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

[pg 001]

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.[1]

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.[2] 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[pg 002] 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.[3] 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.[4] 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.[5] 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[pg 003] 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.[6] 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."[7]

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.[8] 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.

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[pg 004] were permitted to attend, and much labour bestowed on preparations for the event was consequently lost.[9] 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.[10] 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,[11] 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[pg 005] given.[12] 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.[13] The plague was accompanied, as was usually the case, with a scarcity of corn, and again the assistance of the companies was invoked.[14]

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[15] 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.[16] 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[pg 006] the speeches that were to be made.[17] 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.[18] 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;[19] 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[pg 007] 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,[20] 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,[21] 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.[22] At the head of them was Sir Henry Billingsley,[23] a former mayor, Sir Henry Montague,[24] 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,[25] 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,[26] and the other the union of England with Scotland under the title of Great Britain,[27] 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.[28] James showed his[pg 009] 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.

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.[29] 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,[30] 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[pg 010] yet required," and he hoped their lordships would see the matter in that light.[31]

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[pg 011] 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."[32] 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,[33] 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.[34] It met, however, with so much[pg 012] 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.[35]

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.[36]

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,[37] 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.[38]

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,[pg 014] 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.[39] The rest of the conspirators, with the exception of Winter, took immediate flight. Hue and cry was raised,[40] 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."[41]

On the 8th November the mayor issued his precept for bonfires to be lighted that evening in the[pg 015] principal streets of the city in token of joy and thanksgiving for the deliverance of the king and parliament from this "most horrible treason."[42] 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."[43] A diligent search was subsequently ordered to be made in every cellar and vault for any illegal store of gunpowder.[44] 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.[45] Pending their trial a double watch was kept in the city and fresh halberds issued.[46]

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[pg 016] 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.[47] 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.[48]

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[49]:—

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[pg 017] 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.[50]

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.[51] 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,[52] 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.[pg 018] per ounce.[53] 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.[54]

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,[55] 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,[56] 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,[57] 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[pg 019] 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,[58] 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.[59] 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.[60] 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[pg 020] Council advanced him the sum of £1,000 on easy terms.[61] 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.[62]

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[63] 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,[64] the civic authorities were appalled at the enormity of their own proposals, and hesitated to carry out what at that time[pg 021] 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.[65] 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.[66]

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,[67] 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[pg 022] prejudiced Middleton deserved all that he gained.[68] 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,[69] and report thereon to the House. "Much ado there is also in the House," wrote a contemporary to his friend,[70] "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.[71]

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).[72] 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.[73]

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,[74] his elder brother,[pg 024] was elected to the mayoralty chair for the ensuing year.

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.[75] 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."[76] 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,[77] who had but recently received their first dividend.[78]

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.[79]

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.[80] 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.[81] 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."[82]

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[pg 026] 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;[83] 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.[84] 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.[85]

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.[86]

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[pg 027] 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.[87] 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.[88]

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[pg 028] 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.[89]

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.[90] 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.[91] 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[pg 029] 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.[92] 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."[93]

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[pg 030] 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),[94] 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[pg 031] 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.[95] 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.[96]

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.[97] 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[pg 032] 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).[98]

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.[99]

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."[100] 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[pg 034] 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[101]: "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[pg 035] 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.[102]

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;[103] 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.[104] The viewers' report came before the court of Common Council on the 2nd December,[pg 036] when it was openly read and referred to a committee specially appointed.[105]

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).[106]

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.[107]

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[pg 037] on the principal companies according to their corn assessment.[108] 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,[109] but a new assessment for corn was made in July with the view of making the rate more equitable.[110]

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.[111]

The formation of the "Irish Society."

The articles were read at the Common Council held two days later (30 Jan.), when it was decided[pg 038] 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.[112] 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.[113]

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[pg 039] 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.[114]

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.[115] 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.[116] 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.[117]

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[pg 040] 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.[118] 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.[119]

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.[120]. £5,000 was to be ready by the 10th August. The remainder was not demanded until July, 1612.[121]

The Irish Society incorporated, 29 March, 1613.

Hitherto the agreement between the lords of the council and the citizens of London had been carried[pg 041] 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.[122] 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[123]—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.[124] 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[pg 042] was informed, little outward show for it.[125] 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.[126]

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.[127]

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.[128] 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,[pg 043] 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.[129] 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."[130] It may be inferred from this that James had little expectation that the undertakers[pg 044] 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,[131] 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.[132] 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.[133]

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[pg 045] 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.[134] 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.[135]

[pg 046]

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,[136] 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[pg 047] 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.

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.[137] Bills of adventure were thereupon given to the several[pg 048] 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.[138]

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."[139]

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[pg 049] 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.[140]

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;[141] but with the assistance of the other companies the sum of £5,000 was raised, which was afterwards increased to £18,000.[142] 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.[143]

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,[144] 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."[145] The lucky winner used the same motto on this occasion as was used by the Merchant[pg 050] Taylors' Company in their venture in the lottery of 1569.[146] 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.[147] 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."[148] 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.[149] 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[pg 051] order to increase the number of chances in favour of the adventurers.[150]

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,[151] 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,[152] 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.[153] The Grocers' Company, of which Middleton was a member, voted nothing out of their[pg 052] 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.[154]

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.[155]

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.[156] The Virginia Company had agreed to take 100 boys[pg 053] 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,[157] 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.[158] 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[pg 054] the company's proposal, and directed that a sum of £500 necessary for the purpose should be levied as on the previous occasion.

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[159] 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.[160] The company therefore trusted that the lord mayor and aldermen would proceed to the speedy ending of differences.

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[pg 055] sent to Virginia at the next opportunity.[161] 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.[162]

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[163] 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[pg 056] 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."[164]

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.[165]

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,[166] 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[pg 057] 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.[167]

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.[168] 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[pg 058] debts.[169] 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.[170] A similar concession was made in 1612;[171] and in 1613 the loan was paid off.[172]

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.[173] 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[174] he confirmed (16 June, 1610) the privileges granted to them in 1383 by Richard II with the sanction of parliament.[175]

The king's "privy seals," 1611.

Before the close of 1611 his pecuniary difficulties increased to such an extent that he was driven to[pg 059] 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.[176]

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[177] 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.[178] The Elector afterwards attended the banquet, and paid a special compliment to the lady mayoress and her suite.[179] 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[pg 060] asked to take their exclusion in no ill part, as it was a sheer matter of necessity.[180] 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.[181] 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,[182] and caused the marriage of his sister, by whom he was especially beloved, to be postponed for a time.[183] 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.

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,[184] 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.[185]

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.[186] 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.[187] The entertainment cost the City nearly £700,[188] besides the sum of £50 which the Court of Aldermen directed to be laid out in a present of plate to Somerset.[189] In acknowledgment of the gift the earl presented the mayor and sheriffs with pairs of handsome gloves.[190]

The "addled parliament," 1614.

Financial difficulties, which a fresh issue of "privy seals" to the aldermen for loans of £200[pg 062] apiece had done little to alleviate,[191] 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[pg 063] measure came to be nick-named, "the addled parliament."[192]

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.[193] 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.[194]

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.[195]

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[pg 064] was that men declined to serve sheriff with Peter Proby, who had once been a barber.[196]

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.[197] 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.[198] The letter having been submitted to the Common Council (21 Sept.), it was agreed to raise at once a force of 6,000 men.[pg 065] 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.[199] 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.[200] 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[pg 066] trayninge and musteringe of men";[201] 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.[202]

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,[203] 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[pg 067] 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.[204]

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.[205] 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[pg 068] 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.[206] 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.[207]

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,[208] 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.[209]

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?"[210]

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.[211]

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[pg 070] 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.[212]

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.[213] 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[pg 071] 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.[214]

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.[215] 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,[216] whilst another, William Cater, kept out of the way to avoid contributing to the loan.[217] 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.[218]

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.[219] The mayor presented James with a purse of 500 gold pieces,[220] and the king conferred the honour of knighthood upon Antony Benn, the Recorder, and Ralph Freeman.[221]

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.[222]

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."[223] 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.[224] The mayor, Sebastian Hervey, and the aldermen received (after some delay) the customary allowance of mourning cloth,[225] but for[pg 073] some reason or other they were not invited to attend the funeral.

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,[226] "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.[227] 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.[228]

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[pg 074] 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.[229] This letter the mayor forwarded to James, intimating that either himself or the Recorder would wait upon him when convenient.[230] Time went on, and the king made no sign until in February of the next year (1620) secretary Calvert wrote to the mayor[231] 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[pg 075] was "a mere straunger to the business."[232] 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.

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.[233] The king was asked to back up the baron's request, but declined.[234] 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."[235] 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.[236] 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.[237]

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.[238] 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."[239]

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.[240] 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,[241] 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.[242]

James determined to assist the Elector.

Towards the close of the year (1620) news reached England that a Spanish army had entered[pg 077] 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)[243] 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.[244]

Application to the City for assistance.

The council also applied (31 Oct.) to the city of London,[245] but more than a month elapsed before a reply was sent,[246] 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,[247] 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.[248] 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.[249] After[pg 078] 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.[250] 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.[251] 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.[252]

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.[pg 079] 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.[253] 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[254] 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[pg 080] 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.[255]

Such is the account of the disturbance as found in contemporary letters. From the City's records[256] 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,[pg 081] 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[257](5 April) for a substantial double watch to be kept for twenty-four hours from nine[pg 082] 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[258] 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[pg 083] further punishment, and they were discharged out of prison.[259]

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.[260]

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."[261] If the[pg 084] 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."[262]

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."[263] When it became known that the prince had arrived safely at Madrid, bonfires were[pg 085] 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.[264] 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,[265] 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;[266] "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."

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.[267] 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[pg 087] 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.[268]

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,[269] which at length insured it quiet enjoyment of its lands free from that inquisitorial system which had prevailed since 1547, under[pg 088] 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.[270] 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.[271] 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),[272] 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.[273] The letters patent were no sooner drawn up by Sir Henry Yelverton, the attorney-general, than he was charged with having introduced certain clauses[274] "corruptly and without warrant." The new[pg 089] 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.[275] 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.[276]

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.[277] Two days afterwards (31 Oct.) followed a letter from the lords of the council[278] 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[pg 090] 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.[279] 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.[280]

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;[281] "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.[282] The[pg 091] 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.[283] 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.[284] 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.

[pg 092]

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.[285] 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.[286] 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[pg 093] 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.[287] On the 2nd June the king's mortgage was executed;[288] 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.[289] In November the lords of the council wrote to the City for an extension of time for the repayment of the £60,000.[290]

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.[291] 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.[292]

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."[293] 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,[294] 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.[295] 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."[296] 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.[297] 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,[298] 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."[299]

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."[300] The civic authorities, however,[pg 096] 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.[301] The committee had not been long appointed before the City was called upon to look to its stock of gunpowder, prepare the trained bands,[302] 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.[303] 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.[304]

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[pg 097] 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.[305] As soon as the Commons assembled they chose Sir Heneage Finch, the city's Recorder, for their Speaker.[306] 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.[307]

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.[308] The answer given was to[pg 098] 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.[309] 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.[310]

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[311] 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.[312] 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[pg 099] city, and not to go further than the lord mayor goes, unless it be for guard of the king's person."[313] 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.[314]

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.[315]

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.[316] Much indignation was caused by this further tax on the purses of the citizens. Many[pg 100] 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.[317]

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.[318]

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.[pg 101] 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.[319] On the 7th October a proclamation[320] 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.

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[pg 102] 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.[321] 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.[322] After more haggling,[323] 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."[324]

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[pg 103] 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.[325] Many of the citizens declined altogether to contribute, and fourteen were committed to prison.[326] 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.[327]

The expedition to Rochelle, 1627.

Whilst a small force, to which the City contributed a contingent of 300 men,[328] 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.[329] In October Charles asked for 250 soldiers in addition to those already raised, and these were found without drawing upon the trained bands.[330] 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,[pg 104] baffled in his enterprise, and with a loss from war and disease of little less than 4,000 men.[331]

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.[332] 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.[333] 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).[334] 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.[335] In cases where the master and wardens of a company had shown neglect in gathering the[pg 105] company's quota they were themselves committed to Newgate.[336]

The Court of Aldermen even committed one of their own body for refusing to contribute his quota.[337] With difficulty the first instalment of £60,000 was raised, several of the companies being forced to part with their plate.[338]

£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."[339]

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[pg 106] 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.[340] 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.[341] 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.[342] 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.[343] Others were taken on suspicion but were shortly afterwards set at liberty by order of the lords of the council (23 June).[344] The matter eventually ended by the City being fined £1,000.[345] In the meantime libellous[pg 107] placards[346] 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.[347]

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.[348] 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.[349] The[pg 108] 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[pg 109] admittance was granted the House had voted its own adjournment. On the 10th March it was dissolved,[350] 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.[351] Doggrel rhymes appeared in 1630[352] 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[pg 110] in communicating to the mayor and Common Council of the city—his "principal city and chamber."[353] On the occasion of the christening of the infant prince the bells of the city churches were set ringing,[354] 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.[355] 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.[356]

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.[357] 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.[358] 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[pg 111] 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."[359]

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.[360] 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.[361]

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.[362] 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.[363]

Demand for ship money, Oct., 1634.

Five years had now elapsed since the dissolution of the last parliament, during which time the country[pg 112] 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,[pg 113] and the City's Solicitor was to attend them on that behalf.[364] 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.[365]

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.[366]

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.[367] 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.[368] 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"!),[369] 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[pg 114] council every Sunday afternoon with a similar account "untill the worke be perfected."[370] 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.[371] 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.[372]

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.[373] The City found itself called upon to provide two more vessels of 800 tons apiece.[374] The authorities, however, were so slow in executing this further order that the Sheriffs were made to[pg 115] appear every Sunday before the lords of the council to report what progress was being made.[375]

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.[376]

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[pg 116] 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.[377] 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.[378] 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.[379] 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,[380] of which the queen happened at that time to stand in[pg 117] need. The patents of the Irish Society and of the companies were not however actually surrendered until 1639.[381]

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.[382]

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.[383]

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[pg 118] favourable,[384] the work went on and the City was called upon (Sept., 1637) to furnish two ships each of 700 tons.[385]

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.[386] 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.[387] The money was eventually raised by the twelve principal livery companies, seven of which contributed £100 apiece and the other five £60.[388]

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[pg 119] been going on since the preceding March[389] (if not earlier), and it was only now conceded on payment of a sum of £12,000.[390]

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.[391] 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.[392] 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.[393] On the 7th the lord mayor, who[pg 120] 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.[394]

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.[395] Although it does not appear that this demand was acceded to,[396] 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.[397] Boys from Christ's Hospital and Bridewell were taught to play the drum and fife, weapons were marked, and musters held in[pg 121] Goodman's Fields and elsewhere under the eye of Captain John Fisher, recently appointed muster-master.[398]

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."[399] 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.[400] 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[pg 122] 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[401] 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[pg 123] make any reply, but were sent away to advise together how the sum should be raised.[402]

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.[403] 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.[404] One of them, Alderman Soame, gave particular offence. "I was an[pg 124] 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.[405]

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[pg 125] 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."[406]

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.[407] 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[pg 126] 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.[408]

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.[409] 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.[410]

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,[411] and sent Lord Cottington and Sir Henry Vane to the Common Council—specially summoned to meet on the 23rd by[pg 127] the king's order[412]—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.[413]

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.[414] The citizens were still better pleased with a promise of another parliament which Charles made in answer to a petition (24 Sept.),[415] 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.[416] 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.[417] "On Friday morning (2 Oct.) we desired the lord mayor to call a Court of Aldermen[pg 129] 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[pg 130] 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.[418] 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.[419]

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.[420] 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.[421]

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.[422] 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."[423]

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.).

[pg 132]

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.[424] 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."

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[pg 133] 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.[425] 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."[426] 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;[427] and the Common Council lost no time in preparing a petition[pg 134] to parliament for the restoration of the Irish lands.[428] 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.[429] 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."[430] A fortnight later (11 Dec.) a petition for church reform and the abolition of episcopacy "root and branch" was presented to[pg 135] parliament, signed by 15,000 Londoners.[431] 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.[432] 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.[433] 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.[434] But[pg 136] 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.[435] 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.[436] 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.

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[pg 137] by subscription and paid into the Chamber of London, to be at the disposal of parliament.[437] 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.[438] 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,[439] 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.[440] Three days later the Court of Aldermen made out the necessary order for the Chamberlain to pay over the money.[441]

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.[442] At the end of three weeks a Bill of Attainder[pg 138] was brought in and read a first time (10 April), and on the 21st April it was read a third time and passed.[443] 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.[444] 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."[445] 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[pg 139] 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."

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,[446] 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.[447] 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.[448]

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[pg 140] necessary funds. This was in July (1641).[449] 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.[450]

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.[451] 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.[452][pg 141] By order of the House of Commons (29 July) it was to be repaid with interest out of the poll money when levied.[453] 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.[454]

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."[455] 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.[456] 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[pg 142] Aldermen agreed to present her with a cup of the value of £800, "or thereabouts."[457]

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."[458] 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,[459] 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[pg 143] city to attend divine service, after which bells were to be rung and bonfires lighted.[460]

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[461] 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[pg 144] 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,[pg 145] 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[462] 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.[463] The last[pg 146] 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.[464]

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[465] to the aldermen informing[pg 147] 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.[466]

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.[467]

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

The City's declaration against the bishops, which Dr. Gardiner[468] 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[pg 148] (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,[469] 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.[470] The Common Council agreed that the cost of the entertainment at the Guildhall should be defrayed by the Chamber.[471]

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,[472] he was welcomed by the Recorder. There was some talk of presenting the king with a gift either of money or plate,[473] 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."

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[pg 149] 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.[474] Accordingly, in a speech carefully prepared beforehand,[475] 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.[476]

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[pg 150] reception that the City had accorded him,[477] and conferred knighthoods upon both of the sheriffs and five of the aldermen.[478]

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.[479]

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."[480]

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."[481] 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."[482] 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[pg 152] 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."[483]

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.[484] 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[pg 153] 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.[485] 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.[486] 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.[487] The Peers were inclined to throw the blame of the disturbance upon the civic authorities, but Pym and[pg 154] the House of Commons refused "to discontent the citizens of London, our surest friends," at such a critical time.[488] 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.[489] 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.[490] 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[pg 155] 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.[491]

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.[492] 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.[493] Gurney was in bed at the time, but he promised to see to it in the morning.[494]

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[pg 156] 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.[495] 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[pg 157] 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.[496] 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[pg 158] 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.[497] 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[pg 159] 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.[498] Members of the Common Council were forbidden on the 6th January to leave their wards without express permission.[499] 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[pg 160] 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.[500] 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.[501]

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.[502] 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[pg 161] 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.[503] 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.[504] The Common Council agreed to pay Skippon £300 a year for life, if he should so long continue in the city's service.[505] Guns and ammunition were stored up at the Leadenhall,[506] and a supply of corn laid in by the livery companies.[507]

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[pg 162] 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.[508]

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.)[509] 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[pg 163] 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.[510]

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.[511]

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.[512] The suggestion was[pg 164] 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.[513] 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.[514]

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.[515] The companies were subsequently (19th March) invited to provide ordnance for the protection of Londonderry.[516]

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[pg 165] named, to raise an armed force for the suppression of rebellions and invasions (31 Jan.).[517] 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.[518]

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,[519] 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.[520] 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.[521] It was suggested[pg 166] 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.[522] The pay of the officers was guaranteed by the Common Council.[523] 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.[524]

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.[525]

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.[526]

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.[527]

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.[528] 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.[529] 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[pg 168] no power, right or authority to bind or impose upon this company any loan of money whatsoever."[530]

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)[531] "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.[532] His protest was only met with a further levy of £50,000 on all strangers and aliens residing within the city.[533]

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,[534] 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[pg 169] Pennington and John Wollaston being nominated by the livery, the former was selected by the Court of Aldermen as Gurney's successor.[535] 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.[536] 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.

[pg 170]

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.[537] 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.[538]

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[pg 171] wishing to run the risk of losing the goose that laid the golden egg, readily gave its assent.[539]

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.[540]

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."[541] Pennington, the new mayor, had previously given orders for the gates and portcullises to be seen to,[pg 172] the city's chains and posts repaired, and the usual precautions to be taken against fire.[542]

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.[543] 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.[544]

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.[545] 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.[546]

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[pg 173] 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."[547] 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.[548]

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,[549] 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.[550]

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

At Michaelmas Pennington was re-elected mayor,[551] 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[pg 174] 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.[552]

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[pg 175] 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."[553]

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."[554] 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.[555] These were placed under the command[pg 176] 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.[556]

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.[557] 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[pg 177] 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.[558]

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.[559]

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,[560] 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."[561] Whilst these petitions were under[pg 178] 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.[562]

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,[563] 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.[564] A week later (26 Dec.) both Houses were prepared to open negotiations with the king.[565]

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.[566] 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.[567] 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[pg 180] 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.[568] 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.[569] 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."[570]

His terms rejected by the City.

After this Pym, who attended the Common Hall and heard the king's reply,[571] 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[pg 181] 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.[572]

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!"[573]

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,[574] a royalist alderman of considerable means, who, with Thomas Knyvett, a goldsmith, Paul Pindar, and others preferred[pg 182] imprisonment to pay what was by them considered an illegal tax.[575]

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.[576] 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.[577]

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.[578]

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."[579]

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[pg 184] comprehensive scheme of defence of the city and suburbs.[580] 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.[581] 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.[582]

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.[583]

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)[pg 185] 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.[584] 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.[585]

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.[586] 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.[587]

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.[588]

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.[589] The livery companies too were exhorted[pg 187] to lend their arms. These were to be stored at Salters' Hall, in Bread Street.[590]

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).[591] 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."[592] In 1581 these figures had given cause for offence and were secretly removed,[593] 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.[594] 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.[595]

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,[pg 188] addressed to Gardiner, who was still Recorder, and others, authorising them to raise a force on his behalf in the city.[596] 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.[597]

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,[598] 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[pg 189] 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.[599] 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,[600] 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.[601] 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.[602] 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[pg 190] 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),[603] 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.[604]

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.[605]

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.[606] This was no easy matter to accomplish. It was eventually[pg 191] 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.[607] 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.[608]

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.[609]

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.[610] 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.[611]

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[pg 193] appeared on the scene, and order was with difficulty restored.[612]

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.[613] 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.[614]

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.[615] 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[pg 194] 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.).[616] 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.[617]

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."[618]

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[pg 195] 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."[619] 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."[620]

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[pg 196] 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."[621] 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.[622] 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.[623]

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.[pg 197] 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.[624] 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.[625]

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).[626]

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.[627]

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.[628] 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.[629] 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[pg 199] 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,[630] 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.[631]

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.[632]

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[pg 200] 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).[633] The Commons ordered a public thanksgiving for the victory which had crowned their arms to be kept in London on the 9th April,[634] 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.[635] 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[pg 201] immediately to join the parliamentary army, whilst the other three were to be held in reserve.[636] 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.[637] 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[pg 202] 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.[638] The City thanked parliament and referred the matter to a committee.[639]

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.[640] 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[pg 203] wives of those who were in arms against the parliament.[641]

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[642] 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.[643] 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.[644]

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[pg 205] particular securities or companies, or other particular persons beyond seas, or by mortgaging of any lands, or by putting to sale sequestered lands."[645] 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.[646]

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.[647] The council was the more willing to accede to this[pg 206] request for the reason that the force was to be placed under the command of a city alderman, Major-General Browne.[648]

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.[649] 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.[650]

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[pg 207] 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."[651] 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."[652] 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."[653]

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.[654] Another grievance which the London tradesman had was the large circulation of farthing tokens, which they were unable to get re-changed.[655]

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.[656] 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[pg 209] thereupon authorised the payment of £2,000 out of the weekly meal fund.[657]

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.[658] 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.[659]

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.[660]

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[pg 211] 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.[661]

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.[662] 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.[663]

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.[664] 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.[665] 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.[666]

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,[667] but they were still more anxious to have their trade kept open with the west of England, and they petitioned parliament to that end.[668]

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.

[pg 214]

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.[669]

The self-denying ordinance, 3 April, 1645.

The passing of the New Model ordinance was followed by the passing of a self-denying ordinance,[670][pg 215] 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).[671]

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.[672]

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.[673] 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.[674]

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.[675] 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[pg 217] 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;[676] 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.[677]

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[pg 218] 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.[678] The petition, which was presented by Alderman Fowke to the Commons (4 June),[679] was favourably received by both Houses, and the City thanked for its care.

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[pg 219] which Cromwell had especially shown himself a master.[680]

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.[681]

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.[682]

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[pg 220] 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.[683] 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.[684] 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.[685]

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[pg 221] 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.[686]

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.[687] 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[pg 222] 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.[688]

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.[689] This sum the City promised to find (10 Oct.), but only on the condition named.[690] On the 13th the House offended the dignity of the Scots by a series of resolutions protesting against the conduct of the Scottish[pg 223] 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.[691]

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.[692] What he found fault with was the mode of electing the elders prescribed by parliament (23 Sept.).[693] 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.[694] 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.[695] It was a difficult matter on which to approach parliament. Nevertheless, in accordance with a resolution of the Common Council (18 Nov.),[pg 224] 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.[696] 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.[697]

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[pg 225] addressing parliament for re-payment of monies in arrear.[698]

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.[699]

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.[700] 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[pg 226] former proposal.[701] 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,[702] and at last, on the 13th January, the Speakers wrote to Charles declining the proposal.[703]

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.[704]

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."[705]

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[706] 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[pg 228] Church.[707] 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.[708]

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.[709] 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[pg 229] 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."[710]

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.[711]

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[pg 230] 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.[712]

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.[713]

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,[714] 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.[715] 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?[716] The[pg 231] 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.[717] 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,[718] 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.[719]

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.[720] 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[pg 232] 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,[721] and on the 13th March a committee was appointed to arrange, if possible, a compromise.[722]

Ordinance establishing Presbyterianism, March, 1646.

Before this question was settled another had arisen to widen the breach between parliament and[pg 233] the city in the shape of an ordinance for establishing a system of Presbyterianism throughout England.[723] 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,[724] 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.[725] 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.[726]

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[pg 234] soldiers, "and may go play, unless you will fall out among yourselves."[727] 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.[728]

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[729] 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.[730] 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[pg 235] 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.[731] 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.[732]

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).[733]

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[pg 236] 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.[734]

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.[735] 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.[736]

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[pg 237] 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.[737] 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";[738] 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[pg 238] 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.[739] 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.[740]

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.[741] 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.[742] 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[pg 239] 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.[743]

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.[744] 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.[745] Both Houses thanked the City and promised to take the matter into their consideration.[746]

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[pg 240] 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.[747] 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.[748]

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."[749] 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.[750]

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[pg 241] as usual made to the City (6 April).[751] 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).[752] 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.[753] 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.[754]

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[pg 242] 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.[755]

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.[756]

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[pg 243] 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.[757]

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.[758] 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[pg 244] 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."[759] The committee established itself at the Guildhall and commenced[pg 245] 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[760] 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.[761] 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[pg 246] 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.[762] 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[pg 247] at all but officers."[763] 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."[764]

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.[765] 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[pg 248] blood and treasure in its defence, and that it would remove its quarters farther from London.[766]

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),[767] 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[768] 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[pg 249] 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.[769]

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,[770] 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,[pg 250] which was on the point of being despatched to the army.[771]

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.[772]

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.[773] 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[pg 251] 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.[774] 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,[775] and the Lords passed another ordinance for all disbanded soldiers to quit London.[776]

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[pg 252] unreasonably expelled, protect the clergy, and bring prisoners to a speedy trial.[777] 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.[778] This last petition roused the indignation of the army, and was one of the motives which led the "agitators"[779] 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.[780]

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[pg 253] ends by other means."[781] 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.[782] 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.[783] This proposal was accepted in due course by both Houses.[784]

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.[785] 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[pg 254] 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.[786] 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.[787] 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."[788] 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.

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[pg 255] 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.[789] 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.[790] 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.[791]

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[792][pg 256] 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[793] 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.[794] 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.[795]

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[pg 257] 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.[796]

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.[797]

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[pg 258] 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.[798] 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[799] 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[pg 259] 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[800] 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[801] 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[pg 260] rely upon your excellencye's honourable word for our safety, and to be protected from all violence of the soldiery."[802] 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."[803]

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.[804] 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[pg 261] 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.[805] 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."

[pg 262]

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.[806] Diligent search was made for reformadoes with the intention of making an example of some of them,[807] and a committee consisting of members of both Houses was appointed to enquire into the violence recently offered to parliament.[808] 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.[809]

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.[810] Of[pg 263] 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.[811] He was expelled the House and committed to the Tower, one week only being allowed him to put his papers and affairs in order.[812]

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.[813] Ten days elapsed and parliament became impatient for an answer.[814] 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."[815] 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[pg 264] 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.[816]

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,[817] 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.[818] To this letter was appended the following[pg 265] 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.[819] 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.[820]

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[pg 266] presume they will not have the like excuse not to provide."[821]

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.[822] 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."[823] 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[pg 267] John Gayer should be either sentenced or acquitted."[824] 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,[825] 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.[826] 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.[827] 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.[828]

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,[829] 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[pg 268] 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.[830]

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

A little respite was granted[831] whilst the municipal authorities drew up a reply to Fairfax.[832] 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[pg 269] 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.[833]

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

Two days later (24 Nov.) Fairfax wrote to the City from Windsor,[834] 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[pg 270] 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.[835] 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.[836] 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.[837]

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[pg 271] of this year.[838] The more youthful inhabitant was disgusted with the closing of the playhouses,[839] 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.[840]

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[pg 272] 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.[841] 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.[842]

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[pg 273] 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.[843]

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),[844] 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,[pg 274] both of which were allowed.[845] 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[846] 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.[847] The Lords thereupon ordered (6 June) their discharge and their impeachments to be vacated.[848]

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."[849]

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[pg 275] 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.[850]

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.[851] 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,[pg 276] 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.[852] 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.[853] 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.[854]

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[pg 277] 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.[855] 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."[856]

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[pg 278] 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.[857] 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.[858]

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).[859] The Lords hesitated,[860] but the Commons at once acquiesced.[861] On the 16th the Commons had under consideration[pg 279] the several names of persons chosen (12th May) by the Common Council to serve on the Militia Committee,[862] and agreed to the City's nomination of Lieutenant-Colonel West to be lieutenant of the Tower.[863]

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.[864]

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."[865] 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[pg 280] with them according to the solemn league and covenant."[866]

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.[867]

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,[868] 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."[869] 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.[870]

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.[871]

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."[872] 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.[873]

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[pg 283] 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.[874] The petition was submitted to both Houses on the 27th June, and was well received.[875] 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."[876]

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.[877] 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[pg 284] appointed a committee to confer with the Common Council and the officers of the trained bands the following afternoon.[878]

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.[879]

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.[880] 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[pg 285] 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."[881] 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.[882] The Commons, in consequence, resolved that no more prisoners should be brought to London.[883]

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.[884] The majority of the inhabitants,[pg 286] 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,[885] 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.[886]

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[pg 287] 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.[887]

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.[888] 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.[889][pg 288] 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.[890]

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."[891] 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.[892] 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.[893]

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.[894]

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[pg 290] 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."[895]

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.[896] 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.[897]

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[pg 291] 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.[898]

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."[899]

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,[900] 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[pg 293] that occasion had been for the safety of the city, which was then in danger.[901] 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.[902]

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.[903] 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.)[904] The letter announced the general's intention of quartering his army on London, and demanded a sum of £40,000[pg 294] out of the arrears of assessment to be paid to the soldiers by the following night.[905]

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.[906] 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.[907]

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.[908]

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[pg 295] 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.[909]

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.[910]

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[pg 296] 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.[911]

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,[912] 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.[913]

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.[914]

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[pg 297] 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.[915]

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.[916] It was in vain that representation was made to parliament of the difficulty of getting a council together under such a[pg 298] 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.[917] 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.[918] 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,[919] 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[pg 299] 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,[920] 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.[921] 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[922] 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[pg 300] a narrative of the proceedings that had taken place that day in court.[923]

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.[924] 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[pg 301] petition and narrative would receive speedy consideration.[925]

£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.[926]

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.[927] Five aldermen were placed on the commission, viz., Isaac Pennington, Thomas Andrews, Thomas Atkins, Rowland Wilson and John Fowke;[928] 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[pg 302] repute, viz., Robert Tichborne, afterwards an alderman,[929] 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.[930] 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.

[pg 303]

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.[931] 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.[932] 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.[933] 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.),[934] 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[pg 305] 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.[935] After prayers[936] his lordship declared that he had not summoned the court inasmuch as the[pg 306] 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.[937]

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[pg 307] 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."[938] 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."[939] 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.[940]

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.[941] 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."[942]

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,[943] 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.[944]

Difficulty in filling their places.