this city; and in this and all other things this court will endeavour to maintain the rights and privileges of the chair and of the whole city; and wherein you think that we do otherwise the law must judge between us." [Repertory 87, fos. 216b.] This was little to the liking of the petitioners, who complained that it was no answer to their petition; but they were summarily dismissed. [Luttrell, Diary, 27 July, 1682 (i, 209, 210).]

[Box discharged sheriff, 5 Sept.]

Thus the matter was allowed to rest until the 5th September, when the Court of Aldermen were again prayed that Papillon and Du Bois might be called upon to enter into bond according to custom. The only answer returned was that Box, who in the opinion of the court had been duly elected one of the sheriffs, had been discharged from service on payment of a fine, and that another election would shortly take place. Thereupon murmurs arose. There had been too many Common Halls already over this affair, cried some, and their choice of sheriffs had been made. The mayor bade them begone in the king's name, or they would be looked upon as tumultuous. [Repertory 87, fos. 221b, 222; Luttrell, Diary, 5 Sept. (i, 217).]

[More petitions to the Court of Aldermen, 12, 14 Sept.]

The court sat again on the 12th September, when, we are told, a petition similar to those before presented being again brought forward, a debate arose which occasioned some sharp words, and the mayor ordered the sword to be taken up and so dissolved the court; but nothing of this is recorded in the minutes of the court. [Luttrell, Diary, 12 Sept., 1682 (i, 218, 219).] Two days later (14 Sept.), several petitions were presented to the court, one being from the free-holders of Middlesex. [A printed copy will be found, Tracts preserved in the Guildhall Library (A* No. 28).] To these the same reply was made as had been given to the petitioners of the 27th July. The petitioners were further told that it was the mayor's intention to call a Common Hall on Tuesday, the 19th September, to elect one to serve in the place of Box. [Repertory 87, fos. 230b-231.]

[Proceedings of Common Hall, 19 Sept.]

[Peter Rich a candidate loco Box.]

When that day arrived and the common sergeant, acting on instructions from the mayor, put forward the name of Peter Rich, there arose repeatedly the cry of "No Rich!" and such a din followed, the citizens declaring loudly that they would stand by their old choice, that nothing else could be heard. At length the sheriffs were given to understand that a poll was demanded. The mayor hearing of the proposed poll thereupon came on to the hustings and declared Rich to be duly elected. The whole business was carried on in dumb show, it being impossible to hear anything that was said. Having done this, the mayor dissolved the Common Hall and went home. The sheriff proceeded nevertheless to open the poll in the afternoon, with the result that 2,082 votes were found in favour of standing by their old choice, whilst only thirty-five were for Rich. Hearing that the mayor was returning, the sheriffs made a hurried declaration of the result of the poll, proclaiming Papillon and Du Bois to have been again elected, and dismissed the assembly. The mayor on his arrival caused the gates of the Guildhall to be closed. Such is the account of what took place on the 19th September, as given by the diarist of the day. [Luttrell, Diary, i, 220, 221.] The City's Journal merely records in the briefest manner possible the election of Rich. [Journal 49, fo. 347.]

[Pilkington and Shute to appear before the King's Bench, 20 Sept., 1682.]

The next day (20 Sept.) the lord mayor and a deputation of aldermen waited on the king at Whitehall, and informed him of what had taken place. A council was thereupon summoned for that afternoon, which the sheriffs were ordered to attend. Upon their appearance they were told that they had behaved in a riotous manner, and must answer for their conduct before the King's Bench. They were accordingly made to enter into their own recognisances severally for £1,000, besides finding other security. [Luttrell, i, 221.]

[Rich enters into bond to take office, 26 Sept., 1682.]

On the 26th, when Rich was called before the Court of Aldermen to enter into bond to take office, a paper was handed to the court desiring that Papillon and Du Bois might be called to the shrievalty, but it was to no purpose. The same answer was returned as on previous occasions. [Repertory 87, fo. 233.]

[North and Rich sworn into office, 28 Sept.]

Two days later (28 Sept.) Rich and North were sworn into office amid a great concourse of citizens at the Guildhall, the entrance to which was strongly guarded by a company of trained bands in case of disturbance. When the oath was about to be administered to them a protest was made by Papillon and Du Bois, who attempted to get possession of the book; but upon the lord mayor commanding them in the king's name to depart and keep the peace, they left the hall and with them went several of the aldermen who were their supporters. The new sheriffs entertained the mayor and aldermen, according to custom, at Grocers' Hall, Rich being a member of that company. [Luttrell, Diary, 28 Sept., 1682 (i, 224).] Rich subsequently applied for and was allowed the sum of £100 out of the fine of £400 paid into the Chamber by Box. [Repertory 87, fo. 253.] The election which had been so long and so hotly contested thus ended in a complete victory for the court party.

[The Mercers' Company and Sheriff North.]

It was the custom in those days, as it is now, for members of the livery company or companies to which a newly-elected sheriff belonged to accompany him to the Guildhall on the occasion of his entering upon his office. Dudley North, being a member of the Mercers' Company, had desired the officers of the company and several of the livery to pay him this compliment, but after considering the matter the court of the company passed a resolution to the effect that neither officers nor members should attend him on pain of being expelled from the company, but that they should accompany Papillon to the hall and present him to be sworn as one of the sheriffs. [Luttrell, i, 223.]

[Sworn information of Henry Cornish as to what took place in the Guildhall, 28 Sept., 1682.]

Cornish attended the ceremony at the Guildhall, and afterwards (2 Oct.) swore an information before Sir William Turner, [Information (dated 2 Oct.) preserved in the Town Clerk's office.] a brother alderman, of the treatment he had received at the hands of the soldiers present. The information was to the effect that when he and several other aldermen entered the hall about nine o'clock in the morning they found a guard of soldiers placed at the hall door, and another drawn up before the hustings, "who were presently commanded by their officer to stand to their armes." After a short stay in the Council Chamber they returned into the hall to meet the lord mayor, and for a quarter of an hour walked up and down the hall "betweene the clock-house and the doore wch leads up to the Hustings Court on the north side of the hall." Hitherto they had met with no opposition from the soldiers, but now they were accosted by Lieutenant-Colonel Quiney, the officer in command, who desired "they would give him noe disturbance." To this they replied that "they would give him none and expected alsoe not to bee themselves disturbed by anie in that place." Quiney thereupon left, but soon after returned and told them he had orders from the lieutenancy to clear the hall. He was asked to produce the order, and if it were found to include aldermen of the city Cornish and his friends would obey. The order was not forthcoming; it was with the major, said Quiney, who soon afterwards formed up his men and, again addressing Cornish and the other aldermen, peremptorily required them to withdraw or he would expel them by force. Cornish again demanded to see the order, but the officer forthwith laid hands on him and thrust him out, declaring that he would abide by the order of the lieutenancy, who were his masters. So ends Cornish's information. Proceedings were subsequently taken against Quiney for keeping persons that were liverymen out of the Guildhall and offering abuse to others. [Luttrell, i, 225.]

[Election of Pritchard, mayor, loco Moore, Sept., 1682.]

The next day being Michaelmas-day a Common Hall met to elect a mayor for the ensuing year in the place of Sir John Moore.[^134] Four aldermen were nominated as candidates, viz., Sir William Pritchard, the senior alderman below the chair, Sir Henry Tulse, Sir Thomas Gold and Henry Cornish. The common sergeant having declared that the choice of the citizens lay between Pritchard and Gold, a poll was demanded and allowed, the result of which was declared (4 Oct.) to be as follows:—Gold 2,289, Cornish 2,259, Pritchard 2,233 and Tulse 236.[^135]

[^134: For his "prudence and courage" displayed during his mayoralty Charles granted him an augmentation of arms, viz., on a canton gules "one of our lyons of England." Letters Patent, dated 28 Sept., 1683.—Journal 50, fo. 119; Letter Book ZZ, fo. 7.]

[^135: These are the numbers as given in a return made by the scrutineers on behalf of Gold and Cornish, dated 24 Oct.—See Printed Tracts, Guildhall Library, vol. 12, No. 9 and A* No. 30*. They vary slightly from those given by Luttrell (Diary, i, 226).]

This result seems to have satisfied no one, and a scrutiny was asked for in order that the poll books might be compared with the lists of liverymen of the several companies. It was discovered that certain members of the livery of the Merchant Taylors' and other companies had recorded their votes although they had not taken the liveryman's oath prescribed by such companies. The question of the legality of such votes being submitted to the Court of Aldermen, that body decided (24 Oct.) against the voters. [Repertory 87, fo. 258.] The election was watched with anxious interest. Pritchard, himself a Merchant Taylor, was known to be of the same political mind as the out-going mayor, and it was the common belief at the time that if the majority of votes should prove to be in favour of Gold or Cornish, who were of the Whig party, the king would interpose and continue Sir John Moore in office for another year. [Luttrell, Diary, 4 Oct., 1682 (i, 226).] His majesty had recently been amusing himself at Newmarket, but he had been kept posted up in city news, and immediately after his return to Whitehall was waited on by the mayor and aldermen (22 Oct.) and informed of the state of affairs. The result of the scrutiny, according to the paper submitted to the Court of Aldermen, was still in favour of Gold and Cornish, but according to the return made by the mayor [Journal 49, fo. 349.] (25 Oct.) Pritchard was placed at the head of the poll with 2,138 votes, as against 2,124 for Gold, 2,093 for Cornish and 236 for Tulse. The first two named were therefore presented to the Court of Aldermen for them to choose one to be mayor according to custom, and their choice falling upon Pritchard he was declared elected, and on the following feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.) was admitted and sworn.

[A mandamus to swear in Gold or Cornish refused.]

A motion was afterwards made (24 Nov.) for a mandamus directing the mayor and aldermen to swear Gold or Cornish as duly elected mayor of London, but nothing came of it. [Luttrell, Diary, 24 Nov., 1682 (i, 240).]

[The Duke of York's action against Pilkington for slander, 24 Nov., 1682.]

The time was thought opportune by the Duke of York for prosecuting his action for slander against Pilkington commenced in June last. The words complained of, and for which the duke claimed damages to the extent of £50,000, were declared on the oath of two aldermen—Sir Henry Tulse and Sir William Hooker—to have been spoken by him at a Court of Aldermen at a time when that body was about to visit the duke to congratulate him upon his return from Scotland, and were to the effect that the duke had burnt the city and was then coming to cut their throats. That the words, if spoken—a question open to much doubt—were scandalous to a degree cannot be denied, but the claim for damages was none the less vindictive. Instead of laying his action in London the duke caused his action to be tried by a jury of the county of Hertford (24 Nov.). Pilkington made very little defence (he probably thought it useless), and the jury awarded the duke the full amount of damages claimed. The ex-sheriff was of course ruined; he surrendered himself into custody [Luttrell, i, 192, 240, 241.] and gave up his aldermanry, in which he was succeeded by Dudley North, the sheriff. [Repertory 88, fo. 38b.]

[Pilkington and others fined for disturbance last Midsummer-day, 16 Feb., 1683.]

Still he was not allowed to rest. In the following February (16 Feb., 1683) he and his late colleague in the shrievalty, Samuel Shute, together with Lord Grey of Wark, Alderman Cornish, Sir Thomas Player, the city chamberlain (who had recently been called to account for moneys received), Slingsby Bethell, and others were brought to trial for the disturbance that had taken place last Midsummer-day. The trial was opened at the Guildhall on the 16th February, but the jury being challenged on the ground that the array contained no peer (a peer of the realm being about to be tried), the challenge was allowed, and the trial put off until the next term. On the 8th May, after a long trial, all the accused were found guilty, and were eventually (26 June) fined in various sums, amounting in all to £4,100. [Howell, State Trials, ix, 187-294; Luttrell, Diary, i, 250, 257, 262-3; Kennet, Hist., iii, 408.]

[Sir Patience Ward tried and convicted of perjury, 19 May, 1683.]

Pilkington's fall also dragged down Sir Patience Ward, who was proceeded against for perjury, he having stated on oath at the trial of the late sheriff that the debate in the Court of Aldermen concerning the Duke of York was over before Pilkington had arrived, and that there was no mention made of cutting throats while he was there. After much contradictory evidence the jury found the defendant guilty, and he, like Shaftesbury before him, sought refuge in Holland.[^136]

[^136: Luttrell, Diary, 19 and 21 May, 1683. According to Burnet (i, 338), Ward had deposed that "to the best of his remembrance these words were not spoken by Pilkington," and thereupon Jeffreys had brutally remarked that Ward's invention was better than his memory.]

[The new Common Council, 21 Dec., 1682.]

In the meantime, having experienced so much difficulty in bending the City to his will, and having so far succeeded in his object as to have a royalist mayor in the chair, as well as royalist sheriffs, Charles took steps to obtain an equally subservient Common Council. To this end he had issued a command (18 Dec.) to the mayor to enforce on the electors at the coming feast of St. Thomas (21 Dec.) the obligation of electing only such men to be members of the new council as had conformed with the provisions of the Corporation Act. The king's letter was by the mayor's precept read at each wardmote on the day of election. [Journal 49, fos. 383, 383b.] It was hoped that by this means a Common Council might be returned which might be induced to make a voluntary surrender of the City's charter instead of forcing matters to an issue at law. [Luttrell, Diary, Dec., 1682 (ed. 1857, i, 242).]

[The first hearing of the Quo Warranto case, 7 Feb., 1683.]

The design failed and the king resolved at length to proceed with the Quo Warranto. After the lapse of more than a twelvemonth the trial came on for hearing (7 Feb., 1683). The solicitor-general, who opened the case, propounded to the court four questions: (1) Whether any corporation could be forfeited? (2) Whether the city of London differed from other corporations as to point of forfeiture? (3) Whether any act of the mayor, aldermen and Common Council in Common Council assembled be so much the act of the Corporation as could make a forfeiture? and (4) Whether the acts by them done in making a certain by-law and receiving money by it, [Referring to the taking of market tolls.] or in making the petition of the 13th January, 1681, and causing it to be published, be such acts as, if done by the Corporation, would make a forfeiture of the Corporation? After a lengthy argument counsel for the Crown concluded by asking judgment for the king, and that the defendants might be ousted of their franchise as a Corporation.

[The speech of the City's Recorder.]

The City's Recorder, Sir George Treby, rose in reply. His argument in favour of the City [Set out in full in Journal 50, fos. 40b-60b.] tended to show that the corporation of London quâ corporation could not forfeit its existence either by voluntary surrender or by abuse of its powers, much less could its existence be imperilled by the action of those representatives of the city to whom its government had been confided. The corporation of the City was a governing body elected for specific purposes; if it proceeded ultra vires to establish market tolls or to offer a petition to the king which was seditious, an indictment lay against every particular member of that body, but no execution could be taken against the mayor, commonalty and citizens of London, a body politic that is invisible, one that can neither see nor be seen.

Counsel on the other side had laid stress on the fact that the liberties and franchises of the City had been often seized or "taken into the king's hands," adducing instances with which the reader of the earlier pages of this work will be already familiar; and if they could be so seized, they could also be forfeited. The Recorder argued that this conclusion was a wrong one. The effect of the seizure of the City's liberties in former days had only been to place the government of the city in the hands of a custos or warden. The Corporation continued as before; it might sue and be sued as before; it was neither suspended nor destroyed. How could the king seize a Corporation? Could he himself constitute the mayor, commonalty and citizens of a city, or make anyone else such? No, a Corporation was not, to use a legal phrase, "manurable"; it could not be seized; nor had anyone (he believed) ever imagined such a thing as a dissolution of a corporation by a judgment in law until that day. At the conclusion of his speech the further hearing of the case was adjourned until April.

[Speech of the attorney-general at the second hearing, 27 April.]

On the resumption of the hearing (27 April) [This is the date given by Howell (State Trials, viii, p. 1147), but according to Luttrell, the second hearing took place on the 30th April and the 1st May.] Sir Robert Sawyer, the attorney-general, at whose suggestion and by whose authority the writ against the City had been issued, took up the argument, commencing his speech with an attempt to allay the apprehension excited by the prospect of forfeiture of the City's charter. "It was not the king's intention," he said, "to demolish at once all their liberties and to lay waste and open the city of London, and to reduce it to the condition of a country village," as some had maliciously reported, but to amend the government of the City "by running off those excesses and exorbitances of power which some men (contrary to their duty and the known laws of the land) have assumed to themselves under colour of their corporate capacity, to the reviling of their prince, the oppression of their fellow subjects and to the infinite disquiet of their fellow citizens." [Howell, State Trials, viii, pp. 1147, 1148.] History had shown that the City had never been better governed than when it was in the king's hands. Its ancient customs had not been destroyed, but only restrained in subordination to the general government of the kingdom, and therefore the danger now threatened would not prove so fatal to the City as had been suggested.

[Judgment pronounced against the City, 12 June, 1683.]

After the conclusion of the arguments on both sides, nearly three months were allowed to pass before judgment was given, in the hope that the citizens of London might follow the example set by Norwich, Evesham and other boroughs, and freely surrender their charter. "I do believe nobody here wishes this case should come to judgment," was the remark made by Chief Justice Saunders at the conclusion of the hearing; but at length the patience of the Crown or of the judges was exhausted, and judgment was pronounced (12 June) by Justice Jones in the absence of the Lord Chief Justice, who was now on the point of death. Briefly, the judgment pronounced was to the effect (1) that a corporation aggregate might be seized; (2) that exacting and taking money by a "pretended" by-law was extortion and a forfeiture of franchise; (3) that the petition was scandalous and libellous, and the making and publishing it a forfeiture; (4) that an Act of Common Council is an Act of the Corporation; (5) that the matter set forth in the record did not excuse or avoid those forfeitures set forth in the replication, and (6) that the information was well founded. The result of these findings was that the franchise of the Corporation was ordered to be seized into the king's hands, but this judgment was not to be entered until the king's pleasure should be known. As to the right claimed by the citizens to have and constitute sheriffs (a right which they had recently shown no disposition to forego) and the claim of the mayor and aldermen to be Justices of the Peace and to hold Sessions, the attorney-general was content to enter a nolle prosequi.

[Minutes of the Common Council reflecting on the late king ordered to be expunged from the Journals, 6 June, 1683.]

A few days before delivery of judgment the Common Council agreed to expunge from the records of the court all minutes of proceedings during the late civil war that in any way reflected upon the late king. [Journal 50, fos. 32-38. See frontispiece to this volume.] The list of the various minutes thus ordered to be annulled was a very long one, occupying more than ten pages of the city's Journal, and embraced a period of eighteen years (1641-1659). The municipal authorities may have thought that by this egregious act of self-stultification they might mitigate the judgment that was impending over them. If so they were sadly mistaken.

[City address to the king, 18 June, 1683.]

Finding that further resistance was useless the Common Council unanimously [So says the city record.—Journal 50, fo. 81. According to Luttrell the motion was only carried by a majority of 18 votes.] agreed (14 June) to present a humble petition to his majesty asking pardon for their late offences, and declaring their readiness to submit to anything that he might command or direct. Accordingly, on Monday the 18th June, the lord mayor proceeded to Windsor, accompanied by a deputation of aldermen and members of the Common Council, to lay this petition before the king in council, and his majesty's reply, given by the mouth of the lord keeper, was reported to the Common Council on the following Wednesday.[^137]

[^137: Journal 50, fo. 82. A copy of the petition and the lord keeper's reply on behalf of his majesty (printed and published by his majesty's special command) is among tracts preserved in the Guildhall Library (A* No. 32).]

[Speech of the lord keeper.]

The king, he said, had been very loth to take action against the City, but had been driven to do so by the recent elections. Their petition would have been more gracious if presented earlier; nevertheless, his majesty would not reject it on that account. He would, however, show the City as much favour as could be reasonably expected. It was not his intention to prejudice them either in their properties or customs, and he had instructed Mr. Attorney not to enter judgment lest such a proceeding might entail serious consequences. The alterations he required were few and easy. They were these, viz., that no mayor, sheriff, recorder, common sergeant, town clerk or coroner of the city of London or any steward of the borough of Southwark should be appointed without his majesty's approval under his sign manual; that if his majesty should express disapproval of the choice of a mayor made by the citizens a new election should take place within a week, and if his majesty should disapprove of the second choice he shall, if he so please, himself nominate a mayor for the year ensuing; that if his majesty should in like manner disapprove of the persons chosen to be sheriffs, or either of them, he shall, if he please, proceed to appoint sheriffs by his commission, but subject to this restriction the election of these officers might take according to the ancient usuage of the city; that the lord mayor and Court of Aldermen might with leave of his majesty displace any alderman, recorder, common sergeant, town clerk, coroner of the city or steward of Southwark; that where an election of an alderman had been set aside by the Court of Aldermen another election should be held, and that the Justices of the Peace should be by his majesty's commission. These terms accepted by the citizens, his majesty would consent to confirm their charter in a manner consistent with them. But if they were not speedily complied with his majesty had given orders to enter up judgment by the Saturday following, and any consequences that might follow would be at the door of the citizens themselves.

[The City accept the king's terms, 20 June, 1683.]

A "long and serious" debate, we are told, followed the reading of this answer in the Common Council, after which a poll was taken on the question: whether the court should submit to the king's terms or not, with the result that 104 votes were recorded in favour of accepting them as against 85 votes to the contrary. Whereupon it was "unanimously" ordered that his majesty should be informed of the court's submission, and that the Midsummer-day elections should be put off until the 18th July. [Journal 50, fo. 83; Repertory 88, fo. 152.]

[The mayor and others arrested, 24 April.]

Whilst these proceedings against the city were going on, a writ had been obtained by Papillon and Du Bois for the arrest of Pritchard, the mayor, Dudley North, the sheriff, and several aldermen, for having made a false return to a mandamus directed to them in November last. [Repertory 88, fos. 13, 59; Luttrell, Diary, i, 235, 240.] The writ was directed to Broom, the city's coroner, who executed it by lodging the parties in his own house (24 April). No sooner was this done than one of the city sergeants proceeded to arrest the coroner, who was taken to the compter, where he had to pass the night, whilst the mayor and his fellow-prisoners made their way home. A cry that the Whigs had seized the mayor and carried him off caused great consternation, and the trained bands were immediately ordered out for the security of the city. The citizens themselves were much divided in their opinions on the matter, "some condemning it and others approving it, according to the different tempers of persons." [Luttrell, Diary, i, 256.]

[Indignation of the Court of Aldermen and the Common Council.]

A committee was appointed (26 April) by the Court of Aldermen to consider what was fit to be done by way of vindicating the honour of the mayor and the government of the city, as well as for punishing the authors of the indignity; [Repertory 88, fo. 128.] whilst the Common Council caused it to be placed on record (22 May) that neither they nor the citizens at large had any participation in or knowledge of the action against the mayor, which Papillon and Du Bois alleged had been brought in the name of the citizens of London. [Journal 50, fo. 31b.] Broom's conduct, as well as the terms on which he held his appointment, were made the subject of an investigation by a committee. [Id., fo. 31.]

[Pritchard recovers £10,000 damages, 6 Nov., 1684.]

After Pritchard's year of office expired he brought an action on the case against Papillon for false imprisonment, and eventually (6 Nov., 1684) obtained a verdict and damages to the respectable amount of £10,000. This verdict, whilst it caused amazement to many, met with the avowed approval of Jeffreys, recently promoted to be Lord Chief Justice, who complimented the jury upon their good sense. "Gentlemen," he remarked at the close of the trial, "you seem to be persons that have some sense upon you, and consideration for the government, and I think have given a good verdict and are to be greatly commended for it."[^138] Papillon thereupon absconded.

[^138: "An exact account of the trial between Sir William Pritchard ... and Thomas Papillon ... in an action upon the case ... at the Guildhall, 6th of November, 1684."—Among printed tracts preserved in the Guildhall Library (A* No. 2); Luttrell, Diary, 6 Nov. (i, 319).]

[The Rye House Plot, 1683.]

Within a few days of delivery of judgment against the City, discovery was made of a plot against the lives of the king and the Duke of York. [According to Luttrell (i, 262), the plot was discovered about the 19th June.] This was the famous Rye House Plot, which brought the heads of Lord Russell and Algernon Sydney to the block. Among the minor conspirators were two men who had been employed by Broom, the city coroner, in the recent arrest of the lord mayor. Broom himself was suspected of being implicated in the conspiracy, and was on that ground ordered into custody for the purpose of being examined by a justice of the peace. In the meantime he was to be suspended from his office of coroner, as well as from his duties as a member of the Common Council. [Journal 50, fo. 84.] Concurrently with the Rye House Plot there was, so it was said, a design to raise an insurrection in the city, in which Alderman Cornish was believed to be implicated. [Trial of Alderman Cornish on a charge of high treason. Goodenough's evidence.—Howell, State Trials, xi, 426.] The municipal authorities, however, as a body, were indignant at the threatened attack on the king and his brother, and lost no time in voting an address (2 July) of congratulation upon their escape, assuring the king at the same time of their readiness to hazard their lives and fortunes in defence of his person and the maintenance of the government in Church and State. [Journal 50, fo. 83b.]

[The question of surrender or no surrender of the City's franchise, Sept.-Oct., 1683.]

On Thursday, the 27th September, the mayor laid before the Common Council drafts of a surrender of the City's franchise to his majesty, and of a re-grant from his majesty which the Attorney-general had prepared for their acceptance. After long debate the opinion of the Attorney-general, the Solicitor-general, and the Recorder was taken upon the following questions, viz., (1) Whether the surrender was agreeable to the submission of the Common Council already made and necessary for the regulations required by his majesty; (2) whether by this surrender the office of mayoralty was surrendered; (3) if so, whether the customs and prescriptions belonging to that office were not thereby surrendered and lost; (4) whether in case judgment should be entered up (as the king had threatened) the consequences would not be worse than a surrender; and (5) how far did the re-grant confirm and restore the city to the liberties, etc., therein mentioned. On the following Tuesday (2 Oct.) the opinions of the several counsel were ready. [The opinions are fully set out in Journal 50, fos. 96-100b.] Two of them, viz., that of the Attorney-general and that of the Solicitor-general were decidedly in favour of the City surrendering its liberties in preference to allowing judgment to be entered up. The Recorder took a diametrically opposite view of the matter, one of the reasons urged by him against a surrender being that such action would be against their oaths, and that if they freely surrendered their liberties there would be no redress left open to them. If, on the other hand, they suffered judgment to be entered up, they could take proceedings against it by writ of error. These opinions gave rise to much debate, and many hard things were spoken against the Recorder. At last the matter was put to the vote, when 103 were found against sealing the deed of surrender as against 85 who were in favour of it; and so this momentous question was settled, and the council broke up at eleven o'clock at night. [Journal 50, fo. 98; Luttrell, Diary, 2 Oct.]

[Judgment against the City entered up, 4 Oct., 1683.]

Judgment was forthwith (4 Oct.) entered against the City. The mayor and the new sheriffs were summoned to attend the king. Pritchard received a commission to continue in office during pleasure, and similar commissions were handed to the new sheriffs. The Recorder was dismissed and his place given to Sir Thomas Jenner. [Kennet, iii, 416.] Eight aldermen were turned out and their places filled by nominees of the king. [Repertory 88, fo. 184.] On the 25th October the Court of Aldermen was informed of his majesty's commission having been issued for Sir Henry Tulse to be mayor for the ensuing year, and on the 29th he was sworn with the usual accompaniment of civic procession and banquet. [Repertory 88, fo. 188b; Journal 50, fo. 100b; Luttrell, Diary, i, 285.]

[The king's action against the livery companies.]

Having thus reduced the Corporation of the city to submission, Charles proceeded to take similar action against the livery companies, with the object of getting into his own hands the power of appointing and dismissing their governing body. Seeing that opposition was useless, they submitted with the best grace they could, surrendering their former charters and receiving new charters in their place. The first master, wardens and assistants were usually named in these new charters, which provided (inter alia) that they should be removable at the king's pleasure by Order in Council, that they should take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy and make the declaration prescribed by the Corporation Act, that none should be elected members who were not of the Church of England, and that in all things concerning the government of the city they should be subject to the mayor and aldermen.

[Death of the king, 6 Feb., 1685.]

Notwithstanding the treatment that the citizens had received at the king's hands they heard of his sudden illness (2 Feb., 1685) with unfeigned sorrow, and the Court of Aldermen (5 Feb.) instructed the sheriffs to attend at Whitehall every morning and Sir William Turner and Sir James Edwards every evening during his majesty's illness. [Repertory 90, fo. 46.] Their attendance, however, was not long required, for next day (6 Feb.) the king died.

CHAPTER XXXI.

[The Accession of James II, 6 Feb., 1685.]

"They will never kill me, James, to make you king," the late king is said to have cynically remarked to his brother; and, indeed, the accession of the Duke of York was accepted by the nation in general, as well as by the City of London in particular, with considerable foreboding. The new king for a short while was content to feel his way before plunging into the headstrong course of action which eventually lost him the crown. Although suspected of being a Catholic at heart, it was only during his last moments that Charles had accepted the ministrations of the Roman Church. The new king had for years been an avowed Catholic; nevertheless, in his first speech to the Privy Council he announced his intention of maintaining the established government, both in Church and State. This speech, made within an hour of the late king's death, was received with rapturous applause. It was quickly followed by a proclamation of his majesty's wish that all persons in office at the time of the decease of the late king should so continue until further notice. [Journal 50, fo. 128.] Another document proclaiming the death of the late king and the devolution of the crown to the Duke of York was at the same time drawn up by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, with the assistance of the privy council, the mayor, aldermen and citizens of London and others. [Id., fo. 129b.] This document did not bear the signature of the mayor as that proclaiming James I had done.

[The question of continuation of customs and excise.]

James had not been many days on the throne before the question of supply had to be settled. More than one-half of the whole revenue of the crown was derived from the customs, and these had been settled on Charles for life only, and could not therefore be exacted by his successor without the assent of parliament. No parliament had been summoned since the dissolution of the parliament at Oxford four years since (28 March, 1681). As time was pressing and some delay must have taken place before a new parliament could meet, James took the advice of Chief Justice Jeffreys, and did violence to the constitution by proclaiming (9 Feb.) the continuation of the payment of customs as a matter of necessity, whilst at the same time he intimated his intention of speedily calling a parliament. [Journal 50, fo. 129.] The pill thus gilded was swallowed without protest. The excise duties was another matter and was dealt with differently. The "additional excise," like the customs, had been given to the late king for life, but there was a clause in the Act which empowered the Lords of the Treasury to let them to farm for a term of three years without any limitation as to their being so long due. A lease was now propounded as having been made during the late king's life (the document bearing date the 5th February, the day preceding his decease), although there was every reason for supposing it to have been made after his death and to have been post-dated. The judges were appealed to, and with every desire to curry favour with the new king, the majority pronounced the document to be good in law. Thus fortified, James no longer hesitated to issue a proclamation (16 Feb.) for the continuation of the excise. [Journal 50, fo. 130; Burnet, iii, 10; Luttrell, i, 330.]

[The coronation of king and queen, 23 April, 1685.]

A parliament was summoned for the 9th April, but did not meet until the 19th May. In the meantime the king and queen had been crowned at Westminster on St. George's day (23 April). The City put in their customary claim, [Journal 50, fo. 131; Repertory 90, fo. 61.] but this was at first disallowed "in regard of the judgment upon the Quo Warranto for seizure of the cities franchise." Upon appeal being made, however, to the king himself the claim was allowed, and the mayor, aldermen and citizens were treated with high honour both in the Abbey and at the banquet in Westminster Hall, the mayor being presented by the king with the cup of pure gold and cover, weighing in all upwards of twenty ounces, with which he had served his majesty with wine. [Repertory 90, fo. 72b, 78b-79.] A few days before the banquet took place Sir Robert Vyner sent to the mayor to borrow the City's plate for the occasion. The matter was laid before the Court of Aldermen and permission was granted the lord mayor to lend such plate as could be spared. [Id., fo. 76.]

[A Tory parliament, 1685.]

When parliament met (19 May) the majority in favour of the court party was enormous. This was in no small measure due to the reformation that had been forced on other corporate towns besides the city of London. They had been made to surrender their charters, and the late king had in return granted them new charters in which Tories alone were named as members of the corporations. Only one more step was necessary in order to secure the return of a Tory parliament when the time for fresh elections should arrive, and that step was taken. The parliamentary franchise in boroughs was restricted to members of the corporations. [Burnet, iii, 16. "There have been quo warranto'es brought against divers corporations ... with what design is easily apparent."—Luttrell, Diary, Feb., 1684 (i, 302).] In London the Whigs were kept down by fear, and the Tory party reigned supreme. The mayor and half the Court of Aldermen were nominees of the Crown, acting by royal commission. No Common Council sat, or if it did it was only for the purpose of enrolling a proclamation by the king or a precept by the mayor. As the election drew near the king, in order to render the result in his favour more sure, authorized the Court of Aldermen to grant liveries to several of the city companies, taking care that such only should be admitted to the livery as were of "unquestionable loyalty" for the purpose of voting. [Mayor's precept, 5 May, 1685.—Journal 50, fo. 134.] By this means four of the most pronounced Tories in the city were returned, all of them being aldermen. These were Sir John Moore and Sir William Pritchard, both of whom had been placed in the mayoralty chair, one after the other (in 1681 and 1682), by court influence, Sir Peter Rich, who had served as sheriff with Dudley North in 1682, and Sir Samuel Dashwood, who filled the same office the following year with Peter Daniel, both of them, like their immediate predecessors, being nominees of the Crown. As soon as the House met the Commons unanimously granted the king the full revenue which had been enjoyed by his brother. [Journal House of Commons, ix, 715.]

[Oates and Dangerfield whipt at the cart's tail, May, 1685.]

The bent of the king's mind was quickly discerned in the sentences pronounced by judges eager to secure his favour. Titus Oates was taken out of prison and whipt at the cart's tail from Aldgate to Newgate the day after parliament met. Two days later he was again whipt from Newgate to Tyburn, and the punishment was so mercilessly carried out that it nearly cost him his life. Precautions had to be taken by the mayor to prevent a display of force by Oates's partisans, who overturned the pillory on which he was to stand. [Journal 50, fo. 135b.] Dangerfield, another professional informer, was made to undergo a punishment scarcely less severe. He survived the punishment, but only to die from the effect of a vicious blow dealt him by a bystander as he was being carried back to gaol from Tyburn.

[Richard Baxter brought to trial, 30 May, 1685.]

On the other hand Richard Baxter—the most learned and moderate of Nonconformists—was tried at the Guildhall on a charge of having introduced into his commentary on the New Testament some seditious remarks respecting the attitude of the government towards dissenters. The infamous Jeffreys presided at the trial, and spared neither counsel nor prisoner his insolent invectives. The whole proceedings were nothing less than a farce, and the evidence adduced was of such a flimsy character that Baxter volunteered a remark expressing a doubt whether any jury would convict a man on it. He was, however, mistaken. The sheriffs, like the mayor, were but tools of the court party, and the jurymen selected to sit on the trial did not hesitate to bring in a verdict of guilty. He was fortunate to get off with no worse sentence than a fine of 500 marks and imprisonment until it was paid. [Kennet, iii, 446, 447.]

[The Monmouth Rebellion, 1685.]

There was doubtless a large number of inhabitants of the city who would gladly have assisted Monmouth—"the champion of the dissenters and extreme Protestants"—had they been in a position to do so. But as soon as the news of the duke's landing in Dorsetshire reached London orders were issued by the mayor for a strict watch to be kept by night throughout the city, and for the arrest of all suspicious characters, whilst the duke and his supporters were proclaimed traitors and rebels. It was forbidden to circulate the duke's manifesto in the city, and on the 16th June, or within five days of his landing, a price of £5,000 was put upon his head. [Journal 50, fos. 136-137b.] After Monmouth's defeat at Sedgmoor (6 July) he and his companions sought safety in flight. Monmouth himself fled to the New Forest, where he was captured in the last stage of poverty, sleeping in a ditch, and was brought to London. He was lodged in the Tower, where his wife and three children had already been sent. Thousands of spectators, who, we are told, "seemed much troubled," went forth to witness his arrival by water on the evening of the 13th July. Two days later he was executed on Tower Hill.

[Trial of Cornish and others, 19 Oct., 1685.]

The utmost cruelty, both military and judicial, was inflicted on Monmouth's supporters. Many were hanged by royalist soldiers—"Kirke's lambs," as they were called—without form of law. Others were committed for trial until Jeffreys came to hold his "Bloody Assize," when to the cruelty of the sentences passed on most of them was added the ribald insolence of the judge. The opportunity was taken of giving the city of London a lesson, and Henry Cornish, late alderman and sheriff, was suddenly arrested. This took place on Tuesday the 13th October. He was kept a close prisoner, not allowed to see friends or counsel, and deprived of writing materials. On Saturday he was informed for the first time that he would be tried on a charge of high treason, and that the trial would commence on the following Monday (19 Oct.). His attitude before the judges was calm and dignified. Before pleading not guilty to the charge of having consented to aid and abet the late Duke of Monmouth and others in their attempt on the life of the late king (the Rye House Plot), he entered a protest against the indecent haste with which he had been called upon to plead and the short time allowed him to prepare his case. He asked for further time, but this the judges refused.

One of the chief witnesses for the Crown was Goodenough, who had a personal spite against Cornish for his having objected to him (Goodenough) serving as under-sheriff in 1680-1, the year when Bethell and Cornish were sheriffs. [Goodenough had been nominated under-sheriff by Bethell against the wish of Cornish, and much discussion had arisen between the two sheriffs in consequence.] Goodenough had risked his neck in Monmouth's late rebellion, but he had succeeded in obtaining a pardon by promises of valuable information against others. With the king's pardon in his pocket he unblushingly declared before the judges that he, as well as Cornish and some others, had determined upon a general rising in the city at the time of the Rye House Plot. "We designed," said he, "to divide it (i.e., the city) into twenty parts, and out of each part to raise five hundred men, if it might be done, to make an insurrection." [Howell, State Trials, xi, 426.] The Tower was to be seized and the guard expelled.

Cornish had been afforded no opportunity for instructing counsel in his defence. He was therefore obliged to act as his own counsel, with the result usual in such cases. He rested his main defence upon the improbability of his having acted as the prosecution endeavoured to make out. This he so persistently urged that the judges lost patience. Improbability was not enough, they declared; let him call his witnesses. When, however, Cornish desired an adjournment in order that he might bring a witness up from Lancashire, his request was refused. His chief witness he omitted to call until after the lord chief justice had summed up. This man was a vintner of the city, named Shephard, at whose house Cornish was charged with having met and held consultation with Monmouth and the rest of the conspirators. The bench after some demur assented to the prisoner's earnest prayer that Shephard's evidence might be taken. He showed that he had been in the habit of having commercial transactions with Cornish and was at that moment in his debt; that on the occasion in question Cornish had come to his house, but whether he came to speak with the Duke of Monmouth or not the witness could not say for certain; that he only remained a few minutes, and that no paper or declaration (on which so much stress had been laid) in connection with the conspiracy was read in Cornish's presence; that in fact Cornish was not considered at the time as being in the plot. Such evidence, if not conclusive, ought to have gone far towards obtaining a verdict of acquittal for the prisoner. This was not the case, however; the witness was characterised by one of the judges as "very forward," and when Cornish humbly remonstrated with the treatment his witness was receiving from the bench he was sharply told to hold his tongue. The jury after a brief consultation brought in a verdict of guilty, and Cornish had to submit to the indignity of being tied—like a dangerous criminal—whilst sentence of death was passed upon him and three others who had been tried at the same time.

[Execution of Cornish, 23 Oct., 1685.]

The prisoner was allowed but three clear days before he was hanged at the corner of King Street and Cheapside, within sight of the Guildhall which he had so often frequented as an alderman of the city, and on which his head was afterwards placed. He met his end with courage and with many pious expressions, but to the last maintained his innocence with such vehemence that his enemies gave out that he had "died in a fit of fury." [Howell, State Trials, xi, 450, 451; Burnet, iii, 65, 66.] The injustice of his sentence was recognised and his conviction and attainder was afterwards reversed and annulled by parliament (22 June, 1689). [Journal House of Commons, x, 193.]

[Execution of Mrs. Gaunt, 23 Oct.]

Of the three others who had been tried with Cornish, two were reprieved (one was afterwards executed), but the third, Elizabeth Gaunt, was burnt at Tyburn the same day that Cornish suffered (23 Oct.) for having harboured an outlaw named Burton and assisted him to escape beyond the law. He had been implicated in the Rye House Plot, but with the aid of Mrs. Gaunt, who lived in the city, had contrived to avoid capture. In order to save his own skin the wretch did not hesitate to turn king's evidence and to sacrifice the life of his benefactress, a woman who is described as having "spent a great part of her life in acts of charity, visiting the gaols and looking after the poor." She too died with great fortitude, arranging with her own hands the straw around her, so as to burn the more speedily. [Burnet, iii, 62.]

[The revocation of the Edict of Nantes, Oct., 1685.]

Parliament began to be alarmed at the favour shown to Catholics, and this alarm was increased by a report from France that Louis XIV, with whom James was known to be closely allied, and on whom he depended, like his late brother, for pecuniary support, had revoked the Edict of Nantes granted by Henry IV in favour of his Protestant subjects. The report was soon confirmed by the appearance of numbers of French Protestants—refugees from persecution—in England, and more especially in the city of London. What Louis had done in France James, it was feared, would carry out in England by means of his standing army commanded by Roman Catholic officers. Hence the alarm which pervaded not only parliament, but also the city and the nation at large.

[Session of parliament, 9-20 Nov., 1685.]

Hence too it was that when the Houses, which had been adjourned during the campaign in the West, met on the 9th November, [Journal 50, fo. 143.] they remonstrated with him for the favour he had shown to Catholics in direct contravention of the law. Finding himself unable to bend parliament to his will, he determined to do without one, and accordingly, after a brief session, it stood prorogued (20 Nov.), [Journal House of Commons, ix, 761.] never to meet again during the present reign.

[James and the Catholics, 1686.]

Without a parliament James could act with a free hand. By a piece of chicanery he managed to get a legal decision acknowledging the dispensing power of the king. [Godden v. Sir Edward Hales, an action for debt of £500 brought upon the Test Act 25 Chas. II, c. 2.—Luttrell. i, 380, 382.] He established an Ecclesiastical Commission Court, with the infamous Jeffreys at its head, the first act of which was to suspend the Bishop of London for upholding the Protestant faith. He removed the Earl of Clarendon (son of the late Chancellor), who had recently been appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, [Repertory 91. fo. 23.] and appointed as lord deputy the Earl of Tyrconnel, a Roman Catholic of low character, who had gained an unenviable notoriety as the "lying Dick Talbot." The country was over-run with Papists from abroad. All the laws against the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion were set at defiance. There was no disguise. Mass was publicly celebrated at Whitehall and Roman Catholic chapels sprang up everywhere, giving rise to no small dissatisfaction and tumult. The agitation in London was great, but greater in the city, where men had been less accustomed to the sight of the Romish ceremonial than those who lived in the neighbourhood of the court. Riots in the city were of frequent occurrence, more especially on Sundays, when the Roman Catholics were more in evidence than on week days. A Roman Catholic chapel had recently been erected by the Elector Palatine in Lime Street. An ineffectual attempt had been made by the mayor and aldermen to stay the work. They were summoned to appear before the king and reprimanded. The work was accordingly allowed to go on and the chapel was opened. On Sunday, the 18th April (1686), the priests attached to the chapel were followed by a mob into Cheapside, and matters would have gone hard with them had not the mayor and aldermen appeared on the scene with a regiment of trained bands. James again sent for the mayor and told him that if he could not keep better order in the city he should himself send some "assistance." [Luttrell, i, 373-375.] Nevertheless another riot broke out on the following Sunday. A mob entered a Roman Catholic chapel and carried away a crucifix, crying out they would have no "wooden gods." A cross was set up on the parish pump and mock obeisance made to it. The priests were insulted, but no violence was offered them. When the mayor appeared to quell the tumult the crowd affected to disbelieve that his lordship was in earnest. "What! the lord mayor of our city come to preach up popery! too sure, it cannot be!" When the trained bands were ordered to disperse the crowd they declared that in conscience they could not hinder them in their work. [Ellis Correspondence, 27 April, 1686, 2nd series, iv, 94.]

[The camp at Hounslow opened, 28 May, 1686.]

These disturbances were very injurious to the trade of the city, and caused a considerable fall in the amount of customs paid for merchandise entering the port of London. A regiment or two of the standing army which James had formed might any day appear in the city. "I shall not wonder if the Scotch regiment of guards now quartering at Greenwich be quartered in Cheapside before this week is out," wrote a contemporary on the 27th April. [Ellis Correspondence, 2nd series, iv, 94.] A month later the army was encamped at Hounslow, the king himself being also there, ready to send "assistance" to the city should occasion arise. [Luttrell, i, 378.]

[The Declaration of Indulgence, 4 April, 1687.]

For a time James had entertained the hope of obtaining favours for the Catholics with the goodwill of the Church of England, whilst continuing the persecution of dissenters. Finding this impossible he determined to make friends of the dissenters, and to include them in a general declaration of indulgence. Accordingly on the 4th April, 1687, there appeared a Declaration of Indulgence suspending all laws against Roman Catholics and dissenters alike. [Journal 50, fo. 191a.]

[Corporations further "regulated," 1687.]

James would willingly have obtained parliamentary sanction for his declaration if he could. To this end he again took to tampering with corporations throughout the country, in the hope of securing thereby a parliament favourable to his policy of toleration. Six commissioners were appointed in November to "regulate" all the corporations of England, by turning out all who were opposed to the abolition of the penal laws and Test Act and putting in their place those who favoured it. [Luttrell, i, 420, 421.] In London dispensations were granted to the livery companies relieving their members from taking the oaths and test, whilst similar dispensations were included in the royal commissions appointing aldermen. In many of the companies Tories of a too pronounced character were turned out and their places taken by dissenters.[^139] Everywhere dissenters were treated with the greatest consideration. Notwithstanding every effort, however, to capture the constituencies at the next elections, James found public opinion against him to be too strong, and all thought of summoning a fresh parliament had to be abandoned.

[^139: "There has been a review in the several companies of London: great alterations have been made therein; those of the violent Tories are generally removed out of the Court of Assistants, 'tis said to the number of about 900 persons, insomuch that some have esteemed it a scandall to be kept in."—Luttrell, i, 415.]

[The king and the Court of Aldermen, June, 1687.]

In the meanwhile addresses flowed in from various parts of the country thanking the king for his declaration. Presbyterians, Quakers, Independents, Congregationalists alike sent addresses, but as yet no address was presented on behalf of the Court of Aldermen—the governing body of the city, now that the Common Council was in abeyance. That body had to be largely remodelled before it would consent to present any such address. On Thursday, the 16th June, the infamous Jeffreys, who had been rewarded with the seals for his work at the Bloody Assizes, appeared before the Court of Aldermen and declared his majesty's pleasure that in future that court should nominate and recommend to the Crown such persons as they thought fit to be aldermen as vacancies occurred, and that no one so nominated should be exempt from service except for insufficiency of estate, to be declared on oath. Those who were capable of serving and refused to serve when nominated by the court were to be fined, and the fines were to be devoted to the use and benefit of the city's orphans. The ancient privilege, too, of the mayor drinking to a future sheriff received the king's sanction. [Repertory 92, fo. 274.] Having listened to the lord chancellor's message the court resolved to wait upon the king at Windsor on the following Sunday to thank his majesty "for that and all other his majesties acts of grace to this court and city." [Id., fo. 275.] Both the mayor and the Court of Aldermen lost no time in exercising their privileges, but they experienced great difficulty in getting any one to serve sheriff or alderman. Fines ran up apace, until no less than £8,500 had been paid by persons desirous at any cost to be discharged from filling either of those thankless offices. Many of the aldermen either voluntarily resigned their gowns or were dismissed from the court because they were unwilling to vote an address of thanks to James for his declaration. [Luttrell, i, 410, 411; Repertory 92, fos. 277, 283, 287, 291, 293, 299-301, etc.]

[Thanks from Court of Aldermen for Declaration, 26 July, 1687.]

At length the court was sufficiently packed with dissenters to pass an address to the king (26 July) thanking him for his declaration, and assuring his majesty of their readiness to stand by him with their lives and fortunes. [Repertory 92, fos. 330, 334.] The orphans of the city also voted an address, [Luttrell, i, 411.] as well they might, seeing the amount of money that the declaration had been the means of bringing into the orphans' fund.

[William Kiffin appointed by the king alderman of Cheap, 6 Aug., 1687.]

[His reluctance to accept office.]

[At last consents, and is sworn, 27 Oct., 1687.]

Not every dissenter welcomed the king's declaration. To many of them it seemed—what the king intended it to be—only a lever for raising the Roman Catholics. Baxter, to whom friendly overtures were made by government to win him over, refused to join in any address of thanks for the declaration. John Howe declared himself an opponent of the dispensing power, and Bunyan declined to enter into any negotiations on the matter at all. William Kiffin, on the other hand, an influential Baptist in the city, succumbed to the threats, if not to the blandishments, of James.[^140] In addition to possessing spiritual gifts of no mean order, Kiffin was also a man of wealth and position in the world of commerce. In every way he would prove a valuable ally, if only he could be won over. Against this, however, there was one great impediment: the recollection of the judicial murder of his two grandsons, Benjamin and William Hewling, by Jeffreys at the Bloody Assizes. Fondly imagining that the memory of that foul act could be blotted out and the stricken heart salved by an increase of wealth or elevation in rank, James sent for him to court, and after some preliminary remarks touching the royal favour that was being shown to dissenters, told Kiffin that he had put him down as an alderman in his "new charter," alluding no doubt to the royal commission of 6th August, in which Kiffin's name appears as alderman of Cheap ward in the place of Samuel Dashwood. On hearing this Kiffin replied, "Sir, I am a very old man,"—he was seventy years of age when he lost his grandchildren—"I have withdrawn myself from all kind of business for some years past, and am incapable of doing any service in such an affair to your majesty or the city. Besides, sir," the old man continued, with tears running down his cheeks, and looking the king steadily in the face, "the death of my grandsons gave a wound to my heart which is still bleeding, and never will close but in the grave." For a moment the king was abashed, but quickly recovering himself told Kiffin that he (James) would find "a balsam for that sore." The old man still held out, until, hearing that legal proceedings were about to be taken against him, he took counsel's opinion as to what was best to be done. He was told that he was running a great risk by refusing to become an alderman, for the judges, as they then were, might subject him to a penalty of ten, twenty, or thirty thousand pounds, "even what they pleased." Under such circumstances he consented to be made an alderman, rather than bring ruin on himself and family. He, however, put off the evil day as long as he could, and was not sworn into office until the 27th October. [Repertory 92, fo. 525.]

[^140: See "The life of Mr. William Kiffin, upwards of sixty years pastor of the Baptist church, Devonshire square, London, from 1639 to 1701; and one of the five aldermen appointed by James II, in the year 1687, when that popish and despotic monarch disfranchised the city of London," by Joseph Ivimey, London, 1833.]

Kiffin expressed himself as pleased with the reception he met with in his ward, where he was almost a stranger. But much of the business which the Court of Aldermen was called upon to execute in those days was distasteful to him. "We had frequently orders from the king" (he writes) "to send to the several companies to put out great numbers of liverymen out of the privilege of being liverymen, and others to be put in their rooms; most of which that were so turned out were Protestants of the Church of England. There has been a list of seven hundred at a time to be discharged, although no crime laid to their charge." The royal commission which appointed him an alderman also created him a justice of the peace and a member of the Court of Lieutenancy, but to use his own words, "I never meddled with either of those places, neither in any act of power in that court [i.e., Court of Aldermen] touching causes between man and man, but only such things as concerned the welfare of the city and good of the orphans, whose distressed condition called for help, although we were able to do little towards it." He was not called upon to discharge his invidious duties for any great length of time; for after being in office only nine months he obtained his discharge, to his "very great satisfaction." He continued to live for another thirteen years, dying on the 29th December, 1701, in his 86th year, and he was buried in Bunhill Fields—that "God's acre" which holds the dust of so many of his fellow non-conformists.

[Sir John Shorter, mayor, Oct., 1687.]

In September the king had issued a patent for Sir John Shorter to be lord mayor for the year ensuing. Shorter was a dissenter—"an Anabaptist, a very odd ignorant person, a mechanic, I think," wrote Evelyn [Diary, i, 643.] of him—and on that account a clause was inserted in his commission permitting him to have any preacher he might choose. [Luttrell, i, 414.] His granddaughter was married to Sir Robert Walpole. He was at one time alderman of Cripplegate ward, but in December, 1682, he fell foul of Charles II for attending a conventicle at Pinmakers' Hall, and the Court of Aldermen received orders to remove him. [Repertory 88, fos. 43b, 90b.] He had recently, however (6 Aug., 1687), been restored to his aldermanry and to his rank of precedence by commission from James, [Original commission preserved in the Town Clerk's office.] and now, by the same usurped authority, he was to become lord mayor. The feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.) happening this year to fall on a Friday, the installation of the new lord mayor, as well as the banquet to which James and the Papal Nuncio had been invited, was postponed until the following day. The aldermen agreed to defray the cost of the entertainment out of their own pockets, [Repertory 92, fo. 496.] each laying down the sum of £50. Kiffin also sent £50, although he had not yet been sworn a member of the court; but he afterwards regretted having done so when he learnt that the Pope's Nuncio and other priests had been invited as guests. [Kiffin's Autobiographies ("Life of Kiffin," by Joseph Ivimey), pp. 88, 89.] The day passed off well. The Goldsmiths' Company, of which the new lord mayor was a member, made a particularly brave show. The entire roadway from Charing Cross to the city had been fresh gravelled that morning, and the king, who was accompanied by the queen, expressed himself as well pleased with the entertainment afforded him. [Luttrell, i, 417, 418.]

[The Dissenters supreme in the city.]

The Dissenters now had matters all their own way. The livery companies had become so leavened with an influx of new members, whose claim for admittance rested chiefly on their antagonism to the established Church, that most of them now sent in addresses to the king thanking him for his Declaration of Indulgence. The Barber-Surgeons and the Apothecaries had already done so; so had the Clothworkers, the Mercers and the Glovers. Their example was now followed by the Cutlers, the Goldsmiths, the Haberdashers, the Joiners and the Weavers. [Luttrell, i, 416, 418, 420.] The mayor, who kept his mayoralty at Grocers' Hall, openly held a conventicle there on Sunday, the 6th November, [Id., i, 419.] whilst he declined to listen to a sermon by the learned Dr. Stillingfleet in the Guildhall chapel.[^141] More than this, he would have turned the chapel itself into a conventicle could he have had his own way.[^142]

[^141: "The 27th (Nov.) Dr. Stillingfleet preached at Guildhall chappel, and afterwards was invited to dine with the lord mayor, and his lordship's coach was sent for him, but he refused to goe, his lordship not being to hear him preach."—Luttrell, i, 422.]

[^142: Repertory 93, fos. 44, 46b, 48b; Luttrell, i, 427, 428. The Court of Aldermen not being able to come to a decision whether to allow the Chapel to be turned into a conventicle or not, a compromise appears to have been effected by shutting up the Chapel altogether.—Luttrell, i, 467.]

[The second Declaration of Indulgence, 27 April, 1688.]

In the Spring of 1688 James published a second Declaration of Indulgence varying but slightly from the former one, and ordered it to be read in the churches of London and Westminster on the 20th and 27th May, and in the country on the 3rd and 10th June. This was more than the clergy could stand. A meeting of bishops was held at Lambeth for the purpose of drawing up a petition to the king praying that the clergy might be excused reading an illegal document in the midst of public service. This petition was signed by Sancroft, the primate, and six bishops. Although the Bishop of London was not among those who signed the petition—he at the time being under disability—there is reason for believing that Compton had been taken into counsel by those who drafted it. [Lingard, xiv, 195-197.] On the petition being presented James pretended the utmost surprise, and insisted that the presentation of such a petition was "a standard of rebellion." This took place on Friday preceding the first Sunday (20th May) when the Declaration was to be read in the London churches. When Sunday arrived people flocked to the churches to hear what would happen. Only a few of the London clergy attempted to read the Declaration. [Luttrell, i, 440.] In the country not more than 200 clergy carried out the king's orders, "and of these some read it the first Sunday, but changed their minds before the second; others declared in their sermons that though they obeyed the order they did not approve the Declaration." One minister in particular told his congregation that though he was obliged to read it they were not obliged to hear it, and waited until all had left the church before he commenced reading the hateful document. In other places the congregation took the initiative and rose to go as soon as the minister commenced reading it. [Burnet, iii, 229.]

[The seven bishops committed to the Tower.]

What followed is well known. On Friday the 8th June the Archbishop of Canterbury and the six bishops who had signed the petition were summoned before the council and asked if they acknowledged their respective signatures. They were next required to enter into bond for appearance before the King's Bench. This they declined to do, and were thereupon committed to the Tower. [Luttrell, i, 442.] To have carried them through the streets of the city might have caused a riot; they were therefore conveyed to the Tower by water, "and all along as they passed the banks of the river were full of people, who kneeled down and asked their blessing, and with loud shouts expressed their good wishes for them and their concern in their preservation." [Burnet, iii, 232.] The enthusiasm of the Londoners did not end here. They continued to flock to the Tower, filling the small chapel where the bishops attended service to overflowing in order to gaze upon their beloved pastors and receive their blessing. [Luttrell, i, 444.] After being kept in separate confinement, and allowed to meet only at meals and in chapel, for ten days, the bishops were allowed to come out on bail.

[Trial and acquittal of the bishops, 29 and 30 June, 1688.]

On the 29th June they appeared before the King's Bench on a charge of publishing a seditious libel. A technical difficulty presented itself at the outset, but this was got over, and after a trial of some hours the question of their innocence or guilt was left to a jury drawn, not from London, but from the county of Middlesex. One of the panel stuck out against the rest, and wished to bring in a verdict of guilty, but after being locked up through the night he allowed himself to be persuaded by his fellow-jurymen, and on the morning of the 30th June a verdict of not guilty was found. Thereupon "there were such shoutings, so long continued, and as it were echoed into the city, that all people were struck with it." [Burnet, iii, 237.] Bonfires were lighted, guns discharged and church bells rung, not only in London but throughout the kingdom.

[Disaffection among the troops at Hounslow.]

The beginning of the end was approaching. Already the troops encamped at Hounslow, on which James placed so much dependence, showed signs of disaffection. He had hoped that his army would have overawed London, instead of which the free spirit of London had, as a result of his policy, entirely captivated his army. So long as the king was in their midst the troops maintained a respectful demeanour, but as soon as his back was turned they threw off all restraint, and joined in the general exultation at the late joyful deliverance to the Church of England. [Luttrell, i, 448; Burnet, iii, 236, 237.]

[The birth of Prince Charles Edward, 10 June, 1688.]

The birth of a prince (10 June), which had recently taken place, served to hasten the crisis. Those who were willing to have waited patiently for a recurrence to the old order of things at the king's death now saw their hopes dashed to the ground. The king's heir and successor, brought up, as he undoubtedly would be, in the tenets of his father, promised them little relief. Even before the birth of the prince overtures had been made to William of Orange to appear in England at the head of an army. Nevertheless the Court of Aldermen displayed its loyalty by resolving that the conduits in Cheapside and at the Stocks Market should run with claret on Thanksgiving-day. The sheriffs were to take the matter in hand, whilst the sum of £50 was raised by the court to defray the cost, the mayor contributing £10, each of the sheriffs £5, and the rest of the aldermen the balance between them. [Repertory 93, fo. 157.] Later on (29 June) the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs waited upon the infant prince and kissed his hand. The various nurses were presented by the Chamberlain with the respectable douceur of sixty guineas, whilst ten guineas were given to the lord chancellor's messenger who brought the news to the city of the prince's birth. [Id., fos. 164b, 167b.]

[Invitation to William of Orange, 30 June, 1688.]

The day that saw the bishops acquitted a letter was despatched, signed by Shrewsbury, Danby, Compton (the suspended Bishop of London) and others, to the Prince of Orange, again inviting him to land in England with an armed force, and promising to render him every assistance. After some hesitation William accepted the invitation, and began to make preparations, both naval and military, for his descent on England. Towards the close of September news came from Holland of the vast preparations that were being pushed forward in that country. A fleet of sixty sail was in readiness, and the prince himself was shortly expected on board. James lost no time in informing the lord mayor of the state of affairs, and desired that he and the aldermen would take measures for preserving the city in peace. [Luttrell, i, 462.] On the 28th he issued a proclamation informing his subjects of the threatened invasion, and calling upon them to lay aside all jealousies and to unite in defending the country against the foreign enemy. [Journal 50, fo. 350b.]

[Restoration of the City's liberties, 6 Oct., 1688.]

James saw, when it was too late, that he had over-taxed the patience of his subjects. He was now ready to make any and every concession. As for the citizens of London, they should have their charter restored. Accordingly, on Saturday the 6th October Lord Chancellor Jeffreys appeared before the Court of Aldermen with two separate grants under the great seal, the one appointing Sir John Chapman to be mayor (in the place of Sir John Eyles[^143]) up to the feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.), with liberty to the citizens in the meantime to elect one of their own choice to be mayor for the year ensuing; the other, continuing in office Sir Samuel Thompson and Sir Humphrey Edwin, then sheriffs, until a new election of sheriffs should be made by the citizens. The newly-appointed mayor and the existing sheriffs thereupon went down into the Guildhall, accompanied by the lord chancellor, who informed the citizens of the restitution of their liberties. [The deed of restitution under the great seal, dated the 3rd October, as well as Chapman's commission to be mayor, dated the 5th October are preserved at the Guildhall (Charter Closet, Box No. 24).] The mayor and sheriffs having taken the oaths and subscribed the declaration prescribed by the Corporation Act, the aldermen returned to their chamber, and such as had been aldermen at the time of the judgment upon the writ of Quo Warranto and were then present were forthwith sworn in for the respective wards from which they had been deposed. The court next proceeded to draw up an address to the king, in which his majesty was assured that with all duty and faithfulness they would cheerfully and readily discharge the trust reposed in them to the utmost hazard of their lives and fortunes. [Repertory 94, fos. 1-3.] One cannot help noticing how studiously different the wording of this address is from those previously presented. Not a word about defending his majesty's person with their lives and fortunes; these are thenceforth to be expended in guarding their own liberties! When the Court of Aldermen met three days later (9 Oct.) the common sergeant, the town clerk, the comptroller, swordbearer, common crier and other officers who had been ousted from their places under the Quo Warranto were formally re-instated; [Id., fos. 4-5.] and the same day Chapman issued his precept for a Common Hall to meet on the 11th for the election of sheriffs for the year ensuing.[^144] Several aldermen who had lost their places in 1683 declined to be re-instated, among them being Sir Robert Clayton. [Repertory 94, fo. 17.] Sir George Treby, who had been recorder at the time of the confiscation of the city's liberties, also refused to accept office again; but the Court of Aldermen finding great difficulty in getting a suitable person to accept the appointment, Treby was finally induced to change his mind, and before the end of the year he occupied his old place and continued to occupy it until, in 1692, he was made chief justice of common pleas.[^145]

[^143: He had been appointed mayor by Letters Patent (7 Sept.) to succeed Sir John Shorter, who had died from the effects of a fall from his horse on the occasion of his opening St. Bartholomew fair in Smithfield (Luttrell, i, 458-459). Eyles was to continue in office during the king's pleasure.]

[^144: Journal 50, fo. 352. Sir Humphrey Edwin was re-elected, and with him John Fleet, in place of Sir Samuel Thomson. Both Edwin and Fleet prayed to be discharged, but the Court of Aldermen refused.—Repertory 94, fos. 13, 14.]

[^145: Repertory 94, fo. 77; Id. 96, fo. 312. "The citty of London, since the refusal of Sir George Treby to be their recorder, have made choice of Mr. Sommers, of the Inner Temple, but he also refused it; then they pitcht upon Mr. Conyers, but he declined it, as also Mr. Selby."—Luttrell, i, 471.]

The city was still without a Common Council, and it was not until the 26th November that the Court of Aldermen advised the mayor to issue his precept for an election of common councilmen to take place on the 28th. The council so elected was to be but a provisional one until the regular election should take place on St. Thomas-day (21 Dec.). [Repertory 94, fo. 69.] On the 1st December the new Common Council sat for the first time, [Journal 50, fo. 361.] none having met since the 2nd October, 1683.

[Writs for a new parliament.]

The day that a new Common Council was elected Jeffreys (who was already packing up to be off) notified that writs were about to be issued for a new parliament. The House was to meet on the 15th January (1689). James had purposed summoning a parliament for November (1688), and some of the writs had been actually sent out, but the Dutch preparations so alarmed him that the writs were recalled. [Luttrell, i, 463, 479, 480; Journal 50, fo. 351.]

[Question as to the legitimacy of Prince Charles, 20 Oct., 1688.]

In the meantime an extraordinary council had been held at Whitehall (20 Oct.) which the mayor and aldermen of the city had been invited to attend. The object of the meeting was to dissipate any doubt that had been entertained as to the infant prince being actually the king's son. There had been rumours to the contrary, and as the king was about to enter upon a dangerous enterprise in person, he declared his intention of settling the question beyond all doubt before leaving. Some twenty witnesses were accordingly examined then and there as to the prince's legitimacy, the king offering to send for the queen herself if the meeting so wished. This offer, one need scarcely say, was declined. [Luttrell, i, 470.] The same day proclamation was made for guarding the sea coast and withdrawing all draft cattle into the interior. [Journal 50, fo. 354.]

[A "mass house" in the city wrecked by the mob, 29 Oct., 1688.]

The feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.) falling on Sunday, Sir John Chapman, who had been re-elected mayor by free choice of the citizens, proceeded to Westminster by water according to custom on the following Monday, accompanied by the aldermen, and was sworn before the barons of the exchequer. He returned to Grocers' Hall and there entertained the lords of the council, the judges and many of the nobility. Notwithstanding the precautions taken against riot during the mayor's absence from the city the mob broke out and sacked and burnt a "mass house" in Bucklersbury. For this disturbance the mayor and sheriffs were called to account by the king. [Journal 50, fos. 354b, 355b; Luttrell, i, 472.]

[Arrival of William and his march on London, Nov., 1688.]

On the 5th November the Prince of Orange successfully effected a landing in Torbay. As soon as the news reached London James again sent for the mayor and aldermen, ordered them to take care of the city, and, if he should fall in battle, to proclaim the Prince of Wales successor to the crown. [Luttrell, i, 473.] William proceeded to march upon London. At Exeter he was well received, but some little time elapsed before the gentry showed any disposition to throw in their lot with the prince. On the 17th James set out with his army to meet the invader, after receiving an assurance from the mayor and aldermen that they would take care of the city during his absence.[^146] He reached Salisbury, but soon found himself deserted by officers and friends. Among the former was Lord Churchill, afterwards known as the Duke of Marlborough, and the greatest soldier of the age. Left almost alone, James returned to London, having been absent from the capital less than ten days. Like his name-sake the Conqueror, William made no haste to reach London, but advanced by slow marches, putting up at various gentlemen's houses on the way. It was agreed that both armies should remain at a distance of forty miles from London in order to allow the new parliament to meet in safety.

[^146: Luttrell, i, 477. The mayor had already issued his precept (14 Nov.) to the livery companies for them to lay in their full stock of corn as they were bound to do for the provision of the city "upon any necessary occasion, as dearth or other emergency."—Journal 50, fo. 356.]

[Renewed attacks made on Catholics in London.]

Since the news of the prince's landing there had been a renewal of the attacks made on Roman Catholics and their places of worship in London. On the 11th November the mob broke into St. John's, Clerkenwell, where rumour declared there were stored gridirons, spits and other instruments for torturing Protestants. The troops were called out and one or two of the rioters killed. It was deemed advisable to close all the Roman Catholic chapels except the royal chapels and those belonging to foreign ambassadors. [Luttrell, i, 475.] Another sign of the times was the fact that the sceptre belonging to the statue of Queen Mary set up in the Royal Exchange had either accidentally fallen or (as was more probable) had been forcibly struck out of her hand. [Id., i, 478.] On the 7th December the mayor issued a precept to the aldermen of each ward for a careful search to be made in the city for all Papists and suspicious persons. He did this because he understood that the inhabitants of the city were much alarmed at the great resort of Papists to the city who were believed to be meditating some attack upon London. [Journal 50, fo. 358.]

[Proceeding in the city after the king's flight, 11 Dec., 1688.]

The negotiations which had been opened with William were only intended by James to serve the purpose of giving the latter time to place his wife and child in a place of security before he himself should seek safety in flight. On the 11th December he attempted to make good his escape. As soon as it was known that the king had left London a great number of lords, both spiritual and temporal, came to the Guildhall, as to a place of security, the better to consult and take measures for the common weal. Having informed the Court of Aldermen of the king's flight the lords retired into the "gallery adjoining to ye councell chamber," and there drew up a Declaration, [Printed in Kennet's History, iii, 500.] containing in effect their resolution to assist the Prince of Orange in maintaining the religion, the rights and the liberties which had been invaded by Jesuitical counsels. This was communicated to the Court of Aldermen, who thanked the lords for the favour shown to the Court. As the occasion was an important one it was deemed advisable to summon forthwith a Common Council, as well as the law officers of the City, to advise the aldermen as to what was best to be done. [Repertory 94, fo. 74-75.] A Common Council was accordingly held that same day. Being informed of the state of affairs, the court quickly resolved to follow the example set by the lords, and themselves to present an address to the prince.[^147] An address was accordingly prepared, in which, having warmly acknowledged the prince's zeal for the Protestant religion and expressed regret at the king's measures and his recent flight, the citizens implored the prince's protection, promising him at the same time a hearty welcome whenever he should repair to their city. The lieutenancy of the city followed suit the same day with another address, in which his highness was assured that measures had been taken for preserving the city in peace until his arrival. [Maitland, i, 488.] The lords, having finished their business in the city, dined the same evening with the lord mayor at Grocers' Hall. [Repertory 94, fo. 75.]

[^147: Journal 50, fo. 363. The address is entered neither in the Journal nor Letter Book, although space is left for the purpose in both volumes. It is printed, however, by Maitland ("Hist. of London," i, 488) from Eachard's "Hist. of England."]

[Letter from the prince to the city, 17 Dec., 1688.]

On the 17th a letter from the prince was read before the Common Council. The terms of the letter are not recorded in the City's archives, but it probably contained some reference to the peace of the city, for the council, after preparing an answer to it, forthwith gave orders for the guards of the trained bands to be increased by three regiments. [Journal 50, fos. 364, 364b; Letter Book ZZ, fos. 134, 134b.]

[The prince enters London, 18 Dec.]

The following day (18 Dec.) the prince himself entered London, and the council, having heard of his arrival, immediately despatched the sheriffs and the common sergeant to learn when his highness would be pleased to receive a deputation from the city. It was arranged that the aldermen and their deputies and one or two members of the council of each ward, according to the number of its representatives, should form the deputation. [Journal 50, fo. 364b; Letter Book ZZ, fo. 135.] The lord mayor (Chapman) being indisposed was unable to attend. He had recently been seized with a fit of apoplexy whilst trying the terrible Jeffreys, who had been discovered and apprehended in disguise at Wapping. But Treby, the recorder, was there, and made a speech on the City's behalf. [Maitland, i, 489.]

[A representative assembly meet to discuss the state of affairs, 26 Dec., 1688.]

[A Convention Parliament to meet, 22 Jan., 1689.]

By this time James, who had been foiled in his first attempt to reach the coast, and had returned to London, had, with the connivance of the Prince of Orange, been more successful in a second attempt, and had crossed over to France, where he spent the remainder of his days. The country was therefore left without king, parliament or legal system for its government. In London the Corporation of the city was almost the only authority that remained unaffected by the king's abdication; and it is significant as well of its power as of the respect which that body commanded that when William was endeavouring to form an authoritative assembly by summoning all the members who had ever sat in parliament under Charles II, [Members of James's parliament were not summoned on the ground that, owing to the Corporations having suffered "regulations" at the hands of the king, it was no true parliament.] he likewise desired that the lord mayor of the city, the entire Court of Aldermen and fifty representatives of the Common Council should attend. [Kennet, iii, 505.] This assembly met on the 26th December, and after due consultation decided to adopt the same procedure as was adopted in 1660 before the return of Charles II. As there was no king there could be no writs for a parliament, but William could call a Convention, which would be a parliament in everything but name. A Convention was accordingly summoned to meet on the 22nd January, 1689. The election of the city members to serve in the convention was ordered to take place on Wednesday the 9th January, [Repertory 94, fo. 80.] when the choice of the citizens fell upon their former well-tried representatives, Sir Patience Ward, Sir Robert Clayton, Pilkington (who had regained his liberty in August, 1686) [Luttrell, i, 382.] and Love.

[Letter from the prince desiring a city loan, 8 Jan., 1689.]

In the meantime (8 Jan.) the prince wrote to the civic authorities setting forth the inadequacy of the revenue to supply three pressing wants. These were the maintenance of the navy, the partial disbandment of the army and the furnishing of a force for the speedy relief of the Protestants in Ireland. He desired the City, therefore, to advance him such a sum as could be "conveniently spared."[^148] The City was still to keep up its character as the purse of the nation. The Common Council, having heard the letter read, at once resolved to assist the prince to the utmost of their power. A committee was appointed to settle with the revenue officers the nature of the security, and orders were given for precepts to be sent to the aldermen to raise subscriptions in the various wards. [Subscription lists of the several wards and other documents in respect of this loan are preserved in the chamberlain's office.—See Report on Corporation Records, 16 Dec., 1869, Appendix iii, p. 52.] Sir Peter Rich, who had recently been re-instated in the office of city chamberlain from which he had been ousted, was instructed to pay into the exchequer all money received on account of the loan, and to strike tallies for the same in his own name in trust for the use of the several lenders. Ten days later (18 Jan.) the committee reported the steps taken for the security of repayment of the money already paid into the exchequer, and the council recommended that similar steps should be taken with respect to those sums yet to be paid in. It was at the same time unanimously agreed to ask the Prince to dinner in the city, and the recorder, the sheriffs and the common sergeant were instructed to wait on his highness and learn his pleasure. [Journal 50, fo. 365b; Letter Book ZZ, fo. 136b; Repertory 94. fo. 87.]

[^148: Journal 50, fo. 365; Letter Book ZZ, fo. 135b; Journal 51, fo. 14b. The sum required by the prince is stated to have been £200,000, of which sum Sir Samuel Dashwood is said to have subscribed no less than £60,000.—Kennet, iii, 507; Maitland, i, 490.]

[Meeting of the convention parliament, 22 Jan., 1689.]

On the 22nd January the Convention met. On the 28th the Commons declared the throne to be vacant, and on the 6th February a vote to similar effect was passed by the Lords. Some over-zealous inhabitants of the city had in the meanwhile prepared a petition, which they purposed presenting to the House of Lords, praying that the crown might be offered to the Prince of Orange and his consort. The prince ordered the lord mayor to put a stop to such proceedings, and a precept (200 copies of which were ordered to be printed) was accordingly issued to this effect. [The precept is printed in Maitland's Hist. (i, 491). Only the first word, "Whereas," is set out in the City's Archives (Repertory 94, fo. 94), space being left for the remainder.]

[William and Mary proclaimed king and queen, 13 Feb., 1689.]

A Declaration of Rights was drawn up condemning the unconstitutional acts of James II, and offering to settle the crown on William and Mary and their children, with remainders over. On the 13th February this offer was accepted, [Journal House of Commons, x, 28, 29.] and the prince and princess were forthwith proclaimed king and queen with the usual ceremony. The next day the Common Council unanimously agreed to wait upon their majesties and congratulate them upon their accession to the throne. [Journal 50, fo. 365b; Letter Book ZZ, fo. 137.]

[Coronation of William and Mary, 11 April, 1689.]

At the coronation banquet of the king and queen, which took place on the 11th April, the masters of the twelve principal livery companies were for the first time nominated by the Court of Aldermen to join with the lord mayor in assisting the chief butler, [Repertory 95, fo. 2b.] and they continued to be so nominated on like occasions up to the coronation of George IV, when in consequence of a change of masters taking place between the time of their nomination and the day of the coronation, the new masters presented a petition to the Court of Claims praying to have their names inserted in the place of the former masters whose term of office had expired. This petition was opposed by the Remembrancer, on behalf of the City, on the ground that the masters of the livery companies enjoyed no peculiar right to serve on such occasions, and after some deliberation the commissioners declined to interfere, inasmuch as the power of nominating the twelve citizens rested absolutely with the Court of Aldermen. [Report in relation to the appointment of twelve citizens of London to assist at the coronations of the kings and queens of England.—Presented to the Common Council, 18 Aug., 1831 (printed), pp. 8-9.] The lord mayor and swordbearer were resplendent at the coronation ceremony in new crimson and damask gowns, whilst the city's plate—again lent for the occasion—added lustre to the banquet. [Repertory 95, fos. 2b, 4.]

CHAPTER XXXII.

[Order for reversal of judgment on the Quo Warranto, May, 1689.]

The Convention having been converted by a formal Act into a true parliament (23 Feb.), [Journal House of Commons, x, 31, 33, 34.] one of the first motions put to the House was that a special committee should be appointed to consider the violations of the liberties and franchises of all the corporations of the kingdom, "and particularly of the city of London." The motion was lost by a majority of 24. [Id., x, 35.] The House nevertheless resolved to bring in a Bill for repealing the Corporation Act, and ten days later (5 March) the Grand Committee of Grievances reported to the House its opinion (1) that the rights of the city of London in the election of sheriffs in the year 1682 were invaded and that such invasion was illegal and a grievance, and (2) that the judgment given upon the Quo Warranto against the city was illegal and a grievance. The committee's opinion on these two points (among others) was endorsed by the House, and on the 16th March it ordered a Bill to be brought in to restore all corporations to the state and condition they were in on the 29th May, 1660, and to confirm the liberties and franchises which at that time they respectively held and enjoyed. [Id., x, 41, 51.]

[Further Report of Committee of Grievances, 29 May, 1689.]

A special committee appointed (5 March) to investigate the nature of the city's grievances, and to discover who were the authors and advisers of them, presented, on the 29th May, a long report to the House, [Journal House of Commons, x, 156-160.] giving the whole story of the election of sheriffs in June, 1682, and of Pritchard's election to the mayoralty in the following September; of the fines that had been imposed on Pilkington, Shute, Bethell, Cornish and others for so-called riots whilst engaged in asserting the rights of the citizens; of Papillon having been cast in damages to the amount of £10,000 at the suit of Pritchard, and of other matters which led up to the proceedings under the Quo Warranto, when, as the committee had discovered, two of the justices of the King's Bench—Pemberton and Dolben—were removed from the court because their opinion was found to be in favour of the city. The committee refer to the City's Records in support of the claim of the lord mayor to elect one of the sheriffs, and say "that from the twenty-first of Edward the IIId unto the year 1641 the way of making sheriffs was that the lord mayor named one to be sheriff and presented him to the Common Hall, who did confirm him, and chose another to act with him; except in three or four years within that time, when the Common Hall chose both the sheriffs, the persons drank to in those years by the lord mayor having refused to hold and paid their fines." They capitulated to the House the various occasions on which the mayor exercised his prerogative unchallenged, and those when the Common Hall refused to confirm the mayor's nomination, down to 1682, when matters were brought to a crisis by Sir John Moore claiming to have elected Dudley North by drinking to him according to custom; and in conclusion they reported their opinion to be that Sir John Moore and Dudley North were among the "authors of the invasion made upon the rights of the city of London in the election of sheriffs for the said city in the year 1682."

[Draft Bill for reversal of judgment submitted to Common Council, 24 May, 1689.]

In the meantime the civic authorities themselves had not been idle. The Common Council had already (1 March) appointed a committee to take steps for obtaining a reversal of the judgment on the Quo Warranto with the assistance of the recorder and the city's representatives in parliament. Before the end of May a draft Bill had been prepared for the purpose and been submitted to the court for approval. [Journal 50, fos. 366, 373b-377b; Letter Book ZZ, fo. 137b.]

[The Court of Orphans.]

There was another matter pressing very heavily upon the City just now, and one which later on would also claim the attention of parliament, and that was the relationship of the civic authorities to the city orphans. By the custom of London the mayor and aldermen were the recognised guardians of all citizens' orphans, and as such took charge of their property until they came of age or married. A Court of Orphans was established, with the common sergeant as its chief officer, which exercised the same jurisdiction over the bodies and goods of orphans in the city that the Court of Chancery exercised outside. In course of time the fund paid into this court became very considerable, and in order to prevent it lying idle and thus deprive the orphans of interest that might accrue on their estate, the court lent large sums to the Crown on the security of exchequer bills. Could any guardian or trustee have acted more honestly or with greater prudence? They had not reckoned, however, upon a king being on the throne who should be sufficiently dishonest to stop all payments out of the exchequer in discharge of principal and interest of past loans. This is what Charles II did, as we have seen, in 1672; and his action not only ruined many bankers and merchants of the city, but inflicted great hardship upon the city's fatherless children. The City's revenue at the time of William's accession was little more than sufficient to meet the necessary expenses of the municipality, to say nothing of repaying the orphans their confiscated estates. This fact was recognised by the orphans themselves, who saw no other hope but to apply to parliament for assistance with the aid of the Common Council.

[Orphans' petition to Common Council, 1 March, 1689.]

To this end "a large number" of orphans of the city presented a petition to the court on the 1st March. [Journal 50, fos. 366, 366b.] Their fortunes (they said) had been paid into the Chamber of London according to the custom of the city, and they were now left destitute of support and reduced to great hardships and extremities, very many of them having their whole portions in the Chamber. They prayed the court, therefore, to appoint a committee to consider the whole matter with the view of approaching parliament with some recommendation. To this the court readily gave its consent, and a committee was then and there nominated.

[Proposals of committee, 8 March, 1689.]

A week later (8 March) this committee made a report to the council. [Id., fo. 369.] They had found upon investigation that the debt owing by the Chamber was very great, being upwards of £500,000 due on principal money to orphans and nearly £100,000 more due to others, besides "finding money" and interest. The committee were of opinion that before any application was made to parliament the City should first do what it could on its own account for the relief of the orphans. The City's lands of inheritance were estimated as bringing in about £4,000 a year, subject to a charge of £500 or £600 for charitable uses, and the committee recommended that lands to the value of £3,000 a year rental should be sold. By this means it was thought that £70,000 or thereabouts would be raised, and the sum being devoted to the relief of the orphans would be "a good introduction to request a further assistance from the parliament." The charges of municipal government must be met with the residue of the "casual profits" of the Chamber. If parliament (the report went on to say) would be pleased to assist by granting a duty on coals and allowing the City to tax hackney coachmen at 5s. a head, the whole debt, or at least the principal, might be liquidated. A Bill which the committee had prepared for presentation to parliament for this purpose was then read and referred to the town clerk and the city solicitor, as well as to the attorney and the solicitor-general for their opinions.

[The king's proposal to abolish the Hearth Tax, 1 March, 1689.]

The king's intimation to the House (1 March) that he was prepared, with its assent, to abolish the odious Hearth Tax was received with universal joy. The Commons immediately voted an address of thanks, and passed a formal resolution to stand by the king with their lives and fortunes in supporting his alliances abroad, in the reduction of Ireland, and the defence of the Protestant religion, [Journal House of Commons, x, 38, 39.] whilst the Common Council of the city resolved to present a humble address of thanks to his majesty for the welcome relief from a tax that had been from its commencement obnoxious. The court at the same time resolved to return its thanks to both Houses of Parliament for their resolution to stand by the king. [Journal 50, fo. 369b; Luttrell, i, 509, 510.] The Commons, in acknowledging the address, represented to the deputation by the mouth of the Speaker that they had taken notice of the courage and constancy displayed by the City in the late revolution, and more especially its action in advancing so large a sum of money to his majesty at so critical a time. The City's care for the public would never fail to receive the like return from the Commons. [Journal House of Commons, x, 46, 47.]

[Death of Lord Mayor Chapman, 17 March, 1689.]

On Sunday the 17th March a special Court of Aldermen sat. The lord mayor, Sir John Chapman, had died at ten o'clock that morning, and it became necessary to take steps for the election of a mayor to serve for the remainder of the mayoralty year, and to secure, in the meantime, the peace of the city. Three aldermen were despatched, accompanied by the town clerk, to inform the king of the state of affairs, and to assure him that care would be taken to prevent disorder until a new mayor should be elected. To secure this latter object a precept was at once issued by the court for a double watch to be kept until further orders, whilst another precept was issued for a Common Hall to meet on the following Wednesday (20 March) for the election of a new mayor. [Repertory 94, fos. 124, 125.]

[Pilkington elected Mayor, 20 March, 1689.]

When the Common Hall met the choice of the citizens fell upon their old friend and champion, Pilkington, and Thomas Stampe; but a poll was demanded by the supporters of two other candidates, viz., Sir John Moore—who had already served (1681-2) and in whose mayoralty there had been such a fight over the election of sheriffs—and Jonathan Raymond. It is said that the Tory party in the city put up Moore for re-election by way of showing their disgust at a recent resolution passed by the House of Commons to the effect that Moore had been a betrayer of the liberties of the City during his mayoralty. [Luttrell, i, 513, 514.] But however that may be (and no record of such a resolution appears in the Journal of the House), the result of the poll placed Stampe and Pilkington—with 1975 and 1973 votes respectively—far ahead of either of the other candidates. Moore, indeed, was at the bottom of the poll with only 780 votes, whilst Raymond only polled 930. Stampe and Pilkington having been returned to the Court of Aldermen for them to select one, according to the custom, they chose Pilkington, and he was accordingly admitted and sworn mayor for the remainder of the year, being presented to the Governor of the Tower by order of the king instead of before the barons of the exchequer. [Journal 51, fo. 1.] A few weeks later (10 April) he received the honour of knighthood. [Luttrell, i, 520.]

[Lethieullier and Houblon, sheriffs, 24 June, 1689.]

At Midsummer (1689) a difficulty again arose with the election of sheriffs for the ensuing year. The Common Hall elected Christopher Lethieullier, alderman and dyer, and John Houblon, grocer, [Journal 51, fo. 4.] but these preferring to pay a fine to serving, the Common Hall refused to elect others in their place. The Court of Aldermen, finding themselves in a fix, sent for the attorney-general to peruse the City's Records and to give his advice in the matter. Lethieullier had determined to cut all connection with the Corporation, and had paid another fine to be relieved of the aldermanry of the ward of Coleman Street. Nevertheless, by the 10th September both he and Houblon had been persuaded to change their minds, and professed themselves ready, if the Court of Aldermen so willed, to take upon themselves the office of sheriffs. [Repertory 95, fos. 34, 43b.]

[The attainder of Cornish reversed, June, 1689.]

The wheel of fortune had taken a sudden turn. Those who had suffered during the last two reigns for vindicating their liberties and upholding the reformed religion, found themselves again in favour. Papillon and Bethell, who had sought safety in Holland, returned to England, and the former was appointed a commissioner for victualling the navy. [Luttrell, i, 503, 609.] In June the attainder of Cornish was reversed by Act of Parliament, [Journal House of Commons, x, 192.] and in October, Ralph Box, who had refused to allow himself to be forced into the shrievalty in 1682 against the wish of the citizens, had the honour, as master of the Grocers' Company, of conferring the freedom of the company upon the king, who, in his turn, created Box a knight. [Luttrell, i, 596.]

[Proceedings against North, Nov., 1689.]

North, on the other hand, was subjected to a severe cross-examination before a committee popularly called the "murder committee," and narrowly escaped a criminal trial for having systematically packed juries during his shrievalty. His statement that he had never troubled himself about the political opinions of those he had placed on the panel, but had only taken care to have good and substantial citizens, was with difficulty accepted. [Journal House of Lords, xiv, 383, 384; "Life of Dudley North," by Roger North, iii, 189, 190.] Broom, who had been deprived of his coronership for arresting North and Pritchard, the royalist mayor, was re-instated in January, 1690. [Journal 51, fo. 30b, where his name appears as "Browne."]

[The siege of Londonderry, April-July, 1689.]

William had achieved the crown of England without bloodshed. In Ireland, as well as in Scotland, he had to fight for his crown. The news that James had landed in Ireland (12 March) created no small excitement in the city. Volunteers were called for, and were readily found. The trained bands were augmented and new officers appointed. [Luttrell, i, 515, 516.] When it was found that James was marching to the north of Ireland, where the citizens of London held a large interest, the excitement was increased. On the 18th April he appeared before the walls of Londonderry, expecting the city to immediately surrender. Thanks to the strength of those walls, repaired and fortified by the care and at the charges of the citizens of London,[^149] and still more to the stout hearts behind them, the town was able to stand a long and dreary siege, with all its attendant horrors of slaughter and starvation, and at last, after heroic resistance and patient suffering for 105 days, to come off victorious. There is one name more especially honoured in connection with the famous siege, that of George Walker, who, although a clergyman and advanced in years, inspired the besieged with so much energy and courage that from first to last there was no thought of surrender. Attempts were made to win over the garrison by intrigue, and among the devices set on foot for establishing communication between besiegers and the besieged was that of placing a letter in an empty shell and firing the latter into the town.[^150] When Walker made his appearance in England he was graciously received by the king, who made him a present of £5,000 and promised to have a care for the rest of the garrison. [Luttrell, i, 575.] The king afterwards desired Walker to furnish a list of the officers who had displayed such determined courage during the siege and blockade. [Id., i, 577.]

[^149: In the porch of Londonderry Cathedral there is a mural tablet bearing the following lines:—

IF STONES COVLD SPEAKE
THEN LONDONS PRAYSE
SHOVLD SOVNDE WHO
BVILT THIS CHVRCH AND
CITTIE FROM THE GROVNDE.

Many pieces of ordnance bore the arms of the several city companies of Fishmongers, Vintners and Merchant Taylors. One gun, the gift of the first-mentioned company, acquired the name of Roaring Meg from the loudness of its report.]

[^150: "A true account of the siege of Londonderry," by the Rev. Mr. George Walker, rector of "Donoghmoore in the county of Tirone," and late governor of Derry in Ireland (1689). The Guildhall copy of this work contains a modern photograph of the interior of the porch of the cathedral of Londonderry, showing a shell which was used for the purpose above mentioned and the mural tablet mentioned in the preceding note.]

[Intercepted letters laid before the Common Council, 19 June, 1689.]

Whilst Londonderry was thus besieged a discovery had been made by means of intercepted letters of further designs which James hoped to carry out with the assistance of the French king. On the 19th June Sir George Treby, who was both the city's recorder and the king's attorney-general, laid before the Common Council at his majesty's request certain letters which had been seized on board a ship at Liverpool and forwarded by special messenger to the government. The letters, which had already been submitted to both houses, were now read to the Common Council, and this having been done the council resolved to present an address to the king thanking him for his favour and condescension, and assuring him that they would stand by him with their lives and estates. [Journal 50, fo. 371.]

[The king and queen entertained at the Guildhall, 29 Oct., 1689.]

Michaelmas-day this year (1689) happening to fall on Sunday, the election of a mayor for the year ensuing took place on the previous Saturday, when Pilkington was re-elected. [Luttrell, i, 585, 586.] Tuesday, the 29th October, was lord mayor's day, but why the ceremony of swearing in the lord mayor should have been observed on that day instead of on the feast of SS. Simon and Jude—the 28th October—as was the custom, is not clear. The lord mayor's show was (we are told) "very splendid," and was witnessed by the king and queen and the Prince of Denmark from a balcony in Cheapside. After the show they were entertained, together with the members of both Houses and high officers of state, at a banquet in the Guildhall. The cost of the entertainment was defrayed by voluntary subscriptions among the aldermen and members of the Common Council. [Journal 51, fos. 11b, 12, 24, 24b.] In order to prevent unpleasant crowding the Commons were invited to make their way into the Guildhall through the church of St. Lawrence, Jewry. [Journal House of Commons, x, 276.] The king took occasion to knight the two sheriffs (Lethieullier and Houblon), and also Edward Clark and Francis Child, two aldermen who were chosen sheriffs the next year. [Luttrell, i, 597.]

[The king's picture in the Guildhall mutilated, Nov., 1689.]

Within a few weeks of this entertainment it was found that the portrait of William set up in the Guildhall had been maliciously mutilated. The crown and sceptre had been cut out of the picture by some Jacobite, and the reward of £500 offered (21 Nov.) by the Court of Aldermen failed to discover the perpetrator. [Repertory 95, fo. 72b; Luttrell, i, 606, 607.]

[Bill for restoring corporations passed. 6 Jan., 1690.]

On the 30th October (1689) a parliamentary committee was appointed to prepare a Bill for "restoring and confirming of corporations." A Bill was accordingly brought in, read for the second time and committed. [Journal House of Commons, x, 277, 284, 312.] The Bill was mainly concerned with those corporations that had surrendered their charters, and a great struggle took place upon the committee's report (2 Jan., 1690) over an attempt to introduce a clause providing that every municipal officer who had in any way been a party to the surrender of a borough's franchises should be incapable of holding any office in that borough for a period of seven years. [Id., x, 322, 323, 329, 330.] The city of London had not surrendered its charters. It preferred, as we have seen, on the advice of its Recorder, to let judgment be entered up against it, and allow its privileges and franchises to be confiscated by process of law rather than voluntarily surrender them. London was therefore excepted out of this Bill, saving a clause touching the not taking or subscribing the oath and declaration. [Id., x, 322.]

[The Convention Parliament dissolved, 6 Feb., 1690.]

On the 6th February, 1690, the Convention Parliament was dissolved. Its greatest achievement had been the passing of the Bill of Rights, the third Great Charter (as it has been called) of English liberties. The Bill of Rights embodied the provisions of the Declaration of Rights, and strictly regulated the succession to the crown. It constituted the title-deed by which the king was thenceforth to hold his throne, and the people to enjoy their liberties. The late parliament had been none too liberal to William in the matter of supply. Money was much needed for carrying on war with France and for reducing Ireland. Extraordinary aids were voted from time to time, but the money came in so slowly that the king was fain to seek advances from the City. [Journal 51, fos. 25b, 28b, 29, 32, 101.] A new parliament was summoned to meet on the 20th March. [Id., 51. fo. 26.]

[Parliamentary elections, Feb., 1690.]

The election of members to serve the City in the coming parliament took place on the 19th February, and was hotly contested. There appears to be no record extant among the City's archives of what took place, but from a petition laid before the new House (2 April) by Pilkington (the lord mayor) and three others, viz., Sir Robert Clayton, Sir Patience Ward and Sir William Ashurst [Journal House of Commons, x, 363.]—all professing more or less Whig principles—we learn that they claimed to have been elected by the Common Hall. A poll had been granted, and a scrutiny was in course of being held when (as they complained) the sheriffs declared the election to have gone against them. The petitioners had afterwards learnt that upon the completion of the scrutiny the majority of those that had a right to vote had proved to be in their favour. They prayed therefore for relief. Their petition was referred to the Committee of Privileges and Elections for them to consider and report thereon to the House; but nothing came of it. It was in vain that Pilkington issued precepts to the livery companies for returns to be made: (1) of the names of those who were on the livery at Midsummer, 1683; (2) of those who had been admitted since; (3) of those that had died since 1683, or who were absent; and (4) of those who had omitted to take the prescribed oaths for a freeman or liveryman—in order to affect the scrutiny. [Journal 51, fos. 26b, 28, 28b.] The result was declared to be in favour of two aldermen and two commoners of distinct Tory proclivities. These were Sir William Pritchard, Sir Samuel Dashwood, Sir William Turner (once an alderman and soon to become one again) and Sir Thomas Vernon. Upon Turner's death in February, 1693, Sir John Fleet, then lord mayor, was elected in his place. [Luttrell, iii, 32, 47, 48.] In the country the elections were carried on with the same heat as in the City, ["We hear from all parts the great contests that are about the election of parliament men, that there is hardly any county or town but they stand double."—Luttrell, ii, 16.] and with like result. The majority of the members of the new parliament were Tory.

[The reversal of judgment on the Quo Warranto, 14 May, 1690.]

In November last (1689) a new committee was appointed to prepare a Bill for the reversal of the proceedings upon the Quo Warranto and for the removal of other grievances. [Journal 51, fos. 12b, 30, 32b-36b.] The provisions of the Bill had been scarcely settled before the House, of its own motion, granted (8 April) leave for a Bill to be brought in to reverse the judgment on the Quo Warranto against the City as arbitrary and illegal, and appointed a committee to prepare such a Bill. [Journal House of Commons, x, 371, 372.] A Bill was accordingly prepared, was brought in, and passed the first and second reading on the 14th April. [Id., x, 377.] On the 7th May it passed the committee stage and was ordered to be engrossed, and on the following day it passed and was ordered to be carried up to the House of Lords. [Id., x, 407, 408.] On the 14th the Bill passed the Lords without amendment, after counsel for the City had been heard during its progress through the House. [Journal House of Lords, xiv, 490, 491, 495, 498.]

[Election of City officers, pursuant to the Act, 26 May, 1690.]

Pursuant to provisions of the Act (sec. 10) thus passed an election of mayor, sheriffs and city chamberlain took place on the 26th May, and an election of a Common Council on the 10th June following. Such as were then elected were according to the statute to hold office not only for the remainder of the usual term, but to continue in office throughout the year ensuing. On the 26th May Pilkington was again elected mayor, although the majority of votes in Common Hall was in favour of Sir Jonathan Raymond, [The result of the poll is given as follows: Pilkington 2,097 votes, Clayton 1,885, Raymond 2,120 and Daniel 1,860.—Journal 51, fo. 45; Repertory 95, fo. 139.] whilst Edward Clark, mercer, and Francis Child, goldsmith, were chosen sheriffs. [Journal 51, fo. 45; Repertory 95, fo. 139b.] Sir Peter Rich was re-elected chamberlain by a narrow majority over the head of Leonard Robinson, who had ousted him the previous Midsummer, [Journal 51, fos. 4, 45b.] but he was not admitted to office, his rival being imposed upon the citizens as chamberlain in spite of his having been in the minority.

[Election of Common Council, 10 June, 1690.]

When the elections for a new Common Council took place on the 10th June there were severe contests in several of the wards between the "Church party" and the Whigs, involving irregularities which led to disputes between the aldermen and the Common Council. [Id., fo. 58; Luttrell, ii, 55.] The working of the new Act, as a matter of fact, gave rise to much dissatisfaction, and scarcely was it passed before the Court of Aldermen resolved (27 May) to take counsel's opinion upon some of its clauses. [Repertory 95, fo. 137.]

[Complaint made to parliament, 3 Dec., 1690.]

[The matter allowed to drop, 11 Dec., 1690.]

The state of affairs was at length brought to the notice of parliament by a petition subscribed by members of the Common Council and presented to the House of Commons on the 3rd December. [Journal House of Commons, x, 492.] The petitioners explained to the House that they had conceived and hoped that the late Act would have restored the city to its ancient rights and privileges. It had, however, done quite the contrary. They then proceeded to relate how, notwithstanding the Act, several aldermen of the city who had been appointed by commissions under the late king continued to act as such by virtue of certain doubtful expressions in the Act; that by their illegally assumed authority Pilkington had been declared and made mayor, although not duly returned by the Common Hall; that by the contrivance of the said mayor and the aldermen Leonard Robinson had been made chamberlain, notwithstanding another having been declared duly elected by the sheriffs, and the Common Hall had been thereupon dissolved. Nor was this all. The petitioners went on to complain that divers members of the Common Council had been illegally excluded, whilst others who had been duly elected had been refused admittance; that the place of town clerk having been vacant for three months and more—an office, they remind the House, of great trust in the city and one to which only the Common Council had the right of appointment—the mayor and aldermen had of their own authority appointed several persons to execute the office against the consent of the Common Council; that the petitioners had not been allowed to meet and consult about the necessary affairs of the city according to their ancient rights and customs; and that a Common Council having met on the 3rd October, and a majority of the members having agreed upon the presentation of a humble address to parliament with the view of explaining the recent Act and settling the rights of the city, the mayor refused to allow the question to be put and immediately dissolved the court. The petitioners therefore, finding all their ancient rights and privileges thus invaded, prayed the House to grant them relief. Having heard the petition read the House ordered a copy of it to be given to the mayor and aldermen, [On the 4th December the Court of Aldermen appointed a committee to draw up a defence.—Repertory 95, fo. 201b.] and appointed Monday, the 8th December, for hearing both parties by themselves or by counsel. Accordingly, on that day the petitioners were heard by their counsel, and divers witnesses were examined, after which the further hearing was postponed until the morrow. On the 9th the case of the mayor and aldermen was opened by counsel and was continued on the 10th and the 11th, when by a majority of thirteen it was decided to adjourn the matter for a week. [Journal House of Commons, x, 501, 503.] It never was taken up again, parliament being probably unwilling to run the risk of losing the favour of those in the city who were in power at a time when interference on its part might be the cause of stopping the flow of money into the coffers of the exchequer. [Luttrell, ii, 141. The diarist ascribes the petition to Papist influence and to "the hotspurs generally."]

[The king sets out for Ireland, 4 June, 1690.]

As early as January, 1690, William had made up his mind to go to Ireland in person for the purpose of reducing the country into subjection, but although every effort was made to push on the necessary preparations nearly six months elapsed before he was ready to set out. On the 30th May the assistance of the City was invoked. The Common Council willingly agreed to raise money to assist the king in his enterprise, [Journal 51, fos. 48, 48b, 99b.] and on the 2nd June the mayor waited on his majesty at Kensington Palace, accompanied by the recorder, the aldermen and the sheriffs, and wished him a prosperous journey, promising at the same time to secure the good government of the city during his absence. [Luttrell, ii, 50.] On the 4th William set sail, and ten days later (14 June) landed at Carrickfergus. His arrival was a surprise to James, who flattered himself that the state of affairs in parliament and "the distractions of the city" would not allow of his leaving England. [Burnet, "Hist. of His Own Time," iv, 85.] During the king's absence the queen took an active part in the administration of the kingdom, and by her tact and kindliness won many friends. As soon as it was known that William had safely landed in Ireland the sheriffs were deputed by the Court of Aldermen to attend her majesty and desire when the court might wait upon her to offer its congratulations upon the good fortune that had so far attended the king. [Repertory 95, fo. 141.]

[The aid of the City called in against France, 7 July, 1690.]

The defeat of a combined English and Dutch fleet off Beachy Head on the last day of June caused a great commotion, although some compensation was found in the news of William's victory at the Boyne. Seeing that a French force might any day be expected in England, the government, as was its wont, turned to the city of London. On the 7th July the mayor, the aldermen and some members of the Court of Lieutenancy [Established in 1661 by Stat. 13 and 14 Chas. II, c. 3.] obeyed a summons to attend upon her majesty in council. The state of affairs having been fully explained to them, they were asked as to the numerical strength of the City's militia, and more especially as to the number of horse and dragoons the City could raise on an emergency. The mayor professed himself unable to give a reply off hand to these questions, and desired time to consult the Common Council on the matter. [Luttrell, ii, 72.] Whatever political or religious differences existed at the time of the recent city elections, these were now laid aside in the face of a common danger, and "London set the example of concert and of exertion." [Macaulay, chap. xv.] No time was lost. Already the mayor had, in pursuance of an order from the Privy Council (3 July) issued precepts to the several aldermen (5 July) for search to be made in private as well as public stables for horses for military service. [Journal 51, fo. 103b.] On the 10th the Court of Aldermen resolved to apply to the hackney-men plying their trade in and about London, and to learn from them the number of horses they could supply on an emergency like the present, and upon what terms. [Repertory 95, fo. 151b.] The Common Council at the same time resolved to raise a regiment of horse and another of dragoons. [Journal 51, fos. 49, 102, 104b.] The next day (11 July) the mayor and aldermen and a deputation of the lieutenancy again waited upon her majesty sitting in council and assured her of their loyalty. The city militia, the queen was informed, consisted of about 9,000 men, well equipt and ready for active service, and six regiments of auxiliaries were about to be raised. As to the horse and dragoons, the Common Council had unanimously resolved to raise by voluntary contributions a large regiment of horse and 1,000 dragoons, and to maintain them for a month if need be. We have seen how jealous in former days the city had been in the matter of appointing its own officers over its own forces, but now all signs of jealousy were wanting, and the queen herself was desired to appoint officers over the cavalry that was in course of being raised. [Luttrell, ii, 75.] On the 21st her majesty reviewed the city militia in Hyde Park, and expressed herself as much gratified. [Luttrell, ii, 80.]

[A city loan of £100,000, 22 July, 1690.]

The City was ready not only with men but money. On the 22nd July the Common Council was asked to assist her majesty by making a speedy loan of £100,000 "or what more can be advanced" on the security of the hereditary revenue. The court at once gave its consent, and precepts were issued to the aldermen to raise the money in their respective wards without delay. [Journal 51, fo. 37; entered again, fo. 56.]

[The queen returns thanks to the city, 15 August, 1690.]

Fortunately for England the French fleet, which kept hovering for more than a month off the south coast in the hope of being able to effect a landing, at last was seen to be sailing homewards. When all danger was past the queen sent for the lord mayor (15 Aug.) to thank his lordship and the city for their readiness in advancing money and raising forces, and to inform him that there was no immediate necessity for the horse and dragoons which were then being raised. [Luttrell, ii, 90.]

[The king's return from Ireland, Sept.]

Hearing of the danger that was threatening England, William had serious thoughts of leaving Ireland and returning home in July. [Id., ii, 84.] He did not return, however, before September. Landing in England on Saturday, the 6th, he proceeded by easy stages to London, where he arrived on the 10th, and took up his residence at Kensington Palace. The bells of the city rang out a welcome, bonfires were lighted, and the tower guns fired a salvo. [Id., ii, 102.] On the 9th the sheriffs were instructed by the Court of Aldermen to wait upon his majesty to learn when and where he would be pleased to see them. [Repertory 95, fo. 163.] An appointment having been made for Thursday morning (11 Sept.) the mayor and aldermen proceeded to Whitehall and congratulated his majesty on his safe return, their example being followed by the bishop and the clergy of London in the afternoon of the same day. [Luttrell, ii, 103.] The Common Council, not to be outdone in display of loyalty, also craved an audience, and on the 18th were permitted to wait upon his majesty to offer their congratulations. [Journal 51, fos. 37b, 56b (duplicate entries); Luttrell, ii, 106.]

[The king attends a congress at the Hague, 1691.]

Early in 1691 William again left England for the purpose of attending a congress at the Hague. Before leaving he gave an audience to the mayor and aldermen, who desired to wish him a prosperous voyage. He took occasion to thank them for the care they had formerly taken of the city during his absence and desired them to do the same again. [Repertory 95, fo. 206; Luttrell, ii, 153.] A few days later (16 Jan.) he embarked at Gravesend and did not return to England until the following April, when he received the usual welcome from the city. [Id., ii, 208.]

[Jacobite plots in England.]

[The king again leaves for the continent, 2 May.]

His presence was much needed, for the Jacobites were becoming more dangerous every day. One plot, of which Lord Preston was the ruling spirit,[^151] had been discovered before William left for the Hague, and another was on foot. Nevertheless the state of affairs on the continent would not allow of his remaining long in England; so, after a brief stay he again set sail for Holland (2 May), with Marlborough in his train, to open a regular campaign against the King of France.

[^151: On the 5th February, 1691, a proclamation was issued for the arrest of the late Bishop of Ely, William Penn, and James Graham, for complicity in Preston's Plot. Warrants were already out against them, but they had hitherto evaded capture.—Journal 51, fo. 109b.]

[City loans, 1691-1692.]

The king had not been gone long before the queen sent to the City (18 June) to borrow £120,000 to be employed in the reduction of Ireland, a business left to the Dutch General Ginkell, afterwards created Earl of Athlone, to carry out. The sum of £75,000 was to be advanced on the security of the parliamentary imposts on wine, vinegar and tobacco, and the remainder of the loan on the security of similar imposts on East India goods and other commodities. [Journal 51, fos. 83, 113b.] The Common Council readily consented to find the money, notwithstanding its having so recently as February last advanced no less a sum than £200,000 towards fitting out the fleet. [Id., fos. 77, 110.] These advances were, however, still insufficient to meet the necessities of the times. Long before the year was out the citizens were called upon to lend another £200,000 to assist in paying off the ships of war that were about to lay up for the winter. [17 Sept., 1691.—Journal 51, fos. 98, 114.] In the following year (1692), when parliament laid the foundation of the National Debt and decided on borrowing a million of money for the support of the war, the City was asked at different periods to advance no less than three sums of £200,000 [Id., fos. 116, 160, 187b, 240, 213b.] and one of £100,000. [Id., fos. 123, 123b, 166.]

[Elections in Common Hall, 24 June, 1691.]

In view of the elections which were to take place on Midsummer-day, 1691, a motion had been made in the Common Council on the 18th June (immediately after the court had agreed to lend the queen £120,000) for repealing the clause in the Act of Common Council of the 6th June, 1683, touching the confirmation of one of the sheriffs of the city and county of Middlesex chosen by the mayor for the time being. A debate thereupon arising the previous question was put, and was declared by the lord mayor to be carried. A poll, however, was demanded, when the previous question was lost by 35 votes to 30, and the original motion being afterwards put was carried by 30 votes to 29. [Journal 51, fo. 83b.] Such is the narrative of what took place in the Common Council on the 18th June, 1691, as related in the Journal of the court, according to which the clause in the Act of 1683 would have been repealed. We know however, as a matter of fact, that the clause was not repealed until three years later. [By Act of Common Council, 15 June, 1694.] An explanation is afforded us by Luttrell, the diarist, who says that the minority against repealing the clause immediately withdrew from the court "so there were not enough left to make a Common Council, so the Act continues in force." [Luttrell, ii, 250.] He adds that the mayor (Pilkington) thereupon went to the Bridge House and drank to Sir William Ashurst as a "recommendatory sheriff" for the ensuing year to hold office only on condition that the choice should be approved by the Common Hall, "otherwise no good sheriff." When Midsummer-day arrived, the common sergeant having asked the Court of Aldermen for instructions as to how to proceed to the elections, was ordered to "pursue such directions as he should receive from the sheriffes, and in his report of the elections, to declare it as the report of the said sheriffes." The court further ordered that the Common Hall should be opened by proclamation in these words: "You good men of the livery of the several companies of the city summoned to appear here this day for the election of sheriffs and other officers usually chosen at this time, draw near and give your attendance, etc." [Repertory 95, fo. 297b.] The claims of the Livery in Common Hall to elect both sheriffs being thus allowed, the electors were satisfied to pay the mayor the compliment of electing Sir William Ashurst, his nominee, to be one of the sheriffs, whilst choosing Richard Levett to be the other. There was another candidate in the person of William Gore. A poll was demanded and allowed, the result of which was declared on the 2nd July, when it appeared that Ashurst had polled 3,631 votes, Levett 2,252 and Gore 1,774. A keen contest again took place between Sir Peter Rich and Leonard Robinson for the office of chamberlain, in which the latter came off victorious. [Journal 51, fo. 84.]

[A Bill to settle elections of sheriffs prepared by Court of Aldermen, April, 1692.]

[The Bill rejected by Common Council.]

In the spring of the next year (5 April, 1692) the Court of Aldermen had before them a Bill, the object of which was to settle the election and confirmation of sheriffs for the future. After due deliberation amongst themselves, and after consulting the attorney-general upon its provisions, the Bill was recommended to the Common Council to be passed as an Act of that court. [Repertory 96, fos. 216, 244.] Of the particulars of the Bill we are not informed. It was laid for the first time before the Common Council on the 6th May, when it was referred to a committee. On the 26th ult. it was read the first time and on the 31st a second time, but upon the question being put whether the Bill should be then read a third time it passed in the negative, [Journal 51, fos. 161, 167.] and nothing more is heard of it.

[Act of Common Council for regulating elections at wardmotes, 26 Oct., 1692.]

A Bill for regulating the election of members of the Common Council itself met with better success. Of late years divers inhabitants of the city who were not freemen (and among them the doctors and other gentlemen of Doctors' Commons) had been in the habit of exercising the franchise at wardmotes, to the prejudice of freemen, to whom alone belonged the right of voting. Many complaints having been made to the Common Council of the rights of freemen having been thus infringed, [Id., fos. 167b, 187, 193.] an Act was at length passed (26 Oct., 1692) declaring that the nomination of aldermen and the election of common councilmen for the several wards of the city appertained only to freemen, being householders in the city, and paying scot and bearing lot, a list of whom was thenceforth to be prepared and kept by the beadle of each ward, as well as a separate list of the other householders. A copy of the Act was to be appended to all precepts for wardmotes, and the provisions of the Act were to be publicly read to the assembled electors. [Id., fo. 211.] At the next election of a Common Council, which took place in December, the Whigs, we are told, were, after a hard fight, returned by "above 50 more voices than last year." [Luttrell, ii, 319.]

[The king's return, Oct., 1691.]

When William returned from abroad in October, 1691, it was to find Ireland completely subjugated. The mayor and aldermen waited upon his majesty at Whitehall, as usual, to congratulate him upon his safe arrival. The king thanked them for the care they had taken of the city during his absence, and more particularly for supplying the queen with the sum of £200,000 to enable her to carry on the necessary affairs of the kingdom, and bestowed the honour of knighthood on Richard Levett, one of the sheriffs, Sir William Ashurst, the other sheriff, being already knighted. Leaving Whitehall, the mayor and aldermen next proceeded to Kensington to offer their compliments to the queen and to thank her majesty for her good government during the king's absence. [Luttrell, ii, 296.] A fortnight later (4 Nov.) the Common Council resolved to pay their respects also to the king and to congratulate him upon the success of his arms in Ireland. [Journal 51, fo. 142; Luttrell, ii, 303]

[Again sets out for Holland, March, 1692.]

The king did not long remain in England. Early in March of the following year (1692) he returned to the Hague to make preparations for renewing the war against France both by sea and land, leaving the queen to carry on the government in England. On the morning of the 12th March the mayor and aldermen, accompanied by the recorder, proceeded to Whitehall to offer the queen their congratulations upon the receipt of news of the king's safe arrival in Holland, as well as of her majesty's assumption of the reins of government. The recorder assured her of the City's loyalty, and desired her only to put it to the test. [Luttrell, ii, 385.]

[City loan of £200,000 to the queen, 18 March, 1692.]

The City had not long to wait. Within a week (18 March) application was made to the Common Council, on behalf of the queen, for a loan of £200,000. [Journal 51, fos. 116, 160.] This was the first of the three loans of that amount already mentioned as having been advanced this year. The council readily consented to raise the money, and so successful were their efforts that within four days one-half of the whole loan was already paid into the exchequer. By the king's orders the whole of the £200,000 was kept intact "for some extraordinary occasion." [Luttrell, ii, 395, 405.]

[Preparations to meet a threatened invasion by France, April, 1692.]

Such an occasion was at hand. Whilst England and Holland were preparing to make a joint attack on France, France had been getting ready a navy for a descent on England with the view of restoring James to the throne. As soon as intelligence arrived of a threatened invasion great excitement prevailed. This was towards the close of April (1692). The trained bands were called out, not only in the city, but throughout the country, and more especially in those counties bordering on the coast. The Court of Lieutenancy had orders to administer the oaths to every officer and man, and any that refused were to be instantly cashiered and disarmed. The same with Papists and all suspicious persons found in the city. The oaths were to be tendered to them, and if any refused to take them they were to be disarmed and banished ten miles from the city. [Journal 51, fo. 121b; Luttrell, ii, 434, 435.] The mayor issued instructions for closing coffee-houses in the city on Sundays. [Luttrell, ii, 429.] Troops that had been ordered to Flanders were now countermanded, and a camp was formed at Southampton. [Id., ii, 429, 443-445.] The lord mayor was given a commission as general of all the city's forces—trained bands and auxiliaries—during the king's absence abroad, and on the 10th May was complimented by her majesty at the close of a review held in Hyde Park. [Luttrell, ii, 447.]

[Battle of La Hogue, 19 May, 1692.]

At length—on the 19th May—the French fleet, which was to cover the invasion of England, met the combined Dutch and English fleet off La Hogue, and was so signally beaten that all further thought of an invasion had to be abandoned. News of the victory reached London on the 21st, and was received with every demonstration of joy. Medical aid was at once despatched to tend the sick and wounded at Portsmouth, whilst the hospitals were got ready to receive those who should be brought to London. [Id., ii, 460.]

[City loan of £100,000 voted, 26 May.]

The formal announcement of the victory to the Common Council of the city (26 May) was thought a fitting opportunity for asking for a further loan of £100,000 to enable her majesty to pay and "gratify" the seamen who had so gallantly warded off invasion and to refit the fleet. It need scarcely be said that the money was readily promised. [Journal 51, fos. 123, 123b, 166.]

[A further loan of £200,000 granted, 6 Sept., 1692.]

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. [Luttrell, ii, 555.] 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, [Journal 51, fos. 187b, 240.] 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. [Luttrell, ii, 561.]

[The king entertained on lord mayor's day, 29 Oct., 1692]

On the 18th October William once more set foot in England, and at seven o'clock in the evening of the 20th he passed 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. [Repertory 96, fo. 504.] 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. [Repertory 96, fos. 312, 317; Luttrell, ii, 598.]

[The City desired to advance another loan of £200,000, Oct., 1692]

The entertainment, which was given at the expense of the aldermen and not charged in any way to the city's Chamber, [Repertory 96, fo. 517. The lord mayor is said to have subscribed £300, each sheriff £150 and the aldermen £50 a-piece.—Luttrell, ii, 603.] 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. [Journal 51, fo. 213b.] Before leaving the Guildhall his majesty conferred the honour of knighthood upon Alderman Gore, Alderman Houblon, Leonard Robinson, the city chamberlain, and others. [Luttrell, ii, 603.]

[Another City loan of £200,000, 25 April, 1693.]

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.[^152] The money, which was wanted for the purpose of paying the wages of seamen and for refitting the fleet, was immediately voted.

[^152: Journal 51, fo. 251. A Bill for this purpose had been introduced into the House of Commons on the 15th December, 1692. It was read a third time on the 20th January, 1693, and carried up to the Lords, by whom it was passed without amendment.—Journal House of Commons, x, 744, 784.]

[The Turkey fleet intercepted at Lagos Bay, June, 1693.]

[Excitement in the city.]

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 bloody 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 passed, 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. [Luttrell, iii, 116, 125, 126, 131, 135-137, 139.] The end is well known. At Lagos the English admiral found his passage 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.[^153] The deputation met with a kind reception, and was assured 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.

[^153: According to Luttrell (Diary, iii, 141, 142) the Turkey merchants had desired the Court of Aldermen to present a petition to the queen on their behalf, but the lord mayor declined on the ground that he ought to have been first consulted on the matter. The merchants afterwards made a similar application to the Common Council, but with no better success.]

[City address to the queen and another loan of £300,000, 15 Aug., 1693.]

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 God 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 assuring 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. [Journal 51, fos. 272b-273b, 275.]

[The queen invited to lord mayor's banquet, 30 Oct., 1693.]

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. [Repertory 97, fo. 496.] 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. [Repertory 97, fo. 503.]

[The king's return to England, 29 Oct., 1693.]

The 29th October falling on Sunday, the lord mayor's banquet took place on the following Monday at the hall of the Grocers' Company, [Negotiations were opened in the following year for acquiring the Grocers' Hall as a mansion house for the mayor for the time being.—Journal 52, fo. 14.] but the queen was unable to attend as she had gone to meet the king, who had landed at Harwich on Sunday afternoon. [Luttrell, iii, 215, 216.] 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 assured that God, 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. [Id., iii, 218.]

CHAPTER XXXIII.

[The rise of the East India Company, 1600-1689.]

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 associated, 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. ["Memoirs of Thomas Papillon," by A.F.W. Papillon (Guildhall Library), pp. 78-81.] 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." [Macaulay, chap, xviii.] 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.

[A New Company formed, 1689.]

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 association 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.

[Rivalry between the Old and the New Company.]

The sanction and assistance 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. [Journal House of Commons, x, 655, 661.] 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. [This bribe appears to have failed, for notice was actually served on the company in April, 1692.—Luttrell, ii, 357, 433.] A twelvemonth later (Feb., 1693) the Commons again petitioned the king to dissolve the Old Company upon three years' warning; [Journal House of Commons, x, 835.] but in spite of these attacks the company contrived to obtain a confirmation of its monopoly under the Great Seal in the following October. [Luttrell, iii, 203.] This was only obtained by a lavish distribution of money.

[Alderman Sir Thomas Cook governor of the Old Company in place of Child.]

In the meantime the management of the Old Company's affairs had been placed ostensibly in the hands of Sir Thomas Cook,[^154] an alderman of London and member for Colchester, although there is reason for believing that Child still continued to be the actual manager.

[^154: He was elected alderman of Queenhithe ward on the 11th February, 1692, in succession to Sir John Lawrence, deceased (Repertory 96, fo. 153). A goldsmith by trade (at the sign of the Griffin in Change Alley), he became one of the greatest merchants of London. He was a near kinsman of Sir Josiah Child, and sat for Colchester from 1689 down to Queen Anne's first parliament (Parliamentary Returns, 1878, part i, pp. 556, 580, 587, 594, 602). He was sheriff in 1692-3, but was never lord mayor.]

[The stoppage of the ship "Redbridge," 21 Oct., 1693.]

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, [The charter was dated the 11th November, 1693.—See Journal House of Commons, xi, 43.] 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.). [Journal House of Commons, xi, 43.] 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 petitioners, 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 petition was referred to a committee of the whole House, together with other petitions 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," [Id., xi, 49, 50.] 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, [Id., xi, 64, 65.] and for some years at least there nominally existed free trade with India.[^155]

[^155: In 1813 the City petitioned parliament that trade with India and China might be exclusively with the port of London.—Journal 87, fos. 208 seq., 442b seq., 457 seq.; Journal House of Commons, lxviii, 145.]

[The City's petition re debts to orphans, 1691.]

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 petition to parliament was read and approved. [Journal 51, fos. 142-144; Luttrell, ii, 307.] The petition 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 assistance of parliament. It proceeded to lay before the House the scheme proposed by the committee, and prayed the House to assist the petitioners 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. [Journal House of Commons, x, 562, 571.] 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. [Journal 51, fos. 214-215.] 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 petition to parliament in precisely the same terms as their former petition. [Id., fo. 214*b.]

[The Orphans' Bill of 1693.]

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 passed 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. [Journal 51, fos. 238b, 239; Journal House of Commons, x, 817, 820, 821, 824, 836; Luttrell, iii, 42, 44.] In March progress was reported, but before anything further could be done the House was prorogued. [Journal House of Commons, x, 839, 843.]

[A fresh scheme, Feb., 1694.]

When the House re-assembled in November (1693) the City again presented a petition in terms similar to their former petitions. The petition having been referred to a committee of the whole House that committee reported (17 Feb., 1694) to the following effect, [Journal House of Commons, xi, 14, 98, 99.] 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 glass light known as convex lights [They superseded the lamps known as "Heming's lamps" (from Edmund Heming, the inventor), with which the streets were for the first time systematically lighted in 1687.] should contribute an annual sum of £600, (4) that an additional duty of 4d. per chaldron should be imposed upon coal entering the port of London and 6d. 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 4s. 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[^156] should also contribute, and lastly (7) that every person bound apprentice in the city should contribute 2s.6d., and every person made free of the city 5s. towards the same object.

[^156: A scheme was set on foot in September, 1692, for conveying water in leaden pipes from the Banquetting House in the Tyburn Road to the Stocks Market in the city, and in December, 1693, the city granted a licence to William Paterson, whose name is well known in connection with the foundation of the Bank of England, to lay pipes for supplying water to the inhabitants of the manor and borough of Southwark.—Journal 51, fos. 214, 285b.]

[City Orphans' Act passed, March, 1694.]

A Bill [Stat. 5 William and Mary, c. 10.] was subsequently introduced embodying these resolutions, but with an additional proviso that when the tax of 6d. 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 passed the Lords without amendment, and on the 23rd received the royal assent.[^157]

[^157: Journal House of Commons, xi, 102, 125, 135; Journal House of Lords, xv, 399. In 1748, when the term of fifty years, for which the City was allowed an additional duty on coal, was drawing to a close, application was made to parliament for a continuation of the duty. An Act was in consequence passed authorising the City to take the duty for an additional term of thirty-five years.—Journal 59, fo. 116b; Journal House of Commons, xxv, 506, 570, 599, 623.]

[City loan of £200,000, 6 March, 1694.]

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 assented, and before the end of the month the whole amount had been paid into the exchequer. [Journal 51, fos. 295b, 297; Luttrell, iii, 279, 288.] 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. [Journal 51, fo. 305.] 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. [Journal 52, fo. 51.]

[The foundation of the Bank of England, April, 1694.]

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. [Journal House of Commons, xi, 143, 144.] Although it was not easy to recognise in the terms of the Bill the germ of "the greatest commercial institution that the world had ever seen," [Macaulay, chap. xx.] 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, [Burnet, iv, 223.] 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. [Journal House of Commons, xi, 162.] Subject to this and other conditions the Bill passed the Commons, and on the 24th April was agreed to by the Lords. [Journal House of Commons, xi, 165, 170; Journal House of Lords, xv, 424.]

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 municipality. [Luttrell, iii, 329, 342; Cf. List of directors printed in Appendix to Francis's "History of the Bank" (ii, 262).] 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. [Luttrell, iii, 331-2, 333-4, 336, 338.] 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 assessment for supplying the city with corn in times of distress.[^158] 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.). [Journal 52, fos. 91, 113b, 142, 142b.] The City, in its corporate capacity, was no longer to be the purse of the nation.

[^158: The picture drawn by Macaulay ("History of England," chap. xx) of the chancellor of the exchequer going, hat in hand, up and down Cheapside and Cornhill, attended by the lord mayor and aldermen, and borrowing £100 from this hosier and £200 from that ironmonger, is altogether too fanciful.]

[The death of Queen Mary, 28 Dec, 1694.]

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 quantity. [Luttrell, iii, 419.] The Court of Aldermen put themselves into mourning, [Repertory 99, fo. 189.] 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. [Journal 52, fos. 35b, 36, 58b. The address is not entered in the Journal, but it is printed by Maitland (i, 498).] 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. [Luttrell, iii, 433, 443.]

[The queen's funeral, 5 March, 1695.]

The funeral did not take place until the 6th March (1695). In anticipation of that event the Court of Aldermen had some time since (18 Jan.) appointed a committee to consider of the right and title of the lord mayor, aldermen and sheriffs of the city to their mourning and their places in the funeral procession, as also of the mourning due to the several officers of the city. Four days later (22 Jan.) the committee reported [Repertory 99, fos. 245, 262.] to the effect that they had found from the records of the city that it had been the custom for the lord mayor, aldermen, recorder, sheriffs and the principal and other officers of the city to have mourning allowed them by the Crown at the public interments of kings and queens, but as to the places and precedency of the lord mayor and aldermen on those occasions the committee had only found one instance of a funeral procession, and that was at the funeral of Henry VII, when it appeared that the aldermen walked "next after the knights and before the great chaplains of dignitys and the knights of the garter being noe lords." The lord mayor (the report went on to say) was not named in the procession, but at the mass and offering at the interment it appeared that the lord mayor, with his mace in hand, offered next after the lord chamberlain, and the aldermen who had been mayors offered next to the knights of the garter and before the knights of the body, after whom came those aldermen who had not been lord mayor. [See above, chap. xii.] The committee concluded their report by recommending that a deputation should wait upon the Privy Council and assert the right of the Court of Aldermen to mourning. The representation thereupon made had the desired effect and the usual mourning was allowed by warrant (29 Jan.). [Repertory 99, fo. 320.] The citizens marked their respect for the late queen by shutting up their shops on the day of the funeral. [Luttrell, iii, 446-447.]

[Discovery of corrupt practices, 1695.]

The session of 1695 of William's first parliament was signalised by the discovery of a system of wholesale corruption. That every man had his price was scarcely less true in William's day than it was in the later age of Sir Robert Walpole. The discovery of one delinquent guilty of receiving money for services, real or supposed, quickly led to another, until suspicion turned upon the City of London itself. A rumour rapidly gained ground to the effect that the funds of the City as well as those of the East India Company had been largely employed in winning the favour of men in power, and the name of Sir John Trevor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, was mentioned among others.

[The Speaker convicted of bribery.]

On the 7th March the House appointed a committee to investigate the matter, with power to send for persons and papers. [Journal House of Commons, xi, 258.] On the 12th the committee reported to the House that they had discovered an order of a committee appointed by the Corporation for the purpose of seeing the Orphans' Bill through parliament, dated the 12th February, 1694, authorising the payment of 1,000 guineas to the Speaker, Sir John Trevor, as soon as the Bill should pass. This order, they said, was signed by every member of the committee except Sir James Houblon and Mr. Deputy Ayres, and was endorsed to the effect that the money had been delivered and paid to the Hon. Sir John Trevor on the 22nd June, 1694, in the presence of Sir Robert Clayton and Sir James Houblon, brother of Sir John.[^159] When summoned to account for his having refused to sign the order of the committee whilst allowing himself to witness the actual payment of the money to the Speaker, Sir James excused himself by saying that he had accompanied Sir Robert Clayton, at the latter's request, professedly for the purpose of thanking the Speaker for his pains about the Orphans' Bill; that this being done, the Chamberlain, who had gone with them, pulled out a note or bill which he handed to the Speaker, but as to the nature of the note or bill Houblon declared himself to have been ignorant until subsequently informed by the Chamberlain. Other members of the Corporation Committee also gave evidence as to the warrant for payment of the money having been originally made out with a blank space left for the name of the payee. The report further declared that sums of money had been paid to Paul Godrell, clerk of the House of Commons, to the city solicitor, the solicitor-general and the chairman of the Corporation Committee in respect of the Orphans' Bill, whilst the orphans themselves had been prevailed upon to give security for the payment of five per cent. on their whole property to certain other parties who professed to be able to render valuable services in the event of the Bill being passed. [Journal House of Commons, xi, 270, 271.]

[^159: Journal House of Commons, xi, 269. The committee further set out an extract from the Chamberlain's account of cash notifying payment. The minutes of the Corporation committee containing the above order are not to be found; and the Chamberlain's Journal or Cash Account for June, 1694, is also missing. But the following entry occurs in a book containing Chamberlain's accounts from the 29th September, 1693, to 29th September, 1694, under the heading "Guifts and Rewards":—"To the Honourable Sr. John Trevor, Knt., Speaker of the House of Commons, by order of the committee (appointed by order Common Councell to consider of wayes and meanes for satisfyeing the debts due to the orphans and other creditors of the city and to solicit the parliament for a Bill for that purpose), one thousand guineas, which at 2s. change is eleaven hundred pounds (£1,100)."—Chamberlain's Account Book, marked 1/21 fo. 136.]

[The Speaker expelled the House, 16 March, 1695.]

By the time that the reading of the committee's report to the House was finished it was growing dusk, and candles were called for. A resolution was then moved and put to the house by Trevor himself, that the Speaker, by receiving a gratuity of 1,000 guineas from the city of London after passing of the Orphans' Bill, had been guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour. The resolution was passed, and four days later (16 March) Trevor was expelled the House. [Id., xi, 271, 274.]

[Transactions between the City and the Marquis of Normanby.]

A month later (18 April) the House of Lords were busy investigating the conduct of the Marquis of Normanby in accepting, and of the Corporation of the City in granting, a lease of a certain plot of land lying behind Clarendon House, part of the City's estate known as Conduit Mead. It was shown by oral and documentary evidence that a longer lease than usual had recently been granted (Jan., 1695) to the marquis as "a gratification," he being a person of distinction who had shown himself very friendly to the interests of the City and likely to continue so. [Journal 52, fo. 37b.] Negotiations for a lease had been commenced so far back as January, 1694, "before the Orphans' Bill was on the anvill in the House of Commons." [Evidence of Sir Robert Clayton.—Journal House of Lords, xv, 551.] It was not denied that the City entertained the hope that the marquis would use his interest in expediting the passage of the Bill, and that this hope had been realised. On the other hand it was shown that when the marquis learnt that one of the conditions of the lease was that he should "covenant" to procure an Act of Parliament for settling some doubts of title to the land conveyed, he at once declared that such a thing was not in his power, but lay with the king, the lords and the commons; nevertheless, he consented to use his best endeavours in that direction. The marquis, it was said, had also been indiscreet enough to divulge certain proceedings of the House of Lords in the matter of the Convex Lights, and this formed the subject of an investigation by the House at the same time as the granting of this lease. After careful consideration the House entirely acquitted his lordship of blame in both cases. [Journal House of Lords, xv, 546-558.]

[Corrupt practices of East India Company in connection with its charter.]

In considering the City's action in respect of the Orphans' Bill we must not forget to take into account the condition of the age. It was one in which peculation and venality were predominant. Nearly every official who was worth the buying could be bought, and the world thought none the worse of him provided that these pecuniary transactions were kept decently veiled. The "gifts and rewards" bestowed by the City with the object of expediting the passage of the Orphans' Bill were as nothing compared with the vast sums which the East India Company was reported to have disbursed in order to obtain the confirmation of its charter. It was the practice when Sir Thomas Cook was in power for the directors of the company to sign warrants for any sum that he might require without demanding particulars from him. In seven years (1688-1694) more than £100,000 had been disposed of for the company's "special service," nearly £90,000 of which had been disbursed whilst Cook was governor (1692-1693). [Journal House of Commons, xi, 268.]

[Sir Thomas Cook and Sir Basil Firebrace.]

A parliamentary committee endeavoured to obtain some account as to how this large sum of money had been expended, but could learn nothing more than that it had been spent on the "special service" of the company and that a great part of it had been entrusted to Sir Basil Firebrace. [He had been appointed alderman of the Ward of Billingsgate by commission of James II in 1687, in which year he also served as sheriff.—Repertory 92, fo. 363.] Firebrace denied this, but confessed to having received upwards of £16,000 for which he had accounted to the company. The committee's report proceeded to inform the House that the company had spent considerable sums of money, under the guise of contracts, in buying up the interests of "interlopers" and getting them to join the company. They had found Sir Samuel Dashwood, Sir John Fleet, Sir Thomas Cook (all aldermen of the city), Sir Joseph Herne and John Perry to have been cognisant of these proceedings, but they being members of parliament the committee did not think fit to send for or examine them. [Journal House of Commons, xi, 267-269.] Acting upon the committee's report, the House called upon Sir Thomas Cook (26 March) to give an account of the sum of £87,000 which he had received of the company's money, and upon his refusing committed him to the Tower. [Id., xi, 283.] A Bill was within a few days introduced into the House for compelling Cook to make disclosure and rapidly passed (6 April). [Id., xi, 285, 291, 293, 294, 295.] In the Upper House the Bill met with the strongest denunciation by the Duke of Leeds (who saw in it considerable danger to himself), as also by Cook himself, who was brought from the Tower for the purpose of allowing him to plead against the passing of such a Bill. At the Bar of the House the latter earnestly implored the Peers not to pass the Bill in its present form. Let them pass a Bill of Indemnity and he would tell them all. The Lords considered his request reasonable, and after a conference with the Lower House it was agreed that the Bill should take the form of an Indemnity Bill, and so it was passed (19 April), a joint committee of both Houses being appointed to examine Cook and others.[^160]

[^160: Journal House of Commons, xi, 307, 308; Journal House of Lords, xv, 543, 544, 559; Luttrell, iii, 462. Macaulay (chap. xxi) describes Cook as presenting a very abject appearance at the Bar, imploring the Peers, "with tears and lamentations," not to subject him to "a species of torture unknown to the mild laws of England."]

[Examination of Cook, 23 April, 1695.]

His examination, which took place in the Exchequer Chamber on the 23rd April, confirmed the committee's previous suspicions. [Journal House of Commons, xi, 317.] The sum of £10,000 had been paid (he said) to Sir Basil Firebrace about November, 1693, when the charter of the East India Company had been confirmed, and he had always been under the apprehension that Firebrace had pocketed the money "to recompense his losses in the interloping trade." A further sum of £30,000 had been paid to Firebrace on various contracts. There had been a contract involving the payment of £60,000 on account of procuring a new charter, and another of the value of £40,000 on account of getting the charter sanctioned by an Act of Parliament, but as no Act was passed this latter contract fell through. There was a further sum of £30,000 which had been lost to the company on account of certain stock it had agreed to purchase from Firebrace at the price of £150 per cent. at a time when the company's stock was standing at par. Firebrace had always refused to give him any account as to how this money was disposed of, and had declared that "if he were further pressed he would have no more to do in it." Such was the sum and substance of Cook's confession so far as it affected Firebrace.

[Examination of Firebrace, 24-26 April, 1695.]

The next day (24 April) Firebrace appeared before the committee. As to the £10,000 he had received from Cook, that was (he said) a gratuity which had been given to him before the granting of the charter. The other sum of £30,000 was due on a contract "for favours and services done." He was positive that both sums were intended "directly for himself and for the use of no other person whatsoever"; that he paid nothing thereout towards procuring either charter or Act, nor had promised to do so. He acknowledged himself to have been very active in his endeavours to gain over interlopers, and to improve the stock of the company, but when pressed by the committee for particulars he asked to be excused giving an immediate answer on the score of ill-health; he had not slept for two nights and was much indisposed. [Journal House of Commons, xi, 320, 321.] On the 25th and following day he was well enough to volunteer further evidence incriminating the Duke of Leeds. He told the committee of an interview he (Firebrace) had had with Sir Thomas Cook, when the latter expressed his apprehension lest the passing the East India Company's charter should be opposed by the lord president. They had then agreed to endeavour to win his lordship's favour by an offer of 5,000 guineas. That sum had been actually left at the duke's house, and it was only returned on the morning the enquiry opened. After the payment of the money both Cook and himself had enjoyed free access to the duke and found him willing to give them his assistance. [Id., xi, 322, 323.]

[Evidence of Josiah Child, 26 April, 1695.]

Among others who gave evidence was Child himself, who acknowledged that he had suggested an offer of £50,000 to the king in order to induce his majesty to waive his prerogative and allow the company to be settled by Act of Parliament. William, however, was impervious to a bribe and declined to meddle in the matter.

[Cook and Firebrace committed to the Tower.]

The result of the enquiry was that the Duke of Leeds was ordered to be impeached, whilst Firebrace and Cook were committed to the Tower. [Journal House of Commons, xi, 327, 329; Journal House of Lords, xv, 580; Luttrell, iii, 466.] They recovered their liberty in April, 1696, and in July, 1698, Firebrace was created a baronet. [Luttrell, iv, 51, 404.]

[The Old and the New Company agree to unite, 22 July, 1702.]

In July, 1702, the rival companies were content to sink their differences, and a union was effected. [An indenture tripartite between the queen, the old company and the new was executed the 22nd July, 1702, by the terms of which the companies were to become united at the end of seven years.] Shortly before this took place the Old Company voted the sum of £12,000 as a free gift to Cook for his past services. [Luttrell, v, 168.] Firebrace, who had used his best endeavours to bring about the union, brought an action against the Old Company for compensation for his services, but consented to drop all proceedings on receiving stock in the company to the amount of £10,000. [Id., v, 284.] In 1704 Cook was elected mayor, but the state of his health not allowing him to serve, he was discharged. He died in September, 1709. [Repertory 108, fo. 589; Id. 113, fo. 387; Journal 54, fo. 61; Luttrell, vi, 486.]

[Jacobite tumults during the king's absence abroad, May-Oct., 1695.]

On Sunday the 12th May, 1695, William again set out for the continent, and did not return until the 10th October. The great feature of the campaign was the brilliant siege and recovery of the town of Namur, which had been lost to the allied forces three years before. Baulked in a proposed design against the king's person by his unexpected departure, the Jacobites had to content themselves with other measures. On the 10th June, the birthday of the unfortunate Prince of Wales, a number of them met at a tavern in Drury Lane. Excited by wine they sallied forth, with drums beating and colours flying, and insisted on passers by drinking the prince's health. This roused the indignation of the neighbours, who sacked the tavern and put the revellers to flight, one of the ringleaders being seized and afterwards committed to Newgate. [Luttrell, iii, 483-484.] When, in the following August, the whole of London was on the tiptoe of excitement, waiting for news of the fall of Namur, the citizens were suddenly amazed at the sight of a horseman in military uniform riding through the main streets and announcing that William had been killed. That the wish was father to the thought became sufficiently clear to the by-standers when they heard the man declare with pistol in hand and sword drawn that he would kill anyone who denied the truth of his statement. A serious disturbance was avoided by his being incontinently dragged from his horse and carried before the lord mayor, who committed him to prison. [Id., iii, 512.]

[Elections for a triennial parliament, Oct., 1695.]

When the king returned in October, with the laurels of victory fresh on his brow, he determined to seize the favourable opportunity for dissolving parliament. The result of the elections for a new parliament—the first triennial parliament under a recent Act—justified the course he had taken. The citizens, who had been among the first to welcome him on his arrival in London, and whose sheriffs—Edward Wills and Owen Buckingham—he had recently knighted, [Id., iii, 536, 537.] instead of returning Tory members, as in the late parliament, returned four Whigs, viz., three aldermen, Sir Robert Clayton, Sir John Fleet and Sir William Ashurst, and one commoner, Thomas Papillon. The election was strongly contested, a poll being demanded by three other candidates, viz., Sir William Pritchard, Sir Thomas Vernon and Sir William Russell, against the return of Clayton, Ashurst and Papillon. The result of the poll, however, left matters undisturbed. [Luttrell, iii, 538, 540, 542.] The contest in Westminster was more severe than in the city, but, like the latter, ended in a victory for the Whigs. Cook, who was still a prisoner in the Tower, again contested Colchester, but lost his seat. [Id., iii, 541, 543.] On the 22nd November the Houses met.

[The Barclay conspiracy, 1696.]

The king's return was a signal for fresh action on the part of the Jacobites. It was resolved to assassinate William on his return from hunting in Richmond Park. The management of the conspiracy was entrusted to Sir George Barclay, a Scotch refugee, who succeeded in getting together a small band of men willing to take part in the desperate enterprise. The plot was, however, discovered, and some of the leading conspirators arrested. On the evening of Sunday the 23rd February (1696) the lord mayor (Sir John Houblon) was summoned to the Privy Council and informed of the narrow escape of the king. He was charged to look well to the safety of the city. On Monday morning all the city trained bands were under arms, and on Tuesday the Common Council voted a congratulatory address to the king upon his escape. [Journal 52, fo. 78b.]

[The signing of associations.]

By that time parliament had been informed of what had taken place. The Commons immediately suspended the Habeas Corpus Act and agreed to enter into an association for the defence of their king and country. An instrument was forthwith drawn up whereby each individual member of the House pledged himself to uphold King William and William's government against James and his adherents, and in case his majesty should meet with a violent death to unite with one another in inflicting condign vengeance on his murderers, and in supporting the order of succession to the crown as settled by the Bill of Rights. On Tuesday (25 Feb.) the House was called over; the association engrossed on parchment lay on the table, and every member present went up and signed, those who from sickness or other cause were absent being ordered to sign the document on their first appearance in the House, or publicly declare from their seat in the House their refusal to do so. [Journal House of Commons, xi, 465-468.] The next day the Common Council of the city unanimously resolved to enter into the like association, the livery companies of the city being afterwards called upon by the mayor to do the same. [Journal 52, fos. 79, 79b, 109b, 110b; Luttrell, iv, 65.]

[Bill of Attainder against Sir John Fenwick.]

For weeks and months strict search was made in the city for Papists and suspect persons, [Journal 52, fos. 108, 110b; Repertory 100, fo. 78b.] and among them for Sir John Fenwick, for whose arrest a proclamation was issued on the 22nd March. [Journal 52, fo. 109b.] He was eventually captured whilst making his way to the coast for the purpose of escaping to France, and was committed to Newgate. When a motion was made in November for proceeding against him by Bill of Attainder the sheriffs of London surrendered their charge to the sergeant-at-arms of the House of Commons. After his execution on Tower Hill in January of the following year (1697) some officers of Sheriff Blewet, whose duty it had been to keep watch over Fenwick by night and day whilst lying in Newgate, had to apply to the Court of Aldermen before they could get the sheriff to pay them the money (£9 10s.) due to them for that service. [Repertory 101, fo. 132.]

[The City and the Election Bill, April, 1696.]

The discovery of the assassination plot had the result of rendering William's seat on the throne more secure than ever, and won for him the unqualified support of parliament. Early in February (1696) a Bill had been brought in to exclude from the House every person who did not possess a certain estate in land. The Bill met with much opposition in commercial circles, and more especially in the city of London, [Journal 52, fos. 80, 90.] and the king being unwilling to estrange those merchants and traders who had so often assisted him, exercised his prerogative and declined to give his assent to the Bill. Thereupon some violent Tories moved that whoever advised the king to take this course was an enemy to him and the nation; but the House displayed its loyalty by rejecting the motion by an overwhelming majority and ordering the division list to be published. [Journal House of Commons, xi, 427, 556.]

[Resolution of the Common Hall, 29 Sept., 1696.]

The City was not behindhand in renewing its assurances of loyalty. The liverymen of the several companies assembled in the Guildhall for the election of a mayor on Michaelmas-day passed a resolution to stand by the king with their lives and fortunes, and desired the city members of parliament to see that a searching enquiry were made into the late conspiracy as the best means of preserving the king's person, establishing the government, and reviving trade and credit. [Luttrell, iv, 119, 120.]

[The new currency, May-Aug., 1696.]

At the time when this resolution was passed the king was expected home from the continent, whither he had gone in May last. During his absence there had occurred a monetary crisis—the first since the establishment of the Bank of England—which, after causing for several months a great amount of distress, was destined to be succeeded by a long period of unbroken prosperity. An Act had recently been passed for calling in all clipt money and substituting milled money in its stead,[^161] and the crisis was brought about by the old money being called in before the new money was ready for issue. Saturday, the 2nd May, was practically the last day clipt money was received by the exchequer. Three days later the stock of milled money in the coffers of the Bank of England at Grocers' Hall had run out, and the governor of the Bank, Sir John Houblon, who happened at the time to be also lord mayor, had to propitiate the numerous claimants for the new money by offering them part payment in the old coin and the rest in the new as soon as it was minted.[^162]

[^161: Stat. 7 and 8 Will. III, c. 1. By a subsequent Act (Stat. 7 and 8 Will. III, c. 19) encouragement was given for bringing plate into the Mint to be coined. The exportation of all silver except foreign silver was prohibited, and certificates to the effect that silver about to be exported was foreign silver and not plate or clipt money had to be obtained in the city from the aldermen before exportation was allowed. Three volumes of these "bullion certificates" are preserved in the Town Clerk's office.]

[^162: Luttrell, iv, 55. It is said that the goldsmiths of the city had collected all the available paper of the Bank for the express purpose of presenting it for cash at a time when they knew full well that the Bank was short of milled money, hoping thereby to injure the credit of the institution which was ruining their business.]

[City loans, July-Nov., 1696.]

Towards the end of July matters became worse. In spite of the extraordinary activity displayed by the Mint authorities, at the Tower and in divers parts of the country, the supply had not equalled the demand, yet a large sum of money was now imperatively demanded for payment of the army on the continent. The king himself had written to say that unless the money was forthcoming his troops were ready to mutiny or desert. Nothing less than a million would satisfy the requirements of the army in Flanders, a like sum was wanted for the navy, whilst half that amount was necessary for the army in England. [Luttrell, iv, 90.] How was this enormous sum to be raised? It was thought that the City might vote something towards it, but the Chamberlain declared that any proposal for a loan at that time would with difficulty be carried into execution owing to the scarcity of money. [Id., iv, 91.] Some private individuals, however, managed to raise £200,000 for the king, whilst others, like Sir Josiah Child, Charles Duncombe and Sir Joseph Herne, were prepared to stand security for £300,000 more, which the Dutch were ready to advance. After long deliberation the Bank of England agreed (15 Aug.) to advance another £200,000. [Id., iv, 97.] These sums sufficed for the more immediate wants of the king, and allowed time for the issue of the new currency.

[The Peace of Ryswick, 10 Sept., 1697.]

The campaign of 1696 had been carried on in a very desultory way. All parties were anxious for a peace. Towards the end of April, 1697, William once more crossed over to Flanders, [Id., iv, 216.] and the French king having for the first time shown a disposition to come to terms, it was arranged that a congress should meet near the Hague. The result of the congress was the conclusion (10 Sept.) of the Peace of Ryswick, whereby Louis consented to acknowledge William's title to the throne. The news was received in the city four days later with every demonstration of joy; the Tower guns were discharged, flags hung out, bells set ringing and bonfires lighted. [Luttrell, iv, 278.]

[Preparations to welcome the king on his return.]

The Court of Aldermen resolved to give the king a more than ordinary reception on his return. Search was made for precedents as to the manner in which former kings had been received on their return from progresses or from parts beyond the sea, and these precedents, from the time of Edward IV down to that of King Charles II, were duly reported to the court by a committee appointed to make the search. [Repertory 101, fos. 369-377.] The committee was next instructed to consider of suitable ways and methods for the reception of his majesty if he should be pleased to pass through the city, and on this also the committee reported with elaborate detail. [Repertory 101, fos. 381-384.] These and other preparations were all made under the apprehension that the king was about to return immediately. Weeks went by and no king appeared. The Court of Aldermen availed themselves of the delay to put the finishing touches to the programme of welcome that was to be accorded him, and to commit into custody any suspicious character they found. [Repertory 101, fos. 420-424; Repertory 102, fos. 4, 16; Journal 52, fo. 157.] At length, after long and impatient expectation, news came that the king had landed at Margate on the 14th November. [Repertory 102, fo. 18.] By the following night his majesty reached Greenwich and rested in the handsome building which, at the desire of his beloved queen, had been recently converted from a palace into a hospital for disabled seamen.[^163]

[^163: Letters patent appointing commissioners for converting the palace into a hospital, and dated the 12th March, 1695, are preserved among the Records in the custody of the city Chamberlain.—See Report on Corporation Records, 16 Dec., 1869., Appendix iii, p. 50.]

[The king met at Southwark by the mayor, aldermen, etc., 16 Nov., 1697.]

The lord mayor immediately issued his precept to the several livery companies (they had received a previous warning to prepare for the occasion on the 1st October) [Journal 52, fo. 142.] to be ready in their stands by eight o'clock on the morning of Tuesday the 16th November, well apparelled and with all the ornaments of their companies before them. [Id., fo. 157b.] That morning witnessed one of the finest sights that had ever been seen in the city of London, famous as it always had been for its pageantry. No expense had been spared in providing new gowns for the magistrates and new banners for the companies. The mayor, aldermen and sheriffs rode out "in their formalities" as far as Southwark, where they met the king, and where the usual ceremony took place of surrendering the civic sword into his majesty's hands, to be immediately returned to the lord mayor. This done, the procession was formed, and the king was escorted with trumpets and kettle-drums through the entire length of the city, the streets being guarded by the six regiments of trained bands, and the houses rendered bright with hangings of tapestry. [Repertory 102, fos. 4, 18-27; Luttrell, iv, 306.]

[Congratulations offered by the city, 17 Nov., 1697.]

On Wednesday the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, accompanied by the recorder, waited upon his majesty and congratulated him on the peace and on his safe return. The king in reply thanked them, and conferred the honour of knighthood upon the sheriffs, Bartholomew Gracedieu and James Collett. [Luttrell; iv, 307.]

[A day of public thanksgiving, 2 Dec.]

The rejoicings terminated with a thanksgiving service at St. Paul's (2 Dec.), the work of Sir Christopher Wren being sufficiently advanced to admit of divine service being held there. The mayor and aldermen attended in state. The king did not attend lest his presence should draw off congregations from other churches; but he attended service in his private chapel at Whitehall. Not only in London but throughout the kingdom the day was solemnly observed, whilst the night was given up to festivity and fireworks. [Journal 52, fos. 158, 158b; Repertory 102, fo. 49; Luttrell, iv, 313, 314.]

[Parliamentary elections for the city, 1698-1701.]

When, in 1698, the first triennial parliament had run its course and a new election of members for the city took place all the old members retained their seats except Sir Robert Clayton. His place was taken by Sir James Houblon, a Tory. On this occasion the election for the city did not take place until the returns of many constituencies in the country had been made known. As a rule the returns of the metropolitan constituencies were looked forward to as an augury of the political complexion of the coming parliament. This parliament was not allowed to live its full time, but was dissolved in December, 1700, a new parliament being summoned to meet in the following February (1701). [Luttrell, iv, 720.] Sir Robert Clayton regained his seat, and with him were returned Sir William Ashurst (who headed the poll), Gilbert Heathcote and Sir William Withers. [Id., v, 10.] Upon Heathcote being declared by parliament disqualified to sit owing to a technical breach of trust his seat was taken by Sir John Fleet. [Journal House of Commons, xiii, 351, 352; Luttrell, v, 20, 29.]

[Death of James II, 5 Sept., 1701.]

[The City's address of loyalty to William.]

After the death of James II at St. Germains (5 Sept., 1701) Louis broke his vow (made at Ryswick) not to do anything to disturb or subvert the government of England, and forthwith proclaimed the late king's son to be heir to his father's throne. The whole English nation was stirred against the French king for having dared to acknowledge as their sovereign the boy who had been held to be supposititious and whose title to the crown had been rejected by parliament. The citizens of London were among the first to express their loyalty to William and their readiness to do their utmost to preserve his person and government against all invasion. The king was on the continent at the time, but an address to this effect, unanimously agreed to by the Common Council (26 Sept.), was forwarded to him by the lords justices, who held the reins of government during his absence, and who in due course were instructed to inform the City of the great satisfaction its address had afforded his majesty. The example thus set was quickly followed by others, and similar addresses began to flow in from all parts of the kingdom, [Journal 53, fos. 123, 149; Luttrell, v, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99. The address is printed in Noorthouck, "Hist. of London" (p. 287, note).] whilst the City's address was by the king's orders translated into foreign languages for transmission to the several courts of Europe. [Luttrell, v, 100.]

[Sir William Gore elected mayor, Sept., 1701.]

A few hours before the City's address reached the hands of the lords justices the citizens had assembled (29 Sept.) in Common Hall to choose a mayor for the ensuing year. Sir Charles Duncombe, who had amassed a large fortune as a goldsmith and banker, and who, although returned by the livery at the head of the poll the previous year, had been set aside by the Court of Aldermen in his contest for the mayoralty probably on account of his Tory principles,[^164] was again put up as a candidate, although in point of seniority he was one of the youngest aldermen. This time he failed to get a majority of votes at the Common Hall, but his popularity was still sufficiently strong to return him second on the poll, and his name was submitted in conjunction with that of William Gore to the Court of Aldermen for them to select one. It was quite within their province to select if they chose the second name submitted to them—they had frequently done so before—but in the face of Louis's recent act of insolence they preferred to call to the mayoralty chair a man whose Tory principles were not too pronounced rather than one who had accepted an alderman's commission from James II, and Sir William Gore was accordingly declared elected. [Luttrell, v, 95.]

[^164: Evelyn (Diary, 11 June, 1696) writes of him as having been formerly a "mean goldsmith" and become rich by extortion. He had purchased an estate at Helmsley, co. York, once the property of the Duke of Buckingham, a transaction which drew forth the following lines from Pope (Imitation of Bk. ii, Satire ii, of Horace sub fine):—

"And Helmsley, once proud Buckingham's delight,
Slides to a Scrivener or City Knight."

He had received a commission as alderman from James II in 1685, was discharged the following year, and in 1700, when he was sheriff, got himself elected alderman of Bridge Ward (Repertory 90, fo. 71; Id. 91, fo. 83b; Id. 104, fo. 345). The city Journals of the period are very imperfect, and there are no Common Hall books of the day, but Luttrell gives us the result of the mayoralty election of 1700, when Duncombe promised to lay out £40,000 for the good of the city, or build a Mansion House for future mayors, and set up a brass statue of King William upon the Conduit in Cheapside, if only he were elected (Diary, iv, 660, 692).]

[Election of William's last parliament, Nov.-Dec., 1701.]

The parliament which assembled in February, 1701, enjoyed a still shorter existence than its predecessor, for it was dissolved in the following November. Another was summoned to meet in December. [Journal 50, fo. 359; Luttrell, v, 108.] Great excitement prevailed in the city over this election. The Whigs met at the Crown Tavern behind the Exchange and agreed to put up three of the old members, viz., Clayton, Ashurst and Heathcote, and to run a fresh candidate in the person of Sir Thomas Abney. The Tory or "Church party" opposed these candidates with four others, viz., Sir William Gore, the lord mayor, Sir John Fleet, Sir Richard Levett and Sir Charles Duncombe, the recently defeated candidate for the mayoralty. When it came to polling all four Whigs were returned by an overwhelming majority. [Luttrell, v, 110-111, 112-113, 114.] This was the last parliament of William's reign. On the 20th February (1702) he was thrown from his horse whilst riding in Richmond Park and broke his collar-bone. His health had previously shown signs of giving way. On the 8th March he died.

CHAPTER XXXIV.

[The Princess Anne proclaimed queen 8 March, 1702.]

On the day that William died the Lords Spiritual and Temporal met together and, "with the assistance" of the Privy Council, a number of other "principall gentlemen of quality" and the lord mayor, aldermen and citizens of London, proceeded to draw up a document proclaiming the Princess Anne successor to the crown. The day happened to be Sunday; nevertheless on that same afternoon public proclamation of the queen's accession was made at Temple Bar and the Royal Exchange in the presence of the mayor and Court of Aldermen, whilst the sheriffs were despatched to learn when her majesty would be pleased to receive the aldermen. [Journal 53, fo. 366; Repertory 106, fo. 200.]

[The Common Council vote an address, 10 March.]

[A picture of the queen for the Guildhall and a statue for the Royal Exchange.]

Two days later (10 March) the Common Council voted an address condoling with the queen on the death of the late king and congratulating her upon her accession. [Journal 53, fo. 281b. The address is printed in Maitland's History (i, 503).] The Court of Aldermen resolved to put themselves into "close" mourning, each alderman providing himself with a mourning gown at his own expense, whilst the Chamberlain was instructed to provide similar gowns for the chief officers of the Corporation at the City's expense, as had formerly been done on the demise of Charles II. [Repertory 106, fo. 215.] They further resolved, with her majesty's permission, to cause her portrait to be painted and to be set up in the Guildhall and a statue of her to be set up at the Royal Exchange. It was found on enquiry that the statues of kings and queens already in the Royal Exchange had been set up at the expense of the companies, except those of William and Mary, which (as we have seen) were erected by order of the Common Council. On the other hand, the pictures of Charles II, James II and of William and Mary had all been paid for by the Chamber. Artists were invited to send in sketches or designs for her majesty's picture; and this having been done, the work was entrusted to Closterman.[^165]

[^165: Repertory 106, fos. 226, 235, 243, 321; Journal 53, fo. 382. The portrait is said by Bryan ("Dict. of Painters") to have been hung in the Council Chamber. It is not there now, and does not appear to be either in the Guildhall or Mansion House.]

[The coronation, 23 April, 1702.]

At the coronation, which took place on the 23rd April, the mayor, aldermen and twelve representatives of the principal livery companies were present, care having been taken by the City Remembrancer that their proper places were assigned them both in the Abbey and at the subsequent banquet in Westminster Hall. The civic dignitaries started from the city as early as seven o'clock in the morning in order to be at Westminster Hall by eight a.m. The mayor was provided at the City's expense with the customary gown of crimson velvet for the occasion, the sword-bearer being only a little less resplendent in a gown of damask. [Journal 53, fo. 398; Repertory 106, fos. 253-255, 267-9.]

[Parliament contunues notwithstanding demise of the crown, Stat. 7 & 8 Will. III, c. 15.]

Before the Revolution it had been the custom for parliament to cease to exist immediately on the demise of the crown. It was held that inasmuch as the king was the head of the parliament, and as the members of a living body could not continue to exist without a head, so a parliament could not continue without a king, but must with the death of the king, ipso facto, itself expire. The inconveniences arising from this had at length become so apparent that an Act had recently been passed permitting a parliament in existence at the demise of the crown to be continued for a period of six months after such demise. [Stat. 7 & 8 Will. III, c. 15.] By virtue of this Act the parliament, which had met for the first time on the 30th December, 1701, was allowed to sit, notwithstanding the king's death, until dissolved in July, 1702.

[The Tories supplant the Whigs in the new parliament.]

The "good" Queen Anne, warmly attached as she was to the Church of England, was naturally inclined towards the Tories in preference to the Whigs, and lost no time in dismissing Somers, Halifax and other Whig ministers of the late king and filling their places with Tories. Her action in this respect influenced the coming elections more especially in the city of London, where a new commission of lieutenancy appointed by the queen had already turned out six colonels of Whiggish proclivities and had put in their place others of a different political character.[^166]

[^166: "A new commission for the lieutenancy of London," writes Luttrell (11 July, 1702) "is come from her majestie, since which they have mett and turned out the six old collonells, viz., Sir Robert Clayton, Sir William Ashurst, Sir Thomas Stamp, Sir Thomas Lane, Sir Thomas Abney and Sir Owen Buckingham, and chose in their room Sir William Pritchard, Sir John Fleet, Sir Francis Child, Sir Samuel Dashwood, Sir Thomas Cook and Sir Charles Duncombe."—Diary, v, 193.]

[The city members.]

Only one of the old Whig members managed to retain his seat, viz., Gilbert Heathcote, who had recently been elected alderman of Walbrook ward in the place of Sir John Moore, deceased, and who may have inherited some of the Tory principles of his predecessor together with the aldermanic gown. There is nothing like office for chastening a man's political opinions. However this may have been, his three colleagues elected to serve with him in the coming parliament were also aldermen of the city and staunch Tories. These were Sir William Pritchard, Sir John Fleet and Sir Francis Child. A scrutiny had been demanded by Clayton, Ashurst and Abney, the defeated candidates, but it failed to disturb the result of the poll. [Luttrell, v, 198.] Clayton was successful in finding a seat for Bletchingley, co. Surrey. [Id., v, 244.]

[The queen entertained on lord mayor's day, 29 Oct., 1702.]

When Michaelmas-day came round and Sir Samuel Dashwood—a tried Tory who had sat for the city in the only parliament convened under James II, as well as in the first parliament under William and Mary—was elected to the mayoralty chair, the choice of the citizens was highly commended by the lord keeper,[^167] and the queen accepted an invitation to dinner on lord mayor's day. It was proposed to invite both Houses of Parliament to the city on that occasion, but it was found that the accommodation at the Guildhall was insufficient for the purpose. [Repertory 106, fos. 518, 523, 543, 548.] The cost of the entertainment to her majesty was not thrown on the Chamber, but was discharged by the aldermen, each of them agreeing to subscribe the sum of £25 for the purpose. The entertainment, however, was given on so lavish a scale that these contributions had to be doubled, in addition to which the outgoing as well as the incoming mayor contributed £300 respectively and each of the sheriffs £150. The whole cost of the entertainment amounted to £2,000. [Repertory 106, fo. 526; Luttrell, v, 226.] The queen acknowledged the hospitality thus offered by conferring the honour of knighthood upon Francis Dashwood, brother of the lord mayor, Richard Hoare, the goldsmith of Fleet Street, Gilbert Heathcote, the city member, and upon "Mr. Eaton," the linendraper, of Cheapside, from whose house she had witnessed the pageant. [Luttrell, v, 231.]

[^167: Luttrell, v, 220, 221. His election is not recorded in the City's Journal. The minutes of the court of Common Council at this period were either very imperfectly written up, or if written up have been either lost or suppressed. It is scarcely possible that Journal 53 can represent the whole of the municipal business transacted by the court between April, 1701, and February, 1704.]

[Public thanksgiving service at St. Paul's, 12 Nov., 1702.]

Scarce a fortnight elapsed before the queen again visited the city (12 Nov.), the occasion being a public thanksgiving service in St. Paul's for the successes of Marlborough, Ormond and Rooke. In July Marlborough had opened the campaign against France and Spain, war having been declared against those countries on the 4th May, [Journal 53, fo. 402.] and although he had been unable to bring the enemy to a general engagement he had succeeded in reducing several important towns and in cutting off the communications of the French with the Lower Rhine. At sea the English and Dutch combined fleets under the command of Sir George Rooke, with a large number of troops on board under the command of the Duke of Ormond, had succeeded in capturing a rich booty in Vigo Bay. [Upwards of £100,000 in bullion was carried to the Tower to be minted.—Luttrell, v, 238.] Both Houses of Parliament attended the service. The order of the procession and the distribution of seats within the cathedral are given in detail in a report laid before the Court of Aldermen (15 Dec.). [Repertory 107, fos. 57-62.] The queen, who was attired in purple, and wore her collar and George, was met at Temple Bar by the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs on horseback. The city sword, having been presented to her majesty and restored to the mayor, was carried by him next before her majesty's coach to the cathedral. The streets from St. James' to Temple Bar were lined by the Westminster militia, and from Temple Bar to Ludgate by two regiments of the city trained bands. The balconies and windows were hung with carpets and tapestry. On arriving at St. Paul's her majesty was met at the door by the Peers and escorted to the choir of the cathedral by the Duke of Somerset and the lord chamberlain, the sword of state being borne before her by the Duke of Ormond. The spectacle which presented itself inside St. Paul's on this occasion has scarcely ever been equalled. Opposite the altar, on a throne of state, sat the queen. The Peers were accommodated with seats in the body of the choir, whilst the Commons sat in the stalls and upper galleries on either side. In the two lower galleries next the throne sat the foreign ministers and ladies "of quality." There were two other galleries near the altar, one on the north side and the other on the south side of the church. The latter was occupied by the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, whilst the former was occupied (as usual) by their ladies. The sermon was preached by the Bishop of Exeter. The night was given up to bonfires and illuminations. [Luttrell, v, 235.]

[The victory at Blenheim, 2 Aug. (o.s.), 1704.]

Two years later the city's minster—now rapidly approaching completion—was again the scene of a similar gathering, the occasion being a thanksgiving service for a signal victory gained by Marlborough over the French and Bavarian forces at Blenheim, near Hochstadt in Germany (2 Aug., o.s.).[^168] The 7th September was set apart as a day of public thanksgiving. [Journal 54, fo. 133.] The City in the meanwhile voted (30 Aug.) an address to her majesty [Id., fos. 50, 51. See Appendix.] congratulating her on the success that had attended her arms and complimenting her on her judgment in selecting Marlborough for the command, whose courage and conduct had "settled the tottering empire, relieved Savoy, chastised the Elector of Bavaria, and curbed the ambition of the French king." They prayed that her majesty might long live a terror to her enemies, a defence to her injured neighbours and a delight to her subjects. The next day (31 Aug.) the mayor issued his precept to the several livery companies to prepare their rails, stands, banners and other usual "ornaments of triumph" with the view of taking up such position in the street as should be assigned to them. [Journal 54, fo. 134.] Several of the companies, viz., the Girdlers, the Scriveners and the Glovers, refused to obey the precept, and were thereupon summoned before the Court of Aldermen to answer for their conduct, whilst others like the Dyers, the Cooks and the Poulterers were excused. [Repertory 108, fo. 530.] A little difficulty arose touching the seats assigned by the lord chamberlain in St. Paul's to the civic dignitaries, who claimed the right to occupy the seats and places where they usually sat, the more so on this occasion because, parliament not being then in session, the members of neither House were to be in attendance. How matters were eventually arranged does not appear, but the Court of Aldermen up to the last moment were emphatic in their resolution that the lord mayor should insist on keeping his place in the cathedral, and a week later (14 Sept.) appointed a committee to search for precedents as to the place occupied by the mayor and aldermen in processions and their seats in St. Paul's on occasions of any king or queen coming there to hear a sermon. [Repertory 108, fos. 533, 544, 547.] In other respects everything passed off well.

[^168: Stanhope ("Hist. of England," temp. Queen Anne, p. 142), and other writers give the date of the battle as the 13th August, adopting the new style, which was then in force on the continent, but not yet accepted by England.]

[The Duke of Marlborough at Goldsmiths' Hall, 6 Jan., 1705.]

On the morning of the 14th December Marlborough arrived in London, bringing in his train Marshal Tallard and other general officers whom he had made captive at Blenheim. On the 20th an invitation was sent for his grace to dine with the Court of Aldermen and the sheriffs at Goldsmiths' Hall, the residence of Sir Owen Buckingham, the lord mayor, on any day he might name. The invitation having been graciously accepted for the 6th January, the duke was further requested to bring with him what company he pleased, for his grace would find none others there besides the lord mayor, aldermen and sheriffs to entertain him. Each alderman and sheriff was called upon to subscribe the sum of £25 towards defraying the cost of the entertainment. [Rep. 109, fos. 88, 92, 95.]

On the day appointed the duke was conveyed to the city in one of her majesty's own coaches, accompanied by the Duke of Somerset, the foreign ministers and a large number of the nobility and general officers of the army. At Temple Bar he was met by the city marshal, by whom he was conducted to Goldsmiths' Hall. There a "noble treat" was set out for the guests, "the queen's musick playing all the while, and everything performed in great splendor." [Luttrell, v, 506.] The Common Council acknowledged the great public spirit thus displayed by the Court of Aldermen and the sheriffs by passing an unanimous vote of thanks to them. [Journal 54, fo. 119.]

[The City's finances, 1702-4.]

In the meantime, whilst Marlborough had been so successfully carrying on the work which the late king had set himself to do, the city of London had been busy setting its house in order. The poor were with them in greater numbers than ever. The statute (13 and 14 Chas. II, c. 12) passed in 1662 for the better relief of the poor of the kingdom, authorising the erection of workhouses, necessitated the expenditure of a great deal of money, and a sum amounting to nearly £5,000 had to be periodically raised for the purpose by assessment of the several parishes of the city. [Journal 52, fo. 228; Journal 53, fos. 382-384, 388-390; Journal 54, fos. 42-46, 485-493; Journal 55, fos. 39-41.] Besides this there was a yearly sum of £8,000 due by the City to the orphans and its other creditors, a sum which exceeded the City's yearly revenue. The consequence was that the City had become greatly in debt. To remedy this state of affairs various methods were resorted to. An attempt was made at the commencement of the present reign to get the queen's sanction for compelling every governor, deputy governor, or committeeman of both the East India companies to take up the freedom of the City. The question was referred to the attorney-general, whose opinion on the matter was duly reported to the Common Council. [Journal 53, fos. 263, 268, 285, 303.]

On the 1st July, 1703, another committee was appointed to examine the state of the Chamber, and to consider of ways and means for its supply and for the support of the government of the city. On the 18th August this committee recommended to the Common Council that an exact survey of all the City's estate should be made in each ward by the alderman and his deputy, and that such surveys should be sent to the town clerk so that they might be entered in a book. The court approved of the recommendation, and ordered that it should be carried out "with all expedition imaginable." [Id., fos. 545, 548-549.] The City's markets, [Journal 53, fos. 716-726.] the City's beams [Journal 54, fos. 53-56.] and everything else that could be let on lease were let at improved rentals, and everything that could be sold was sold. On the 4th November (1703) the lord mayor (Sir John Parsons) informed the Common Council that towards the payment of the City's debts his lordship and the two sheriffs had agreed to lay before the court certain papers showing (1) what the several places under the Corporation would sell for, (2) what the lord mayor himself and the sheriffs were willing to take for their share of each place, and (3) what part of the purchase-money might be devoted to the liquidation of the City's debts. [Journal 53, fos. 714-716.]

The schedule is an interesting one as showing the value attached to various offices under the City. Thus a water-bailiff's place would sell for £2,200, a sword-bearer's for £2,500, and that of a clerk of the Chamber for as much as £2,600 (the highest of all), whilst a City solicitor could purchase his place for £1,500, and a City remembrancer could do the same for £1,200. The scheme proposed by the mayor and sheriffs on this occasion affected no less than one hundred and sixty-three places of employment, and was simplicity itself, being nothing more than that they themselves and their successors should forego one-third of the value of any place that became vacant during their year of office, and that this third should be devoted to payment of the City's liabilities. The total value of these purchaseable places amounted to £107,860, one-third of which, viz., £35,953 6s. 8d., would, if this proposal were carried out (and if every place fell vacant within the year), be available for the discharge of the City's debts. In a second schedule were set out certain other places filled chiefly by artificers, who, by their extravagant charges, had contributed (it was said) in no small degree to the City's indebtedness. These were to be excluded from the scheme, much to their disappointment. When any one of them died, surrendered his place or was dismissed from it for just cause, his place was not to be filled up, and the payment of 10s. a week, more or less, which such artificer had been in the habit of receiving from the City, "work or not work," was to cease.

The proposals thus laid before the Common Council met with the approval of the court, and the committee was instructed to embody them in a Bill. A Bill was accordingly drawn up and read the first time on the 4th February, 1704. It passed on the 24th, [Journal 53, fos. 714, 730, 739, 744-746. The Act was entitled "An Act to prevent the further declining state of the city of London." (Printed.)] and the thanks of the Common Council were returned to the mayor and sheriffs for their generous offers.

[Another thanksgiving service at St. Paul's, 23 Aug., 1705.]

In March, 1705, Marlborough sailed for Holland to resume the campaign. By July he had succeeded in forcing the French lines which stretched across the country from Namur to Antwerp. For this success another thanksgiving service was held at St. Paul's, and attended by the queen in person (23 Aug.). [Journal 54, fo. 521; Repertory 109, fo. 412.] Had the general been allowed a free hand by his Dutch allies a decisive battle might have been fought. The Dutch officers refused, however, to co-operate in an attack, and Marlborough had to give way with the best grace he could.

[Meeting of the new parliament, 25 Oct., 1705.]

During Marlborough's absence the parliament of 1702, which would soon have terminated by efflux of time under the provisions of the Triennial Act, had been dissolved (5 April) and a new one summoned. Once more the political pendulum swung back and a Whig parliament was returned. The Tories rather injured than aided their cause by raising the cry that the Church was in danger, whilst the Whig party was daily increasing in favour not only with the queen, who highly resented such a cry, but also with Marlborough and Godolphin. In the city both parties put up four candidates, but when the poll was declared it was found that all four Whigs had been returned by an overwhelming majority.[^169] One of the results of an understanding arrived at between Marlborough and the Tory leaders with the Whig Junto was a modification of an article in the Act of Settlement, which, after the accession of the House of Hanover, would have otherwise debarred ministers and other placemen from the House of Commons. A compromise was effected whereby only those who enjoyed a pension or office created after the 25th October, 1705, were to be disqualified from sitting in the House, whilst all other offices were declared compatible with a seat if the holder presented himself to his constituents for re-election at the time of his appointment. [Stat. 6 Anne, c. vii, secs. 25, 26.] This arrangement is still in force, although the necessity of it has long since disappeared.

[^169: Their names were Clayton, Ashurst, Heathcote and a new candidate in the person of Samuel Shepheard, the Tories who were put up in opposition being Sir John Fleet, Sir John Parsons, Sir William Withers and Sir Richard Hoare (Luttrell, v, 541-542, 543). Upon the death of Sir Robert Clayton in 1707 his seat was won by a Tory, viz., Sir William Withers, who was lord mayor at the time (Luttrell, vi, 236, 237). Withers had previously sat in the short parliament of 1701 (Feb.-Nov.) in the Whig interest (Luttrell, iv, 721).]

[The victory at Ramillies, 12 May (o.s), 1706.]

After a brief stay in England, where he had arrived at the opening of the new year (1706), Marlborough again crossed over to Holland before the spring. A few weeks only elapsed before he gained fresh laurels by another signal defeat of the French at the little village of Ramillies (12 May, o.s.).[^170] On the 24th May the Common Council voted an address to the queen congratulating her majesty on the victory. [Journal 54, fos. 462-463, 475.] The 27th June was set apart as a day of public thanksgiving, for which the City made the usual preparations. [Repertory 110, fo. 157.] But seeing that these gala days followed so closely on one another the Court of Aldermen resolved that the new crimson velvet gown with which the lord mayor was furnished on these occasions at the City's expense should no longer be appropriated by him, but should be carefully laid up by the hall keeper for future use. [Id., fo. 150b.] At the humble request of the lord mayor (Sir Thomas Rawlinson) her majesty graciously consented to bestow the trophies and colours recently taken in Flanders upon the City to the intent that they might be hung up in the Guildhall. It was not, however, until the 19th December, when the Duke of Marlborough was sumptuously entertained at Vintners' Hall, that twenty-six standards and sixty-three colours, taken at Ramillies, were brought into the city in great state, there to be displayed on the walls of the Guildhall. [Repertory 111, fos. 21, 28, 35; Luttrell, vi, 119. They have long since disappeared.]

[^170: Stanhope ("Hist, of England," temp. Queen Anne, p. 216) gives the date as Sunday the 23rd May—the day of the month according to the new style. But he is wrong in stating that day to have been Sunday. The 12th May did fall on Sunday.]

[£250,000 for Prince Eugene, March, 1706.]

These successes were not achieved without great expenditure of blood and money. At the close of the previous year (1705) the lord mayor had received an order under the royal sign manual requiring him and the Court of Aldermen to forthwith impress 1,000 men—such as had no visible means of subsistence—for service by land or sea, [Luttrell, v, 623.] whilst in the following March (1706) it was found necessary to open a subscription at Mercers' Chapel for furnishing Prince Eugene with £250,000 to assist him in carrying on the campaign in Italy. Notwithstanding the depressed state of the Corporation finances, the city abounded in wealth, and by the close of the first day no less than £160,000 of the whole loan had been underwritten, Sir Gilbert Heathcote, Sir William Scawen, Sir James Bateman and Sir Henry Furnese making themselves each responsible for the sum of £4,000. [Id., vi, 24.] With the pecuniary assistance thus afforded him, and with the reinforcements which Marlborough despatched to him from Holland, the prince was enabled to raise the siege of Turin (7 Sept., 1706).

[Day of public thanksgiving, 31 Dec., 1706.]

It was not long before the crimson velvet gown was again brought into requisition. So great success had attended the allied armies in 1706 that the queen ordered another day of public thanksgiving to be kept on the last day of the year, when she paid another solemn visit to St. Paul's, accompanied by both Houses of Parliament. Strange to say the records of the Court of Aldermen are absolutely silent as to the preparations made for the occasion, but from another source we know them to have been on the same scale as formerly, and we may depend upon it that the crimson velvet gown was there. [Journal 57, fo. 537; Luttrell, vi, 122, 123.]

[Passage of gunpowder through the city.]

The city was at this time in great danger from the passage of large quantities of gunpowder through the streets on its way to the Tower. One can realise the immense risk which the merchant and trader ran in pursuing his regular vocation when one reads that on the 10th July (1706) a cart with iron-bound wheels and laden with twenty-five barrels of gunpowder had been overturned on Fish Street Hill and the gunpowder scattered. Nor was this the only accident that had occurred; the wonder is that the entire city had not been blown up long since, seeing that gunpowder was a commodity dealt in by grocers! The Common Council took the matter up and made a representation to the queen. [Journal 54, fos. 499-501.] Next year a Bill was introduced into the House of Commons by Sir Gilbert Heathcote and Samuel Shepheard, two of the city members, for preventing the dangers arising from bringing or laying up quantities of gunpowder within the city and liberties, but before the Lords and Commons could come to an agreement parliament was prorogued (24 April, 1707). [Journal House of Commons, xv, 358, 366, 368, 384, 387, 389, 390.] The municipal authorities were not content to let matters rest here, but prepared a petition to parliament for leave to bring in another Bill. The petition was ordered to lie on the table (24 Feb., 1708), [Journal 54, fos. 614, 623-624, 647; Journal House of Commons, xv, 567.] and in the meantime the citizens had to be satisfied with an undertaking already given by powder-makers not to carry any gunpowder to any wharf or stairs within half a mile of London Bridge. [Journal 54, fo. 605.]

[The Union with Scotland, 1607.]

The Articles of Union between England and Scotland having, after prolonged discussion, been ratified by both the English and Scottish parliaments and received the formal assent of the Crown, a day of public thanksgiving (1 May, 1707) was ordered to be observed for the happy conclusion of the treaty between the two kingdoms. A proclamation had previously been issued (29 April) constituting the existing Houses of Lords and Commons the first parliament of Great Britain for and on the part of England, whilst sixteen peers and forty-five commoners were to be elected to represent Scotland in the same parliament. The first meeting was to take place at Westminster on the 23rd October. [Journal House of Commons, xv, 392; Journal 54, fos. 616, 617, 621.] Meanwhile addresses of congratulation to the queen arrived from various parts of the kingdom; but in consequence of the Article of Union declaring the Presbyterian form to be the true Protestant religion, no such address came from the University of Oxford. It was otherwise with the city of London, where Presbyterianism had always been in favour. On the 9th May the Common Council voted an address to her majesty congratulating her upon the happy union of the two kingdoms, a blessing which Heaven (they declared) had reserved for her to accomplish, who was the true and sincere lover of piety, unity and concord. [Journal 54, fo. 603.]

[France and the Pretender, March, 1708.]

The Londoners entertained sincere affection for Queen Anne, and lost no opportunity of showing their loyalty. Such an opportunity presented itself in the spring of the following year (1708), when Scotland was threatened by a French invasion in favour of the Pretender. The citizens hastened to assure her that the French preparations inspired them—her majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects—with no terror. The repeated tenders of their lives and fortunes were (she was asked to believe) not empty words, but they would be ready when occasion offered to demonstrate to the world their unfeigned loyalty in support of her majesty and the maintenance of the Protestant succession against the Pretender and all other enemies at home and abroad. [Journal 54, fo. 652.]

[Search for Papists and Jacobites in the city, 1708.]

Not satisfied with mere assurances of support, parliament proceeded to pass a Bill "for the better security of her majesty's person," by virtue of which the oath of abjuration was to be administered to all suspected persons, and those who refused it were to be at once treated as convict recusants. The Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, and the House of Commons engaged to make good any extra expense her majesty might be put to by reason of this threatened invasion. [Journal House of Commons, xv, 600, 601, 602, 608.] On Tuesday, the 30th March, a letter from the Privy Council was read before the Court of Aldermen in which the magistrates of the city were commanded to meet as soon as possible for the purpose of tendering the oath, according to the provisions of the recent Act. The court thereupon gave orders for precepts to be immediately issued to the deputies and common councilmen of the several wards requiring them to return a list in writing under their hands to the town clerk of all disaffected or dangerous persons found in their wards. The returns were to be made before the end of the week. [Repertory 112, fo. 119.] This could have been no easy matter considering the number of particulars that were to be set out in the return according to the terms of the precept. The deputy and common councilmen of each ward were called upon to distinguish (1) all Papists or reputed Papists, (2) all such as preached in or frequented Jacobite meetings, (3) all non-jurors, i.e., such as had refused to take the oaths appointed to be taken in place of the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, (4) all such as were found guilty of casting aspersions upon her majesty and the government, (5) all persons suspected of holding correspondence with her majesty's enemies abroad, and lastly (6) all spreaders of false and seditious reports. The christian names and surnames of each and all of these, together with their place of abode, were to be returned in less than a week in order that they might be summoned and have the oath tendered to them. [Journal 54, fo. 680.]

[City parliamentary elections, 1708.]

On the 1st April parliament was prorogued; a fortnight later it was dissolved and writs for a new parliament were sent out on the 26th, returnable on the following 8th July. [Id., fos. 655, 656.] Although the Whigs again obtained a majority in the country, and although they succeeded before the end of the year in ousting all Tories from the ministry, they were losing ground in the city of London. In November last Withers, the lord mayor, had obtained Clayton's seat (on the latter's decease) in the Tory interest as already mentioned. [.Supra, p. 622, note.] He was again returned after a close contest with Sir Samuel Stanier, and with him another Tory in the person of John Ward, who subsequently became an alderman and sat in the first parliament of George I. The other two seats were retained by the Whigs, Ashurst and Heathcote. [Luttrell, vi, 302, 303, 304.]

[The campaign of 1708.]

Before the elections were over news arrived of another victory gained by Marlborough. The French had been utterly defeated at Oudenarde (30 June, o.s.).[^171] The fact that the Common Council allowed some weeks to slip by before voting a congratulatory address to the queen [Journal 54, fo. 701.] may possibly be accounted for by the growing strength of the Tory party in the city, with whom the war was never in favour. The victory was followed before the close of the year by the capture of Lille, one of the strongest fortresses in Flanders, and the recovery of Bruges and Ghent, which had fallen into the hands of the French general, Vendôme. [Thursday, the 16th February, 1709, was ordered by royal proclamation (30 Dec., 1708) to be observed as a day of public thanksgiving for these successes throughout the kingdom.—Journal 55, fo. 17.]

[^171: This is the date given by Burnet (v, 373), who follows the old style. Stanhope ("Hist. of England," temp. Queen Anne, p. 350), who, as we have already said, adopts the new style, gives the date of the battle as the 11th July.]

[The death of Prince George of Denmark, 28 Oct., 1708.]

The general joy which succeeded the victory of Oudenarde was damped by the somewhat sudden death of Prince George of Denmark, the queen's husband. For some time past the prince had been suffering from asthma, but it was not until Monday, the 25th October, that graver symptoms appeared. [Luttrell, vi, 366.] On that day he was attacked with dropsy and hæmorrhage, and the Court of Aldermen thought so seriously of the attack that three days later (28 Oct.) they instructed the City Remembrancer to repair daily to Kensington to enquire after the prince's health. [Repertory 112, fo. 485.] That same afternoon, however, the prince died, and the City's address, presented to the queen a month later, whilst congratulating her on her victories abroad, condoled with her majesty on the loss she had sustained at home. [Journal 55, fo. 11b.] The sad event happening so close upon lord mayor's day, when Sir Charles Duncombe was to be sworn into office, the customary pageant on such occasions was foregone, the mayor-elect contenting himself with driving to Westminster Hall attended only by some of his brother aldermen. [Luttrell, vi, 367.]

[The campaign of 1709.]

After a futile attempt to arrange terms for a cessation of hostilities both parties again took the field. Tournay having been reduced by the allies under Marlborough and Eugene, they next proceeded to threaten Mons. In order to protect this stronghold Villars, the French marshal, entrenched himself at Malplaquet. From this post, however, the allies succeeded in driving him after a "very bloody battle," in which the victors lost more men than the defeated (31 Aug., o.s.). [Luttrell, vi, 484. According to new style the 11th September.—Stanhope, op. cit., p. 392.] The citizens of London, in an address to the queen, expressed their delight at the prospect of the French king being soon compelled to accept terms. [The address was voted by the Common Council on the 6th September.—Journal 55, fo. 121.] Tuesday, the 22nd November, was ordered to be observed as a day of public thanksgiving for the victory of "Blaregnies," by which name the battle of Malplaquet was sometimes known. [Journal 55, fo. 137b; Burnet, v, 426.]

[Scarcity of corn and bread, 1709.]

Before another campaign was opened the ascendancy of the Whigs had passed away. They had rendered themselves the more obnoxious to the citizens by the passing of an Act for the naturalization of foreign Protestants, [Stat. 7 Anne, c. 5. Repealed in part by Stat. 10 Anne, c. 5.] the result of which had been to overcrowd the city with needy foreigners at a time when there was a great scarcity of provisions. A cry was raised that the price of corn and bread was being enhanced by the action of forestallers, and the lord mayor was instructed by letter from Sunderland (3 Oct., 1709) to put the law in force against all engrossers, forestallers and regraters of corn. The mayor in reply assured the secretary of state that there were no such engrossers in the city, but that the present dearness was caused by the exportation of large quantities of corn and grain to foreign countries. The city authorities had, moreover, been informed that wheat was selling in the north of England at 40s. a quarter and less. They therefore suggested that government should furnish a sufficient convoy for the purpose of bringing it to London. [Repertory 113, fos. 416-420.] The representation as to the evils arising from exportation of corn had the desired effect, for a Bill was shortly afterwards passed limiting such importation, [Journal House of Commons, xvi, 214, 215, 221, 224, 232, 236.] whilst another Bill was passed for regulating the assize of bread. [Journal House of Commons, xvi, 221, 294, 389, 393; Stat. 8 Anne, c. 18.]

[Dr. Sacheverell's sermon, 5 Nov., 1709.]

[The Court of Aldermen decline to print it, 8 Nov., 1709.]

The bitter feeling against the Whigs engendered by their overbearing and dictatorial conduct whenever in power was increased by a sermon preached at St. Paul's on the 5th November before the lord mayor and aldermen by Dr. Sacheverell, a high church Tory. Taking for his text the words of the Apostle, "In perils among false brethren" (2 Cor., xi, 26), the preacher advocated in its entirety the doctrine of non-resistance, condemned every sort of toleration, and attacked with much bitterness the Dissenters. Sir Samuel Garrard, who had but recently entered on his duties as lord mayor (having been elected in place of Sir Jeffery Jeffreys, who had been excused from office on the ground of ill-health), [Repertory 113, fo. 410.] was himself also a high Tory, and as such was greatly pleased with the sentiments put forth by Sacheverell. He congratulated the preacher on his sermon, and is said to have expressed a hope that it would be printed. If so, it would appear to betoken some doubt in his mind as to his brother aldermen consenting to print such a polemical discourse. As a rule all sermons preached on state occasions before the mayor and aldermen were ordered by the court to be printed as a matter of course, the sum of forty shillings being voted towards the expense. Two sermons recently preached before them, one at St. Paul's and the other in the church of St. Lawrence Jewry, were so ordered (8 Nov.) to be printed by the court; but when on the same day the question was put to them that Dr. Sacheverell should be desired to print his sermon it was negatived. [Repertory 114, fo. 13.] Sacheverell took no notice of this rebuff, but printed the sermon on his own responsibility and at his own expense, with a prefatory dedication to the mayor. [A copy of the sermon "printed for Henry Clements at the Half Moon in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1709," is preserved in the Guildhall Library (Tracts 451).] The sermon was immensely popular with the high church party, and a large number of copies were circulated, much to the disgust of the Whigs.

[The sermon brought to the notice of parliament, 13 Dec., 1709.]

At length the ministry resolved to take proceedings against the author. On the 13th December a complaint was made to the House of Commons of this sermon, as well as of another sermon of similar character which had been preached by Sacheverell before the judges at the last summer assizes at Derby. After some debate the House resolved that both these sermons were "malicious, scandalous and seditious libels highly reflecting upon her majesty and her government, the late happy revolution, and the Protestant succession as by law established," and ordered that Dr. Henry Sacheverell and Henry Clements, his publisher, should attend at the Bar of the House the next day.

[Sacheverell's impeachment ordered, 14 Dec., 1709.]

Accordingly the next day (14 Dec.) the doctor and the bookseller appeared. Sacheverell owned that he was the author of the two discourses, and gave an account of what had taken place between himself and the lord mayor; but whilst expressing his regret at having incurred the displeasure of the House, he showed no contrition for the doctrines he had promulgated. The lord mayor, who was present in the House in his capacity as member for Agmondesham, was thereupon asked if he had given any orders for causing the sermon preached at St. Paul's to be printed, but he denied having done so. [Journal House of Commons, xvi, 241; Luttrell, vi, 523.] The doctor being called upon to retire, the House resolved to impeach him of high crimes and misdemeanours and in the meantime committed him to the custody of the sergeant-at-arms. Application was made a few days later for bail to be allowed, but this the House refused. [Journal House of Commons, xvi, 245, 246, 252-256.] It was, however, subsequently granted by the Lords, but at a very high amount, viz., Sacheverell himself in £6,000 and two sureties in £3,000 respectively. One of these sureties was no other than the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, of which Sacheverell was a member. [Journal House of Lords, xix, 37.]

[His trial in Westminster Hall, 27 Feb., 1710.]

It was originally intended that the trial should take place at the Bar of the House of Lords, but as the Commons insisted upon being present as a committee of the whole House, the Lords appointed Westminster Hall to be the place of trial and instructed Sir Christopher Wren to make the necessary preparations as speedily as possible. [Journal House of Commons, xvi, 293; Journal House of Lords, xix, 58, 60.] The trial commenced on the 27th February and continued for three weeks. Day after day as Sacheverell passed from his lodgings in the Temple to Westminster Hall and home again his coach was besieged by crowds striving to kiss his hand and shouting "Sacheverell and the Church for ever!" So again when the queen, impelled by curiosity, attended the trial, as she did on more than one occasion, shouts were raised as she passed on her way of "God bless your majesty and the Church! we hope your majesty is for Dr. Sacheverell!" Had the mob confined itself to this kind of demonstration little harm had been done. Unfortunately it allowed itself to be carried away by excitement and took to attacking meeting-houses and damaging the property of Dissenters. [Luttrell, vi, 551; Burnet, v, 444, 445.] The arguments on both sides having at last been concluded, the Lords, by a narrow majority, pronounced Sacheverell guilty. They did not venture, however, to proceed against him with any greater severity than to order his sermons to be burnt at the Exchange by the common hangman, in the presence of the lord mayor and sheriffs, and to prohibit him from preaching for the next three years. [Journal House of Lords, xix, 115, 118.] Such a sentence was virtually a victory for the Tories and a defeat of the Whigs. Lord mayor Garrard contrived to escape the humiliation of presiding over the burning of a sermon of which he in his heart approved, and this part of the sentence was carried out in his absence under the supervision of the sheriffs. [Luttrell, vi, 562; Noorthouck, p. 297.] The verdict was welcomed in the city with illuminations and bonfires, accompanied with some little tumult and disorder. The queen complained to the Court of Aldermen by letter, and thereupon the court appointed a committee to investigate the recent riots (27 March, 1710). The result was that the ringleaders were arrested and bound over to the sessions. [Repertory 114, fos. 153-155, 182.] The streets were flooded with republican pamphlets which the House ordered to be burnt by the common hangman. [Journal House of Commons, xvi, 385.] Addresses were sent in from all parts of the country, some in favour of the existing parliament, but the majority advocated a speedy dissolution. [Burnet, v, 450, 451.] The Common Council voted an address (but only by a small majority) in which her majesty was assured of the City's hatred of all "anti-monarchical principles," its continued loyalty to her person and government, its zeal for the Church of England, its tender regard for liberty of conscience and its resolution to maintain the Protestant succession. The address concluded by saying that in obedience to her majesty's commands the civic authorities would do their utmost care to prevent and suppress riotous assemblies. [Journal 55, fos. 169b-170b.] The address, together with one from the lieutenancy of London, was presented to the queen on the 13th April. [Luttrell, vi, 569.]

[The fall of the Whigs, 1710.]

The queen seized the opportunity afforded her by this outburst of Tory enthusiasm to get rid of the Whig ministry. For some time past she had been anxious to free herself from Marlborough and the domineering influence of his wife. During the trial of Sacheverell Marlborough had been on the continent. In view of the approaching struggle between Whigs and Tories, both parties preferred to be relieved of his presence. To this end Sir Gilbert Heathcote, one of the Whig members for the city, had moved an address to her majesty (16 Feb.) praying she would order the duke to Holland, "where his presence will be equally necessary to assist at the negotiations of peace and to hasten the preparations for an early campaign." [Journal House of Commons, xvi, 316.] The address, having received the unanimous assent of both Houses, was graciously received by the queen, and Marlborough had set out. In his absence the queen proceeded cautiously to effect her object. One by one the Whigs were removed from office and their places filled up by Tories. Sunderland was the first to go, the seals being transferred to Lord Dartmouth. It was feared in commercial circles that his dismissal betokened a general change of ministry and that a panic would follow. The queen, however, assured Sir Gilbert Heathcote, at that time governor of the Bank of England, that she had no immediate intention of making further changes, but that if any were made she would take care that they should not be prejudicial to the bank or to the common cause. [Luttrell, vi, 594; Stanhope, op. cit., pp. 426, 427.] Notwithstanding the assurances thus given, less than two months elapsed before Godolphin was made to follow Sunderland. After this many of the Whig ministers resigned, whilst others waited to be turned out.

[Parliamentary elections, 1710.]

[The city members.]

A few weeks after the dismissal of Godolphin the queen insisted on dissolving parliament, and writs were issued (27 Sept.) for a new House to meet in November. [Luttrell, vi, 634.] Harley, who was the queen's chief adviser, having failed in an attempt to form a coalition of Tories and moderate Whigs, placed all his hopes in the result of a general election. Every effort was made to get a Tory majority returned, and with success. Bishop Burnet, whose Whiggish proclivities are apparent in every page of his history, took no pains to disguise his opinions as to the way the elections were generally carried out, and more particularly in the city of London. "While the poll was taken in London," he writes, ["Hist. of His Own Time," vi, 16.] "a new commission for the lieutenancy of the city was sent in, by which a great change was made; Tories were put in and Whigs were left out; in a word, the practice and violence now used in elections went far beyond anything that I have ever known in England." If freedom of election was to count for anything, the worthy bishop entertained grave doubts as to the new parliament being a representative parliament at all. Only one of the old members was returned by the city, viz., Sir William Withers. With him were elected another alderman of the city, viz., Sir Richard Hoare, who had been defeated in the Tory interest at the last election, Sir George Newland and John Cass, [Luttrell, vi, 641, 654.] who afterwards became an alderman, and who, at his decease, left money for the foundation of a school in the parish of St. Botoph, Aldgate.

[The Tory ministry, 1710-1711.]

The new House of Commons being strongly Tory, Harley and St. John found themselves compelled to form a purely Tory ministry. On the 27th the queen delivered a speech in person, reflecting, as was supposed, the policy of the new ministry. To carry on the war with the utmost vigour was, she declared, the surest way of procuring a safe and honourable peace for England and her allies, and in February of the following year (1711) Marlborough was despatched for the avowed purpose of carrying this policy into execution, the Commons being called upon to furnish supplies. Yet in the midst of all this Harley commenced opening secret negotiations for a peace with France, regardless of the interests of England's allies. By September (1711) these negotiations had so far progressed that preliminaries for a peace were actually signed, but for fear lest the favourable terms obtained for England should provoke the jealousy of the Dutch a garbled edition of the treaty was specially prepared for the edification of our allies. Such was the political morality of the age!

[Act of Parliament for building fifty new churches in and around London, 28 May, 1711.]

The High Church party being in power, the queen took the opportunity of enlisting their support for a project she had much at heart. For some time past the want of new churches in the fast increasing suburbs of London had engaged the attention of convocation, by whom the matter had been represented to the queen. Her majesty now commended "so good and pious a work" to the attention of the Commons, a commendation which received additional force from the presentation of petitions from ministers of various parishes in and around London for assistance in carrying out repairs. The Commons showed considerable zeal in the matter, declaring, in their reply to her majesty's address, that neither the long expensive war in which they were engaged nor the pressure of heavy debts should hinder them from granting whatever was necessary. [Journal House of Commons, xvi, 567, 568, 569, 570, 574.] A Bill was accordingly brought in (18 May) for the purpose of building fifty new churches, computing 4,750 souls to each church, as well as for providing annual sums of money to be expended on the completion of Westminster Abbey and Greenwich Hospital. The cost was to be defrayed by a further duty on coal. By the 28th May the Bill passed the Commons. [Id., xvi, 583, 671, 681; Stat. 9 Anne, c. 22.]

[The Occasional Conformity Act, 1711.]

In June (1711) parliament was prorogued and did not meet again before December. A compromise was then effected which reflected little credit upon either of the political parties, but secured the passing of the Occasional Conformity Bill, a Bill on which the queen and the high Tories had set their hearts, but which had already been defeated twice by the Lords. The object of the Bill was to inflict penalties upon those Dissenters who, having qualified themselves to sit as common councilmen or as officers in corporations or elsewhere by receiving the Sacrament, afterwards betook themselves to places of worship where the Book of Common Prayer was not used, and where neither the queen nor the Princess Sophia were prayed for. [Stat. 10 Anne, c. 2; Burnet, vi, 84, 85.]

[Disputed elections of aldermen, 1711-1712.]

In September (1711) party spirit ran high in the city, the occasion being the election of an alderman for the ward of Broad Street in the place of Sir Joseph Woolfe, deceased. No less than four candidates were nominated by each side, two out of each four being already aldermen. The Tory or Church party were represented by Sir William Withers and William Lewen, aldermen, Sir George Newland and Sir Robert Dunkley, commoners. The Whigs or Dissenters advocated Sir John Houblon and Sir Samuel Stanier, aldermen, Sir John Scott and Gerrard Conyers, commoners. The wardmote was held at Drapers' Hall, and was presided over by Sir Gilbert Heathcote, the mayor, a strong Whig. It appears from a newspaper of the day [The "Supplement," 12-14 September, 1711, extracts from which are set out in Repertory 116, fos. 83 et seq.] that although the mayor caused the Act of Common Council, setting forth the qualifications of persons who had a right to vote on the occasion, to be read at the wardmote, he refused to make proclamation that those who were not qualified should depart from the hall. The result was that a large number of foreigners and other unqualified persons voted. The lord mayor having declared the show of hands to be in favour of the four Whig candidates, a poll was demanded, which reversed the mayor's decision. A scrutiny was next asked for and allowed, but the mayor steadily refused to express any opinion as to who of the voters were qualified and who were disqualified without first consulting counsel. The result of the scrutiny was declared (27 Oct.) by the mayor to be in favour of all four Whig candidates, and on the following day he made a report to that effect to the Court of Aldermen, who thereupon elected Gerrard Conyers alderman of the ward. The mayor's decision, however, was challenged, and a motion was made in the Queen's Bench for setting it aside as being manifestly wrong and not in accordance with the number of lawful votes. After Heathcote's year of office had expired the assistance of the Common Council was invoked in support of the rights of electors against such arbitrary proceedings as had recently taken place. The court agreed to the necessary legal expenses being defrayed by the Chamber. [Journal 55, fos. 270, 335-336b; Repertory 116, fos. 34, 88, 89, 312; "The Post-boy," 13-15 December, 1711.]

The practice of nominating as many as four candidates for a vacant aldermanry had prevailed since the commencement of the 15th century, [Act of Common Council. 20 Sept., 3 Henry IV, a.d. 1401; Letter Book I, fo. 16b.] but the inconvenience arising from this practice became so manifest during this last election that the Common Council passed an Act before the result of the election had been declared, abolishing the custom and enacting that henceforth only two candidates should be put in nomination, one an alderman and the other a commoner. [Act of Common Council, 20 Sept., 10 Anne, a.d. 1711; Journal 55, fo. 261.] Even this number was found too many, and within three years was reduced to one commoner, [Act of Common Council, 15 April, 13 Anne, a.d. 1714; Journal 56, fo. 98b.] thus reverting to the primitive custom of the city before it was enacted, temp. Richard II, that two (commoners) at least should be nominated for every vacant aldermanry. [Act of Common Council, 1 August, 21 Richard II, a.d. 1397; Letter Book H, fo. 314.]

In July, 1712, another dispute arose over the election of an alderman. Sir John Fleet, alderman of the ward of Langbourn, had recently died, and it was necessary to appoint a successor. Four candidates were put up for the post, of whom two were to be selected for nomination to the Court of Aldermen according to the provisions of the recent Act. The wardmote was opened on the 9th July at Pewterers' Hall. Sir Robert Beachcroft, the lord mayor, was himself one of the candidates, the other three being Sir William Withers, alderman, Sir Samuel Clarke and Peter Delmé, commoners. The show of hands being declared to be in favour of Withers and Clarke, two Tories, a poll was demanded on behalf of his lordship and Delmé. The result, however, was the same, and a scrutiny followed. To the great surprise of a large body of the electors, the mayor eventually declared (22 Aug.) the majority of votes to be in favour of himself and Delmé, but like his predecessor he steadily refused to give any explanation as to how he had arrived at that conclusion. Again there appeared to be no remedy but to apply to the Queen's Bench. The Common Council was again appealed to (6 Sept.), but whilst the matter was in course of debate the lord mayor was suddenly taken ill, and the court had to break up before coming to any resolution on the matter. On the 12th November, however, the council agreed to assist the petitioners as before, but refused any assistance to Delmé, who had already been admitted alderman, and was about to be put on his defence. [Journal 55, fos. 338b-341, 346, 346b; Repertory 116, fo. 318.]

[The Court of Aldermen charged with obstructing business by not keeping a quorum, 1713.]

In 1713 the relations between the Courts of Aldermen and Common Council became still more strained. The latter complained of the city's business being hindered from insufficient Courts of Aldermen, and of a newly elected alderman not having been sworn in on a certain day by reason of there not being a quorum of aldermen present. On the 15th May a joint committee of aldermen and commoners was appointed to enquire into the matter. Six weeks elapsed before the committee was ready with its report. At length, on the 30th June, the committee certified [Journal 56, fos. 44b, 51b-52.] that having examined the minute books of the Court of Aldermen it had found that between the 24th March and the 15th May last six courts had been summoned to meet, but for want of a quorum only one full court had been held. On the other occasions only seven, eight, nine, ten or twelve aldermen appeared, inclusive of the mayor. The committee also found that the courts were in the habit of meeting between twelve and one o'clock, and reported its opinion that such a late hour for meeting was prejudicial to the citizens and others who had business there.

Touching the other matter which had been referred to them, the committee found that on the 7th May the lord mayor had reported to the Court of Aldermen the nomination and election of Sir William Withers, alderman, and Joseph Lawrence to succeed Sir Owen Buckingham in the aldermanry of the ward of Bishopsgate; that Withers declining to remove, had moved that Lawrence should be called in and sworn, according to the provisions of the Act of 1711 for regulating the elections of aldermen; that thereupon a petition was offered and part of the Act was read; that after some debate Lawrence was sent for and came into court; that upon the Common Sergeant being called in to give his opinion seven of the aldermen withdrew from the court, but one of them presently returned, and after hearing the Common Sergeant deliver his opinion—viz., that notwithstanding any petition the court was bound by the Act to admit and swear in Lawrence—again withdrew, notwithstanding the lord mayor's expressed desire that he should remain; that by this means a full court was not kept (only eleven aldermen being left with the mayor), and so Lawrence, although present, could not be sworn. [Cf. Repertory 117, fo. 181.] The committee's report was ordered to be entered on the Journal and likewise to be forthwith printed and a copy sent to every member of the Common Council.

[Visit of Prince Eugene to London, Jan., 1712.]

In the meantime the queen had been persuaded to dismiss Marlborough on his return to England (Nov., 1711) from all his offices, and to place the Duke of Ormond, a strong Tory, in command of the English forces in the Netherlands. Negotiations with France were simultaneously pushed on, in spite of a personal visit which Eugene himself paid to London (Jan., 1712) in the hope of obtaining a continuance of English support for carrying on the war. The presence of the illustrious prince was heartily welcomed by the Whigs, by whom he was hospitably entertained. On the 15th January a motion was made in the Court of Aldermen and carried to the effect that the court was prepared to join with as many leading citizens (not exceeding sixty in number) as should be willing in providing an entertainment by private subscription for his highness, provided they first obtained her majesty's permission. Two aldermen were thereupon nominated to wait upon Lord Dartmouth, principal secretary of state, in order to learn her majesty's pleasure. There was nothing unusual in this proceeding. Nevertheless the idea of the prince being publicly entertained in the city was so distasteful to the queen and her government that she found fault with the citizens for daring to approach her with a mere verbal message (she was suffering from gout at the time), [Luttrell, vi, 714, 715.] and declined to return an answer to any message which was not brought to her "with the same respect as has always been paid by the city of London to her predecessors." [Repertory 116, fos. 61, 68.] That there might be no mistake about the matter the queen's answer was sent to the City in writing by Lord Dartmouth. The Court of Aldermen at once appointed a committee to search the City's Records for the purpose of ascertaining how and in what manner messages had been delivered from the court to her majesty and her predecessors, whether they had usually been in writing or only verbal. On the 5th February the committee reported that they found that such messages had been delivered in a variety of ways: sometimes by the lord mayor alone, sometimes by two or three aldermen, and at other times by the recorder and sheriffs only. One instance had been found of a message having been sent by a single sheriff. Not once did they find that a message had been delivered in writing. [Id., fos. 69, 82.] It need scarcely be said that under the circumstances all idea of the entertainment was dropt.

In spite of the prince's high character the greatest calumnies were whispered against him behind his back. He was said to be conspiring with Marlborough and the Whigs to raise an insurrection in the streets, fire the city and seize the person of the queen. A general panic prevailed. Even the roysterings of a few drunken revellers calling themselves "Mohocks" [For an account of this nocturnal fraternity see Addison's "Spectator," 21 and 27 March and 8 April, 1712.]—the successors of the "Roreres" and "Riffleres" of a past age—were looked upon as signs and tokens of some deep laid plot, so that more than ordinary precautions had to be taken, both in the city and elsewhere, to prevent riot. [Journal 55, fo. 301b; Repertory 116, fo. 132.] Finding at length that his presence in England did not promote his object the prince, after a stay of some weeks, returned to the Hague.

[The Peace of Utrecht, 31 March, 1713.]

By the 6th June negotiations with France had so far advanced that the queen went down to the House of Lords to fulfil, as she said, her promise of communicating to her parliament the terms of peace before it was absolutely concluded. What pleased the citizens most in her elaborate speech was the announcement of the steps taken to secure the Protestant succession to the House of Hanover and for protecting British commerce. For these measures they returned to her majesty their hearty thanks, and expressed their sincere hopes that she might speedily finish the good work which had advanced so far notwithstanding "the artful contrivances and envious efforts of a factious and malicious party." [Address to the queen voted by the Common Council, 12 June, 1712.—Journal 55, fo. 321b.] In August a proclamation was made of a suspension of hostilities, [Journal 55, fo. 334b.] and on the 31st March, 1713, the Peace of Utrecht was signed.

A fortnight later (14 April, 1713) the Common Council voted a congratulatory address to her majesty on the conclusion of the peace with France, but no copy of the address was to be shown to anyone until it had been actually presented. [Journal 56, fo. 6.] On the 5th May the lord mayor and Court of Aldermen attended at Temple Bar to assist at the proclamation, whilst Tuesday the 6th July was observed as a day of public thanksgiving at St. Paul's. The queen did not attend the service owing probably to indisposition, and the livery companies were on that account excused attendance. The mayor and aldermen displayed no little anxiety to have their proper seats reserved for them in the cathedral. [Repertory 117, fos. 177, 285-292.]

[Sacheverell presented to the living of St. Andrew's, Holborn, April, 1713.]

Shortly before the conclusion of the peace the term of Sacheverell's suspension expired. His popularity became greater than ever. The queen presented him with the living of St. Andrew's, Holborn, whilst the House of Commons, which had formerly condemned him, now invited him to preach before them. [Journal House of Commons, xvii, p. 309.]

[The queen's indisposition, Dec., 1713, Feb., 1714.]

The days of Queen Anne were now fast drawing to a close. For some time past her health had been failing, and at the close of the year (1713) she was confined to her bed at Windsor. Upon notice of her indisposition being conveyed to the Court of Aldermen they at once instructed the sheriffs and the city remembrancer to proceed to Windsor and enquire after her majesty's health. [Repertory 118, fo. 60.] The fact that in the event of the queen's death the legal heir, the Electress Sophia, and her son, the Elector of Hanover, were favourable to the Whig party, drove the Tories to make overtures to the Pretender, the queen's brother, who was still living in France, although by the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht Louis had promised to abandon his cause. On the 1st February (1714) the queen wrote to the lord mayor [The letter is not set out in the City's Records, but will be found printed in Noorthouck (p. 305).] (Sir Samuel Stanier) informing him that she was recovering her health and hoped soon to return to her "usual residence." She further informed his lordship of her determination to open her parliament on the 16th, according to the notice given by proclamation, and desired him to communicate the same to the Court of Aldermen and to her other loving subjects of the city. Again the sheriffs and remembrancer were instructed to go to Windsor and tender the court's acknowledgments of her majesty's favour and to assure her that they would discountenance to the utmost of their power and put a stop to "those malicious rumours which had been so industriously spread by evil disposed persons to the prejudice of credit and the imminent hazard of public peace and tranquility." [Repertory 118, fo. 107.] Saturday the 6th was the queen's birthday, and extra precautions were taken in the city to prevent tumult or disorder. [Journal 56, fo. 85.] A week later her majesty had so far recovered her health as to meditate returning to town, and the Common Council prepared (12 Feb.) to greet her with a congratulatory address. [Journal 56, fo. 86.]

[Proclamation for the arrest of the Pretender, 21 June, 1714.]

On the 21st June (1714) a royal proclamation was issued offering a reward of £5,000 for the apprehension of the Pretender in case he should effect a landing. [Id., fo. 128.] The proclamation afforded the City an opportunity of further testifying its loyalty to the queen and its determination to uphold the Protestant succession as by law established, and at the same time to thank her majesty for passing an Act entitled "An Act to prevent the growth of Schism"—an Act aimed against the Whigs, and which forbade anyone keeping a school without licence from the bishop.[^172]

[^172: An address to this effect was agreed to by the Common Council on the 29th June, after the previous question had been moved touching that part of the address which alluded to the Schism Act.—Journal 56, fo. 128b.]

[The death of the queen, 1 Aug., 1714.]

On the morning of Friday the 30th July the queen was seized with her last illness. Notification was immediately despatched to the lord mayor, who reported the news to a special Court of Aldermen that afternoon. The Secretary of State, who had written to the mayor, had desired his lordship to take immediate steps to preserve quiet in the city. The court, on being informed of the turn of affairs, despatched the sheriffs, the common cryer and the water bailiff to Kensington to enquire after the queen's health and to assure her majesty that every possible care would be taken to preserve the peace of the city in any event. [Repertory 118, fo. 356.] Two days later (1 Aug.) Anne was dead.

END OF VOL. II.

Footnotes