One of the first acts of the new committee was to ask leave of parliament to raise an additional sum of L20,000 to satisfy the arrears due to the city's forces that had been engaged in guarding the Houses of Parliament, the Tower and forts within the lines of communication around the city. Parliament only consented, however, to the sum of L12,000 being raised for this purpose.(756)

(M363)

The re-modelling of the city force to the exclusion of everyone tainted with independency only served to increase the discontent of the army. It was bad enough to find the Presbyterians in parliament joining hands with the Presbyterians in the city against the army; it was worse if the city trained bands were to receive their arrears of pay whilst the army was left out in the cold. An attempt was made to bring pressure to bear on parliament by a mob of reformadoes or disbanded soldiers besetting the House of Commons on the 7th June. These men clamoured for their arrears of pay and refused to go away unless the sum of L10,000 should be voted for them.

(M364)

On the following day (8 June) the City presented another petition to parliament praying that the army might be paid off as speedily as possible; that the king, who had recently been carried off from Holmby House by a troop of cavalry under Joyce, might be disposed of in such a way as to allow the parliaments of England and Scotland free access to him; and thirdly that, seeing the danger of the times, an ordinance of the 17th January, 1645, authorising the City to raise cavalry in their own defence and to apprehend disaffected persons, might be revived. The House, which was guarded at the time by a city regiment, could scarcely do otherwise than comply with the prayer of the petitioners.(757)

(M365)

Three days later (11 June) a letter was brought to the city by "two messengers that looked like soldiers," signed by Fairfax and twelve others, informing the civic authorities of the army's approach to London.(758) The City was asked to believe that such action on the part of the army was only directed against those who were endeavouring to engage the kingdom in a new war. As Englishmen, if not as soldiers, the writers desired only "the peace of the kingdom and liberty of the subject, according to the votes and declarations of parliament." They desired no alteration of the civil government, nor to hinder Presbyterianism. When once the State had settled a matter there was nothing for it but to submit or suffer; they only wished that every good citizen and every peaceful man might be allowed to enjoy liberty. "These, in brief," continued the writers, "are our desires, and the things for which we stand, beyond which we shall not go; and for obtaining these things we are drawing near your city, professing sincerely from our hearts we intend not evil toward you; declaring with all confidence and assurance that if you appear not against us in these our just desires to assist that wicked party that would embroil us and the kingdom, nor we nor our soldiers shall give you the least offence." It was true, they went on to say, that a rich city like London offered a tempting bait for poor hungry soldiers, but the officers would protect it with their last drop of blood from the soldiery provided no provocation were offered by the citizens themselves. Their men valued their own high character above any wealth, and the citizens would act like fellow subjects and brethren by using their influence with parliament on their behalf. On the other hand, "if after all this you, or a considerable part of you, be seduced to take up arms in opposition to or hindrance of these our just undertakings, we hope by this brotherly premonition, to the sincerity thereof we call God to witness, we have freed ourselves from all that ruin which may befall that great and populous city, having thereby washed our hands thereof."

(M366)

This letter was laid before the House with a request that it would endeavour to prevent Fairfax quartering his army on the city, thereby enhancing the price of provisions, and this request was acceded to. At the same time a new committee of safety, composed of members of both Houses, was appointed to join the reformed Committee of Militia of the city in taking all necessary steps to secure "the safety of the parliament and the city."(759) The committee established itself at the Guildhall and commenced preparing lists of disbanded officers willing to serve the parliament.

(M367)

The City in the meantime drafted a reply(760) of its own, and this was despatched to the army on the 12th, after receiving the approval of the House. In it the City disavowed any animosity towards the army. The citizens had only put themselves into a state of defence against unlawful violence. So far were they from opposing the just demands of the army, they had themselves presented a humble address to parliament that these might be granted. If the officers would only keep the army at a distance of thirty miles from London, and so give no occasion for disorder or rise in the price of victuals in the city, it would go far to prove the sincerity of the intentions expressed in their letter.

(M368)

This letter found the army at St. Albans. The deputation that carried it thither returned with two missives, one addressed to the commissioners of the city of London and the other to the mayor, aldermen and Common Council.(761) In the first Fairfax and the "council of war" declared the utter impossibility of removing the army to a distance of thirty miles from London so long as enlistments were being made in the city and suburbs in addition to the usual trained bands and auxiliaries. A stop must be put to this, otherwise the army would have to take the matter in hand. In the second the officers informed the civic authorities that the movements of the army would greatly depend upon the action parliament took with respect to certain "papers" now to be submitted to it.

(M369)

By "papers" the writers were referring to a document styled The Declaration of the Army, which had that morning been placed in the hands of the parliamentary commissioners to be forwarded to the Lords.(762) This declaration sought to establish the right of the army to speak in the name of the English people, and demanded the banishment from office of all who spoke ill of it. To this was added a further demand, viz., the expulsion from the House of those who had proved themselves unworthy of their seats. This last demand was followed by a formal charge laid in the name of the army against eleven members of the House of Commons (of whom Glyn, the city's Recorder, was one) of having prejudiced the liberties of the subject, misrepresented the army and raised forces for a new war.

(M370)

As matters turned out the army had little cause to fear the enlistments that had taken place in the city. An attempt had, it is true, been made to increase the number of the militia, but it had met with poor success. When it became known in the city that the army was moving southward from Royston something like a panic prevailed. The trained bands were called out on pain of death and shops ordered to be shut, Sir John Gayer, the lord mayor, being especially active. But when the companies appeared on parade they were found to be lamentably deficient in numbers, "not ten men of some companies appeared, and many companies none at all but officers."(763) The whole affair was treated as a farce by the on-lookers, who jeered at the troops as they passed; and those who had shut up their shops at the mayor's command soon opened them again. It was clear that the citizens had no intention of being engaged in a "new war." Parliament, finding this to be the case, annulled the order for enlistments and resolved that "the city might upon occasion send letters to the army, so as they did first present them to the House for their approbation."(764)

(M371)

By the 18th June the City was ready with its reply to the last letters of Fairfax and the council of war. This reply had after some hesitation received the sanction of the Commons, and the City was to be thenceforth permitted to correspond with the army on its own responsibility, and without submitting its letters first to parliament.(765) It entirely disavowed any privity or consent of the Common Council in connection with the recent enlistments other than those of the trained bands and auxiliaries. All such enlistments Fairfax was assured had now been stopped, the civic authorities having intervened as requested. The City's readiness to conform to the wishes of the army would, it was hoped, draw forth a fuller assurance that the army intended no prejudice either to parliament or to the city, which had expended so much blood and treasure in its defence, and that it would remove its quarters farther from London.(766)

(M372)

This reply did not give unqualified satisfaction. It was impossible, wrote Fairfax and the council of war (21 June),(767) to remove the army farther from London until parliament should have given a satisfactory reply to the Humble Representation of the dissatisfaction of the Army, the Declaration of the Army, and the Charge made against eleven members of the House of Commons. That the City had done its part in stopping enlistments they readily acknowledged, but information had reached them of underhand workings still going on to enlist men, as a "foundation for a new armie and a new warre." The letter concluded with a reiteration of the writers' intention to do nothing prejudicial to the parliament or the city, for which they professed "a most tender regard." To this letter a postscript was added the following day (22 June) to the effect that since writing the above they had heard that parliament had been again threatened by a mob of reformadoes. It was therefore more necessary than ever to preserve the remnant of liberty that attached to the House.

(M373)

On the 23rd another letter(768) was despatched desiring that some representatives of the city might take up permanent quarters with the army until matters became more settled. Accordingly, on the following day (24 June) the Common Council appointed Alderman Warner, Deputy Pack and Colonel Player to go to Fairfax and the army and remain with them until further orders. They were to give his excellency and the council of war an account of the true state of affairs respecting enlistments, and assure them that the City would take good care that both Houses should be allowed to conduct their affairs in peace and quiet.(769)

(M374)

As soon as the commissioners arrived in camp they were informed that the army was about to change its quarters to Uxbridge. On the 25th Fairfax again took occasion in a letter to the City, dated from Berkhampstead,(770) to enlarge upon the danger that was likely to arise from continued attempts to raise forces in Wales, "besides underhand workings in your city," and from parliament being threatened by the presence of reformadoes. It could not be expected that the kingdom would be safe, or justice done, so long as the accused members sat as judges. "We have written this to you," the letter concluded, "for your satisfaction that so nothing may be done without giving you a perfect account of our intentions and ends, and still to continue our assurance to you that should necessity bring us nearer to the city our former faith given you shall be observed inviolably, there being nothing more (next the good of the kingdom) in our thoughts and desires than the prosperity of your city." It was six o'clock in the evening when this letter was brought to the Common Council, so that there was only time to acknowledge its receipt in a letter, which was on the point of being despatched to the army.(771)

(M375)

As far as the removal of the objectionable members of the House went Fairfax soon had his way. For, notwithstanding the Commons having declared on the 25th that they saw no valid reason for suspending the members, the members themselves solved the difficulty on the following day by asking leave of absence, which the House was willing enough to grant.(772)

(M376)

The bands of reformadoes which infested the city presented a greater difficulty. On the 2nd July the City once more addressed itself to parliament in the form of a petition suggesting a remedy for this grievance, and although the petition reflected strongly upon the mismanagement of affairs by the government, and ventured to prescribe rules for its better regulation, it was more favourably received than others of a far less bold character had formerly been.(773) The temper of the House must indeed have changed when it could listen calmly to charges of malversation of money collected for the disbandment of the army, and to such advice as that parliament should "improve its time" and busy itself only with such laws as might settle the government of the Church, secure the people from unlawful and arbitrary power, and restore his majesty to his just rights and authority, according to the covenant. A few months ago any deputation that dared to address the House in these terms would have been sharply dismissed. Times had changed; and now, instead of a rebuke, the City received thanks for its "constant very good affections," and a day was appointed for taking the petition into consideration.

(M377)

A week later (8 July) Fairfax wrote to the City from Reading—whither he had removed the headquarters of the army (3 July) upon certain concessions being made by parliament—enclosing a copy of a paper which he had forwarded to parliament setting forth the obstacles which still stood in the way of a peaceful settlement, viz., the continued presence of reformadoes in and about London, as well of the army raised for Ireland but not despatched there, and the non-expulsion from the House of those members who had aided the king against parliament.(774) At length parliament gave way. On the 9th the Commons passed an ordinance expelling all members who had favoured the king's cause since the beginning of the war,(775) and the Lords passed another ordinance for all disbanded soldiers to quit London.(776)

(M378)

Matters were not improved by the action of the apprentices of London, who, like the rest of the inhabitants, took sides with king or parliament. Parliament had recently sanctioned a monthly holiday to all apprentices. The first of these holidays fell on Tuesday, the 13th July. Grateful for this concession, a number of lads employed the day in presenting a petition to the Commons calling upon them to uphold their own authority, recall those who had been so unreasonably expelled, protect the clergy, and bring prisoners to a speedy trial.(777) This was more than the royalist apprentices could stand, so the next day they had their turn, and presented a petition to both Houses praying for the suppression of conventicles, the restoration of the king, the maintenance of the covenant, and the disbandment of the army.(778) This last petition roused the indignation of the army, and was one of the motives which led the "agitators"(779) to demand of the council of war an immediate march on London, a step which would most certainly have been undertaken but for the strenuous opposition of Cromwell and Ireton.(780)

(M379)

A week later (21 July) a mob of apprentices, reformadoes, watermen and other disaffected persons met at Skinners' Hall, and one and all signed a Solemn Engagement pledging themselves to maintain the Covenant and to procure the king's restoration to power on the terms offered by him on the 12th May last, viz., the abandonment of the episcopacy for three years and the militia for ten. An endeavour was made to enlist the support of the municipal authorities to this engagement, but a letter from Fairfax (23 July) soon gave them to understand that the army looked on the matter as one "set on foot by the malice of some desperate-minded men, this being their last engine for the putting all into confusion when they could not accomplish their wicked ends by other means."(781) On the 24th both Houses joined in denouncing the Solemn Engagement of the City, their declaration against it being ordered to be published by beat of drum and sound of trumpet through London and Westminster, and within the lines of communication.(782) Anyone found subscribing his name to the engagement after such publication would be adjudged guilty of high treason.

(M380)

In the meanwhile the army council had forwarded (19 July) certain recommendations to the city which they proposed to submit to parliament, among them being one for removing the command of the city's militia out of the hands of the municipal authorities and vesting it in parliament.(783) This proposal was accepted in due course by both Houses.(784)

(M381) (M382) (M383)

On Saturday, the 24th July, the day after the Lords had given their assent to the proposal touching the militia, two petitions were presented to the Common Council praying it to take steps for retaining the militia in the hands of the city committee.(785) Both petitions were well received by the court, and a draft of another petition from the court itself was at once made for presentation to both Houses on the following Monday, together with the petitions presented to the court. The sheriffs and the whole court, or as many of them as could go, with the exception of those actually serving on the militia committee, were ordered to carry the petitions to Westminster. When Monday came an excited crowd of apprentices and others followed the sheriffs and members of the Common Council up to the very doors of the Houses. The few Peers who were in attendance on that day were soon brought to pass a resolution abrogating the recent ordinance.(786) When the turn of the Commons came they made a bolder stand. The consideration of the petitions was frequently interrupted by cries of "Vote! vote!" from the apprentices, who stood at the open doorway with their hats on.(787) Hostile as the city was, the House had no means of restoring order without its aid. The civic authorities showed no particular haste in complying with a request for assistance. The Common Council assembled in the afternoon, but all it did was to agree that the members present should adjourn in a body to Westminster "and use their best endeavour by all gentle ways and means possible they can to appease the said multitude and to free the said House from danger."(788) At length, towards eight o'clock in the evening, the Commons, worn-out and exhausted, yielded to the pressure put upon them and repealed the obnoxious ordinance, after which the mob was content to obey the city councillors and quietly disperse.

(M384) (M385)

The civic authorities having recovered its control over the militia immediately began to put the city in a posture of defence. In this it was assisted by the apprentices offering their services, their lives and fortunes against any power whatsoever that should attack the city. The Common Council thanked them for their good will, and desired them to carry themselves in an orderly and regular way, and endeavour to prevent disorder and tumult.(789) There were already rumours that the army had broken up and was marching towards London. No time was to be lost if the city was to be saved from falling into its hands. The militia committee was ordered to draw up a declaration in justification of all that the civic authorities had done, whilst a letter was sent (28 July) to Fairfax deprecating any attempt by the army to "intermeddle" with the liberties or privileges of the city or to interpose in the matter of the militia, which should be used only in defence of parliament and the city without giving occasion for offence to anyone. He was assured that now the government of the militia had become revested in the city there would be no more disorder.(790) The day on which this letter was despatched had been set apart by the civic authorities as a day of fasting and humiliation. Three ministers were appointed to pray and preach before the mayor, aldermen and common council at the church of St. Michael Bassishaw that God might turn away his wrathful indignation against the city and the nation.(791)

(M386) (M387)

In the meantime Fairfax had been informed of the terrorism brought to bear upon parliament, and wrote (29 July) from Bedford to the Common Council(792) saying that, for his part, he looked upon them, being in authority, as responsible to the kingdom for the recent disturbances. The letter reached the council at eleven o'clock at night. In spite of the lateness of the hour an answer was drawn up(793) disclaiming any responsibility for the riot at Westminster on the ground that at the time the city was without a settled militia and held no commission on which to act. So far from having encouraged the tumult, as many of the council had been reported to have done, they had used their best endeavours to allay it. In conclusion the council declared themselves unconscious of having contributed to the interruption of the "hopeful way of peace and settlement" mentioned in the general's letter, and would accordingly rely upon God for His protection over the city.

(M388)

The time for negotiations had clearly passed away, and there was no other recourse but to repel force by force. The Common Council immediately voted (29 July) a sum of L20,000 on the security of the city seal for the purposes of defence.(794) The trained bands were sent to man the works, and orders were given for a general muster to be held on the following morning of all the inhabitants who were not members of the trained bands but were capable of bearing arms.(795)

(M389)

When parliament re-assembled on the 30th the Speakers of the two Houses and a number of members failed to appear. New Speakers were immediately appointed and the expelled members ordered to take their seats. One of the first acts of the House was to authorise the militia committee to seize all horses within the lines of communication for the defence of parliament and the City, and in accordance with the City's request sent word to Fairfax not to approach within thirty miles of London.(796)

(M390)

On the following day (31 July) the House signified its assent to the appointment of Massey as commander-in-chief of the city forces, in accordance with the desire of the militia committee and the Common Council, and informed a city deputation that it had taken the precaution to secure the Block-houses at Tilbury and Gravesend. On hearing this some of the deputation expressed a hope that the House would also see to Windsor Castle.(797)

(M391) (M392)

The Common Council was getting more and more anxious every day. Fairfax had disdained giving any reply to their last letters, and the army was known to have already advanced as near as Colnbrook. On the afternoon of the 2nd August the council resolved to send another letter to the general, disclaiming any intention on the part of the city to raise a new war. The delivery of this despatch was entrusted to six aldermen and twelve commoners, who were to remain with the army, in addition to the commissioners previously appointed, and use every means in their power to prevent any further bloodshed. If Fairfax complained that the city was engaged in raising a body of horse, they were instructed to throw the responsibility on parliament. If he objected to the drilling of reformadoes, it was again the work of parliament and not of the militia committee. If the commissioners were asked for some assurance that the city would protect parliament in future from all attacks, they were to say that the city would do its best to protect not only the sitting members, but all who should return to the House. If objection was raised to the appointment of Massey, it was to be laid to the sudden approach of the army. Should any question arise as to the recent riot at Westminster, the whole affair was to be ascribed to the absence of any settled authority of the city militia; and lastly, if the matter of the petition and engagement was raked up, the commissioners were to say that the city had not been the promoters.(798) Furnished with these instructions, the commissioners set out for the army, which they found the next day (3 Aug.) drawn up on Hounslow Heath.

(M393)

In the meantime another declaration(799) had been prepared by Fairfax and the council of war recapitulating the course affairs had taken, the changes that had taken place in the government of the city militia, the pressure that had been put upon parliament resulting in the Speakers and many members being driven away, and the continued presence of the eleven members in the House after charges had been brought against them, and signifying the intention of the army to give a welcome to all members of parliament who found themselves unable to take their seats at Westminster with freedom and safety, and to regard them as persons in whom the public trust of the kingdom still remained. It was moreover the purpose of the army to march on London, when it was expected the eleven members would be either delivered up or else kept in custody until they could be brought to trial.

(M394)

As soon as the city commissioners arrived at headquarters this declaration was put into their hands, and with it they hurried back to London in time to lay it before the Common Council the same afternoon. The council was quick to discern that no other course lay open to them but submission. A letter(800) was accordingly despatched to Fairfax the same night, to the effect that, as it appeared from the declaration that the main object of the army drawing so near London was to bring back to a free parliament at Westminster those members who had withdrawn owing to the tumult on the 26th July, the Common Council heartily concurred therein, and no opposition whatever would be shown to the troops appointed to escort the members to Westminster. The City declared itself ready to submit to parliament in everything, and offered its entire force for its protection. In order to remove all cause of offence or misunderstanding, the City's own declaration(801) recently published (30 July) was withdrawn. Under these circumstances the council expressed a hope that the army would be prevented from doing any offence or prejudice to the city or the lines of communication.

(M395)

The City was now all submission. On the 4th August it agreed to a demand to surrender the forts from "Giles Forte" down to the river-side, and the Common Council wrote to Fairfax to that effect, saying that "now, next unto Almighty God, we do rely upon your excellencye's honourable word for our safety, and to be protected from all violence of the soldiery."(802) By that time Fairfax had arrived with the army at Hammersmith, whence he wrote to the City acknowledging their ready compliance in the surrender of the forts, which he would shortly garrison, and assuring them that the army would behave itself in such a manner "as to witness to the world the integrity of their hearts in having no other design but the quiet and happy settlement of a firm and lasting peace."(803)

(M396)

On the 6th August the army entered the lines of fortification and made its way to Westminster, accompanied by the Speakers of both Houses and those members who had betaken themselves to the army after withdrawing from parliament. The civic authorities, taking advantage of the hint offered them, welcomed the army on its approach, the mayor and aldermen going out as far as Hyde Park in coaches, whilst the Common Council betook themselves to Charing Cross by water, and there ranged themselves in view of the soldiers as they passed.(804) Glyn, the Recorder, on whose behalf the City had already addressed Fairfax, was instructed to make a speech with the view of absolving the City from any implication in the tumult of the 26th July.

(M397) (M398)

On the following day (7 Aug.) the citizens made a closer acquaintance with the army as it marched through the heart of the city on its way to Croydon. The words of Fairfax proved true. The troops marched through the streets "with all civility, not doing the least hurt or prejudice." The civic authorities felt so much relief at seeing this unexpected maintenance of discipline that they gave vent to their feelings by asking Fairfax and all the officers to meet them at dinner at Grocers' Hall on Thursday, the 13th, but that day proving inconvenient to the general, who was busy settling the affairs of the army, the dinner was ordered to be put off until the city should again hear from him.(805) The termination of hostilities gave rise to the following poetical ebullition on the part of Mercurius Pragmaticus:—

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

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



CHAPTER XXV.



(M399)

The City was now powerless. The day of reckoning had come, and the City had to pay for the opposition it had displayed towards the army. The Tower was no longer entrusted to the citizens, but was committed by parliament to Fairfax as constable.(806) Diligent search was made for reformadoes with the intention of making an example of some of them,(807) and a committee consisting of members of both Houses was appointed to enquire into the violence recently offered to parliament.(808) The Town Clerk received orders to produce to the committee all such books of the city as contained the Acts and Orders of the Common Council passed and made from the 20th July until the 6th August, as well as the original petitions of which copies had been presented to the Commons on the memorable 26th July, and other documents.(809)

(M400)

The cry raised by the agitators of the army for the expulsion of the eleven members from parliament became so great that six of the number thought it advisable to make their escape to the continent.(810) Of those that remained to face the worst in England, Glyn, the city's Recorder, was one. It was in vain that the Common Council, who upheld the conduct of their officer, interceded with Fairfax and invoked the aid of friends in both Houses on his behalf.(811) He was expelled the House and committed to the Tower, one week only being allowed him to put his papers and affairs in order.(812)

(M401) (M402)

On the 24th August a deputation of the committee of the army waited on the Common Council and demanded an advance of a month's pay (L50,000). The City was to re-imburse itself out of the arrears which the citizens had failed to contribute to the army, and which amounted to over L60,000. The matter was referred to a committee.(813) Ten days elapsed and parliament became impatient for an answer.(814) The City was told (4 Sept.) that its "engagement" of the 21st July had been the occasion of the army approaching London, and its failing to pay the money as it became due was the occasion of keeping the army near London. If the citizens failed to take the necessary steps for the removal of the army, "they must expect to suffer the inconveniences that will come hereby."(815) To this the City replied (6 Sept.) that whatever arrears of assessments were due they were not due from the Common Council as a body, for that had never been assessed, but were due from particular individuals. The council feared that it would be impossible to raise the money on the security offered, but it promised to use its best endeavours to raise it if some better security were found, and to get in arrears of assessments at the same time. As to the "engagement," they called God to witness that the Common Council as a body had had no hand in it; but as soon as a copy of it was received from the army, the council returned answer that "according to their duty they did rest in that which both Houses of Parliament had resolved hereupon." In that resolution the council expressed itself as still remaining and altogether disavowed the "engagement." It even ventured to hope that the House would not permit such a mark of its displeasure to remain on record, reflecting so badly as it did upon the whole City.(816)

(M403) (M404)

This reply being deemed unsatisfactory the Commons sent a more peremptory demand (9 Sept.) to the effect that not only the sum of L50,000 should be advanced by the City before the 18th September, but that also the whole of the arrears, amounting to L64,000, should be levied,(817) and they got Fairfax himself to write and back up their demand for L50,000. The letter of Fairfax was dated from Putney on the 6th September, but it was not communicated to the Common Council until Saturday the 11th, a court which had been specially summoned for the previous day (Friday) having been adjourned for want of a quorum.(818) To this letter was appended the following postscript:—"We understand itts neare a fortnight since the committee applied themselves to you in this busines, and that yet nothing is done, we desire there may be a present performance, the condicon of the armie not admitting any longer delay."

(M405)

To the Commons the City made answer (13 Sept.) that arrears were already being got in as speedily as possible, and asked that the hands of the collectors might be strengthened by additional parliamentary powers.(819) To Fairfax a long letter was sent the same day explaining the reason of the delay that had occurred in satisfying the demand of parliament, and informing him of the steps that were being taken to get in the arrears due to the army.(820)

(M406)

The excuses put forward were considered to be of so unsatisfactory and temporising a character that Fairfax and the General Council of the Army proposed to parliament, that unless the arrears came in by a certain day the general himself should be authorised to levy them and to inflict fines upon delinquents. This withholding the money by the City, said they, was but a scheme for bringing the army into disrepute, and for the purpose of causing disturbance; the Common Council had been ready enough to advance far larger sums to encourage designs against parliament and the army; it might again be induced to show a similar readiness in providing money, without which the army could not disperse, if parliament would but impose a fine upon them as a body, "which money being chargeable so properly upon themselves, we presume they will not have the like excuse not to provide."(821)

(M407) (M408) (M409)

Before any further steps were taken to enforce the loan the committee appointed to investigate the outrage upon parliament in July reported (24 Sept.) to the House that they had discovered sufficient evidence for the impeachment of Sir John Gayer, the mayor, Thomas Cullum, one of the sheriffs, and three aldermen of the city, viz., James Bunce, John Langham and Thomas Adams, on the charge of threatening the Commons with force and raising a fresh war.(822) The House at once accepted the committee's report and ordered the accused parties to the Tower. On the following day it took into consideration the question as to how the city government was to be carried on in the absence of the mayor, and resolved to refer the matter to the rest of the aldermen who happened to be in London at the time, so that the civil government might continue "according to the charters, custom or usage of the city in like cases."(823) But on the 27th it was left to Alderman Pennington, in whom both Houses had confidence, to summon a Court of Aldermen and to direct that a Common Hall should be forthwith called for the purpose of electing someone to serve as mayor "until the 29th October next, or until Sir John Gayer should be either sentenced or acquitted."(824) The customary day for election (29 Sept.) having been appointed a solemn fast, the election took place by order of the Common Council on the 28th September,(825) when Alderman Warner, a strong Independent, was chosen mayor, the approaches to the Guildhall being guarded at the time of the election by a strong body of soldiers.(826) In the absence of the king, and there being no chancellor or lord keeper, the new mayor was presented to the House of Lords (30 Sept.), which approved of the city's choice and gave orders that the customary oaths should be administered to him in the exchequer as well as in the city.(827) On the 6th October an ordinance excluding delinquents from all municipal offices or from voting at municipal elections finally received the approval of both Houses.(828)

(M410)

A letter from Fairfax, dated at Kingston the 19th November,(829) threatening to quarter 1,000 men on the city to assist the municipal authorities in getting in arrears of assessments due to the army, created no little alarm in the city. Whilst the Common Council was deliberating on the matter news was brought that the Earl of Northumberland and a deputation from both Houses were waiting without the Council Chamber desiring to speak with some members of the court. A similar intimation to that contained in the letter of Fairfax had been made to parliament, and both Houses were anxious to urge upon the city the extreme importance of anticipating such a step as that which Fairfax threatened by getting in the arrears of assessments as speedily as possible. This the council expressed itself as very willing to do if parliament would relieve the collectors of certain pains and penalties recently imposed on them, which had only served to render them the more unwilling to execute their duties.(830)

(M411)

A little respite was granted(831) whilst the municipal authorities drew up a reply to Fairfax.(832) They expressed great regret if the arrears due from the City to the army, or anything else connected with the City, should be the cause of the army continuing so long in the vicinity of London, to the great prejudice if not to the ruin of many. They were doing all they could to get in the arrears, and they called the general's attention to certain proposals which they were about to submit to parliament. They concluded by assuring Fairfax that the City was determined to remain faithful to parliament and the kingdom, and at the same time to cultivate good relations with the army.

(M412)

The City's proposals, which were submitted to parliament on the 22nd November, met with little favour in the House of Commons. The deputation presenting them was somewhat bluntly informed that parliament had done what it had judged fit in the matter of the City's arrears; that it was much dissatisfied with the slowness with which they were being got in; that the City was setting a very bad example to others which might have ill consequences; that the commands of parliament were expected to be obeyed, and that prompt measures ought to be taken by the City to carry them out.(833)

(M413)

Two days later (24 Nov.) Fairfax wrote to the City from Windsor,(834) whither the army had removed as soon as the king's escape (11 Nov.) from Hampton Court did away with the necessity of its presence in the immediate neighbourhood of London, informing the authorities that as parliament had raised an objection to his sending troops to the city for the purpose of getting in arrears, he was content to wait and see the result of parliamentary action in the matter and whether the City's recent promises bore fruit or not. Should the result prove unsatisfactory, he doubted not the consequences would be sad, "and that not more to the parliament, kingdom or army than to the city itself."

(M414)

On the 1st December Alderman Bide, who had narrowly escaped impeachment with Gayer and the rest, and who was now sheriff, presented a petition to the Commons on behalf of the City. This petition, which had been ordered to be prepared as far back as the 6th November—that is to say, before Charles's escape from Hampton Court and the withdrawal of the army to Windsor—after expressing the City's humble submission to parliament and its appreciation of the many benefits it had derived from the course which parliament had followed, prayed the House to take steps for the removal of the army to a greater distance from the city and for the strict observance of the Covenant, and concluded by asking for the release of their Recorder and of the aldermen recently committed to prison.(835) The Journal of the House records nothing more than the formal answer which the Commons returned to the petition: their thanks to the City for expressions of goodwill, their readiness to consider such matters referred to in the petition as had not been already taken in hand, and their assurance that speedy justice should be done to those imprisoned.(836) But from other sources it appears that the petition created considerable ill-feeling in the House, and that it was only after Vane had threatened to bring the army back again that the petition was practically rejected. Had the petitioners succeeded in their object it was expected that the Presbyterians in parliament and in the city would have followed up their victory by restoring the expelled members and preparing for a personal treaty with Charles without imposing upon him any test whatever.(837)

(M415)

In the city the royalist cause was gaining ground every day. The merchant was tired of the disquietude that had so long prevailed, condemning him to frequent calls upon his purse whilst preventing him replenishing it by his commercial pursuits. He was ready to support any party that would promise him peace and quiet. "The citty is subject still to be ridden by every party and wilbe so rather than endanger trade and stock," wrote a royalist in March of this year.(838) The more youthful inhabitant was disgusted with the closing of the playhouses,(839) whilst the shopkeeper was indignant at having to close his shop on Christmas-day for fear of a riot, notwithstanding his having parliamentary sanction for opening it. The city apprentices resisted the interference of the lord mayor and his officers who would have put a stop to their decorating a pump in Cornhill with evergreens at Christmas, and not only did ministers who had been deprived for malignancy occupy pulpits in various city churches on that day, but they used the Book of Common Prayer.(840)

(M416)

The mayor, who owed his election to pressure of parliament, and who was on that account never really popular in the city, unwittingly assisted the royal cause by another act of injudicious meddling. On Sunday, the 9th April, 1648, he sent a detachment of trained bands to interfere with the amusement of some boys playing tip-cat in Moorfields. A crowd of apprentices and others took the part of the boys, and attacked the trained bands, getting possession of their arms and colours. With these they marched, some three or four thousand strong, along Fleet Street and the Strand, raising the shout of "Now for King Charles!" and intending to make their way to Whitehall, but before they reached Charing Cross they were scattered by a troop of cavalry quartered at the King's Mews, and for a time the disturbance was at an end. During the night, however, the apprentices again arose and made themselves masters of Ludgate and Newgate. Laying their hands on whatever ammunition they could find, and summoning their friends by drums belonging to the trained bands, they proceeded to attack the mansion of the unpopular mayor. Whilst a messenger was hurrying off to Fairfax for military aid, the mayor, the sheriffs and the Committee of Militia had to repel as best they could the attacks of the mob, who kept firing through the windows of the lord mayor's house. At last the troops arrived, and were admitted into the city by Aldersgate. They followed up the rioters to the Leadenhall, where arms were being collected. Resistance to a disciplined force soon proved useless. The ringleaders were taken and led off to prison, and the crowd was dispersed, but not without some little bloodshed.(841) The affair made the city poorer by the sum of L300, that amount being voted by the Court of Aldermen out of the city's cash to the officers and soldiers sent by Fairfax to suppress the riot.(842)

(M417)

On the 13th April the city authorities submitted to both Houses an account of what had recently taken place, which the Houses ordered to be printed. Parliament accepted their assurance that they were in no way responsible for the outbreak, and thanked the mayor and all others concerned for the part they had taken in its suppression. A day was appointed for a public thanksgiving for deliverance from the threatened danger. The Tower garrison was augmented and the city's chains removed, in view of a recurrence of danger, whilst a commission of Oyer and Terminer was issued for the punishment of those implicated in the late riot.(843)

(M418) (M419)

Six months and more had now passed since Gayer, the late deposed mayor, and his brother aldermen had been committed to prison, and no steps had as yet been taken to bring them to trial. At length articles of impeachment were drawn up by the Commons and sent up to the Lords (15 April),(844) charging him with having on the 26th July last past, in conjunction with Thomas Adams, John Langham, James Bunce, aldermen of the city and others, "maliciously and traitorously plotted and endeavoured with open force and violence, and with armed power, to compel and enforce the Lords and Commons then assembled in parliament at Westminster to alter the laws and ordinances by parliament established for the safety and weal of the realm; and likewise maliciously and traitorously raised and levied war against the king, parliament and kingdom." Gayer took exception to the jurisdiction of the House, and when brought before the Lords and ordered to kneel at the bar as a delinquent refused to do anything of the kind, for which contempt he was fined L500. After hearing the articles of impeachment read, he declared that he disavowed and abhorred the offences with which he was charged, and asked to be furnished with a copy of them. He further desired the assistance of counsel and time to answer them, both of which were allowed.(845) When his brother aldermen and fellow prisoners appeared before the Lords to hear their several charges read to them and were ordered to kneel as delinquents, they too refused. Like Gayer they were severally fined(846) and relegated to the Tower, whence they had been brought. There the four aldermen remained prisoners until a crisis arrived in the following June, when the Commons, fearing to alienate the city at a time when the enemy was almost at its gates, declared (3 June) that they would proceed no further with the charges.(847) The Lords thereupon ordered (6 June) their discharge and their impeachments to be vacated.(848)

(M420)

Gayer did not live long to enjoy his liberty. By his will, dated the 19th December following his discharge, he left a sum of L200 for the purchase of lands or tenements the rents of which were to be devoted to the preaching of a sermon on the 16th October of every year in the church of St. Catherine Cree in commemoration of the testator's escape from a lion whilst travelling in Africa. The sermon is preached to this day and is commonly known as the "Lion Sermon."(849)

(M421)

In the meanwhile matters assumed a gloomy aspect for the Independents, culminating in the news that an army was in course of being raised in Scotland. The object for which this step was being taken was declared to be the establishment of the Presbyterian form of religion in England, the suppression of heresy and the Book of Common Prayer, the disbandment of Fairfax's army of sectaries, and the opening of negotiations with Charles, who was to be brought for the purpose to the neighbourhood of London.(850)

(M422)

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

(M423) (M424)

On the 24th April the mayor informed the citizens assembled in Common Council that he had received information from one John Everard of certain matters which the informer pretended to have overheard at Windsor greatly affecting the city. He had examined Everard on oath, and the result of the examination being then openly read, it was resolved to lay the same before parliament.(851) Accordingly, on the 27th, Everard's information, which was nothing more nor less than a threat which he had overheard some officers make of disarming and plundering the city, was laid before both Houses, together with a petition from the municipal authorities that the chains which had been recently removed from the streets of the city by order of parliament might be restored for the purpose of defence, that the army should be removed to a greater distance, and that Skippon might be placed in command of the city's forces.(852) There was nothing to be gained by opposing the city's wishes in the matter of replacing the chains and the appointment of Skippon, so that these concessions were readily made, but the question of removing the army could only be decided with the concurrence of the army itself.

(M425)

A member of the Common Council, Philip Chetwyn, was charged with having publicly declared that Skippon's appointment was not the real wish of the court, and that "seaven lies" had been voted by the court on the 11th April last.(853) Chetwyn gave an emphatic denial to the first charge, and eventually both charges were allowed to drop. The council at the same time passed a resolution to the effect that whenever a charge should in future be made by one member of the court against another, and the court take cognisance of it, the charge itself and the names of the accuser and the accused should be expressed in the order of the court.(854)

(M426) (M427)

The City lost no time in availing itself of the assent of parliament to replace the chains in the streets from which they had been removed. They went further than this. From Saturday night to the following Monday night (28-30 May) the gates and posterns were ordered to be kept closed and guarded, the names of all lodgers were to be taken, vagrant soldiers were to be ordered to their quarters, whilst servants and children were to be confined indoors, except on the Sunday that intervened, when they might be escorted to church by their parents or masters.(855) The reason for these precautions was that there had been unmistakable signs of the army getting out of hand. An unexpected danger, the revolt of the whole of South Wales, which meant nothing less than the renewal of the war, served, however, to consolidate the ranks.

(M428)

With Wales up in arms for the king and the north of England threatened with a Scottish invasion the army had enough to do without keeping a forcible hold on London. The City, therefore, had to be left to itself, and to be kept in good humour by concessions rather than by force until the trouble had passed away. The story goes that before Cromwell proceeded to quell the rebellion in Wales the Council of War resolved that the City should have all they asked or desired, "there being no other way for the present to quiet them." It would be time enough when the enemy had been beaten to "make the City pay for all."(856)

(M429)

On the 1st May Fairfax wrote to the Commons from Windsor announcing his intention to despatch Cromwell into Wales and to withdraw the regiments quartered at Whitehall and Charing Cross, leaving the protection of parliament to the London forces under the command of Skippon. The same day that the Commons received this letter (2 May) they communicated with the Common Council of the city, who were delighted at the execution of their long expressed wishes that the army should be removed from the vicinity of London and at the compliment paid them by Fairfax in placing the protection of parliament in their hands. The sum of L600 a year was voted to Skippon for his services, a sum just double that allowed him on his appointment as sergeant-major-general in January, 1642.(857) Fairfax wrote him a friendly letter complimenting him on his past services to parliament and the kingdom and expressing regret at parting from him. He at the same time disengaged Skippon from all ties to himself and the army under his command, and wished him much happiness in his new sphere.(858)

(M430)

The civic authorities were not slow to take advantage of the turn of affairs. If they were to be responsible for the protection of parliament and the peace of the city, surely, they reasoned, the appointment of their own Committee of Militia should be left in their hands as well as the custody of the Tower. Both Houses accordingly were approached with petitions to this effect (9 May).(859) The Lords hesitated,(860) but the Commons at once acquiesced.(861) On the 16th the Commons had under consideration the several names of persons chosen (12th May) by the Common Council to serve on the Militia Committee,(862) and agreed to the City's nomination of Lieutenant-Colonel West to be lieutenant of the Tower.(863)

(M431)

On the 19th a deputation of Lords and Commons waited on the Common Council and informed them that both Houses had assented to their wishes. In return for this favour parliament expected that the City would secure them from tumult and insurrections, and "did now put themselves really and truly into the hands of the city." The court was at the same time assured that parliament meditated no alteration of the fundamental government of the kingdom by king, lords and commons, that it was resolved to stand by the solemn league and covenant and preserve the treaties between England and Scotland.(864)

(M432) (M433)

Once more at an important crisis in England's history all depended upon the attitude of the city of London. "The key of the situation was in the hands of the city, which had it in its power to paralyse the army by simply maintaining an attitude of passive resistance."(865) But great as was the detestation in which the army was held by the majority of citizens, their distrust of the royalists, should they regain the upper hand, was greater. Under the circumstances the City resolved to maintain its attitude of standing by parliament, and gave its assurance to both Houses that it was ready "to live and die with them according to the solemn league and covenant."(866)

(M434)

Four days later (23 May) the City presented a petition to both Houses in which, after acknowledging the joy and comfort they had derived from the recent announcement made to them that parliament was resolved to make no constitutional change in the government of the kingdom by king, lords and commons, and other matters conducive to peace, the citizens prayed that the Houses would release their Recorder, the aldermen and the rest of the citizens that were still imprisoned in the Tower. The Commons replied by at once ordering the release of Glyn and nine other prisoners, and promised to take into consideration the release of the aldermen, which was a more serious business, in a week's time.(867)

(M435)

Parliament was the more anxious to conciliate the City inasmuch as a royalist rising had already taken place in Kent (21 May). On the 26th May a deputation from the Commons waited on the Common Council with a request for an immediate advance of L6,000. A portion of the money was to be devoted to the payment of Fairfax's soldiers, "to enable them to march out," and give place to the city's own force under Colonel West. The money was at once voted,(868) and Fairfax, after giving orders for securing Southwark, proceeded to occupy Blackheath, the place appointed for the rendezvous of the insurgents.

(M436)

Whilst Fairfax was engaged in putting down the rising in Kent the royalist party in the city was not inactive. On the 30th May a petition was presented to the Common Council, purporting to emanate from "divers well affected citizens and other inhabitants" of the city, desiring the court to approach parliament with the view (inter alia) of bringing about a personal treaty with the king and appeasing the Kentish insurgents "by way of accommodation and not by any engagement in blood."(869) Contrary to its usual practice the court consented to forward the petition to both Houses, which it did on the 1st June, with the result that a deputation from parliament waited on the court that same afternoon with a verbal reply. The precise terms of the reply are not recorded. We are only told that after a "full and large declaration" made by the parliamentary members, the council expressed itself as completely satisfied.(870)

(M437)

An appeal was made the same day (1 June) by a certain section of the inhabitants of the city for a Common Hall to be summoned. The appeal was made to the Common Council. The court took time to consider the matter. After consulting the law-officers it was eventually agreed not to accede to the request, on the plea that, although it was in the power of the court to assemble the livery for the election of public officers and other purposes as might be necessary for the public good of the city, it was neither fit nor convenient to summon them at the present juncture on account of the present distraction and distempers of the city and places adjacent.(871)

(M438) (M439)

Two days later (3 June), when a deputation from parliament again appeared before the Common Council with the news that the insurgents were making their way to Blackheath under the leadership of the Earl of Norwich, otherwise known as "Lord Goring," and asked that the Militia Committee might speedily raise what force it could for the protection of parliament and the city, the opportunity was again taken of pressing the Houses for the release of the aldermen, an act which they were assured "would give good satisfaction to the city and very much quiet their minds."(872) That same afternoon the Commons resolved to proceed no further with the impeachments of the aldermen, and on the 6th they were set free by order of the House of Lords.(873)

(M440)

Parliament could not well have done otherwise, unless they wished to lose their main support—the support of the City; for although the Earl of Norwich found the city's gates shut against him, as was to be expected with Warner occupying the mayoralty chair and Skippon in command of the trained bands, there was, as we have seen, a considerable party in the city who favoured the royalist cause and would gladly have trusted Charles if they dared.

(M441)

Nor were the municipal authorities themselves adverse to the restoration of the king, but such restoration must be effected on their own terms. Again and again they called upon parliament to open a personal treaty with Charles. On the 22nd June the Common Council directed a petition to both Houses to be drafted, thanking them for setting the aldermen at liberty, and praying them to allow the king to come to some house near parliament where negotiations might be carried on.(874) The petition was submitted to both Houses on the 27th June, and was well received.(875) The Commons, in reply, declared that they were using their best endeavours in the interest of peace, and they had already appointed a committee to consider what further offers could be made to the king, as well as of "time, place and other circumstances for convenience of address to be made to his majesty."(876)

(M442)

A week later (5 July) the Common Council introduced to the House of Lords another petition, in which the officers of the trained bands of the city made a similar request for a personal treaty to be made with the king in London, and not only repeated a former request made by the City itself that the London regiments might be associated with those of the adjacent counties, but asked that the force thus formed might be furnished with a contingent of cavalry. To all these requests the Lords gave a ready assent.(877) The Commons, however, to whom a similar petition was presented the same day, whilst signifying their assent to the amalgamation of the trained bands, left the other matters for further consideration, and appointed a committee to confer with the Common Council and the officers of the trained bands the following afternoon.(878)

(M443)

The question to be considered was the steps to be taken for the security of the king's person in the event of his taking up his quarters in London for the purpose of negotiating. The Common Council, for their part, undertook in such an event to venture their lives and fortunes in defending his majesty against all violence according to the covenant, and appointed a committee to confer with the parliamentary committee and with the military officers as to the best means of enabling them to carry out this engagement.(879)

(M444)

By the 11th July the committee was in a position to report to the Common Council the result of the conference so far as it had gone.(880) The parliamentary committee had propounded seven questions bearing upon the terms of the City's engagement to protect the king against violence pending negotiations, and its intentions as to the king's person in the event of such negotiations falling through. To these the city committee had made replies (now submitted to the council for approval), and had added certain propositions to the parliamentary committee to enable the City the better to carry out its engagement. The first two of these related to the amalgamation and increase of the militia; the third asked that, pending negotiations, no force should be allowed to come within thirty miles of London, and that riot and tumult raised in the city during that period after proclamation made should be met with a death penalty; and the last that if parliament so willed no one who had ever taken up arms against it should be allowed within thirty miles of London without leave. Both the answers and proposals of the city committee were alike approved by the council, and a house-to-house visitation was organised for the purpose of getting names subscribed to the city's engagement.

(M445)

The demand for a death penalty on rioters in the city was not unwarranted. There were not wanting signs of disaffection even in the ranks of the city's militia. So recently as Saturday, the 8th July, the Speaker himself, whilst being escorted to his coach by a company of soldiers, had been insulted by one in the ranks, who cried out to the surrounding mob "that now he was out of their charge they [the mob] should tear him in pieces."(881) A few days later (12 July) some prisoners of war were rescued in the streets of London by the mob, and the lord mayor received a sharp reprimand for not keeping better order in the city.(882) The Commons, in consequence, resolved that no more prisoners should be brought to London.(883)

(M446) (M447)

It was known that about this time secret enlistments were being carried on in the city, and that horses were being despatched out of the city by twos and threes to assist the royalists. It was also reported that an attempt was about to be made to seize the Tower.(884) The majority of the inhabitants, nevertheless, remained faithful to parliament, and the Speaker took the opportunity of a petition addressed to both Houses (12 July) from "divers well-affected magistrates, citizens, ministers and other inhabitants" of the city and parts adjacent, praying them to enter into no treaty without proper assurances for the maintenance of the covenant,(885) to compliment the aldermen and great magistrates of the city on their courage and fidelity. It was a petition—the Speaker said, addressing the deputation—for peace, and such peace as the House and all honest men desired. It had come at a most seasonable time, when parliament was the object of much abuse and men dared not own their true opinions. The petition was the more valuable from the quality of the petitioners—"divers aldermen and great magistrates of the city of London, many reverend ministers, who have always held close to the cause, and others, the gentlemen of birth and quality that have less valued their blood than the hazard and loss of so noble an undertaking." On behalf of the Commons he returned them real and hearty thanks, assuring them that the House approved of the petition and the matter thereof, and that in prosecuting the peace it would take care to preserve the religion, laws and liberties of all those who have been constant to these ends.(886)

(M448)

On the 18th July the City caused two petitions to be presented to both Houses, one of which asked for an impost to be laid on Newcastle coals, and the other repeated the old request for an amalgamation of the city's militia with that of the neighbouring counties. To the first no answer was vouchsafed. To the second the Commons replied that the matter had already been referred to a committee; whilst the Lords directed an ordinance to be drawn up pursuant to the wishes of the petitioners. The petition relative to the militia was met by a counter-petition from "divers well-affected citizens of London and inhabitants in and about the same," the authors of which the Common Council wished to discover.(887)

(M449)

In the meantime enlistments of horse and foot had been to such an extent carried on clandestinely in the city, under pretext of the parliamentary powers granted to Skippon, that the municipal authorities began to get nervous. Servants and apprentices were reported to have enlisted one another at all hours of the night, and to have issued spurious commissions. Against the continuation of such proceedings, which threatened the city with danger, the authorities petitioned both Houses (22 July). The Lords consented to revoke a commission granted to Skippon to raise a troop of cavalry for the protection of parliament, independently of the Committee of Militia; the Commons, on the other hand, determined to let the order stand.(888) The civic authorities thereupon yielded to the entreaties of the inhabitants of the city, and resolved (27 July) to raise a troop of horse on their own account to be subject to the orders of the Militia Committee alone. On the 29th they again petitioned the Commons.(889) That day being Saturday the House appointed a committee to confer with the Common Council on the following Monday afternoon, and undertook to put a stop to irregular enlistments in the future.(890)

(M450)

When Monday came a deputation from the Commons duly appeared and explained the reasons for continuing Skippon's commission and the measures that were to be taken to prevent irregular enlistments. Several letters were read for the purpose of demonstrating the dangers with which the country was still threatened, among them being one from a royalist agent in London, in which the writer informed his correspondent of the progress of the royalist cause in the city. "We are in this city," he declared, "generally right; only Skippon makes some disturbance by listing horse and foot, which, though inconsiderable to what we have listed for us, yet we hope not only to null his listing, but out him from his being general of this city. The Lords have already done something, but wait for some further encouragement from hence, to which purpose the Common Council are about framing a petition."(891) The reading of this letter appears to have had a diametrically opposite effect upon the members of the council than was anticipated, for they still insisted upon the withdrawal of Skippon's authority under which the irregular enlistments were carried on. The Commons, however, refused to be moved from their former resolution.

(M451)

On the 2nd August a letter from the Prince of Wales, who had recently arrived with a fleet off Yarmouth, was read to the Common Council. The letter had been forwarded to its destination by the company of merchant adventurers, and contained a copy of the prince's declaration to the effect that he was approaching the shores of England to settle religion in accordance with the terms of the agreement between his father and the Scots, to restore the king to his throne, and to bring about an act of oblivion and the disbandment of all armies.(892) He had recently seized several merchantmen in the Downs—one alone being valued at L20,000—and he asked the Common Council to pay him that sum to assist him in his enterprise, promising on receipt of the money to set the vessels free.(893)

(M452)

On hearing this letter and declaration read the council forthwith appointed a committee to draw up a petition to parliament, in which they repeated their request for a speedy personal treaty with the king so as to put an end to the present troubles and miseries. After sending for the original letter the Commons directed (3 Aug.) the City to make no reply to the prince until the House took further order, and the next day declared all who aided the prince, by sea or by land, to be traitors and rebels.(894)

(M453)

Disappointed at the way in which the news of the arrival of his fleet had been received by the City, the prince lent a more ready ear to proposals from Scotland, and on the 16th August declared his acceptance of the terms offered. It was still believed by many that as soon as he should raise his standard in the north the Presbyterians in the city would openly avow themselves in his favour, and rumour had gone so far as to name the commanders of their forces. "The lords and the city," wrote one of Rupert's correspondents, "understand each other, as also the reformadoes, that are considerable—8,000 in number."(895)

(M454)

On the 29th August the City was asked by a committee of the House of Commons to send money, corn or biscuit to the value of L20,000 for the relief of the army in the north, and to take active measures for getting in all arrears of assessments due for the army of Fairfax.(896) But although the City so far acceded to this request as to take immediate steps for getting in arrears of assessments, recent events—and notably the successes of Cromwell and Fairfax at Preston and Colchester, as well as the seizure of London ships and interference with London trade—had rendered the citizens anxious that parliament should come to an understanding with the army.(897)

(M455)

On the 4th September a deputation from parliament appeared before the Common Council and asked for a loan of L10,000, to be paid by weekly instalments of L2,000, to enable the House to proceed with negotiations with the king. The nature of the security to be given for the loan was practically left in the hands of the city provided it lay within the power of parliament. The request was unanimously granted, bonds under the city's seal being offered as security to those willing to make advances.(898)

(M456)

The prospect of negotiations being opened at all with the king was distasteful to the radical party or "Levellers" in the city, and a petition was laid before the Commons on the 11th September calling upon them as the supreme authority in the realm to shake off all control exercised over them by the House of Lords, and to render kings, queens, nobles and all persons alike subject to the law of the land. The petitioners finally asked the House to consider seriously "whether the justice of God be likely to be satisfied or His yet continuing wrath appeased by an Act of Oblivion."(899)

(M457)

This petition had little effect upon the House, and preparations were rapidly pushed forward. Fifteen commissioners were appointed, of whom Glyn, the Recorder, was one,(900) to go to Newport in the Isle of Wight for the purpose of opening negotiations with Charles, who was allowed to take up his quarters in that little town on parole. The commission held its first sitting on the 18th September, it being understood that negotiations were to continue for forty days and no more. They, however, continued to be carried on long after the allotted time.

(M458)

Early in November parliament was again pressed for money and was forced to apply to the City for a further loan of L4,000 to enable it to proceed with the "Treaty." It at the same time complained of the inadequate guard provided by the City for the protection of the Houses. The guard, it was said, consisted of hired men, and not citizens, who often quitted their posts when on duty. The subject led to an acrimonious debate in the Common Council. As soon as Alderman Gibbs, who was a member of the Militia Committee, began to suggest a remedy for the evil, he was interrupted by Philip Chetwyn, whose plain speaking had once before created trouble, and who now boldly charged the alderman and others with telling "many long stories to put the city in fear without cause." He declared that at a former council the alderman had acted in a similar way, "pretending that the city was in great danger of having their throats cut whereas there was no such cause." This speech brought other members of the council on their legs in defence of the alderman, who declared that this was not the first time that Chetwyn had done him wrong, and asked the court to right him. What he had said at a former council about the danger the city was in was nothing more than what the Militia Committee had authorised him to say, and this statement was corroborated by other members of the committee then present. Certain questions were thereupon put to the vote, when it was decided (1) that Chetwyn had done the alderman a wrong by his speech, (2) that what the alderman had spoken at a former council was warranted by the Militia Committee, and (3) that the action by the committee on that occasion had been for the safety of the city, which was then in danger.(901) On the 27th November the Militia Committee reported to the council the steps taken to satisfy parliament that better protection would be afforded to the Houses in the future.(902)

(M459)

Before the end of November the army, now at Windsor, had entirely lost patience both with king and parliament, and on the last day of the month issued a declaration to the effect that it was about to appeal "unto the extraordinary judgment of God and good people." The existing parliament must be dissolved to give place to a succession of reformed parliaments. Those members who agreed with the army were invited to leave the House and join the army to form a kind of provisional government until elections for a new parliament could take place, when the army would willingly disband.

(M460)

That same night (30 Nov.) whilst the mayor was going the rounds inspecting the city watches a letter was put into his hands by a trumpeter of Fairfax, addressed to the lord mayor, aldermen and common council.(903) Strictly speaking, the mayor had no right to open a letter thus addressed. Reynardson, however, who had not long been in the mayoralty chair, and who afterwards displayed strong royalist proclivities, thought otherwise and broke the seal; a proceeding which received the approval of the Common Council specially summoned for the next day (1 Dec.)(904) The letter announced the general's intention of quartering his army on London, and demanded a sum of L40,000 out of the arrears of assessment to be paid to the soldiers by the following night.(905)

(M461)

The council at once decided to lay the letter before both Houses, and in the meantime took steps for the immediate payment of an instalment of L10,000 to Fairfax, to whom a deputation was despatched to assure him that the City would do its utmost to execute his commands.(906) Both Houses assented to Fairfax being provided with the money demanded, the Commons giving the City liberty to communicate direct with the general by committee or letter as they should think fit.(907)

(M462)

In spite of a request by the Commons that he would keep at a distance, lest his approach should involve danger, Fairfax entered London with his troops on Saturday, the 2nd December, and took up his quarters at Whitehall. On Wednesday, the 6th—the day on which Colonel Pride administered his famous "purge" to the House of Commons—a letter from the general was read in the Common Council in which he desired that 3,800 beds might be sent to Whitehall by ten o'clock the next morning for the use of the soldiers, and also sufficient furniture for lodging. The beds and furniture were to be afterwards returned.(908)

(M463)

The Common Council immediately nominated a committee to go to Fairfax and to beg him to excuse the City furnishing the beds as desired. The committee was further instructed to inform his lordship that if he would obtain a warrant from the Committee of the Army to the Treasurers at War for the payment of L10,000, the City would be prepared to pay over the whole sum of L40,000 (which ought to have been already paid over) by the next day (7 Dec). There was one other matter. A rumour had reached the city that it was intended to arrest Major-General Browne, who at the time was serving as one of the sheriffs of London, and the committee were directed to point out to his excellency the "inconveniences" likely to arise from such a proceeding.(909)

(M464)

Fairfax paid little regard to what might or might not be convenient for the City, and on the 12th Browne was arrested, together with Waller, Massey and others, on the charge of having joined in an invitation to the Scots to invade England, although it was difficult to find evidence against them. The Court of Aldermen immediately interested themselves in endeavouring to obtain Browne's release, guaranteeing to Fairfax, if he would set the sheriff free, to produce him whenever required, and vouching for his "civil and quiet deportment" in the city.(910)

(M465)

Finding that the money (L40,000) which he had ordered the City to furnish was not forthcoming on the day appointed, Fairfax notified the Common Council by letter (8 Dec.) that he had given orders for seizing the treasury at Goldsmiths' Hall and Weavers' Hall. The sum of L27,400 was accordingly seized at the latter Hall; and this sum Fairfax intended to keep until the L40,000 should be paid. When that was done he would withdraw his troops, and not before. On learning this the Common Council sent a deputation to inform his excellency that, if certain concessions were made, the City itself would be responsible for repayment of the money seized, and that arrears should be got in as speedily as possible. At the same time Fairfax was asked to withdraw his troops from the city.(911)

(M466)

To these proposals Fairfax replied by letter the same day,(912) that if the City would cause all the money charged on the City for the army up to the 25th March next ensuing, and still in arrear, to be brought in within fourteen days, he would repay the money taken from Weavers' Hall and would withdraw his troops. Their presence in the city he affected to conceive would facilitate the collection of the money. On the receipt of this letter the civic authorities renewed their exertions to hasten the getting in of assessments.(913)

(M467)

It was thought that a saving might be effected by the discontinuance of the trained bands in their duty of guarding the city. They were known to be very remiss in their duties, piling their arms and leaving them in charge of some few of their number whilst the others went away and amused themselves. They had thus become a laughing-stock to the better disciplined soldiers of the army, and brought discredit on the city. The question was eventually left to the discretion of the Militia Committee to continue the guards or not as it might think fit.(914)

(M468)

In spite, however, of every effort the money demanded by Fairfax was not forthcoming, and the maintenance of his troops quartered in the city became an intolerable burden. On Saturday, the 6th January, 1649, a fortnight's pay, or, L19,000, was due to the soldiers, and unless the money was found within four days Fairfax threatened to quarter his whole army upon the city. A house-to-house visitation for getting in arrears was organised. A short extension of time for payment to the army was asked for and obtained. Ministers were charged to exhort their parishioners on the intervening Sunday to pay up their arrears. The money was eventually advanced by the Treasurers at War on the personal security of the aldermen and wealthier inhabitants of each ward.(915)

(M469)

The feeling of detestation for the army and of inclination towards the king had in the meanwhile been growing stronger in the city day by day. A royalist lord mayor, in the person of Abraham Reynardson, had recently been elected, and it was feared by parliament—or the Rump, as it came to be called—that the same royalist proclivities would show themselves in the elections to the Common Council which were to take place on St. Thomas's day (21 Dec.). An ordinance was accordingly passed on the 18th against the election of "malignants" to the city council. This ordinance was amended two days later (20 Dec.) in such a way as to exclude every citizen who had subscribed to an engagement for a personal treaty with the king.(916) It was in vain that representation was made to parliament of the difficulty of getting a council together under such a restriction. The House was inflexible and ordered the election to be at once proceeded with. The election accordingly took place, but when the members came to take their seats the mayor forbade them unless they were prepared to take the oath of allegiance, which had not yet been abolished. This action on the part of Reynardson being reported to the House, it directed him (5 Jan., 1649) to forthwith summon the Common Council together, but to suspend the taking of oaths until further order.(917) It at the same time gave orders for the city chains to be removed and stored in the Leadenhall, the easier to put down any disturbance that might arise in consequence of the recent elections.(918) The effect of the "purge" thus administered to the city's parliament was soon to be seen.