(M254)

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

(M255)

Before fresh terms of compromise were formulated the House was asked (23 Feb.) to consider certain other propositions drawn up by the Common Council of the city. These were three in number. The first desired the reformation of the army. The second demanded an indemnity to the citizens for their adhesion to parliament. The third was a proposal for a religious covenant and association for the defence of religion and liberty in case the negotiations with the king should fall through. To only one of these propositions did the House give an immediate reply, and that was the second. To this the Commons returned answer that in the intended treaty with the king such care would be taken for the indemnity of the City and citizens of London and of the privileges thereof as should secure them and "be a witness to the present and future generations of their fidelity to the king and parliament."(579)

(M256)

That the citizens entertained but little hopes of a peaceful issue to the negotiations with Charles is evinced by their resolving (23 Feb.) to carry out a comprehensive scheme of defence of the city and suburbs.(580) The scheme received the sanction of parliament, which further allowed the civic authorities to call upon the inhabitants of the suburbs as well as of the city proper to contribute to the undertaking.(581) The City had a hard task to get subscriptions in from the outlying districts, and was consequently obliged to advance out of its own Chamber no less than six sums of L2,000 each between the months of March and July lest the work of erecting the necessary fortifications should be brought to a standstill.(582)

(M257)

In the face of this extraordinary expenditure the City was the more anxious to get its weekly assessment reduced. On the 1st March Colonel Venn, one of the city's members, informed the Common Council that the application to have the assessment reduced had been made too late, but the House would allow the City an additional monthly sum of L3,000 in aid of its defences so long as the ordinance for a weekly assessment should continue in force.(583)

(M258)

On the 10th March a deputation from both Houses, including Pym, informed the Common Council of a message that had recently arrived from the Earl of Essex to the effect that Prince "Robert" (Rupert) had arrived with a large force within four miles of Bristol, and the earl intended forthwith to make an advance. His army, however, was sadly in arrears of payment; he wanted both men and money, and this fact he had desired to be represented to the citizens of London. Pym, therefore, in the name of both Houses desired the Common Council to hasten as far as possible the payment of the residue of the L60,000 already promised, and to furnish such forces as the city could spare.

(M259)

As far as the first part of the request went the council promised its ready assistance.(584) It frankly acknowledged that little more than one-third of the whole amount promised had come in, but there were difficulties in the way of getting it in. A large sum of money—as much as L30,000—which ought to have been repaid to the lenders out of the estates of malignants was still owing, and lenders were thereby discouraged. Men of ability refused to lend, and there were no means of forcing them; whilst divers rich men had left the city, carrying with them what property they could, and leaving their houses empty. Nevertheless, the council assured the deputation that it was well affected to parliament, all but a very few of its members having already contributed, and it would forthwith take steps to get the money in. Touching the furnishing of soldiers, the council remarked that there were but three regiments in the city besides the trained bands, two of which were on active service and the one remaining was on outpost duty.(585)

(M260)

Soon after the outbreak of the war it was seen that the weak point of the parliamentary army lay in its cavalry. Already something had been done towards remedying this defect. Volunteers had offered themselves for the formation of a troop of horse at their own expense, and a "seminary" for cavalry had been established.(586) The news about Rupert urged the citizens to a greater effort. On the 15th March an offer was made to the Common Council to raise no less than ten volunteer regiments, three of which were to consist of cavalry. The men were to receive no pay except when engaged on active service, and only a small sum was asked for, in order to provide colours, drums and other necessaries. The offer was gladly accepted.(587)

(M261)

The last loan of L60,000 could scarcely have been subscribed before an order came from the Commons for the city to make a further advance of L40,000 for the support of the army.(588)

(M262)

The East India Company was at the same time called upon to lend its ordnance and military store for the defence of the city. In case of refusal both ordnance and provisions were to be seized, on the understanding that the City would restore them in as good condition as it received them or give satisfaction for them. Should any great emergency arise the Commons would supply the company with what was necessary.(589) The livery companies too were exhorted to lend their arms. These were to be stored at Salters' Hall, in Bread Street.(590)

(M263)

A few days later the negotiations between parliament and the king for a cessation of hostilities collapsed, and the parliamentary commissioners at Oxford were ordered to return home (14 April).(591) Irritated at the king's obstinacy, the Puritan party vented its spleen by ordering the wholesale destruction of superstitious or idolatrous monuments in Westminster Abbey and elsewhere. The City followed suit by asking parliament to sanction the removal of Cheapside cross, "in regard of the idolatrous and superstitious figures there about sett and fixed."(592) In 1581 these figures had given cause for offence and were secretly removed,(593) but others had apparently been set up in their place. The demolition of the cross, which took place on the 2nd May amid signs of public rejoicing, was followed (10 May) by the public burning of the "Book of Sports" by the hands of the common hangman in Cheapside.(594) Another measure in the same direction was the placing of the appointment of preachers in St. Paul's Churchyard in the hands of the mayor and aldermen, a proposal which the mayor had formerly suggested to the House of Commons.(595)

(M264)

Now that all hopes of a peaceful settlement had gone, Charles took measures to gain over as many Londoners as he could to his side. He had previously (16 March) caused a commission of array to be drawn, addressed to Gardiner, who was still Recorder, and others, authorising them to raise a force on his behalf in the city.(596) This commission he had retained at Oxford until he could find an opportunity for conveying it safely to London. It was now entrusted to Lady Daubeny to carry to London. She succeeded in her mission and handed the document over to a city linendraper named Chaloner, who, in his turn, transferred it to Tompkins, a brother-in-law of Waller the poet, who was also implicated in the design which on that account came to be known as "Waller's Plot." Tompkins endeavoured to conceal it in a cellar, but it did not escape the prying eyes of parliamentary searchers. Early in the morning of the 31st May Tompkins was arrested, and in the course of time both he and Chaloner paid the penalty of their rashness by being hanged in front of their own houses, the one in Cornhill and the other in Holborn. Waller was also taken and flung into prison.(597)

(M265)

Thursday, the 15th June, was appointed to be kept as a day of thanksgiving for deliverance from the plot,(598) and on that day the new parliamentary vow or covenant, binding those who took it to support the forces raised in defence of parliament against those raised by the king, was generally accepted in the city.

(M266)

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

(M267) (M268)

Parliament and the City, on the other hand, had reason to be dejected. On the 17th July Charles issued a proclamation for seizing all merchandise on its way to London. The trade of the city became paralysed.(599) Nor was this all. For some months past the citizens had been suffering from a scarcity of coal. Ever since the appointment of the Earl of Newcastle as governor of the town of Newcastle in June, 1642,(600) that town had been held for Charles, and a refusal to allow its coal to be supplied to the supporters of parliament had brought the city of London and the eastern counties into great straits.(601) It thus became a matter of prime importance that Newcastle should be captured. How this was to be accomplished was set out in a series of propositions drawn up (25 May, 1643) by the Common Council of the city to be laid before parliament.(602) A monopoly of the trade in coal, salt and glass with the north of England was to be held out as an incentive for persons to adventure their money in the reduction of the town. A committee, of which one-half of its members was to be nominated by the Commons and the rest by the City, was to have charge of all the money subscribed and to direct the undertaking. The propositions were well received (26 May),(603) and on the 10th June the Common Council nominated three aldermen and seven common councilmen to join with a like number to be appointed by parliament in raising a force by sea and land for the reduction of the town.(604)

(M269)

To make matters worse news arrived on the 18th July that royalist cavalry were in the vicinity of London, and that great disaffection to the cause of parliament had manifested itself in the neighbouring counties of Kent and Surrey. The Common Council, recognising the danger, forthwith resolved to raise what money it could at the rate of eight per cent., and to place it at the disposal of the Committee of the Militia of the city.(605)

(M270) (M271)

The danger which threatened London was increased the more by reason of dissensions which sprang up among those whose particular care were the defences of the city. A sub-committee which usually met at Salters' Hall fell out with the Committee of the Militia of London for presuming to get into its hands the sole power over the auxiliary forces which had lately been raised. Another committee was appointed to investigate the cause of dissension, and if possible to suggest a modus vivendi.(606) This was no easy matter to accomplish. It was eventually agreed to lay before parliament a petition that all the forces raised within the city and liberties, as also within the parishes adjacent mentioned in the weekly bill of mortality, might be under the sole command of the Committee of the Militia of the city, under the direction of both Houses of Parliament.(607) On the 18th July a petition to this effect was accordingly laid before the Commons by a deputation of aldermen and common councilmen, and received the approval of the House. The outcome of all this was that the House eventually passed a resolution (29 July) that "Sir William Waller do command in chief all the forces raised within the city of London, and all other forces that are or shall be under the command of the militia of London, subordinate to the lord mayor and militia," and at the same time transferred the custody of the Tower into the hands of the lord mayor and sheriffs.(608)

(M272)

Waller's appointment was a distinct slur upon Essex, about whom some rumours had been spread in order to prejudice him in the eyes of the City. The Common Council took an early opportunity of deprecating strongly these false rumours, and appointed (1 Aug.) a deputation to wait upon "his excellency" to assure him of the good opinion which the court—as the representative body of the city—had of his great care and fidelity in the preservation of the king, parliament, city and kingdom, and to promise him every assistance in recruiting his army. The citizens would stand by his excellency with their lives and fortunes.(609)

(M273) (M274)

Taking advantage of a split in the parliamentary camp, the Lords renewed their proposals for peace. As soon as the City became aware of this there was great consternation. A Common Council hurriedly met on Sunday afternoon (6 Aug.) and drew up a petition to the Commons praying them to continue the same course they had hitherto pursued and to reject all propositions for peace.(610) This petition was presented to the House on Monday (7 Aug.), when the proposals of the Lords came on again for consideration. The House thanked the City for its care, recommended the lord mayor to take measures to prevent all disorders, and afterwards formally rejected the peace propositions.(611)

(M275)

Whilst the proposals of the Lords were under consideration the approaches of the Houses had been filled by an angry mob which threatened to return the next day unless matters went as they pleased. On the morning of the 8th August parliament was again besieged. This time it was by a crowd of women with white ribbons in their hats, shouting loudly for peace. The next day they appeared in greater numbers, and having presented a petition for the cessation of the war and received a courteous answer from the Commons, they refused to go home, but pressed on to the door of the House and demanded that the traitors who were against peace might be handed over to them. From words they resorted to stones and brickbats. At length a small body of Waller's horse from the city appeared on the scene, and order was with difficulty restored.(612)

(M276)

On the 7th a commission had arrived from Essex, in answer to the recommendation of the House, appointing Waller to the command of all the forces to be raised by the city.(613) Four days later (11 Aug.) the Committee of the Militia for the city desired the cooperation of the Common Council in raising 1,000 horse, pursuant to an order of parliament of the 25th July, and on the following day (12 Aug.) Pennington issued a warrant for pressing the number of horses required for delivery to Waller.(614)

(M277)

Instead of marching with his main army direct upon London from Bristol, as Charles had originally intended, he resolved to lay siege to Gloucester. On the 10th August he appeared before its gates and formally summoned the town to surrender.(615) The citizens of London were quick to realise the fact that the fall of Gloucester would endanger their own safety, and at once took measures for defending themselves and sending relief to the besieged town.

(M278)

On the day after Gloucester had been summoned to surrender the Common Council, in view of "the neare approach of the king's forces," resolved to call upon the livery companies to raise the sum of L50,000, for which the City would give bonds at the rate of eight per cent. interest. The companies were to contribute according to their corn assessment. In addition to this every inhabitant of the city, citizen or stranger, was to contribute to the Chamber a sum equal to fifty times the amount of subsidy he had been in the habit of paying, and for this also the City would allow him interest at the rate of eight per cent. after the first six months. This mode of raising the money required subsequently (18 Aug.) received the sanction of both Houses of Parliament, who guaranteed its repayment (24 Aug.).(616) The Merchant Taylors' Company again hesitated before they consented to pay the sum (L5,000) at which they were assessed, whilst the Grocers, on the other hand, displayed the same alacrity as before in contributing their quota (L4,500), resolving to dispose of the remainder of their plate (with the exception of such as was absolutely necessary) for the purpose.(617)

(M279)

Ten days later (21 Aug.) the Committee of the Militia of the city declared its intention of sending a force under the command of Essex to assist in raising the siege of Gloucester, and at once ordered every shop to be closed and all business suspended until Gloucester should be relieved. The regiments to be sent were to be chosen by lot. These consisted of two regiments of the trained bands, two of the auxiliaries, and a regiment of horse; and with them were despatched eleven pieces of cannon and three "drakes."(618)

(M280)

After reviewing his forces on Hounslow Heath in the presence of a large number of members of both Houses, Essex set out on his march (26 Aug.). The troops suffered great privation from lack of food and water by the way. "Such straits and hardships," wrote a sergeant in one of the London regiments, "our citizens formerly knew not; yet the Lord that called us to do the work enabled us to undergo such hardships as He brought us to."(619) By the 5th September every obstacle had been overcome and Essex appeared before Gloucester, only to see, however, the blazing huts of the royalist army already in full retreat. Three days later he entered the city amid the enthusiastic rejoicings of the inhabitants, who, but for his timely arrival, would have been at the mercy of the enemy. The relief of Gloucester, to which the Londoners contributed so much, "proved to be the turning point of the war."(620)

(M281)

If the Londoners fairly claimed some credit for the part they had taken towards the relief of Gloucester, still more credit was due to them for the bold stand they made a fortnight later (20 Sept.), at Newbury, against repeated charges of Rupert's far-famed cavalry. Again and again did Rupert's horse dash down upon the serried pikes of the London trained bands, but never once did it succeed in breaking their ranks, whilst many a royalist saddle was emptied by the city's musketeers, whose training in the Artillery Garden and Finsbury Fields now served them in good stead. Whilst the enemy's cannon was committing fearful havoc in the ranks of the Londoners they still stood their ground "like so many stakes," and drew admiration even from their enemies for their display of courage. "They behaved themselves to wonder," writes the royalist historian of the civil war, and "were, in truth, the preservation of that army that day."(621) Notwithstanding, however, all their efforts, the day was undecided. Neither party could claim a victory. Essex was glad enough to make his way to Reading, whilst Charles retired to Oxford. On their return to London (28 Sept.) the trained bands received an enthusiastic welcome, the mayor and aldermen going out to meet them at Temple Bar.

(M282)

Ten days later the services of the trained bands were again required to assist in regaining the town of Reading, which had been occupied by the royalists as soon as Essex had quitted it. Six regiments were to be despatched for the purpose. Two regiments of the city's trained bands were chosen by lot, as before, and the remainder of the force was made up out of the auxiliaries and the trained bands of Southwark and Westminster.(622) Orders were issued that if any member of the appointed regiments failed to appear on parade, his shop should be closed, and he himself expelled beyond the line of fortifications.(623)

(M283)

In no long time a mutinous spirit broke out among the trained bands, who, in the midst of an attack on Basing House, the mansion of the Marquis of Winchester, in the following month insisted upon returning home, and the siege had to be abandoned. On the 28th November the sheriffs of London, accompanied by a deputation of aldermen, appeared at the bar of the Commons and boldly desired that the city regiments with Essex might be called home. Alderman Fowke or Foulke, a leading spirit in the city and staunch parliamentarian, was one of the sheriffs at the time, and acted as spokesman. He laid before the House a plain statement as to how matters stood. The fact was that the troops were unpaid, and that no money was forthcoming. If money was found for the trained bands the civic authorities, in consideration of the critical times, promised to do their best to persuade them to remain longer in the field. The House resolved to raise L5,000 for the city's forces on this understanding.(624) A month later (30 Dec.) the Common Council formally approved of a request made by both Houses of Parliament that two or three regiments of the trained bands should be sent to reinforce Waller, who was endeavouring to recapture Arundel.(625)

(M284)

The recent signs of disaffection encouraged Charles to make another effort to win over the City, and in this he was promised the support of Sir Basil Brooke. Whilst accepting the services of one who was a warm Catholic, Charles addressed a letter to the mayor and aldermen, in which he assured them of his "constancy in religion." He foolishly imagined that such an assurance would induce the City to break at once with parliament and declare for peace. The letter, as luck would have it, fell into the hands of the Committee of Safety. The plot was discovered, and full particulars of it laid before the Commons (6 Jan., 1644).(626)

The discovery led to stricter precautions being taken to prevent inhabitants of the city leaving the city to join the king at Oxford, as many ill-affected persons had already done. The number of passes was reduced, and the keys of the portcullises of the city's gates were ordered for the future to remain in the custody of the sheriffs.(627)

(M285)

In token of the City's constancy to parliament the Common Council resolved (12 Jan.) to invite both Houses to dinner.(628) The entertainment, which took place at Merchant Taylors' Hall (18 Jan.), was preceded by a sermon preached at Christ Church, Newgate, in favour of union. The preacher, Stephen Marshall, received the formal thanks of the City, besides a "gratification," and was desired to print his sermon. On their way from church to the banquet the Lords and Commons passed through Cheapside, where a pile of crucifixes, pictures and popish relics were in the act of being burnt on the site of the recently destroyed cross.(629) The City afterwards received the thanks of the Commons for the entertainment.

(M286)

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

(M287)

Meanwhile the City was busy increasing its defences and raising a force to join in the next campaign. It was found necessary to cut down the pay of both officers and men,(630) and to such straits were the authorities driven for money to pay the troops that they could devise no better method than that the inhabitants of the city should be called upon to set apart the price of one meal every week for the purpose. The idea was at first distasteful to the Common Council, but seeing no other alternative open they eventually applied for and obtained the sanction of parliament to carry it out.(631)

(M288)

The council at the same time signified to parliament its regret that those reforms in the army which it had expressed a wish to have carried out, had not been effected, and humbly prayed that Essex might be furnished with a force such as the necessity of the times demanded, that command might be given to officers whose fidelity was beyond suspicion, and that such discipline might be maintained in his excellency's army as might make it a pattern of reformation to all the rest of the armies of the kingdom.(632)

(M289)

The spring campaign opened successfully for parliament. When news of Waller's success at Cheriton (29 March) reached London it was received with enthusiastic joy, and, for a time at least, all thoughts of peace were set aside. The City assisted parliament to raise a sum of L20,000 (3 April) and authorised the purchase of 3,000 muskets and 1,000 pikes on the credit of the weekly meal money (3 April).(633) The Commons ordered a public thanksgiving for the victory which had crowned their arms to be kept in London on the 9th April,(634) and the mayor was instructed to summon a Common Hall to meet in the evening of that day for the purpose of hearing proposals from both Houses. All the advantages gained at Cheriton were unfortunately lost by the city's trained bands again insisting upon returning home.

(M290)

The Common Hall which was accordingly summoned was addressed by Warwick, Vane, Essex, Pembroke, Hollis and Glyn, the new Recorder.(635) All the speeches were pitched in the same strain. The City was thanked for its past services and exhorted to embrace the opportunity that now offered itself of putting an end to the existing distractions. It was purposed to draw all available forces together to a general rendezvous at Aylesbury by the 19th of the month, and the citizens were desired to offer themselves "as one man," for it was to no purpose "to go by little and little."

(M291)

Three days later (12 April) the Committee of Militia, which had recently received (8 April) a fresh commission, was instructed to call out six regiments of the auxiliaries. Three of them were to set out immediately to join the parliamentary army, whilst the other three were to be held in reserve.(636) It was to little purpose, however, that the City kept sending out fresh forces, if these were to be continually insisting upon returning home, as those under Waller had recently done for the second time.

(M292)

Great delay took place in getting the parliamentary forces into the field. The 19th April, the day appointed for the rendezvous at Aylesbury, arrived and found Essex still unprepared. It was not until the 2nd May that the Committee of the Militia of the city informed the Common Council that three regiments out of the six to be called out were then in readiness to march. The committee asked the sanction of the council before giving orders for the regiments to start because, they said, their powers had been much limited by their last commission (8 April). The council was in favour of the regiments setting out at once towards Uxbridge, according to instructions left behind by Essex, and the committee was directed to draft an ordinance for parliament to the effect that none of the forces might be kept longer abroad or sent further from London than the committee should from time to time think fit, and that the forces should be conducted and commanded by such major-general and other officers of the brigade as the committee should appoint.(637) It was a repetition of the old story. The City always insisted on appointing its own officers over its own men.

(M293) (M294)

In the meantime the Committee of Both Kingdoms had been busy drawing up proposals for peace such as would at once satisfy both Houses as well as be acceptable to Charles. At length the proposals were laid before the Commons and read the first time (29 April). The second reading was appointed for the 1st May. Before any further steps were taken in the matter it was but right that the citizens of London, without whose aid the issue of the struggle between king and parliament might have been very different to what it was, should be consulted. A deputation was therefore appointed (3 May) by the House to wait on the mayor, aldermen and common council of the city and to express to them the willingness of parliament to consider any proposals that they might think fit to make on behalf of the city, and to lay them before the king.(638) The City thanked parliament and referred the matter to a committee.(639)

(M295)

For some time past there had been a flow of dissatisfied royalists from Oxford to London, induced to embrace the parliamentary cause by an offer of pardon made by Essex (30 Jan.) to all who would return to their duty and take the covenant.(640) During 1643 the flow had been in the opposite direction. It now became necessary to see that only genuine converts found their way into the city, and to this end parliament ordered (15 May) the mayor to take steps for the expulsion from the city and lines of communication of all suspicious persons such as had lately come from Oxford, or any other of the king's quarters, all recusants, the wives of recusants and the wives of those who were in arms against the parliament.(641)

(M296) (M297)

Meanwhile the term of three months for which the Committee of Both Kingdoms had been originally appointed was fast drawing to a close, and considerable difference of opinion had manifested itself between the Lords and Commons as to its re-appointment. The former were in favour of increasing the numbers of the committee, with the view no doubt of giving a larger representation to the peace party, whilst the latter advocated a simple renewal of the powers of the committee as it then stood. At this juncture, when the country seemed likely to be left without any central authority to direct the movements of the parliamentary forces, the City presented a petition (16 May) to the Commons(642) setting forth the danger that was likely to arise from the discontinuance of the committee, and praying that it might speedily be re-established as the present urgency of affairs required. The citizens took the opportunity of praying the Commons to see that the Tower of London, Windsor Castle and Tilbury Fort remained in good hands and were properly supplied with necessaries, and further that none of the members of the House who had returned from Oxford might be readmitted to their seats until they had given satisfactory pledges for their fidelity in the future. The re-admission of these members had been a cause of a long wrangle between the two Houses.

(M298)

Two days later (18 May) a deputation from the Commons attended at the Guildhall with their answer.(643) They gratefully acknowledged the assistance they had received from the city, without which they would have been unable to achieve what they had done. An ordinance, they said, was being proceeded with for the continuance of the Committee of Both Kingdoms; measures would be taken respecting the Tower, Windsor Castle and Tilbury Fort such as would be for the security and satisfaction of the City; and the House had already passed an ordinance touching the re-admission of members which it would see carried into execution. The answer concluded by again acknowledging the obligation that parliament was under to the City for spending its blood and treasure for the public good, which the House would ever have in remembrance and would endeavour to requite.

(M299)

Just as matters were coming to a dead-lock the crisis was averted by the happy thought of reviving an old ordinance which had already received the sanction of the Lords, but had hitherto been ignored and laid aside by the Commons. This ordinance, which proposed to confer unlimited powers on the committee, was now taken up and passed by the Commons, and thus the old committee was enabled to meet on the 24th May and continue its work.(644)

(M300)

Parliament was still sadly in need of money, and on the 27th May appointed a committee, of which the Recorder and one or two of the city aldermen were members, to consider how best to raise it, "either by particular securities or companies, or other particular persons beyond seas, or by mortgaging of any lands, or by putting to sale sequestered lands."(645) The civil war appeared to be approaching a crisis. The town of Abingdon had recently been abandoned by the royalists and occupied by Essex, whilst Waller was advancing in the direction of Wantage, to gain, if possible, a passage over the Thames above Oxford, and thus cut off Charles from the west of England. Both generals sent notice of their movements to parliament, and on the 28th their letters (or an abstract of them) were read before the Common Council by a deputation of the recently appointed committee, and a request was made that the City would furnish the House with a sum of L200,000 or L300,000 upon the security of the estates of delinquents. Notwithstanding the difficulty the City was then experiencing in getting in the arrears of the monthly assessment and the weekly meal account, it at once took steps to carry out the wishes of parliament.(646)

(M301)

For some time past a royalist garrison in Greenland House, near Henley, had caused considerable annoyance to the country round about it, and had cut off all communication by way of the Thames between London and the west. On the 5th June the Common Council was asked to furnish one or more regiments to assist in reducing the garrison.(647) The council was the more willing to accede to this request for the reason that the force was to be placed under the command of a city alderman, Major-General Browne.(648)

(M302)

On the 7th June information was brought to the City that Charles had been forced to flee from Oxford, and the Common Council was asked to render assistance in the reduction of the king's stronghold.(649) As long as Charles was at large, not only was the prospect of an end of the war more than ever remote, but the safety of London itself was threatened. It was a time for Essex and Waller to forget all past differences and to strengthen each other in a joint attack upon the royalist army wherever it may be found. Instead of this the two generals went different ways; Essex marched westward, leaving Waller to pursue Charles as best he could. To make matters worse, disaffection again appeared in the ranks of Waller's army.(650)

(M303)

That the city trained bands had done good service in their day no one will deny, but the time was fast approaching when it would be necessary to raise an army of men willing to devote themselves to the military life as a profession. For permanent service in the field the London trained bands were not to be relied on. "In these two days' march," wrote Waller (2 July) to the Committee of Both Kingdoms, "I was extremely plagued with the mutinies of the City Brigade, who are grown to that height of disorder that I have no hope to retain them, being come to their old song of Home! Home!" There was, he said, only one remedy for this, and that was a standing army, however small;—"My lords, I write these particulars to let you know that an army compounded of these men will never go through with your service, and till you have an army merely your own, that you may command, it is in a manner impossible to do anything of importance."(651) The junction of his forces with those under Browne, who had been despatched (23 June) to protect the country between London and the royalist army, served only to increase the general discontent. "My London regiments," he wrote (8 July), "immediately looked on his [i.e. Browne's] forces as sent to relieve them, and without expectation of further orders, are most of them gone away; yesterday no less than 400 out of one regiment quitted their colours. On the other side, Major-General Browne's men, being most of them trained band men of Essex and Hertfordshire, are so mutinous and uncommandable that there is no hope of their stay. They are likewise upon their march home again. Yesterday they were like to have killed their Major-General, and they have hurt him in the face.... I am confident that above 2,000 Londoners ran away from their colours."(652) The same spirit of insubordination manifested itself again when Waller threw himself (20 July) into Abingdon. Most of his troops were only too anxious to leave him, whilst the Londoners especially refused to stir "one foot further, except it be home."(653)

(M304)

All this was not unnatural if unpatriotic. The absence of these men from their counters and shops portended bankruptcy to many. Even those who stayed at home found difficulty in carrying on their commercial pursuits, owing to the war. Credit had been given to persons who at the outbreak of the war threw in their lot with the king. Their estates had thereupon been sequestrated by parliament, and the city merchant, tradesman or craftsman was left to recover his debt as best he could. At length (2 Aug., 1644) the Common Council took the matter up, and agreed to petition parliament that delinquents might be brought to judgment, and that in all cases of sequestration provision might be made for payment of all just debts out of delinquents' estates.(654) Another grievance which the London tradesman had was the large circulation of farthing tokens, which they were unable to get re-changed.(655)

(M305)

The representations made by Waller as to the untrustworthiness of the trained bands were such as parliament could not disregard. It resolved therefore (12 July) to establish a permanent force amounting in all to 10,000 foot and 3,050 horse, to be levied in the eastern and southern counties, to take their place and form a small standing army.(656) The city of London and the county of Middlesex were called upon to find 200 horse. The city's contingent of 100 horse was reported as being ready early in August, but money was wanted for their pay. The Common Council thereupon authorised the payment of L2,000 out of the weekly meal fund.(657)

(M306) (M307)

More than three months had now elapsed since parliament offered to consider any propositions that the municipal authorities might suggest for the good of the city. At length these were ready, and were laid before the House on the 21st August. They were twenty-eight in number.(658) The first six had reference to the appointment of justices of the peace in the city and Southwark, whilst others dealt with the City's right to the conservancy of the Thames, the restitution of the City's Irish estate and the extension of its jurisdiction over the Tower. Parliament was further urged to empower the Common Council to correct, amend or repeal any by-law made or procured by any company or mistery of London, notwithstanding any statute or law to the contrary, and generally to extend the powers of the City. Lastly, it was proposed that, as the city had grown very populous, the citizens should be allowed to send two additional burgesses to parliament. The consideration of these propositions by the Commons was put off until October, when (25th) the House resolved that the City should be desired to reduce the number of propositions and to state specifically a few of the most important and to bring forward the rest in general terms, so that the propositions of the two kingdoms, which had been ready for some time past, might be forwarded to the king without more delay.(659)

(M308)

The Common Council met accordingly on the following day (26 Oct.) and reduced the number of propositions to six, viz., (1) that an Act be passed confirming to the City its charters, customs and liberties; (2) that the militia of the city, as well as of the parishes beyond the city, and its liberties, but within the bills of mortality, should be regulated by the Common Council; (3) that the Tower should be under the government of the City; (4) that the City's forces should not be forced to serve outside the city; (5) that an Act might be passed confirming all by-laws and ordinances made or to be made for calling and regulating the Common Council of the city; and (6) that such other propositions as should be made for the safety and good government of the city, with the approval of both Houses, might be confirmed by Act of parliament. These six propositions were ordered to be forthwith presented to parliament by the Recorder and by alderman Pennington (as lieutenant of the Tower), with an humble desire that they might be sent to his majesty with the propositions of the two kingdoms. It was hoped that the rest of the propositions formerly presented by the City to the House of Commons might soon pass both Houses of Parliament.(660)

(M309)

Whilst the propositions which were supposed to make for peace were under consideration, the whole of the parliamentary forces under Essex in the west of England, with the exception of the cavalry, had been compelled to surrender to the royalist army. Deserted by their leader, and left by their cavalry to shift for themselves, the foot soldiers were driven to accept such terms as Skippon, who still stuck to his post, was able to obtain, and on the morning of the 2nd September they laid down their arms. News of the disaster created great consternation in the city, and the Common Council resolved (9 Sept.) to petition parliament to take steps to prevent the royalists occupying Reading as they had done before, and to hasten the passing of a measure for raising money for the maintenance of the fortifications and guards of the city.(661)

(M310)

Every effort was made to prevent Charles, who was coming up from the west, reaching the garrisons around Oxford, where he would be able to fight to advantage, and the City was asked (13 Sept.) to send a contingent to assist Waller in that design. The Common Council thereupon gave its assent (20 Sept.) to the red and blue regiments of the trained bands being drawn out in conjunction with three other regiments, viz., one of the trained bands of Westminster, one of the trained bands of Southwark, and the auxiliaries of the Hamlets, and a week later (27 Sept.) voted the sum of L20,000 "or thereabouts" for defraying their cost.(662) This sum was afterwards raised to L22,000, of which L17,250 was to be raised in the city and liberties, and the balance within the Tower Hamlets, the city of Westminster and borough of Southwark.(663)

(M311)

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

(M312)

In the meantime better news arrived from the north. Newcastle had at last surrendered to the Scots (19 Oct.), and this intelligence gladdened the hearts of the parliamentary soldiers as well as of the citizens of London. The city might now look for a plentiful supply of coal, a commodity which had become so scarce that in July the civic authorities had received permission from parliament to dig for turf and peat, by way of a substitute for coal, wherever they thought fit.(664) Seeing that it was by the aid of the city that a fleet had been maintained off the north coast, that Berwick had been secured for parliament, and that a free passage had thus been kept open for the Scottish army, the civic authorities thought themselves justified in appealing to parliament for repayment of the money formerly advanced by the adventurers.(665) Notwithstanding the surrender of Newcastle the citizens had to pay a high price for coal owing to a heavy impost set upon it by parliament, until, at the earnest request of the municipal authorities, parliament consented to reduce it.(666)

(M313)

The close of the year (1644) found the trade and commerce of the city in a deplorable condition. Commercial intercourse with the woollen and linen manufacturers of the west of England had been almost entirely cut off, whilst the blockade of the east coast by the royalist navy deprived the city of a great amount of corn, fish, butter, cheese and other provisions. The citizens were greatly opposed to free trade being allowed with those ports and towns which were in the hands of the royalists,(667) but they were still more anxious to have their trade kept open with the west of England, and they petitioned parliament to that end.(668)

(M314)

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



CHAPTER XXIV.



(M315) (M316)

The failure of the negotiations at Uxbridge hastened the passing of an ordinance for re-modelling the army and placing it on such a footing that the men should be in receipt of constant pay and the officers selected for military efficiency alone. Ever since November the "New Model" ordinance—as it was called—had been under consideration. In January it passed the Commons, but the Lords hesitated until the difference of opinion that had manifested itself at Uxbridge induced them to give their assent (15 Feb.). On the 4th March a deputation from both Houses came into the city and informed the Common Council that, the Treaty of Uxbridge having fallen through, the Houses had resolved "to put their forces into the best posture they can for the vigorous prosecution of the war, as the best means now left (under God) for the obtaining of peace." Parliament had passed an ordinance—they proceeded to say—for raising L50,000 a month for nine months for payment of an army under Sir Thomas Fairfax, and they now asked the City to advance a sum of L80,000 on the security of the money so to be raised in the last five months out of the nine. The matter was referred to a committee to carry out.(669)

(M317)

The passing of the New Model ordinance was followed by the passing of a self-denying ordinance,(670) the original purport of which was to exclude all members of either House from commands in the army, but was afterwards so far modified as to compel existing officers to resign their appointments, leaving it to parliament to re-appoint them if it would. Essex, Waller and Manchester resigned, but when the time came for Cromwell, the prime mover in the re-organisation of the army, to follow suit, he and two or three others were re-appointed to commands in the new army. The immediate effect of the passing of this ordinance upon the city of London was that Pennington, who had been appointed by parliament lieutenant of the Tower, had to resign his post. The nomination of his successor was, however, left with the Common Council, who sent up the name of Colonel Francis West for the approval of the Commons (24 April).(671)

(M318)

Whilst the army was undergoing a process of reformation outside London, considerable activity prevailed within the city with the object of strengthening its position. The Committee of Militia was instructed to raise a sufficient number of men to guard the city forts so that the trained bands might be free for more active duties. Large sums of money were voted to pay arrears due to gunners, "mattrosses" and workmen who had been engaged in erecting the fortifications. The sum of L500 was ordered to be laid out in the purchase of gunpowder. The scout-master for the city was encouraged in his duty of bringing information of movements of the royalist army by the payment of arrears due to him, and steps were taken to bring up the regiments of the city auxiliaries to their full complement by enlistments from the several wards.(672)

(M319)

The first serious undertaking confided to Fairfax and the New Model army was the siege of Oxford. The utter uselessness of such an enterprise, whilst Charles was free to roam the country and deal blows wherever opportunity offered, failed to make itself apparent to the Committee of Both Kingdoms, which still governed the movements of the parliamentary army. The siege being resolved upon, a deputation from both Houses waited on the Common Council (16 May) to ask for assistance in furnishing a force to set out under Major-General Browne to join Fairfax and Cromwell in the undertaking.(673) Four days later (20 May), when another deputation attended, the court instructed the committee of arrears sitting at Weavers' Hall to raise L10,000 for the purpose.(674)

(M320)

Whilst the main force of the parliamentary army was wasting time in besieging Oxford, care was taken to keep the country open round Taunton, recently set free by a detachment sent by Fairfax. For this purpose Massey, the governor of Gloucester, was ordered to quit his post and march towards Bristol.(675) The prospect of losing their governor, who had achieved so many military successes in the neighbourhood, threw the inhabitants of Gloucester into terrible consternation, and they went so far as to petition parliament against his removal; but somehow or other their petition failed to be read before the Commons. In their distress they caused their mayor to address a letter to the city of London (29 May) stating the facts of the case, and praying that the Londoners, who had already done so much to save them from the hand of the enemy, would interpose with the Commons on their behalf, so that Colonel Massey might be allowed to remain. The civic authorities agreed (7 June) to lay the matter before parliament;(676) but in spite of all representations Massey had to go. The Londoners themselves were asked (9 June) to furnish 500 mounted musketeers for Massey's expedition, and were encouraged to do so by "motives" setting forth the gallant behaviour of the brigade in and about Taunton, and the critical condition it was in by being cut off from provisions. The Common Council ordered the motives to be printed and circulated, with the result that sufficient money was raised to fit out 500 dragoons.(677)

(M321)

In the meantime considerable dissatisfaction manifested itself in the city at the state of affairs in general, and more particularly with the manner in which the movements of Fairfax and the New Model army were hampered by orders from home. A petition from divers inhabitants of the city with certain suggestions was laid before the Common Council for presentation to parliament. It was not customary, however, for the Common Council to present petitions to parliament unless drawn up by themselves, but as the feelings of the court were in sympathy with the petitioners it ordered two petitions to be drawn up embracing the substance of the original petition, and these were presented, one to each of the Houses. After setting forth what they esteemed to be the reasons for the ill success of the parliamentary cause, the petitioners made known their own wishes. In the first place, they desired that the army of Fairfax should be recruited, and that the general might be allowed greater freedom of action. Secondly, that steps should be taken, before it was too late, to recover Leicester, which had recently (31 May) fallen into the king's hands. Thirdly, that the Scots should be urged to march southward. Fourthly, that Cromwell should be placed in command of the Eastern Association. Fifthly, that adequate convoys should be provided for merchants; and lastly, that parliament should publish its own account of the recent negotiations, as well as its resolutions against free trade by sea to such ports as were in the king's hands.(678) The petition, which was presented by Alderman Fowke to the Commons (4 June),(679) was favourably received by both Houses, and the City thanked for its care.

(M322)

One of the wishes expressed in the City's petition was soon realised, for within a week Cromwell was appointed, not to the command of the Eastern Association as suggested, but to a still greater command, viz., the lieutenant-generalship of the army, an office which, by long prescription, carried also the command of the cavalry, an arm of the service in which Cromwell had especially shown himself a master.(680)

(M323)

Fairfax, being now allowed a free hand, abandoned the siege of Oxford and set off in pursuit of the royal army. He came up with them at Naseby, where on the 14th June he succeeded, with the help of Cromwell and his cavalry, in obtaining a signal victory and utterly crushing the power of Charles in the field. Among the wounded on the parliamentary side was the City's old friend Skippon, "shot under the arme six inches into his flesh." The pain of having his wound dressed caused him to groan. "Though I groane, I grumble not," said he to the by-standers, and asked for a chaplain to come and pray for him.(681)

(M324)

The victory at Naseby was celebrated in the city by a thanksgiving service at Christ Church, Newgate (19 June), which was attended by the members of both Houses, followed by an entertainment at Grocers' Hall. The hall not being large enough to contain the whole of the company, the members of the Common Council dined by themselves at the hall of the Mercers Company. Nothing was omitted that could serve to enhance the reputation of the City.(682)

(M325)

The wishes of the citizens were to be further gratified. The Scottish army was about to move southward, and parliament had voted a month's pay, or L31,000. The City was asked to assist in raising the money (14 June). To this the Common Council readily agreed, but at the same time directed the Recorder to represent to parliament that the citizens were anxious for the Scots to recover Leicester as speedily as possible.(683) Before the army had time to make any great advance in this direction Leicester had surrendered to Fairfax (18 June).

(M326)

In July the City was called upon to assist in raising 1,000 horse and 500 dragoons for the relief of the counties of Oxford, Buckingham, Berkshire and others, and the better security of the Association.(684) Three months later (2 Sept.) another contingent of 500 light horse and a like number of "dragoneers" were required "to pursue the forces of the king." Each member of the Common Council was directed to provide a light horse and arms or to pay the sum of L12 in lieu thereof. A dragoon horse and arms might be compounded for by payment of half that sum. Parliament agreed to charge the excise with the sum of L16,000 to provide compensation for any loss the contributors might sustain, whilst the City contributed out of its Chamber the sum of L400 towards the pay of officers, the buying of trophies and other necessaries.(685)

(M327)

The aid of the City was now invoked by Plymouth as formerly it had been by Gloucester. On the 5th September the mayor and aldermen of Plymouth addressed a letter to the mayor and common council of London enclosing a petition they were about to lay before parliament. The petition set forth how, in the absence of Fairfax, who was laying siege to Bristol, the whole country round Plymouth was in the hands of the enemy; and an attack would, it was feared, be soon made by Lord Goring on the town garrison. Unless the siege was raised before winter, or considerable supplies brought in, the town would be unable to hold out longer. This petition the municipal authorities of London were asked to second, with the hope of prevailing upon parliament to send at least that relief which had been so often desired and so often promised. A whole fortnight elapsed before the letter and petition were brought to the notice of the Common Council (20 Sept.)—the letter from Gloucester had taken a week in transit, such was the state of the country—and then it was resolved to send a deputation from the city, including the two sheriffs, to express to the Committee of Both Kingdoms the desire of the City that they would be pleased to take the petition into speedy and serious consideration, and to provide for the safety and defence of Plymouth.(686)

(M328)

The Londoners themselves were suffering from an inconvenience from which they had hitherto in vain sought relief from parliament, and that was the large number of royalist soldiers—amounting to no less than 3,000—which after the battle of Naseby had been quartered on the city.(687) Now that the war was practically over, so far as the king was concerned, the Common Council again took the matter in hand, and it was suggested that the Convocation House and its cloisters situate on the south side of St. Paul's Churchyard should be fitted up at a cost of L40 for their reception. By this means Bethlehem hospital, where many of the prisoners had been housed, would be free to minister again to the wants of the poor.(688)

(M329)

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

(M330)

The House, however, was unfortunate enough at this critical juncture to offend the Scots as well as the citizens of London. The Scottish army had been invited to march southward to attack Newark, whither Charles had betaken himself after witnessing from the walls of Chester the defeat of his troops on Rowton Heath (24 Sept.), and the Commons had promised to raise a sum of L30,000 for its pay provided it arrived before Newark by the 1st day of November.(689) This sum the City promised to find (10 Oct.), but only on the condition named.(690) On the 13th the House offended the dignity of the Scots by a series of resolutions protesting against the conduct of the Scottish army in not attacking the enemy as well as in levying money on the inhabitants of the northern counties, and demanded the removal of the garrisons which had been placed in Newcastle, Carlisle and other towns without the consent of parliament.(691)

(M331)

The quarrel between parliament and the City was scarcely less serious, and arose out of an attempt to foist a system of Presbyterianism upon the citizens which should serve as a model for the rest of the kingdom. It was not that the Londoner objected to the principle of Presbyterianism; the natural bent of his mind was in that direction, and the City had already petitioned parliament for the election of elders to join with the parish ministers.(692) What he found fault with was the mode of electing the elders prescribed by parliament (23 Sept.).(693) The scheme was so far from satisfying the general body of citizens that a number of them presented a petition to the Common Council to address both Houses of Parliament, with a view to having the powers of the elders sufficiently enlarged to effect a genuine reform in the Church.(694) They wanted, in fact, to see parliamentary control over the Church in matters purely ecclesiastical withdrawn. Herein they were supported by the ministers of their own parish churches, who drew up a list of reforms they desired to see executed and the reasons why they so desired.(695) It was a difficult matter on which to approach parliament. Nevertheless, in accordance with a resolution of the Common Council (18 Nov.), a deputation of aldermen and common councillors, of whom Alderman Gibbs acted as spokesman, presented themselves (19 Nov.) before the House of Commons with the petition of the citizens, as well as with the "desires and reasons" of the city clergy. The reply they got was far from encouraging. They were given to understand that parliament was well aware of its trust and duty, and was quite able to discharge both, if only it was let alone, and its purpose not misconceived and prejudged as it appeared to have been in the city; and they were dismissed with the caution not to form premature opinions about matters which were still under discussion.(696) Notwithstanding this rebuff, the deputation the following day attended before the Lords (20 Nov.), who returned them a far more gracious and sympathetic answer. After thanking the deputation for their expressions of submission to the resolutions of parliament, their lordships assured them that none should excel them in their endeavours for the maintenance of the covenant, the advancement and settling of God's true religion, and the discharge of the trust reposed in them.(697)

(M332)

In the meantime a deputation from parliament had waited on the Common Council (12 Nov.) with a request for a loan of L6,000 for the troops engaged in blockading Chester. The court agreed to the request, but thought it high time to learn precisely how the city stood with respect to loans already made to parliament, and appointed (17 Nov.) a committee to report on the whole matter, with a view of addressing parliament for re-payment of monies in arrear.(698)

(M333)

It was feared that the Scottish army might change sides. It wanted supplies. The City, we have seen, had agreed with parliament to advance a sum of L30,000 for payment of the Scots, provided their army appeared before Newark by the 1st November. This condition had not been fulfilled. The army, nevertheless, appeared later on, and a committee of the House of Commons came down to the city and asked the citizens (6 Dec.) to stand by their former promise and advance the sum mentioned, which they readily consented to do.(699)

(M334) (M335)

The question with Charles was, from whom was he likely to obtain the better terms, the English or the Scots? On the 26th December he addressed a letter to the Speaker of the House of Lords, asking whether the two Houses of Parliament, the Scottish commissioners, the municipal authorities, as well as the militia of the city and the officers of both armies, would guarantee his personal security if he came to reside in London or Westminster, with a retinue not exceeding three hundred in number, for a period of forty days.(700) The risk of allowing such a step was too great. Already the Earl of Holland had been heard to threaten a royalist rising in the city if only Charles could be brought in safety to Westminster. Not getting a reply so quickly as he wished, Charles wrote again three days later (29 Dec.) urging his former proposal.(701) More delay took place, during which the Commons instructed the mayor to see well to the city's guards and scrutinise the passes of those coming and going,(702) and at last, on the 13th January, the Speakers wrote to Charles declining the proposal.(703)

(M336)

The day following the despatch of this reply was kept in the city as a day of solemn humiliation. Sermons were preached before the mayor, aldermen and members of the common council, who afterwards individually took the oath and covenant. An enquiry was subsequently ordered (9 Feb.) for the purpose of discovering what members of the common council had failed to take the covenant on this occasion, and the reasons why they had not done so. A few members stood out and refused to renew the covenant, whereupon the court resolved to ask parliament for instructions as to what should be done with them.(704)

(M337)

On the 15th January Charles made overtures to parliament for the first time on the question of religion. He was prepared to allow religion to be settled as it was in the reign of Elizabeth and James, "with full liberty for the ease of their consciences who will not communicate in that service established by law, and likewise for the free and public use of the directory prescribed and, by command of the two Houses, now practised in some parts of the city of London."(705)

(M338)

This important concession on the part of Charles—a concession which only the necessities of the time induced him, after much exercise of mind, to make—was announced to parliament on the same day that the City presented a petition(706) against toleration of any other form of religion than the Presbyterianism already adopted by parliament and the citizens. The petitioners declared that since they last addressed the Houses on the subject of religion a fresh election of the Common Council had taken place, and the inhabitants of many of the wards had taken the opportunity of asking their alderman that parliament might be again desired to settle Church government and forbid toleration. Private meetings for religious worship, they went on to say, were constantly held. In one parish there were at least eleven. Orthodox ministers were evil spoken of, as if the city were still under the "tyranny of prelatical government." Women had taken to preaching, and such blasphemies were uttered as made the petitioners tremble to think of. Having heard that it was the intention of divers persons to petition the House for a toleration of such doctrines as were against the covenant under pretext of liberty of conscience, the petitioners humbly prayed that parliament would take steps to remedy abuses and to settle the Church government according to the solemn covenant made with the most high God. The Commons lent a ready ear to the petition and thanked the City for their display of piety and religion. It was gratifying to them to know that they had the sympathy of the City in their anxiety to settle the peace of the Church.(707) The Lords, to whom a similar petition had been presented, returned an equally gracious message, and expressed a hope that the municipal authorities would take steps to remedy the existing abuses.(708)

(M339)

Whilst endeavouring to come to terms with parliament Charles was also in communication both with the Scots and the Independents. His purpose was to play one party off against the other. A complete understanding existed between the citizens and the Scots on the subject of religion. On the 11th February the Scottish commissioners themselves appeared at a Common Council bearing a letter from the president of the Scottish parliament addressed to the lord mayor, aldermen and common council of the city, thanking them for their zeal for the reformation of religion and uniformity of Church government, as well as for the large sums of money advanced to the armies in defence of religion and the liberty of the subject.(709) The Common Council thanked the commissioners for the favour thus shown, and begged them to assure their countrymen that the City would continue its zeal and affection for the reformation of religion and uniformity of Church government, and would persevere in its resolution to preserve the same according to the covenant.

(M340) (M341)

As soon as Parliament heard that the City had received a communication from Scotland the Commons sent a deputation to learn all the particulars and to ask that the letter might be forwarded to them. The deputation was to assure the mayor and the Common Council that there was "no jealousie at all or dislike of their proceedings" in the business. In the meanwhile the House called upon Francis Allen, a member of the House as well as a member of the Common Council, to give an account of what had taken place in the city on the 11th. This he did to the best of his ability, giving from memory the substance of the letter from Scotland. He then proceeded to say that one of the Scottish commissioners, Lord Lauderdale, had made the following remark before the Common Council, viz., "That many aspersions had been caste upon their armie and their proceedings by malignants; and desired that the authors of them might be looked upon as those that endeavour to disturb the unitie of both kingdomes."(710)

(M342)

That at least was the story as recorded in the Journal of the House. Allen, however, declared that he had been inaccurately recorded, and the Common Council, in giving parliament their own version of the matter, denied that Lauderdale had made any such remark. He had said nothing that could give offence. They forwarded the letter as desired, but begged that it might be returned in order that it might be entered on the city's Journal. They further expressed a wish to print and publish it so that the real facts might be known. Allen, they said, was not to be credited, and had been guilty of a breach of privilege in what he had done.(711)

(M343)

The House, however, took a different view of Allen's conduct, and declared that he had only done his duty. It at the same time came to a resolution that the relation entered on the Journal of the House varied from Allen's and ordered it to be expunged.(712)

(M344)

Three years later, when Allen was elected alderman of the ward of Farringdon Without, the House declared (5 Dec, 1649) that it deemed it "an acceptable service to the commonwealth" if Allen would accept the post, and the Common Council resolved (19 Dec.) to revoke all votes of the court that had been passed in the month of February, 1646, reflecting on Allen's conduct.(713)

(M345)

Hitherto the City and Parliament had, in the presence of a common danger, mutually supported one another; but as soon as the royalists ceased to give further cause for alarm differences immediately sprang up. The question of the City's jurisdiction over the militia raised within the weekly bills of mortality, as well as over that raised within the city and liberties, was no new question. It had been raised at least as far back as August, 1644,(714) but during the crisis of the civil war the matter had been allowed to drop until December, 1645, when the City again brought it forward and urged parliament to acknowledge its jurisdiction.(715) Before parliament would give its assent it wished to be informed whether the jurisdiction claimed by the City was already vested in the City by Charles or by custom, and if not, what extension of jurisdiction was it that the City now desired?(716) The chief opposition came from the inhabitants of Middlesex, Surrey, Southwark and Westminster, who objected to their militia being placed under the command of the mayor, aldermen and common council of the city. All parties were cited to appear before the Star Chamber on the 31st June, 1646, to support their own contention.(717) Parliament had already (27 Jan.) expressed itself as willing to sanction the government of the militia of the city and liberties being vested in the municipal authorities and to allow that the city forces should not be called upon to serve away from the city without their own consent,(718) but this was not enough. What the City desired was nothing more and nothing less than what had already been proposed to the king at Oxford with the sanction of both Houses, namely, "the government of the militia of the parishes without London and the liberties within the weekly bills of mortality." Parliament had made no scruple about the matter at a time when it stood in sore need of assistance from the City; and the City did not intend to let it go back lightly on its word.(719)

(M346)

A petition was accordingly presented to the House of Commons by alderman Fowke on the 6th February.(720) The petition set out at considerable length all the proceedings that had taken place since the question of the militia was first submitted to Charles. It compared the attitude of the city towards parliament in the late civil war with the part played by the citizens in a previous civil war, viz., the war of the Barons, when (according to the petitioners) the Barons were eventually beaten out of the field owing to the citizens of London staying at home! The petitioners proceeded to show the necessity of the City being empowered to raise militia in the adjacent counties for the purpose of keeping open a passage for victualling the city in times of danger; that since the militia of the suburbs had been under the command of the City good service had been rendered to the parliamentary cause, and notably in the relief of Gloucester; that if it were now removed from the jurisdiction of the City the suburban forts might be seized and both the city and parliament might be threatened; and that it was for the better preservation of parliament, and not for the purpose of rendering the city militia independent of parliament, that the petitioners appeared before the House. Finally, Alderman Fowke, who acted as spokesman, declared himself authorised to state that if the militia of the city and kingdom were not settled by the king and parliament there would be no course left open to the city authorities but to act according to their conscience and to abide by their covenant. A similar petition was presented to the House of Lords (7 Feb.). A week later (14 Feb.) a counter-petition was addressed to the Commons by the inhabitants of the Tower Hamlets, Westminster and Southwark,(721) and on the 13th March a committee was appointed to arrange, if possible, a compromise.(722)

(M347)

Before this question was settled another had arisen to widen the breach between parliament and the city in the shape of an ordinance for establishing a system of Presbyterianism throughout England.(723) One clause of this ordinance—clause 14—was particularly objectionable as introducing the authority of the State into matters of Church government. Commissioners were to be appointed, of whom nothing was known, to regulate the Church in each province. The Common Council, being urged by inhabitants of the city to oppose a measure so opposed to the Word of God,(724) presented petitions to both Houses (to the Lords first, they having not yet assented to clause 14) praying that no officers might be appointed to exercise any Church censures contrary to the Scriptures, and that their appointment might be in accordance with the Word of God.(725) The petitions were so badly received by both Houses that the municipal authorities took fright, and asked that they might be withdrawn and expunged from the Journals of Parliament. Their request was acceded to, but only on condition that the petitions were likewise expunged from the City's Records.(726)

(M348) (M349)

The reconciliation between parliament and the city was followed by an interchange of courtesies. The royalist army under Hopton had recently surrendered to Fairfax in the west of England (14 March), and had been disbanded; and the last hope of Charles had vanished in the defeat of Astley's troops after a sharp engagement at Stow-on-the-Wold (22 March). "You have now done your work" were the parting words of the veteran commander to his soldiers, "and may go play, unless you will fall out among yourselves."(727) On the 26th March a deputation from both Houses waited on the Common Council, and invited the mayor, aldermen and council, as "the representative body of the city," to attend a public thanksgiving service to be held that day week (2 April) at Christ Church, Newgate Street. The invitation was graciously accepted, and the City returned the compliment by asking both Houses to dine the same day at Grocers' Hall.(728)

(M350) (M351)

On the 19th May, whilst virtually a prisoner in the hands of the Scots, Charles wrote to the City(729) declaring his readiness to concur in settling truth and peace, his desire to have all things speedily concluded to that end, and his hope that his return to his ancient city might be to the satisfaction of parliament and his people. The Commons were angry with the civic authorities for opening the king's letter without their leave, and returned a curt answer to a remonstrance presented to them by the City calling upon them to suppress heresy, to unite with the Scots and to come to a speedy arrangement with the king.(730) The Lords, to whom a similar remonstrance had been presented, expressed themselves more graciously. They acknowledged the fidelity and constant services of the City to parliament. They were satisfied with the resolutions of the citizens to settle the Protestant religion and to preserve the rights and privileges of parliament, the liberties of the kingdoms and the person and authority of his majesty. As for their lord mayor (Thomas Adams), whose character the petitioners had declared to have been aspersed by certain members of the Commons (for opening the king's letter without leave?), they (the Lords) held him in high esteem, and declared that nothing had been said or done in their House to his prejudice. As soon as they should be informed of the nature of his grievance they would be found ready in a parliamentary way to do him right.(731) The Common Council received a formal address of thanks for presenting this remonstrance from a large body of "citizens of the best rank and qualitie," as well as from the General Assembly of Scotland.(732)

(M352)

On the other hand an attempt was made to minimise the effect of the remonstrance by getting up a counter-petition on the pretext that the remonstrance had not fairly represented the wishes of the majority of the citizens. This counter-petition, which is said to have been backed up with 5,000 or 6,000 signatures, was duly presented to the Commons, who by a small majority passed a vote of thanks to the petitioners (2 June).(733)

(M353)

In the meanwhile the king's letter of the 19th May remained unanswered. At last, on the 3rd July, an answer—or "petition"—was drafted and submitted to the Common Council for approval. After acknowledging the special favour of receiving a letter direct from the king, the citizens expressed their desire to assure his majesty and the whole world of the continuance of their loyalty in accordance with the terms of their protestation and covenant. They prayed him to comply with the propositions for the settlement of religion and peace and the maintenance of the union of the two nations which parliament was about to send him, and they expressed an earnest hope to see him return to his ancient city with honour and joy.(734)

(M354)

The city fathers were too wary to despatch their petition without first obtaining leave from parliament. On the following day (4 July), therefore, a deputation of aldermen and members of the council, with Alderman Sir Thomas Foote at its head, presented itself before the House of Lords to ask their leave to despatch the City's answer to the king. After perusing the petition the Lords declared their approval of its being sent to the king, and courteously acknowledged the action of the citizens in first submitting it to the judgment of their lordships.(735) It was otherwise with the Commons, who again returned a churlish reply. The deputation was given to understand that the House had been put to some inconvenience in giving them an audience, being busily engaged at the time in pressing business. The petition, however, was of importance, and would receive their consideration at a convenient time.(736)

(M355)

On Friday the 10th the Commons were pressed for an answer, but they again put the matter off on the plea of pressure of business. The next day the deputation again waited on the House, attended by the city members of parliament, and about four o'clock in the afternoon received a message from the Commons that the City's petition was not to be forwarded to the king, and that "in convenient time" they would send and inform the Common Council of their further pleasure. Accordingly two of the city's members, Sir Thomas Soame and Samuel Vassall, appeared before the council on the 15th, when Vassall declared that he had been commanded by the House to make an explanation. In order to avoid mistakes he would read the message he was to deliver. The message was to the effect that inasmuch as the propositions which had been despatched to the king by parliament on the 13th June embraced the city of London as well as the whole kingdom, the House could not approve of the city's petition being forwarded to his majesty. Being desired by the council to leave the paper with them, Vassall declared that he had no authority to do so.(737) In the meantime, the House had appointed a committee to enquire "concerning the first principal contrivers and framers of the city remonstrance, and concerning such as have or do labour to disaffect the people and the city from the parliament";(738) but before the committee could take steps to carry out its instructions, circumstances had arisen which made it advisable to let the matter drop and not to widen the breach between the city and parliament.

(M356)

On the 30th July the parliamentary commissioners arrived in Newcastle for the purpose of laying before Charles propositions for peace. Charles had already become possessed of a copy, and had long since made up his mind to reject them. The commissioners had received positive orders to allow the king ten days to give his assent, and if he failed to give his assent within that time after their arrival they were at once to return.(739) The only reply which Charles condescended to give was contained in a letter which he handed to the commissioners on the 1st August. The letter was read before the House on the 12th. It contained little more than vague promises and a request that he might be allowed to come to London to discuss the propositions at length.(740)

(M357)

The same day that the king's answer was read before the Lords a letter from the Scottish commissioners was produced, in which they offered to withdraw their forces from England upon payment of expenses already incurred.(741) After a considerable amount of haggling the Scots consented to take the sum of L400,000 in full discharge of all claims, a moiety to be paid to them before leaving England and the remainder by instalments at specified dates.(742) It only remained for parliament to raise the sum of L200,000 needed for the first payment, and to whom was it more natural that application should first be made than to the City? A large deputation from the Commons, including Cromwell himself, accordingly waited on the Common Council (7 Sept.) to ask it to consider ways and means for raising the money. The committee to whom the matter was referred lost no time. On the 9th it reported to the court a scheme for raising the money on the security of the excise and sale of the Bishops' lands, the security to extend to previous loans. Parliament accepted these terms, on the understanding that "Bishops' lands" were not to comprise impropriations and advowsons.(743)

(M358)

On the 10th December there was presented to the Common Council "an humble representacon of the pressinge grievances and important desires of the well affected freemen and covenant engaged cittizens of the cittie of London," with a request that it might be laid before parliament.(744) This document, after being revised by a committee appointed for the purpose, was laid before the Commons on the 19th December, together with a petition from the civic authorities themselves, who similarly addressed themselves to the House of Lords. The chief points on which stress was laid were the disbandment of the army, the suppression of heresy, the union of the two kingdoms, the free election of members of parliament, and the City's government of its own militia. As for the "bringing home of his majesty," that was left to the wisdom of both Houses, with the confidence that they would preserve his majesty's royal person and authority in defence of the true religion and liberties of the kingdom according to the covenant.(745) Both Houses thanked the City and promised to take the matter into their consideration.(746)

(M359)

In the spring of the following year (1647) a new terror presented itself to the Presbyterians at home in the absolute supremacy of the army under Fairfax, although that general had given his word that the army should not come within twenty-five miles of London.(747) The City petitioned both Houses that it might be disbanded, and that the Common Council might have authority to make annual election of the members of the city's militia. To those petitions gracious answers were returned, the Lords declaring that they had considered already a measure touching the city's militia and had transmitted it to the Commons.(748)

(M360)

The army would in all probability have been disbanded in due course, and all might have gone well but for the high-handed treatment it received from the Commons. It was proposed to ask the soldiers after disbandment to volunteer for service in Ireland. There were, however, considerable arrears of pay due to them, and neither officers nor men would volunteer until they had received some assurance from parliament that they would be paid all that was due to them. Instead of doing this parliament contented itself with voting a sum of L200,000, not for satisfying arrears of pay, but "for the service of England and Ireland."(749) The soldiers were about to petition parliament with the sanction of their officers, but such a course was declared by both Houses to be highly improper.(750)

(M361)

It was easier for parliament to vote a sum of L200,000 than to raise that amount. Application was as usual made to the City (6 April).(751) The zeal of the citizens was excited by the Commons at length passing the ordinance sent down to them by the Lords for a new militia committee (16 April).(752) On the following day (17 April) the Common Council was prepared with a scheme to be submitted to parliament for raising the money. Like other schemes that had gone before, it proposed that subscribers to certain former loans should add arrears of interest, and by making a further advance equivalent to the sum total should have the whole secured on the sale of lands of bishops and delinquents.(753) Parliament hesitated at first to allow the lands of delinquents and compositions paid by them to the committee sitting at Goldsmiths' Hall to form part of the security for the loan, but afterwards consented to a moiety of all such compositions being added to the security.(754)

(M362)

The appointment of the new militia committee was made a solemn business by the citizens. Tuesday, the 27th April, was fixed for the nomination, which was preceded by prayer and a sermon in the church of St. Laurence Jewry, and a formal renewal of the covenant by all present. Thirty-one persons, the number prescribed by the ordinance, were nominated, all of them Presbyterians. Of these seven were aldermen. On the 4th May both Houses signified their approval of the city's nominees, and ordained that any nine of them, whereof three were to be aldermen and six to be commoners, should thenceforth constitute a committee for the militia to order and direct the same according to the true meaning and intent of the ordinance recently passed.(755)