 |
(M149)
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)
(M150)
In the midst of a growing feeling of dissatisfaction at the existing state of things, a third writ for ship money appeared (9 Oct., 1636). It raised such a storm of opposition in every quarter, however, that Charles once more appealed to the judges for a formal acknowledgment of his right. Their opinion proving favourable,(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 L1,000. 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 L100 apiece and the other five L60.(388)
(M151)
In the meantime troubles had arisen in Scotland through Charles's ill-advised and bigoted attempt to impose upon his northern subjects a Book of Common Prayer. By midsummer (1638) he was preparing for war and would shortly be under the necessity of applying to the city for money and men. It was probably with this end in view that he granted (18 Oct., 1638) to the citizens an ample inspeximus charter, confirming to them their ancient privileges and franchises. Negotiations for a new charter had been going on since the preceding March(389) (if not earlier), and it was only now conceded on payment of a sum of L12,000.(390)
(M152)
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 L5,000 was got together. The aldermen were directed to renew their efforts, but this only resulted in increasing the amount by L200 or L220.(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.
(M153)
In June he caused another application to be made to the City.(393) On the 7th the lord mayor, who had been summoned to appear before the lords of the council, appeared with so few of his brother aldermen that he was ordered to go back and to return on the 10th with the whole court. When they at last made their appearance they were told that the king expected from them no less a sum than L100,000. 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)
(M154)
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 Goodman's Fields and elsewhere under the eye of Captain John Fisher, recently appointed muster-master.(398)
(M155)
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 L10,000 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.
(M156)
Before the close of the year (1639) the country was agreeably surprised at the news that it was the king's intention to summon a parliament. Parliament opened on the 13th April (1640). Few of its members could have served in the last parliament of eleven years before, but although so long a time had elapsed since the Commons had met, they had not forgotten their old constitutional claims to have the country's grievances redressed before proceeding to grant supplies. An offer to relinquish ship money proved insufficient, and after three weeks the "short parliament" was dissolved (5 May, 1640).
(M157)
For some days before parliament was dissolved every effort had been made by the king to get the mayor and aldermen to lend him L100,000. 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 L100,000 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 L3,000 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 L100,000 rather than allow that monarch to pledge his crown and jewels to the merchants of the Steelyard, and it was truly repaid. To this the aldermen were not permitted to make any reply, but were sent away to advise together how the sum should be raised.(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 L200,000. If the latter sum was not forthcoming the king threatened to "have L300,000 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.
(M158)
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 L50 upwards.(404) One of them, Alderman Soame, gave particular offence. "I was an honest man whilst I was a commoner," he told the king to his face, "and I would continue to be so now I am an alderman." The other aldermen professed their readiness to give in the names of the richer citizens, but objected to rate them according to their means.
(M159)
Both Garway and Sir Thomas Gardiner, the Recorder, favoured the king. The latter was particularly anxious that the City should lend the L100,000 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)
(M160)
The aldermen were not long kept in confinement. Even before their committal the city was in a ferment, and a placard had appeared posted up in the Exchange inviting all who were lovers of liberty to assemble in St. George's Fields in Southwark early on Monday morning (11 May). Archbishop Laud was a special object of hatred to the citizens, and against him the mob directed their attack. As soon as the trained bands, which kept order during the day, had retired for the evening, the rabble marched to Lambeth. Laud, however, had been warned in time, and had made good his escape across the river to Whitehall. The rioters finding themselves baulked of their prey retired with threats of returning to burn down the palace. For the next few days the city was under martial law. A double watch was kept in its streets. The companies looked to their store of powder and match. A strict guard was kept over servants and apprentices, and a warrant issued for raising 1,000 men of the trained bands, or as many more as the lord mayor should think necessary "to suppress, slay, kill, destroy and apprehend all such as should be tumultuously assembled in or about Southwark, Lambeth, Blackheath or elsewhere in parts adjacent."(406)
(M161)
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.
(M162)
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 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)
(M163)
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)
(M164)
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 the king's order(412)—to assure them that if the long-desired loan of L200,000 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."
(M165)
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 L120,000. 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)
(M166)
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 L200,000. 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 L50,000 and one instalment of L100,000 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 at Guildhall, whither we all went, sat with them in council, and opened to them all our business, and read our letters, which satisfied them very much, yet they reserved themselves till they saw how it would take with the Commons. Then we all went to dinner with the lord mayor and there appointed to have a Common Council that afternoon, amongst which we mingled divers commoners that were not of the Common Council, such as we knew well affected and powerful in the city." We are not surprised to learn that this action on the part of the lords was strongly objected to as not being altogether regular. The lords insisted, however, and they were allowed to have their own way. "At three o'clock that afternoon," the letter goes on to say, "we met at Guildhall, sat with them in the Court of Common Council, and according to our instructions acquainted them with the proceedings of the Assembly of Peers, and used the best rhetoric, which was plain remonstrance of all the passages at York, not concealing the admirable grace and freeness shown by your majesty in this great council, to the infinite content of all the Peers, nor the true affection shown to you by the Peers." They first read the letter from the lords and then that from his majesty. They feared lest some words which his majesty had (falsely) been reported to have uttered on the occasion of the late petition from the City for a parliament might have an injurious effect, so they had explained this and other matters, and the Common Council appeared well satisfied. "We then withdrew, that they before they rose might more freely debate upon the way of raising the sum desired, for we persuaded ourselves it would not be denied." They were not disappointed. Before the council rose it resolved to make application to the livery companies, and a draft of a letter was prepared. A copy of this letter the lords forwarded to his majesty. In conclusion they assured the king of the great services done in the matter, more particularly by Garway, the out-going mayor, the Recorder, and the whole bench of aldermen, and suggested the advisability of sending them a letter of thanks. If the letter were addressed to the whole commonalty so much the better. This suggestion was carried out.(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 L100,000 should be taken in pledge, but this suggestion was afterwards disavowed by the city.(419)
(M167)
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)
(M168)
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 L50,000, 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)
(M169)
It only remained for Charles to make the best terms with the Scots that he could. Negotiations were accordingly opened at Ripon by commissioners appointed by both parties (2 Oct.), with the result that a cessation of arms, under certain conditions, was agreed to until a permanent treaty could be arranged in London (21 Oct.).
CHAPTER XXII.
(M170) (M171)
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."
(M172)
As soon as parliament met, Strafford, who was only too conscious of his impending fate, determined to take the bull by the horns, and to use every means to induce the king to anticipate the blow by boldly accusing the parliamentary leaders of treasonable designs. His efforts were futile. Rightly or wrongly, it was generally believed that he intended to establish a military despotism in England, and that London was to be brought into subjection. The way in which it was all to be effected was even described by Cradock, one of the city members, in a speech he made to the House. It is certain that the citizens regarded him as a deadly foe. They had not forgotten the advice he gave to Charles respecting the aldermen, nor his attempt to ruin their trade by depreciation of the coinage. For weeks past the city had been in a disordered state. On the 22nd October, the mob having forced its way into the Court of High Commission, some of the offenders were brought before the mayor and aldermen sitting on a commission of Oyer and Terminer; but the grand jury refused to find a true bill. These abortive proceedings were followed by a riot at St. Paul's.(425) Before the House had been in session a fortnight Strafford was ordered into custody.
(M173)
The L50,000 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 L25,000, 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 L100,000 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 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 L21,000 to the loan.
(M174)
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.
(M175)
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 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.
(M176)
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.
(M177) (M178) (M179)
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 L60,000 required for the army, and the Common Council had agreed (18 Jan.) that the amount should be collected from the wards.(434) But before this could be accomplished an incident occurred which threatened to jeopardise the loan. This was the reprieve of John Goodman, a Roman Catholic priest, who had been condemned to death. The morning after parliament had agreed to raise money for the Scottish commissioners alderman Pennington rose in the House and declared that, in consequence of Goodman's reprieve and other suspicious circumstances, the City had resolved to lend nothing.(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.
(M180)
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 L60,000 raised 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 L50,000.(440) Three days later the Court of Aldermen made out the necessary order for the Chamberlain to pay over the money.(441)
(M181)
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 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.
(M182)
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 worth L30,000, some L40,000" 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."
(M183)
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)
(M184)
Although the execution of Strafford somewhat allayed the nation's fears of having "two armies brought into the bowels of the kingdom," they were soon revived by a second army plot. The armies thus became a constant source of danger as well as expense, and it was determined to disband them. Charles could not withhold his assent, and a poll tax was established for the purpose of raising the necessary funds. This was in July (1641).(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)
(M185)
On the 3rd February the House had come to a resolution that the sum of L300,000 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 L80,000 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 L40,000—or one-half of the amount immediately required—by Wednesday, the 28th July.(452) 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)
(M186)
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 L3,000 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 L1,000, "or thereabouts," should be made to the queen-mother in further demonstration of the City's love. After communicating with the Common Council the Court of Aldermen agreed to present her with a cup of the value of L800, "or thereabouts."(457)
(M187)
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.
(M188) (M189)
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 city to attend divine service, after which bells were to be rung and bonfires lighted.(460)
(M190)
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 L130,000 (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 L4,000. 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 deg. 6 Charles I (1631), when the Attorney-General, Sir Robert Heath, exhibited an information against the mayor, commonalty and citizens of London and divers individuals, suggesting that they had possessed themselves of the said lands and taken the profits before any grant was made to them, and that they had a greater quantity of lands than was intended to be passed by the grant, and had by indirect means procured divers privileges to be inserted in the grant for which the Attorney General who passed the grant had no warrant. Evidence of witnesses had been taken on the matter, but before the cause came to a hearing this information was dropt and another exhibited in Hilary Term a deg. 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 deg. 10 Charles I (1635) to pay a fine of L70,000 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 L20,000. A scire facias was brought in and judgment allowed by default, whereupon the companies lost their estates, whilst the mayor and commonalty and citizens of London, although not parties to any patent or plantation—having done no more than lend their name for the better transaction of the business and for the purpose of raising money for the plantation, which otherwise could never have been effected—were fined L70,000. 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.
(M191)
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 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)
(M192)
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."
(M193)
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 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 L50,000 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)
(M194)
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)
(M195)
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 (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)
(M196)
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."
(M197)
It was of the utmost importance to Charles to win over the city to his side if he could—"The loans of the London citizens alone had made it possible for the House of Commons to disband the armies; and without the loans of the London citizens the House would find it impossible to provide for a campaign in Ireland," and thus place itself in a position of military supremacy.(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)
(M198)
By way of further showing his favour Charles knighted both the Mayor and Recorder on the spot. He afterwards expressed his gratification at the reception that the City had accorded him,(477) and conferred knighthoods upon both of the sheriffs and five of the aldermen.(478)
(M199)
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."
(M200)
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)
(M201)
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)
(M202)
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 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)
(M203)
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.
(M204) (M205)
The tardy and unsatisfactory reply Charles gave to the remonstrance—the "Grand Remonstrance of the state of the Church and Kingdom" presented to him at Hampton Court on the 1st December—and his appointment of Colonel Lunsford, a debauched ruffian, as lieutenant of the Tower, in place of Balfour, who was a favourite with the city, increased the exasperation against him, and the mayor was obliged to inform him (26 Dec.) that unless Lunsford was removed he could not answer for the peace of the city. This representation by Gurney had the desired effect, and Lunsford was removed that night.(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 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.
(M206)
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 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)
(M207)
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)
(M208)
When the Commons met the next morning (4 Jan.) they sent up the articles of impeachment to the House of Lords as a scandalous paper. The king in the meantime was taking steps to secure the Tower and the city. He had heard that six pieces of ordnance had been removed from the artillery yard and placed near the Leadenhall, and he wrote to the mayor bidding him see that they were used only for the guard and preservation of the city if need be.(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.
(M209)
The king could not allow matters to rest here. The next morning, being Wednesday, the 5th January, he set out for the city with a small retinue, and presented himself at the Guildhall when a Court of Common Council was sitting. The city's archives are searched in vain for any record of what took place on that memorable occasion, but we have a vivid account of the scene handed down to us by an eye-witness, Captain Slingsby, who, happening to meet the royal party on its way to the city, turned back and followed it into the precincts of the Council Chamber.(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 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.
(M210)
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 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.
(M211)
Having ordered this petition to be engrossed and afterwards to be presented to his majesty, the Common Council proceeded to vote a sum of L2,000 for the purpose of providing a stock of arms and ammunition for the defence of the city in "theis tymes of daungers and feares."
(M212)
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 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)
(M213)
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 to the council, and preparations for resisting force by force began to be pushed on.
(M214)
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 L300 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)
(M215)
In the meanwhile Charles committed the fatal mistake of quitting London (10 Jan.), and parliament had thereupon returned to Westminster (11 Jan.). The appearance of the five members as they made their way by water from the city to Westminster was greeted with shouts of joy and firing of volleys. On entering the House they publicly acknowledged the kindness extended to them by the City, for which the sheriffs and the citizens received the thanks of the Commons, and a promise of indemnity for their action throughout the recent crisis.(508)
(M216)
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.
(M217)
It was to Ireland that Charles looked for assistance in his struggle with parliament. It behoved the latter, therefore, to use its utmost endeavours to reduce that country to subjection. A deputation from the House waited on the Common Council (22 Jan.) with a request for a loan of L100,000. 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)
(M218)
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 L50,000 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)
(M219)
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 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)
(M220)
Meanwhile the struggle that had been going on between the king and parliament as to who should have control over the fortresses and the trained bands or militia of the kingdom, resulted in the Commons drawing up an ordinance conferring power in each county upon persons, to be afterwards named, to raise an armed force for the suppression of rebellions and invasions (31 Jan.).(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)
(M221)
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.
(M222)
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 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)
(M223)
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)
(M224)
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 L40,000 (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)
(M225)
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)
(M226)
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 L100,000 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 L9,000 by voluntary subscription without demur. The Merchant Taylors, on the other hand, who were assessed at L10,000, whilst expressing themselves ready to do their part in furnishing the loan, took occasion to formally place on record their resolution "that the Common Hall (consisting of the liveries of this city) assembled in the Guildhall, London, hath no power, right or authority to bind or impose upon this company any loan of money whatsoever."(530)
(M227) (M228)
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 L50,000 on all strangers and aliens residing within the city.(533)
(M229) (M230)
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 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.
CHAPTER XXIII.
(M231)
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)
(M232)
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 L25,000 out of the money and plate subscribed by the inhabitants for the general defence of the kingdom; and the House, not wishing to run the risk of losing the goose that laid the golden egg, readily gave its assent.(539)
(M233)
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)
(M234)
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, the city's chains and posts repaired, and the usual precautions to be taken against fire.(542)
(M235)
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)
(M236)
In this strait the earl despatched a letter to the City desiring a loan of L100,000 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)
(M237)
A month later the Common Council was informed (18 Oct.) that Prince Rupert was expected soon to be on his way towards London. What force would the City be prepared to put in the field in order to stay the advance of the "adverse party"? After due deliberation answer was made to the "Close Committee" of parliament that twelve companies of the trained bands would be prepared to join the forces of the adjacent counties at any place the committee might appoint "for the defence of religion, the king, kingdom, parliament and the city."(547) The aspect of the city at this time was that of a huge military depot. 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)
(M238)
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)
(M239)
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 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)
(M240)
The first serious conflict between the forces of king and parliament took place at Edge-hill (23 Oct.), when both parties claimed the victory. With Charles, however, rested the more immediate fruits of success, for he had overcome the first obstacle that stood in his way to London. That Charles did not enter London as a conqueror was owing to the determined front shown to his forces by the trained bands of the City, and the energy displayed by the inhabitants at large. If anything were needed to stimulate exertion on the part of the Londoners, they found it in the reports which daily arrived of country houses being despoiled by the royalist soldiery. Few doubted that if allowed to enter the city the wealth of London would be at their mercy. "You see what is threatened you," said the Earl of Holland to the citizens at the Guildhall, soon after the battle, "you must know what to expect and what to trust to; they intend you no lesse (and that is to be believed) than the destroying of the city, your persons and the preying upon your fortunes."(553)
(M241)
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 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)
(M242)
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.
(M243)
Hitherto the parliamentary cause had been supported by loans which were in name, if not in actual fact, voluntary. The spasmodic nature of this method of obtaining a supply of money for the army proved a source of weakness. The Houses therefore resolved to change it for the more effective system of raising money by taxation. The rest of the kingdom would thus bear its share of the burden, which until now had been chiefly borne by the city of London. Inhabitants of the city who had never before contributed to so-called voluntary loans would now be compelled to pay their quota. Those who had not already contributed to the support of the army were now compelled to do so, in money, plate, horse, horsemen or arms. Every man was to be assessed according to his ability, but no one was to be assessed above a twentieth part of his estate. Payment was to be enforced by distress of goods in cases of refusal, and the aid of the trained bands might be invoked if necessary.(558)
(M244)
In the meantime a deputation of members of both Houses attended a meeting of the Common Hall and asked for a loan of L30,000. 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)
(M245)
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 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)
(M246)
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)
(M247) (M248)
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 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)
(M249)
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 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)
(M250)
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)
(M251)
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 imprisonment to pay what was by them considered an illegal tax.(575)
(M252)
Nevertheless application was made to the City at this juncture for a loan of L60,000 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 L6,000. Ministers were recommended to lay the matter before their respective congregations on the following Sunday and exhort them to contribute.(577)
(M253)
A weekly assessment of L10,000 had been imposed on the City, whilst a monthly rebate was allowed of L3,000. 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 L4,000. They also desired some security for the repayment of the loan of L60,000. 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) |
|
