(M470)

On the 13th January, by which day a High Court of Justice had been especially established for the king's trial and all royalists had been banished the city by order of Fairfax,(919) the new Common Council began to assert itself. The court had been summoned to meet at eight o'clock in the morning (not an unusually early hour in those days), but the mayor did not put in an appearance until eleven, and then was only accompanied by two aldermen, the number necessary to form a court. It was soon seen that there was something wrong. The mayor refused to acknowledge the authority of the council or to allow the minutes of the last court to be read in accordance with custom. The council took but little notice of this and passed on to the next business. This was a petition to the House of Commons, drawn up and approved by a committee,(920) asking the House to execute justice impartially and vigorously "upon all the grand and capital authors, contrivers of and actors in the late wars against parliament and kingdom, from the highest to the lowest," and to take steps, as the supreme power of the nation, for the preservation of peace and the recovery of trade and credit.(921) Such a petition was so diametrically opposed to the sentiments of the royalist lord mayor and his brother aldermen that they got up and left the court rather than allow the petition to be sanctioned by their presence. Strictly speaking there was no longer any court. Nevertheless an attempt was made to get the Common Sergeant and then the Town Clerk(922) to put the question, but they refused to do so in the absence of the mayor and aldermen, and they too got up and left the council chamber. Thus left to themselves the members of the court voted Colonel Owen Rowe into the chair. The petition was then three times read, and after due deliberation unanimously agreed to, twenty members of the council being nominated to carry it up to the House, together with a narrative of the proceedings that had taken place that day in court.(923)

(M471)

In submitting the petition to the Commons on the 15th January, Colonel Robert Tichborne, a member of the council, explained the reason why the petition varied in title from other petitions from the city, purporting, as it did, to come from the commons of the city alone, and not from the mayor, aldermen and commons, and with the petition presented a narrative of the proceedings that had taken place in the council two days before.(924) The House readily accepted the explanation (as was only to be expected), and declared that the petition and narrative might and should of right be entered on the records of the Common Council. "As to the Common Council of the city of London, and so owned by this House"—the Speaker went on to say—"they take notice of the extraordinary affections long since and often expressed by many particular persons, if not by every member of your present body, especially of that true and publick principle which carried you on to the framing of this petition, and to your going through with it, notwithstanding the opposition and withdrawing of your mayor and aldermen." The Speaker assured the deputation that the House fully approved of the members continuing to sit as a Common Council in the absence or dissent of the mayor or aldermen, or both together, and concluded by saying that both the petition and narrative would receive speedy consideration.(925)

(M472)

On the 23rd January two officers from the army waited upon the Court of Aldermen and informed the members that the sum of L4,000 out of the L19,000 formerly demanded for the army was still in arrear. The money was in the hands of the Treasurers at War, but they refused to pay it over until they had received their security from the wards according to agreement. Fairfax pressed for an immediate payment, otherwise he would be under the necessity of quartering troops of horse and foot upon those wards which had failed to give the promised security for arrears of assessments. Rather than this should happen the aldermen themselves engaged to be security to the treasurers for payment of the money.(926)

(M473)

In the meanwhile the special tribunal established for the trial of the king had commenced its work. At its head sat John Bradshaw, a sergeant-at-law and sometime a judge of the sheriffs' court of the Wood Street compter in the city.(927) Five aldermen were placed on the commission, viz., Isaac Pennington, Thomas Andrews, Thomas Atkins, Rowland Wilson and John Fowke;(928) but only the first two named took any active part in the trial, and Wilson absolutely declined to serve. Not one of them affixed his signature to the king's death-warrant. Among the rest of the commissioners were, however, two citizens of repute, viz., Robert Tichborne, afterwards an alderman,(929) and Owen Rowe, both of whom took an active part in the trial and both signed the warrant for the king's execution. When put upon his trial in October, 1660, for the part he now took, Tichborne pleaded that what he had done was through ignorance, and that had he known more he would sooner have entered a "red hot oven" than the room in which the warrant was signed.(930) His penitence saved his life, and he, like Pennington, spent the remainder of his days in confinement.

The proceedings of the trial were unreasonably short and sharp. On Friday, the 19th January, Charles was brought from Windsor to London. On the following day he made his first appearance before his judges. On that day week—Saturday, the 27th—sentence was pronounced, and three days later (30 Jan.) it was carried out before the king's own banquetting-house at Whitehall.



CHAPTER XXVI.



(M474)

Within a week of the king's execution the Commons, confident in their own strength and that of the army, voted the abolition of king and house of lords, and declared England to be a Commonwealth.(931) They next proceeded (14 Feb.) to place the executive power in the hands of a Council of State of forty-one members, most of whom were also members of their own body, with Bradshaw as president. Cromwell, Fairfax and Skippon were members of the council, as also were two aldermen of the city, viz., Pennington and Wilson.(932) The post of Secretary for Foreign Languages was offered to a kinsman of Bradshaw, and one of whom the city of London is justly proud, to wit, John Milton.

(M475)

The revolution which was taking place in the government of the kingdom found its counterpart in the municipal government of the City, where the mayor, aldermen and commons bore close analogy to the king, lords and commons of the realm. The City was but the kingdom in miniature, the kingdom was but the City writ large. No sooner was the house of lords abolished, and with it the right of the lords to veto the Acts of the commons, than the Court of Aldermen was deprived of a similar right over the proceedings of the Common Council.

(M476)

Until the year 1645 the right of the mayor and aldermen to veto an ordinance made by the commons in Common Council assembled appears never to have been disputed, but on the 24th January of that year, when fresh by-laws were under the consideration of the court, and the mayor and aldermen claimed this privilege as a matter of right, objection was raised, and the question was referred to a committee.(933) No settlement of the matter appears to have been arrived at until matters were brought to a crisis by the action of the mayor and aldermen on the 13th January, 1649, when, as we saw at the close of the last chapter, they got up and left the court.

(M477)

In view of similar action being taken by the mayor and aldermen in future, it was enacted by parliament (28 Feb.),(934) that all things proposed in Common Council should thenceforth be fairly debated and determined in and by the same council as the major part of the members present should desire or think fit; "and that in every vote which shall passe and in the other proceedings of the said councell neither the lord maior nor aldermen, joynte or separate, shall have any negative or distinctive voice or vote otherwise than with and amonge and as parte of the rest of the members of the said councell, and in the same manner as the other members have; and that the absence or withdraweinge of the lord maior or aldermen from the said councell shall not stopp or prejudice the proceedings of the said councell; and that every Common Councell which shall be held in the city of London shall sitt and continue soe longe as the major parte of the saide councell shall thinke fitte, and shall not be dissolved or adjourned but by and accordinge to the order or consent of the major parte of the same councell." It was further enacted that "in all times to come the lord maior ... soe often and att such time as any tenn or more of the Common Councell men doe by wryting under theire hands request or desire him thereunto, shall summon, assemble and hold a Common Councell. And if at any tyme beinge soe requested or desired hee shall faile therein, then the tenn persons or more makeinge such request or desire shall have power, and are hereby authorized, by wrytinge under theire hands, to summon or cause to be summoned to the said councell the members belonginge thereunto in as ample manner as the lord maior himself usually heretofore hath done."

(M478)

Pursuant to this enactment the mayor received a written request from fifteen members of the council for a court to meet at three o'clock of the afternoon of the 14th June, 1650. The court assembled, but neither mayor nor any alderman appeared until a message was sent to the Court of Aldermen then sitting requesting their attendance in the Common Council.(935) After prayers(936) his lordship declared that he had not summoned the court inasmuch as the members who came to him on the matter had refused to acquaint him with the reasons for which it was to be summoned, and he moved that the subscribers to the request for a court should state why the court was summoned before any other business was taken in hand. This proposal met with great opposition, and a debate arose on the question whether the mayor's motion should take precedence of the reading of the minutes of the last court or not, and lasted until nine o'clock at night. At length the mayor's motion was negatived and the minutes of the last court were read. It then became known that the reason for the court being summoned was to hear a committee's report read. But the mayor at this point declared himself tired with sitting so long and rose to go, promising to call a court the next morning or any time most convenient. Upon certain members insisting upon the report being read then and there, his lordship and all the aldermen except one left the court. Nevertheless the report was read, and the members themselves fixed a day for another court for taking it into consideration unless the mayor himself should summon one in the meantime. His lordship was informed of this resolution by a deputation sent for the purpose.(937)

(M479)

In the meantime the Common Council had resolved to administer to itself a further purge. A committee was appointed (17 March, 1649) to "consider what officers are properly to sitt in this courte as itt is a courte, and by what authority they doe sitt there, and are to doe and performe service in the courte, and what sallary or allowance they shall conceive expedient to bee made to them respectively, and whether those officers shall bee yearely chosen or to remain for soe long time as they shall well and honestly use and behave themselves in their places."(938) Another committee was appointed to enquire what members of the council or others holding positions under the council had subscribed engagements which brought them within the purview of the ordinances of parliament of the 18th and 20th December. It was further instructed to devise some good expedient "to heale upp all breaches and that may tende to union and to the peace and safety of this citty, and likewise for the begettinge of a right understandinge and to keepe a good correspondency both betweene the parliament and citty and betweene the army and this citty."(939) Three days later (20 March) the Common Council resolved that in the opinion of the court "such persons as were chosen to any places of trust within the city (before the two ordinances of the xviijth and xxth of December last were made) and doe continue in those places and are within the compasse of any the matters menconed in this same ordinances or either of them are as equally dangerous to be in any of those places as they that were forbidden to be chosen to any such place since the said ordinances made," and the committee last mentioned were to see how best to avert the danger.(940)

(M480)

When it came to proclaiming in the city the decrees of parliament abolishing the kingly office and the House of Lords, Reynardson, the mayor, declined to do so, and defended his action before the House by the plea of conscientious scruples. He was forthwith deposed from the mayoralty, condemned to pay a fine of L2,000 and committed to the Tower.(941) As to the fine, he stoutly refused to pay it. His goods were therefore seized and, according to the custom that prevailed, sold "by the candle."(942)

(M481)

Not content with deposing him from the mayoralty, the House deposed (7 April) Reynardson also from his aldermanry and with him four other aldermen,(943) viz., John Gayer, Thomas Adams, John Langham and James Bunce—the same who had undergone impeachment in 1648. Bunce was a special object of aversion to the Council of State, who later on (14 April, 1651) ordered an Act to be prepared declaring all who had correspondence with the enemies of the Commonwealth, "and especially with James Bunce, late alderman of London," guilty of high treason.(944)

(M482)

The times were so much "out of joint" that it was no easy matter to find well-to-do citizens willing to undertake an office which had become so unenviable, and many paid fines varying in amount from L400 to L1,000 rather than serve.(945) By paying a fine for not taking upon himself the duties of an alderman a man could generally, upon petition, be relieved from serving as sheriff.(946)

(M483)

Meanwhile the continued presence of the soldiers of Fairfax in the city was becoming more and more burdensome. Scarcely a day passed without some disturbance arising between the soldiers and the civil guardians of the peace. Occasionally there was bloodshed, and twice within a very few days appeal had to be made to the general himself to restrain the plundering and roystering habits of his men.(947) It is not surprising if, bearing in mind the horrors that the military occupation of the city had recently brought upon the inhabitants, the Common Council rejected a proposal (17 April) that the custody of the Tower should be placed in the hands of a national guard in preference to the city's own trained bands.(948)

(M484)

A series of royalist successes in Ireland now engaged the attention of Cromwell, recently appointed (15 March) lord-lieutenant of that country, but nothing could be done without money. More than a year ago (16 Feb., 1648) an ordinance had been passed for raising money for Ireland, but in the city it had been almost treated as a dead letter—"in divers wards no assessment at all, and in most very little paid in." The civic authorities had recently (22 March, 1649) been reminded of their remissness in this respect by a letter from the Council of State, who threatened to enforce their ordinance if the City could not be brought to execute it from a sense of duty.(949)

(M485)

Three weeks later (12 April) a deputation from parliament, including Cromwell himself, appeared before the Common Council and desired a loan of L120,000 upon the security of the Act for assessment of L90,000 per month and the Act for sale of fee-farm rents. The security was not liked, nevertheless the council nominated a committee to confer with parliament as to the best means of raising the money.(950)

(M486)

Want of money was not the only difficulty that Cromwell had to contend with. The levelling spirit which two years before had displayed itself in the ranks of the army, and had ever since been fostered by speeches and writings of the wrong-headed and impracticable John Lilburne, again asserted itself. The troops refused to serve in Ireland. A mutiny broke out at "The Bull," in Bishopsgate Street, the soldiers refusing to obey their colonel's orders and seizing the regimental colours. An example had to be made, so one of the ringleaders was shot in St. Paul's Churchyard. Five others condemned to death were pardoned. The funeral of the unfortunate man who was executed was made the occasion of a public demonstration against parliament and the army,(951) and for some time afterwards the Levellers continued to give trouble in different parts of the country.

(M487)

Time was passing rapidly and yet the establishment of the Commonwealth still remained unproclaimed in the city. On the 10th May Colonel Venn, one of the city members, was ordered to enquire and report to the House as to the cause of the delay.(952) At length, on the 30th May, the formal proclamation was made by Andrews, the new mayor, assisted by twelve of his brother aldermen(953) and by a posse of troops which had to be sent for to preserve order. "It was desired," wrote the secretary of the French ambassador in England to Cardinal Mazarin, "that this act should be effected in the ordinary form of a simple publication, without the mayor and aldermen being supported by any soldiers, in order to show that no violent means had been resorted to; but a crowd of people having gathered around them with hootings and insults, compelled them to send for some troops, who first drove away all bystanders, and thus they finished their publication."(954) A man named Prior was arrested for attempted riot and was sent by the mayor to the Council of State, by whom he was committed to the gatehouse.(955)

(M488)

Two aldermen, Sir Thomas Soame and Richard Chambers, who had absented themselves on the occasion, were called before the bar of the House (1 June) to answer for their conduct. Soame, who was himself a member of the House, boldly declared that the proclamation "was against several oaths which he had taken as an alderman of London, and against his judgment and conscience." Chambers said in defence "that his heart did not go along in that business." Both delinquents were adjudged to lose their aldermanries, and Soame was also condemned to lose his seat in the House.(956) Whilst inflicting punishment upon those who determined to remain staunch to the royalist cause, the House resolved to honour those who supported the new order of things, and on the 6th June a proposal was made to authorise the Speaker "to create the dignity of a knight, and to confer the same upon Thomas Andrews, alderman and lord mayor of London, and Isaac Pennington and Thomas Atkins [Atkin], aldermen and formerly lord mayors."(957)

(M489)

Thursday, the 7th June, having been appointed a day of public thanksgiving for the suppression of the Levellers, the Common Council resolved (29 May) to invite the Commons of England, the Council of State and other high officers, as well as Fairfax and the chief officers of the army, to a dinner at Grocers' Hall, in order to "manifest the city's good affections towards them." The House accepted the invitation and appointed Christchurch, Newgate, to be the church wherein the thanksgiving service was to take place.(958) The same deference and respect was paid on this occasion to the Speaker as was customarily paid to the king, the mayor delivering the civic sword into his hands on entering the city and receiving it back again, whilst the chief seat at the banquet was also surrendered to him.(959)

(M490)

The City showed exceptional honour to Fairfax and to Cromwell, presenting the former with a bason and ewer of gold weighing 242 ozs. 14 dwts., and the latter with another bason and ewer, as well as with two flower pots, a perfume and chafing dish, two fruit baskets, a kettle and laver and a warming pan, the whole weighing 934 ozs. 9 dwts. Cromwell was also presented with a purse containing L200 in twenty-shilling pieces.(960) Thomas Vyner, a goldsmith of repute, who was sheriff at the time, provided the plate at a cost of L1,412 15s.(961)

(M491)

The House was so pleased with the flattering reception it had received that the next day (8 June) it appointed a special committee "to consider of some mark of favour and respect" to be done to the City,(962) and on the 30th it resolved "that the city of London have the New Park in the county of Surrey settled upon them and their successors, as an act of favour from this House, for the use of the city and their successors, and that an Act be brought in for the purpose."(963) Accordingly, on the 17th July, an Act "for settling the New Park of Richmond, alias Richmond Great Park, on the mayor and commonalty and citizens of London and their successors" was brought in and passed.(964)

(M492)

In the meantime (5 July) Cromwell had again appeared before the Common Council and had desired a further advance of L150,000 upon the security of the excise. The matter was referred to a committee.(965) By the 13th August the new lord-lieutenant had obtained sufficient resources for him to cross over to Ireland.

(M493)

Before he set sail a complete victory had been already gained over Ormond's forces before Dublin. The news of the success was despatched to the mayor of London by letter from the Council of State (11 Aug.), who ordered particulars of the victory to be printed and published in every church within the lines of communication and thanks to be rendered to Almighty God for his great goodness.(966) The 29th August was accordingly kept as a day of public thanksgiving, and whilst the Commons attended divine service at St. Margaret's, Westminster, the municipal authorities listened to sermons at Christchurch, Newgate, and afterwards dined together at Mercers' Hall.(967)

(M494)

The citizens kept such a tight hold upon their purse-strings, and the money which they had been called upon to advance came in so slowly, that the Council of State began to lose all patience, and on the 22nd August wrote to the mayor and aldermen(968) reminding them of their remissness in obeying the council's previous orders, and informing them that the soldiers had got to the end of their pay and wanted more. "It is not reasonable," the letter went on to say, "that the country, which is far less able, should bear the burden of the city, or that the soldiers should quarter upon them to spare you; and if you suffer free quarter to come upon you it may produce great inconvenience. You are therefore to take it into serious consideration, and you will then be sensible of the effects this backwardness in payment may produce. We once more offer this to your consideration, resolving not to trouble you hereafter with further letters, which produce no better effect, but that the same clamour and complaints return to us every week."

(M495)

On the 25th August Glyn, the city's Recorder, yielded to pressure and resigned his office. An attempt had been made in January, 1648, to get him to resign in favour of William Steele, but he managed to keep his place notwithstanding his being a prisoner and threatened with impeachment at the time. On the 9th August, 1649, the Court of Aldermen desired him to surrender his place on the ground that both law and the custom of the city demanded that the Recorder of the city should be an apprentice of the law and not a sergeant-at-law.(969) The plea was a shallow one, and Glyn declined to accede to their request, as being prejudicial to himself and as casting a slur upon his profession. This answer he made on the 18th August. Nevertheless by that day week he had thought better of it, and came into court and there "freely tendred" his resignation, which was accepted as "his own free voluntary act." The court voted him the sum of L300 in recognition of his past services and appointed William Steele in his place.(970)

(M496)

When Michaelmas-day, the day of election of a fresh mayor, arrived Andrews was not re-elected, to the disappointment of a large number of citizens, who petitioned the Common Council to enquire into the manner in which the elections had taken place. The court, whilst declaring that the election had been carried out according to custom, was willing to appoint a committee to search the City's Records with the view of getting more definite information as to the mode of such election, as well as to enquire into charges that had been publicly made against Sir John Wollaston in connection with the recent election. Andrews himself appears to have suffered no little disappointment, if we may judge from his not presiding at any Common Council or Court of Aldermen after the 9th October, leaving that duty to Foote, the lord mayor elect, as his locum tenens.(971)

(M497)

A few days before Andrews quitted the mayoralty the Guildhall was the scene of one of those trials for which it is historically famous. On the 24th October (1649) John Lilburne was brought to trial for spreading seditious pamphlets. Parliament had shown every disposition to conciliate this impracticable reformer, but all its efforts had been futile. "Tell your masters from me," said he to a friend who visited him in the Tower, "that if it were possible for me now to choose, I had rather choose to live seven years under old King Charles's government (notwithstanding their beheading him as a tyrant for it) when it was at the worst before this parliament, than live one year under their present government that now rule; nay, let me tell you, if they go on with that tyranny they are in, they will make Prince Charles have friends enow not only to cry him up, but also really to fight for him to bring him into his father's throne."(972) His trial was at length forced on parliament by the injudicious publication of a pamphlet(973) calculated to excite discontent in the army, and a mutiny broke out in the garrison at Oxford so soon after the issue of this pamphlet that it was justly thought to have occasioned the outbreak. The country became flooded with seditious pamphlets to such an extent that an Act was passed for their suppression and for the better regulation of printing. The civic authorities and the Stationers' Company were especially admonished to see the provisions of the Act carried out.(974) What brought matters to a climax was the discovery that the Levellers were entering upon negotiations with Prince Charles, and thereupon the House resolved (11 Sept.) that Lilburne's trial should at once be proceeded with.(975) A special commission of Oyer and Terminer, presided over by Andrews, the outgoing Lord Mayor, and including the Recorder, the Common Sergeant and nine aldermen, was opened at the Guildhall on Wednesday, the 24th October. The trial lasted three days. Lilburne made a spirited defence, winding up with a solemn peroration in which he invoked God Almighty to guide and direct the jury "to do that which is just, and for His glory." His words sent a thrill of enthusiasm through the crowded hall, the audience with "an extraordinary great hum" giving vent to cries of "Amen! Amen!" in such a manner that Skippon, who was in attendance, deemed it advisable to send for more troops in case of disturbance. When in the end a verdict of acquittal was brought in, a wild scene followed. "The whole multitude in the hall, for joy of the prisoner's acquittal, gave such a loud and unanimous shout as is believed was never heard in Guildhall, which lasted for about half an hour without intermission." The judges turned pale from fear, but the prisoner at the bar, so far from displaying any excess of joy, remained unmoved and silent, and "rather more sad in his countenance than he was before."(976) He was conducted back to the Tower, whence he had been brought, amid the acclamations of the multitude. At night bonfires were lighted in his honour. The government made an attempt to detain him still in prison, but in about a fortnight the general discontent of the people and the intercession of friends procured his liberation.

(M498) (M499)

The citizens of London further testified their appreciation of this champion of liberty by electing him a member of their Common Council on St. Thomas's Day (21 Dec.), but upon the mayor and aldermen representing the case to parliament the House declared his election void by statute.(977) The matter, however, was compromised by Lilburne consenting to take the engagement "with a declaration of his own sense upon it."(978) Philip Chetwyn, a man somewhat of Lilburne's stamp, who had interested himself in Lilburne's election, was ordered by parliament to lose the freedom of the City, and was committed to Warwick Castle.(979)

(M500) (M501)

Colonel Pride, whose famous "purge" had reduced the House to a mere shadow of its former self, and who was elected a member of the Common Council on the same day as Lilburne, was allowed to take his seat without objection,(980) whilst Colonel John Fenton was declared by the House to be disabled from service as a Common Councilman. On the other hand, the royalist alderman, Major-General Browne, had to go, notwithstanding his past services to parliament and the army. According to the record of the votes of the House of Commons for the 4th December, 1649, preserved in the Journal of the Common Council, Browne was not only dismissed from parliament, but was also discharged and disabled from being an alderman of the city; but in the Journal of the House itself the latter resolution relating to his discharge from his aldermanry was subsequently erased, and a note subscribed to the effect that the vote was vacated by order of parliament made the 26th March, 1659.(981)

(M502)

The late troubles had sadly depleted the city's Chamber as well as increased the number of the poor within the city's walls. It became necessary to appoint a committee (18 Sept., 1649) to examine the state of the city's finances. The result was that in the following December the Common Council resolved to cut down the table expenses of the mayor and sheriffs, which were found to have materially increased since they were last taken in hand in 1555.(982) Thenceforth it was to be unlawful for any mayor or sheriff to be served at dinner with more than one course; nor were they to have at any time "any more sundry dishes of meat at that one course, to a mess of ten or twelve persons, upon the Lord's day, Tuesday, Thursday or any ordinary festival day, than seaven, whether the same be hot or cold." One or two of the dishes might (if they pleased) be brought to the table hot "after the first five or six be served." On Monday, Wednesday, Friday or Saturday the course was to comprise not more than five sundry dishes of meat or six of fish, to be served in such order as they pleased. Hors d'oeuvres, such as "brawne, callups with eggs, sallettes, broth, butter, cheese, eggs, herings, shrimps," and dishes "serveinge onely for settinge forth and furnisheinge the table at any of the said dinners or feasts and not there to be cutt or eaten," were not to be accounted among the dishes thus limited. Similar restrictions were placed upon the diet of the members of the household of the mayor and sheriffs, and no lord mayor or sheriff was to "make any feast" on entering or leaving office.(983)

(M503)

Hitherto the mayor and sheriffs for the time being had been accustomed to sell offices and places as they happened to become vacant and to use the money so obtained towards defraying the expenses of their own year of office. This was to be no longer allowed. They were henceforth to be content with the allowance made to them by the Common Council, viz., a monthly allowance of L208 6s. 8d. for the mayor, and a monthly allowance of L150 to each of the sheriffs.

(M504)

A committee was at the same time appointed to manage and let to farm to the best advantage for the City a number of offices, including those of garbling, package and scavage, metage of grain, coal, salt and fruit, as well as all fines, issues, amerciaments and estreated recognisances under the greenwax. It was to have entire control over the City's new acquisition, Richmond Park, the timber of which it was empowered to sell (notwithstanding a proviso in the Act of Parliament to the contrary), as well as the woods of the manors of Middleham and Richmond, which formed part of the Royal Contract estate in Yorkshire. All sums of money thus raised were to be paid forthwith into the Chamber.(984)

(M505)

The question how to deal with the poor of the city had been for some time past growing more pressing every day, and in September last (1649) the "President and Governors for the Poor of the city" suggested to the Common Council the establishment of a postal system as a means of raising money for the purpose. The court welcomed the proposal, and promised to forward any scheme that might be laid before it.(985) A committee was appointed (25 Sept.) to wait upon the Earl of Warwick, Prideaux, the attorney-general, and Witheringe, who had the management of the inland post—a government monopoly recently established—and inform them of the desire of the court "that the President and Governors for the Poor of the city of London may use and dispose of the said postage for the good of the poor, without any obstructions from them in the work."(986) An attempt (M506) to lay a petition before parliament on Friday, the 16th November, having failed, the deputation not being admitted, the court appointed a committee (24 Nov.) to consider the best way of setting the scheme on foot without delay.(987) The committee had (M507) not proceeded far in the matter when it was deemed advisable (23 Jan., 1650) to take counsel's opinion as to whether there might not be some danger of a Quo Warranto against the City before allowing any further steps to be taken.(988) For a fortnight, therefore, matters were in abeyance, but on the 6th February, 1650, the opinion of counsel having presumably been favourable to the city's action, the committee received instructions to proceed to settle stages and other matters connected with a postal system without delay.(989) Before another six weeks had elapsed the City had established a postal system with Scotland and other places. Complaint was thereupon (M508) made to parliament (21 March) "that the Common Council of London have sent an agent to settle postages, by their authority, on the several roads; and have employed a natural Scot into the North, who is gone into Scotland; and hath settled postmasters (other than those for the State) on all that road."(990) The Common Council, it was said, had "refused to come to the parliament and to have direction from them in it," but this statement is not borne out by the City's Records, according to which, as already narrated, a deputation had at least on one occasion waited on the House, but had not been admitted. Fortified by the opinion of the (M509) attorney-general and of the Council of State, the Commons passed a resolution to the effect "that the offices of postmaster, inland and foreign, are and ought to be in the sole power and disposal of the parliament."(991) In the face of this resolution (M510) the City could proceed no further. A petition to parliament was drafted, but failed to get the approval of the Common Council, and the City posts were summarily suppressed.(992)

(M511)

In the meantime steps had been taken towards raising a fund from the inhabitants of the wards to enable the municipal authorities to find work for the poor.(993) On the 2nd April the President and Governors for the Poor of the city reported to the Common Council that they stood in need of L12,000 at the least, in order to start the poor on work. The court thought best to begin by raising only L4,000, and there was some talk of applying to parliament to increase (if need be) the powers of the Corporation for the Poor, so as to charge both real and personal estate in assessments.(994) A year ago (6 June, 1649) parliament had assisted the City with the sum of L1,000 towards the relief of the poor, and had consented to convey to the municipal authorities a certain storehouse in the Minories, as well as the wardrobe near the Blackfriars, the latter to be used as a work-house.(995) The City now took the opportunity of thanking the Commons for these gifts as well as for the gift of Richmond Park, and promised to stand by them "against all wicked practices and opposite pretended powers whatsoever."(996)

(M512)

There was another matter of municipal interest which claimed the attention of the civic authorities about this time. Ever since 1550, when, as we have seen, the borough of Southwark first became completely subject to the jurisdiction of the city, the inhabitants of the borough had suffered from the anomalous position of being ruled by an alderman not of their choosing, and by a Common Council to which they sent no representatives. Nevertheless, it was not until the close of 1649 that they began to raise any serious objection to the existing state of things. On the 4th December of that year they petitioned parliament that they might be incorporated or enfranchised either with or without the City, on the ground that, as matters stood, their poor were neglected and they suffered from "diversity of jurisdictions," under which they were subjected to "double service and charges," such as no other body suffered throughout the kingdom.(997)

(M513)

Early in the following year (28 Jan., 1650) the City presented a counter petition in defence of its rights and privileges in Southwark, and the whole matter was referred by parliament to the Committee for Corporations.(998) The inhabitants of Southwark having submitted their case to the committee, the City were called upon to make reply.(999) They, in effect, denied that the inconveniences mentioned by the petitioners were caused by their being under the City's government. As to the alleged grievance of being subject to concurrent jurisdictions, that was nothing uncommon. Not that the City itself countenanced variety of jurisdiction over the borough. Far from it. In fact, the civic authorities had recently themselves applied to parliament for the removal of the "Court Marshall" (or Marshalsea) and the abolition of the "Marshall of the Upper Bench" from the borough. The answer concluded by assuring the Committee for Corporations that if any inconveniences arose in the borough from any defect in the City's government the City would be pleased to receive the assistance of the inhabitants in asking the supreme authority of parliament to amend it. No defect, however, could justify the separation of the borough from the City. There was another objection. The incorporation of Southwark would not only be an invasion of the City's rights, but would work injury to the several companies and fraternities of the city which for trade purposes had become incorporated. These exercised their power of government over, and received support from, their members who were not exclusively inhabitants of the city, but dwellers in the suburbs two or three miles away. A conference was proposed between the parties,(1000) but nothing appears to have come of it, and the matter was allowed to rest for another hundred years and more.

(M514) (M515)

Cromwell had not been long in Ireland before the country began to assume at least a semblance of prosperity. The good achieved by the city of London and the companies in Ulster in the earlier years of the plantation had well nigh disappeared during the troublous times of the civil war. Londonderry itself had suffered two sieges at the hands of the royalists, but the garrison on both occasions had displayed the same indomitable courage as that which in later years made them famous in the pages of history, and with like success. Cruel as was Cromwell's policy in Ireland it accomplished its object. By February, 1650, Bradshaw was able to write to the mayor of London(1001) informing him of the intention of the Council of State to "plant" the seaports in Ulster, which had by God's blessing been reduced to obedience. He understood that the City had or "pretended to have" some interest in the towns of Londonderry and Coleraine, with other lands and fishings in Ulster, and he desired to know if the City intended to vindicate its right or claim. If so, the lord mayor was advised to depute someone to attend the committee appointed by the Council of State for Irish affairs and explain to him the nature of the City's rights. This letter having been read to the Court of Aldermen on the 19th February, counsel was instructed to investigate the City's interest in Ireland.(1002) A committee of aldermen was subsequently appointed to confer with representatives of the several livery companies on the matter. Although Bradshaw's letter had desired a speedy reply, it was not until the 9th May that a report was submitted to the Court of Aldermen. This report, which had received the assent of the companies, recommended that counsel should forthwith be instructed to assert the rights of the City and the companies to the towns and lands originally conveyed by letters patents of the 30th March, 1613, to the Irish Society.(1003)

(M516)

When Cromwell returned to England at the end of May (1650), having all but stamped out the rebellion in Ireland, he was met at Hounslow Heath by a huge concourse of people, including many members of parliament and the chief officers of the army. At Hyde Park, where it is said that the lord mayor and the militia awaited him, although no directions to that effect appear in the City's Records, he was received with a volley of artillery.(1004) He had returned at the express desire of parliament, who required his services in Scotland. No time was lost. On Wednesday, the 26th June, an Act was passed constituting him "commander-in-chief of all the forces raised or to be raised by the authority of parliament within the Commonwealth of England,"(1005) in place of Fairfax, and on the following Saturday he set out for the North.

(M517)

Two days before parliament thus transferred the command of the army from Fairfax to Cromwell, Charles II had landed in Scotland and Fairfax had displayed some scruples in opposing the Scots, who, as he declared, had a right to choose their own form of government. Not so Cromwell. He saw the danger that was likely to arise from such a concession, and he resolved forthwith to make an attempt on Edinburgh. He was, however, out-manoeuvred by Leslie and forced to fall back upon Dunbar. There he was fortunate enough to utterly rout the Scottish forces (3 Sept.) by one of those dashing cavalry charges for which his "Ironsides" were famous.

(M518)

This victory, which contributed more perhaps than anything else to establish the Commonwealth, was celebrated in the city by a public thanksgiving. A "convenient dinner" was ordered by the Common Council (12 Sept.) to be provided for that day, to which Major-General Harrison, Major-General Skippon, the lieutenant of the Tower, and others were to be invited. The City's latest acquisition, the New Park at Richmond, was laid under contribution for venison. The dinner was not on this occasion paid for out of the City's cash, owing probably to the low condition of the Chamber, but was defrayed by the payment of ten shillings by each alderman and five shillings by each commoner.(1006) The names of those who refused to observe the day of thanksgiving were afterwards ordered to be taken and certified by the mayor to parliament.(1007)

(M519)

A few weeks later (22 Oct.) the city forces and those of Middlesex to the number of 8,000 mustered in Hyde Park, where they were addressed by the Speaker and members of the House. Before the end of the month a contingent of recruits from London was on its way to join the army in Scotland, "but near half of them," we are told, "ran away in their march, and listed themselves in the garrisons of Newcastle and other garrisons by the way."(1008)

(M520)

At Michaelmas Andrews was once more elected mayor. The proceedings of the committee appointed a twelvemonth ago to enquire into the mode of electing the mayor of London have not come down to us. Possibly the committee made no report, for a new committee was nominated a few days before Andrews was re-elected, "to consider what may be the most right and fitt way for electinge of all that are wont to bee by the Comon Hall."(1009) On the 26th September (1650) a report on the subject was laid before the Common Council, and consideration adjourned.(1010) On the 14th October, the court having considered the report, came to the following resolution:—(1011) "That it apeareth to them by the auncient charters of this citty that the lord maior and sheriffs of this citty are eligible by the comons and citizens of this cittie and that the eleccon of the lord maior and sheriffs was aunciently by severall persons chosen out of the wards joyned with the Common Councell. And that the same waye is most convenient still to bee continued."

(M521)

The matter was not allowed, however, to rest here. Petitions were sent in by the livery companies, and debate followed debate until the 7th December, when the court put a stop to further discussion by ordering that "this busines shalbee wholey laid aside."(1012) A year later (4 Nov., 1651) the Common Council passed an Act much to the same effect as the above resolution. Elections in Common Hall were thenceforth to be by the aldermen, common councilmen and "a like number of other honest men" of each ward, and not by the companies.(1013)

(M522)

Although the kingly office as forming part of the Constitution had been declared by parliament to be abolished immediately after the execution of Charles, emblems of royalty might still be seen displayed in the city and elsewhere many months afterwards. On the western facade of St. Paul's, for example, there remained statues of James and of Charles. These the Court of Aldermen had been ordered to remove (31 July, 1650). They were further ordered to see that the head of Charles's statue at the Royal Exchange was struck off, the sceptre in the effigy's hand broken, and an inscription set up hard by proclaiming the abolition of tyranny—Exit Tyrannus Regum Ultimus—and the dawn of liberty. On the 14th August the entire statue was ordered to be removed.(1014) This was done, and on the following day a certificate to that effect, under the hand of the Town Clerk, was forwarded to the Council of State.(1015) Nevertheless there were many places, many churches and companies' halls in the city, where the royal arms and portraits of the late king had been allowed still to remain, and these the Council of State directed the mayor and aldermen in December to search for and cause to be removed.(1016) In February, 1651, the Court of Aldermen showed greater activity in the matter, and the lord mayor was directed to issue the necessary precept for the removal of all "monarchichal armes."(1017)

(M523)

In the meantime, oppressed as the citizens were with constant demands on their purses, they contributed what they could toward the relief of the sick and poor of the army in the North,(1018) and on the 7th March, 1651, their efforts were rewarded by a letter of thanks from the lord general himself.(1019)

(M524)

To such an extent were they ground down by taxation (the city alone being assessed at a fifteenth of the whole kingdom) that a petition was ordered to be laid before parliament on the subject a fortnight later (24 March).(1020) Whilst acknowledging the care bestowed by parliament in managing the affairs of the nation at the least possible charge, and declaring their willingness to bear their share in defraying expenses with the rest of the nation, the petitioners prayed for a more equitable amount of taxation than that which they had hitherto been called upon to bear. The reasons they gave were (1) the losses which merchants had sustained within the last few years by the interruption of foreign trade, vessels belonging to citizens of London having been constantly seized by Prince Rupert and others who roamed the seas for piratical purposes, and (2) the withdrawal of the wealthier class of citizens to the suburbs of London, where houses were increasing, and where taxation was less than in the city.

(M525)

Before the House found time to take this petition into consideration(1021) it had granted (8 April) authority to the Council of State to raise out of the militias of the several counties a force of horse and dragoons not exceeding the number of 3,000 horse and 1,000 dragoons. The civic authorities lost no time in representing to parliament that the City had always been exempt from the charge of providing horse. They were ready, however, to bear their proportion of the necessary charge with the rest of the kingdom.(1022) Later on they became more complaisant, and expressed their readiness to furnish the number of horse demanded "in respect of the pressing occasions and necessities now lying on the Commonwealth," notwithstanding the proportion laid on the City was greater than that imposed on any other part of the nation. It was stipulated that the City's assent was not to be drawn into a precedent for the future.(1023) The Council of State, on the other hand, would not for a moment allow that the City had been called upon to contribute more than its just proportion. London was a large place, they said, where many opportunities arose for outbreaks, and where there was not always a force at hand to put them down. They doubted not there were many well-affected persons within London, Westminster, the Hamlets and Southwark, able and willing to lend their horses, with well-affected riders, for the prevention of mischief, and they recommended that such should be encouraged.(1024)

(M526)

In June (1651) another attempt at retrenchment was made by the City. A committee was appointed "to examine what profits or perquisites have been received by the lord mayor and sheriffs or belong to their places, and how they came so to belong or to be received" whilst another committee was appointed "to consider how the service, honour and attendance of the lord mayor and sheriffs of this city may be continued with all befitting abatement of diet and all other charges."(1025) The result of the enquiry was to cut down the profits and perquisites hitherto attaching to the office of lord mayor to such an extent that when John Kendricke was elected to the chair on the following Michaelmas-day (29 Sept., 1651) he, being without sufficient private estate, represented to the Court of Aldermen (2 Oct.) that he could not undertake the office "upon such terms as never any had done before him, the ancient perquisites and late allowances made in consideration thereof being wholly taken away."(1026) He was afterwards prevailed upon by his brother aldermen to change his mind and accept office, declaring that he did so "for the city's quiet and peace, and in hope and expectation of all due and fit encouragements."(1027)

(M527)

Ever since the passing of the Act of Parliament of the 28th February, 1649, the relations between the court of Aldermen, including the lord mayor for the time being, and the court of Common Council had become more and more strained. It had become a common practice whenever the Common Council made a proposition distasteful to the mayor and aldermen for his lordship and such aldermen as happened to be present to break up the court by taking their departure. Mention has already been made of two occasions (viz., 13 Jan., 1649, and 14 June, 1650) on which the mayor and aldermen took this method of expressing their dissatisfaction with the Common Council. They took the same course again on the 2nd July, 1651.(1028)

(M528)

The aldermen complained of other encroachments on their rights and privileges by the Common Council, and determined to lay their case before the Council of State. They objected (1) to the commons increasing the number of members sitting on committees, and making a quorum without any alderman being present; (2) to the commons taking upon themselves to appoint the executive officers of the mayor and sheriffs, and abolishing perquisites whereby the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs were rendered unable to fulfil their duties; (3) to the assumption by the commons of control over the city's lands; and (4) the limitation of the right of aldermen to draw upon the Chamber.(1029) The government endeavoured to arrange matters by the appointment of a committee (8 Oct.) to confer with representatives from the Courts of Aldermen and Common Council, and, failing an agreement, to lay the whole matter before parliament for final determination.(1030) The livery also petitioned parliament against the innovations introduced by the recent Act of Common Council (4 Nov., 1651), depriving them of their right of election in Common Hall.(1031)

(M529)

When the Common Council was about to hear a report by their own committee upon this subject of "perquisites and incroachments," they directed the Common Sergeant to desire the lord mayor and aldermen to withdraw. This, however, they declined to do.(1032)

(M530)

In February of the next year (1652) the question of allowances to be made to the mayor and sheriffs was referred to another committee, with the result that in the following June the court voted an allowance to lord mayor Kendricke of L1,500, the same to be reduced by L100 for succeeding lord mayors, and an allowance of L600 to each of the sheriffs present and to come. Neither mayor nor sheriffs were to be allowed "standing houses."(1033) The matter, however, was by no means settled. On the 13th August the court reverted to the old system of perquisites, and resolved "that the succeeding lord mayors and sheriffs of this city shall have allowances from this city towards the maintenance of their public charges, and that those allowances shall be the ancient perquisites themselves."(1034) This was followed a month later (15 Sept.) by another resolution to the effect that future sheriffs should have no allowances from the city other than the perquisites.(1035)

(M531) (M532)

The election of a successor to Kendricke on Michaelmas-day in the person of Simon Edmonds was made the occasion of fixing the amount of profits the new mayor was to enjoy from the various offices of package, scavage, metage and others.(1036) Edmonds, like his predecessor in office, had reported to the Court of Aldermen soon after his election that he could not undertake the charge of the mayoralty without those "encouragements and allowances" which former lord mayors had enjoyed.(1037) Finding that Edmonds could not be brought to accept their terms,(1038) the Common Council discharged him from service (19 Oct.) on the plea of old age and ill-health, but fined him L600.(1039) The Court of Aldermen subsequently discharged him from his aldermanry.(1040)

(M533)

John Fowke, who succeeded to the mayoralty in place of Edmonds,(1041) always insisted upon his right to know for what purpose a Common Council was required before he would accede to a request to summon one,(1042) and upon quitting office he made a speech in Common Hall reflecting upon the proceedings of the Common Council. His speech was referred to a committee, with instructions to consider at the same time his grievances and to endeavour to bring matters to a peaceful issue.(1043) The committee presented their report to the council on the 24th October (1653). Fowke, who still occupied the mayoralty chair, got up and left the court as soon as the report had been read.(1044) He was found by the committee to have been guilty of various misdemeanours, such as withholding the common seal and refusing to allow leases to be stamped with it, appointing his own son to various places, making an open assault upon the custom-house and seizing the rights and profits of the city to his own use.(1045) Thereupon the court resolved to appeal to parliament—not the Rump, for that had been sent to the right about(1046) by Cromwell six months before (20 April, 1653), but to "Barebones parliament," the parliament composed of Cromwell's own nominees—to take in hand Fowke's conduct and to restore to the citizens those rights of which he had deprived them.(1047) Nothing appears, however, to have come of the petition. On the 22nd September (1653) the Common Council resolved that Fowke's successor should enjoy "all the perquisites and profits which any lord mayor hath enjoyed for twenty years last past, before the yeare of our Lord one thousand six hundred and forty and nine."(1048)

(M534)

The difficulty of finding an alderman willing to undertake the office of mayor under the new regulations was as nothing compared with that of getting men to serve as sheriffs and aldermen, and the Chamber of the city was largely benefitted by the payment of fines for discharge from service.(1049) One concession the court of Common Council made to the sheriffs, and that was to relieve them of the payment of certain fee-farm rents due from sheriffs for the time being.(1050) Nevertheless the shrievalty became so unpopular that an order had to be passed against aldermen who had not already served as sheriff resigning their gowns for the purpose of avoiding service.(1051)

(M535)

Notwithstanding Leslie's defeat at Dunbar, there still remained a strong royalist army in Scotland, which, in August of the following year, was pushed on into England with the hope of raising an insurrection in favour of Charles before Cromwell could overtake it. As soon as this sudden movement became known Cromwell wrote (4 Aug.) to parliament to gather a force together with all possible speed to hold the enemy in check until his arrival.(1052)

(M536)

The House at once (11 Aug.) communicated with the Common Council, who pledged themselves, with God's grace, to adventure their lives and estates, and to use their best endeavours in the defence of parliament and the Commonwealth against the king of Scotland and all who should invade England on his behalf.(1053) The City's Records are again provokingly meagre at this period, yielding us but scanty information on matters which must have deeply affected the citizens in general. From other sources, however, we learn that three regiments of volunteers were formed in London and its suburbs for the special purpose of serving as a guard to parliament. The powers of the Committee for the Militia of the City were enlarged, and the number of members increased by fifteen individuals, among whom was Lieutenant-Colonel John Fenton, who had been removed from the Common Council by order of parliament. The militia throughout the country was called out, and a month's pay ordered to be advanced by "each person who finds horsemen or footmen," the same to be repaid by assessments authorised by parliament. Anyone joining the Scottish army or inducing others to join, anyone found with papers or declarations of the Scottish king in his hands, or discovered inciting to a breach of the peace, was declared to be a traitor, and as such would be executed. Within the late lines of communication strict supervision was to be kept over all houses. Lodgers' names were to be taken and registered; servants and children were to be allowed out of doors only at certain hours. The execution of these and similar orders was entrusted to the lord mayor and the rest of the Committee for the Militia of the City in conjunction with the Commissioners for the Militia of Westminster, the Hamlets and Southwark, who were required to meet and sit daily for the purpose. A troop of horse was to be forthwith despatched to meet the invaders, the men to be mounted on horses lately seized in London and its neighbourhood, the proprietors of which were to receive tickets for payment of their value in case any of them should be "lost or spoiled."(1054)

(M537)

On the 25th August a letter (dated 16 Aug.) from Charles, addressed "to our trusty and well-beloved the lord mayor, aldermen and sheriffs of our city of London," was read before parliament. The character of the letter was such that the House ordered it to be publicly burnt by the common hangman at the Exchange on the following day.(1055) A copy of it was afterwards burnt (2 Sept.) at the head of every regiment of the trained bands on the occasion of a muster in Finsbury Fields in the presence of Lenthall, the Speaker, the lord mayor and the sheriffs, amid shouts and acclamations.(1056) On the same day Charles, who had recently (22 Aug.) set up his standard at Worcester, and all his aiders and abettors were denounced by parliament as rebels and traitors.

(M538)

On the evening of Wednesday, the 3rd September—the anniversary of his victory at Dunbar Cromwell made himself master of Worcester after "as stiff a contest for four or five hours" as he declared himself ever to have seen;(1057) and Charles was driven forth to wander up and down the country with a price put on his capture,(1058) until, by the aid of still faithful friends, he managed to slip over to France. A day for solemn humiliation (23 Sept.), as well as a day for public thanksgiving (2 Oct., afterwards changed to 24 Oct.) was set aside by parliament for deliverance from threatened danger,(1059) whilst the City not only appointed a day for thanksgiving (16 Oct.) for the "several victories" obtained by the parliamentary forces, but kept the anniversary of the battle of Worcester by performing "the exercise of that day in Laurance Church."(1060)

(M539)

For some days following the battle of Worcester the streets of the city were filled with Scottish prisoners of every degree passing on their way to the Tower or to the new artillery ground at Tothill Fields. Among those conveyed to the Tower were the Earls of Cleveland and Lauderdale. As they passed along Cornhill in their coaches, with a guard of horse, the Earl of Lauderdale was addressed by a by-stander—"Oh, my lord, you are welcome to London! I protest, off goes your head as round as a hoop!"(1061) The ill-timed jest, which the earl passed off with a laugh, was wanting in fulfilment, for he lived to witness the Restoration and to earn the universal hatred of his countrymen.

(M540)

On Friday, the 12th September, Cromwell himself reached London, being brought on his way by the Speaker, the Lord President and many members of parliament and Council of State, as well as by the lord mayor, sheriffs and aldermen of the city, amid shoutings and vollies of ordnance and muskets. The modesty and affability of the Lord General was much marked. Of the part he had himself taken in the battle of Worcester he seldom made mention, but of the gallantry of the officers and soldiers he was full of praise, "and gave (as was due) all the glory of the action unto God." On the 16th he and his companions in arms received the thanks of the House, and were afterwards entertained by the City.(1062) Cromwell's sword was now sheathed never to be drawn by him again; the rest of his life was devoted to work requiring weapons of a different kind.



CHAPTER XXVII.



(M541)

The attempt made to cripple the carrying trade of the Dutch by the passing of the Navigation Act (Oct., 1651) found little favour with the merchants of the city. What they of all things desired to see was free trade in the port of London; and to this end they presented a petition to the Council for Trade, and appointed (9 Dec.) a committee to maintain it "with the best reasons they could."(1063)

(M542)

This Act failed in its purpose, and only led to retaliation and war. In the spring of the following year (1652) the fleet was got ready to put to sea. On the 26th March the Council of State wrote to the mayor and aldermen and Militia Committee of the city(1064) asking that certain brass guns laid up at Gresham College and other places in the city should be forthwith delivered to the ordnance officer, as the guns formerly used in the fleet during the late wars had been dispersed among various garrisons. By way of postscript—as if an afterthought—the council added: "As there is a pretension of right made to such guns on behalf of the city we shall be ready to receive and consider any claim which they shall make to them; and if it appear that they belong to the city we will take care, after the service is past to which they are designed, that they are either restored or satisfaction made according to their value." In May it was found that the store of gunpowder in the Tower was likely to run short owing to a breach of contract, and again application for assistance was made to the City, who were asked to lend such gunpowder as lay in the Companies' halls.(1065) In March of the following year (1653) the request for guns in the City's magazines to be delivered to the ordnance officers for the public service was repeated,(1066) and by November they were all in the custody of the lieutenant of the Tower.(1067) By that time a victory had been gained over the Dutch admirals Tromp and De Ruyter off Portland (18 Feb., 1653) by Blake and Monk, the latter having for a time exchanged land service for the sea. This success was the more welcome inasmuch as Blake had previously suffered a signal defeat (28 Nov., 1652) at the hands of the Dutch admirals and had himself been wounded. Moreover Tromp had been so elated at his victory that in bravado he had fixed a broom to his masthead, in token of his resolution to sweep the sea of English vessels.

(M543)

The example set by parliament of opening a subscription for those wounded at sea was followed by the Common Council of the city. Each member of the court was ordered (4 March) to take steps to "collect the benevolence of the inhabitants in money and old linen, for relief of the wounded soldiers and mariners which God hath made instrumental in the late great success of the Commonwealth at sea against the Dutch." In reporting to the court the total amount thus gathered (L1,071 9s. 5d.) Alderman Fowke intimated that it was the express wish of many of the contributors that the widows and children of those that had been killed should share in the charity. To this the court agreed.(1068) The money was despatched to the fleet by the hands of Alderman Tichborne, and gratefully acknowledged by the admirals Deane and Monk in a letter addressed to the lord mayor (2 April).(1069) Two months later Deane was dead, having been killed in another engagement with the Dutch, when the English fleet again came off victorious. For this success a general thanksgiving at St. Paul's was voted by the Court of Aldermen, who were invited to attend the public funeral of the late gallant admiral.(1070)

(M544)

A few weeks before the Long Parliament was so rudely "interrupted" by Cromwell (20 April, 1653) it raised the ire of the Common Council of the city by the action of its commissioners, sitting at Haberdashers' Hall, who had prosecuted and fined certain inhabitants of the ward of Farringdon Within for having contravened the Act touching election of officers upon the Treasonable Engagement.(1071) A deputation from the court was ordered to wait upon the commissioners and to get some explanation of their conduct and to report the result of their interview. The commissioners assumed a very haughty tone. They were, they said, entrusted with full powers to deal with such matters by parliament, but expressed their intention to "be tender to passe severe sentence upon any well affected citizen. For that they have power to doe it or not to doe it." This was not at all to the mind of the Common Council, who thereupon resolved (4 March, 1653) to ask parliament to explain who were promoters and abettors of the Treasonable Engagement, and whether the citizens were to be considered as promoters and abettors for having obeyed the orders of the militia authorised by parliament in manning forts and appearing in arms, as they so often had done, in defence of parliament as well as of themselves.(1072) Before any answer was given to this awkward question the Long Parliament had ceased to exist, to be succeeded by another of a very different character.

(M545)

"Praise-God Barebone, Esquire," who gave a nick-name to the next parliament, was a leatherseller of London, and was summoned by Cromwell to sit as member for the city. "I, as commander-in-chief of the armies of the Commonwealth," wrote Cromwell to him, "summon you ... to appear at the council chamber, Whitehall, on 4th July, and take upon you the said trust for the city of London."(1073) The rest of the members of this Puritan parliament were for the most part also Cromwell's nominees. It was destined to be short lived. It attacked the law and the Church and threatened the universities. To save the last mentioned institutions the city of London intervened and received the thanks of the university of Oxford.(1074) Afraid of their own acts, which they felt were displeasing to Cromwell, they agreed to dissolve parliament and to transfer their powers to the man from whom they had received them. This took place somewhat suddenly and unexpectedly on the 12th December.

(M546)

On the 16th Cromwell was solemnly installed as Lord Protector, the lord mayor, the aldermen and the Recorder being invited to be present, and in due course his new title was proclaimed in the city.(1075) The lord mayor, Thomas Vyner, happening to be a goldsmith, the Council of State commissioned him to supply two services of plate for the use of the "Lord Protector and his lady."(1076)

(M547)

Having recognised the new order of things and caused the Lord Protector to be proclaimed at the Old Exchange and other places in the city,(1077) the Common Council proceeded to ask him to a banquet to be given in his honour at Grocers' Hall.(1078) The invitation was accepted, and the dinner took place on the 8th February, 1654. The entertainment was given in right royal style, the mayor and his brother aldermen riding out in state to meet his Highness, who exercised the privilege of his new position by knighting the chief magistrate of the city on his departure.(1079)

(M548)

In July (1654) when there was some talk of sending the city's Recorder, William Steele, to Ireland on affairs of State, the Common Council addressed a petition to the Lord Protector praying him not to deprive the city of the services of so excellent an officer, and one who was likely to prove particularly useful both to the city and the whole Commonwealth in the forthcoming parliament,(1080) the first parliament under the Protectorate and one of the very few parliaments to which the city sent as many as six burgesses.(1081)

(M549)

This parliament, like its predecessor, was of short duration, lasting little more than five months. One other parliament and no more was summoned by Cromwell (17 Sept., 1656). It was before this parliament that Alderman Sir Christopher Pack (the only member for the city, so far as we have any authentic record), brought forward (23 Feb., 1657) his famous "remonstrance," desiring the Protector to assume the kingly dignity and to restore the House of Lords. The question whether the "remonstrance" should be read was answered in the affirmative by a majority of nearly 100 after some hours' debate.(1082) Before it was taken into consideration a day was appointed for prayer and fasting and to seek directions from the Lord.(1083) The proposal was particularly obnoxious to the army, and Colonel Pride had no difficulty in obtaining a large number of signatures against it.

After many days' debate, in the course of which the title of the "remonstrance" was changed to that of "petition and advice,"(1084) the document received the assent of the Commons, and on the 31st March a copy of it engrossed on vellum was presented to the Protector at Whitehall in the presence of the whole House. Its main feature was the creation of a second House, the members of which were to enjoy their seats for life and exercise some of the functions of the former House of Lords. Cromwell was asked to assume the title of king with the right of naming his own successor. The kingship after considerable hesitation he declined (8 May): "I cannot undertake this government with the title of king. And that is mine answer to this great and weighty business."(1085) The rest of the terms he accepted, and on the 28th June he was again installed as Lord Protector in the presence of the mayor and aldermen, the mayor to the left of the Protector bearing the civic sword, with the Earl of Warwick to the right bearing the sword of state.(1086) On the 1st July public proclamation was made in the city with great solemnity.(1087)

(M550)

In due course writs were issued to more than sixty persons—many of them members of the House of Commons, whilst others were men of the lower orders, Puritan officers or parliamentary supporters of Cromwell—to form a new House, a "Peerage of fact," not of descent.(1088) Among them was Glyn, the city's late Recorder, now a chief justice; two city aldermen, viz., Christopher Pack, the prime mover in the restoration of the second House, and Robert Tichborne, who, in honour of his promotion, it may be, presented in the following year a silver bason and ewer weighing 110 ozs. to the City for the use of the lord mayor and his successors.(1089) Colonels Pride and Skippon, soldiers of fortune who had done good service both in parliament and on the field, also found seats among Cromwell's new peers, as also did John Hewson, erstwhile a shoemaker and still a member of the Cordwainers' Company, which honoured him with a banquet at which special dishes, we read, were provided for "my lord Hewson."

(M551)

The new House was not a success. It soon began to give itself the airs of the hereditary House of Lords and fell foul of the Commons. Cromwell saw no other course open but to dissolve his second Protectorate Parliament, which he did on the 4th February (1658).

(M552)

On Friday, the 12th March (1658), the civic authorities were sent for to Whitehall, where they were informed by Cromwell that Charles meditated an invasion, and that Ormond had recently been engaged in enlisting support for the royalist cause in and about the city. They were asked to put the city into a state of readiness for the suppression of tumult and disorder if any should arise, and to place the militia in trustworthy hands.(1090) The warning came just in time, for the Common Council had that very day given orders for the sale of broken carriages, guns and other war material stored at Gresham College, the Leadenhall and in the Guildhall Chapel, and for the proceeds to be paid into the Chamber.(1091) On the 15th the Common Council appointed a committee to draw up a representation or petition expressing the City's thanks to the Protector for the favour thus shown to them.(1092) On the 16th the document was presented to the court for approval, and on the following day carried by a deputation to Cromwell. Its terms were very flattering. After alluding to the blessings which had accompanied the Protector's government and the recent news that "the old restless enemy" was preparing to execute his wrath against God, his highness and the nation, the citizens concluded by assuring him that his enemies would be considered the City's enemies and his friends its friends.(1093) The deputation was instructed by the Common Council to disavow to Cromwell a certain petition which had been addressed to him purporting to come from "divers citizens and inhabitants in and about the city of London," and to humbly desire his highness not to look upon any petition as the petition of the city of London except such as came from the Common Council in the name of "the mayor, aldermen and commons of the city of London in Common Council assembled."(1094)

(M553)

So pleased was Cromwell with the City at this critical time that he conferred the honour of knighthood upon the lord mayor (Richard Chiverton) and upon John Ireton, a brother of Henry Ireton, his own son-in-law and fellow campaigner, now deceased.(1095)

(M554)

Thanks to the Protector's caution and advice a royalist emeute in the city, in which Dr. Hewet, a preacher at St. Gregory's by St. Paul's, was implicated, and for which he and Sir Henry Slingsby lost their heads, was prevented, the ringleaders being arrested on the eve of the outbreak. It was remarked at the time that the apprentices engaged in this rising were for the most part "sons of cavaliers, or else such debauched fellows that their masters could not rule or govern them."(1096) On the 6th July the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, with the city's Recorder, Sir Lisleborne Long, waited on the Lord Protector to congratulate him upon "the deliverance of his person, the city and the whole nation" from the dangers of the late conspiracy.(1097)

(M555)

Cromwell's days were fast drawing to a close, although scarce sixty years of age. The death of his favourite daughter in August of this year cast a gloom over his mind and affected his health, and within less than a month he followed her, dying on the 3rd September—his "fortunate day," as he called it—the day of Dunbar and of Worcester. The lord mayor and city officers were allowed each nine yards of mourning cloth, and eighty other persons of the city four yards each, as on the demise of a sovereign.(1098) On the 4th Richard Cromwell was proclaimed in succession to his father at Westminster and in the city, four heralds attending the mayor on that occasion.(1099)

(M556)

After a brief trial of a new parliament (29 Jan.-22 April, 1659) the Rump was restored and its restoration duly proclaimed in the city.(1100) The citizens affected to see a special interposition of Providence in the new order of affairs and lost no time in preparing a petition for the preservation of the privileges and estates as well of corporations as of individuals, for the speedier despatch of business in the courts of law and equity, for greater liberty of religious worship, for protection of universities and schools in their work of education, and for relief from excessive taxation.(1101) No long time elapsed before the old jealous feud between parliament and the army was renewed by the former resolving that all commissions should be received from the Speaker of the House. One of the first desires of the House was to settle the trained bands of London,(1102) for upon the goodwill of the militia of London and its neighbourhood much depended. But although the citizens were zealous in displaying their loyalty to the government,(1103) they had no mind that the services of their trained bands or of cavalry raised in the city should be employed beyond the city's walls, or that they should be placed under the command of any but "persons of quality, freemen and inhabitants of the city."(1104)

(M557)

Dissension between parliament and the army was for a time hushed by the threat of a common danger. On the 9th August it was reported to the House that the lord mayor had discovered the existence of a party in the city in favour of the rising which had recently occurred in Cheshire with the view of bringing in Prince Charles.(1105) The mayor, aldermen and Common Council were thereupon ordered to attend the Council of State at Whitehall on the following afternoon, when they were formally thanked for the support they had given to parliament and encouraged to continue in the same course.(1106)

(M558) (M559)

Nevertheless, when the danger was over the House thought fit to run the risk of alienating the favour of the City by an attempt to force the re-election of John Ireton as mayor for the coming year upon the unwilling citizens. On the 2nd September the House resolved that "John Ireton" [thus ignoring his knighthood], then lord mayor of the city of London, should continue to execute the office of lord mayor for the year ensuing, and ordered "that it be recommended to the city of London to see the same done accordingly."(1107) The Common Council being in no mood to comply with such request drew up a long petition to parliament,(1108) in which the government of the city was shown to depend upon "two strong supports," viz., the customs of the city and its charters, confirmed as they had been by divers Acts of Parliament; that by virtue of these charters and customs the mayor was chosen by the citizens, that he remained in office for no more than one year, and was presented to the supreme power of the nation for approbation. The petition went on to remind the House how on various occasions, and notably on the 13th January, 1644, and the 6th and 18th May of the same year, parliament had formally acknowledged the constant affection and assistance it had received from the city, and concluded by praying the House to lay no restraint upon the free election of their mayor by the citizens nor infringe the ancient customs and charters of the city, a breach of which "would exceedingly hazard, if not totally destroy, the peace, good order and happiness of the most ancient and well governed city" in the nation, if not in the whole world.

(M560)

The House taking this petition into consideration on the 28th September—the day preceding that on which the election was to take place—resolved by thirty-eight votes to thirteen "that the city of London be left at liberty to make choice of their mayor according to their charter, notwithstanding the previous vote of the House of the 2nd September instant."(1109) The citizens thereupon showed their independence by electing Thomas Aleyne.

(M561)

A good understanding or "correspondence" between parliament and the city having thus been arrived at, the Common Council resolved to ask the House to a dinner at Grocers' Hall to commemorate Lambert's defeat of the royalists. The invitation was accepted, and Thursday, the 6th October, named as the day on which the House would be prepared to go to the city to hear a sermon at Christchurch, Newgate, and afterwards dine with the municipal authorities.(1110)

(M562)

On that day week (13th October) the House suffered another indignity at the hands of the army. No sooner had Lambert defeated the royalist insurgents in Cheshire than he and his fellow officers made extraordinary demands of parliament. When these were refused they betook themselves to brute force and sent troops to shut out members from the House.(1111) So arbitrary a proceeding was distasteful to the citizens of London as well as to the nation at large.

(M563)

When lord mayor's day came round and Thomas Aleyne was to enter upon his year of office there was some apprehension in the minds of Fleetwood and the Council of Officers, who were now supreme, lest the day should be made an opportunity for display of popular feeling in favour of parliament. It was suggested, therefore, to the Court of Aldermen by Fleetwood that it might be well to omit the usual shows and attendance of the companies on that day. The court, however, thought otherwise, and directed a deputation to wait upon his excellency and acquaint him with the preparations that had already been made, and with the disappointment which the citizens would feel if they had to forego the customary solemnities, which could be carried out, in the opinion of the court, without any risk of disturbance.(1112)

(M564)

Monk, who was in Scotland, disapproved of the action of Lambert and his fellow officers, and prepared to march southward for the purpose (he said) of vindicating the rights of parliament. Whether he had any ulterior motive in view at the time is not known. Every effort was made by the officers of Lambert's army to secure the support of the City before Monk's arrival. On the 4th November and again on the 8th, Fleetwood, Whitelock and others conferred with the civic authorities. On the latter occasion Whitelock did not hesitate to declare that Monk's real design was the king's restoration at the risk of a civil war. "I shewed the danger of it to the city and nation and counselled them to provide for their own safety, and to join for the safety of the whole nation and for preservation of the peace." The Common Council expressed their thanks, and resolved to follow the advice thus given.(1113)

(M565)

On the 23rd November the Common Council received a letter from Monk, which Whitelock describes as "not relished well by them."(1114) The letter is not mentioned in the minutes of the court held on that day, which are confined to an order for the repair of the wall of Richmond Park and to the appointment of a day (2 Dec.) for a solemn humiliation with fasting and prayer, that God might bring them through all their "fears, troubles and darkness unto true rest, peace and settlement."(1115)

(M566)

Whilst matters were yet in a state of suspense the apprentices of the city again took the lead and presented (5 Dec.) a petition to the Common Council on the subject of "how the peace of this city may be preserved." Their petition was referred to a committee for consideration,(1116) but the apprentices brooked no delay. Out into the street they ran, in spite of all precautions to keep them indoors, crying out for a "free parliament." Amid the confusion Hewson appeared on the scene with a regiment of soldiers, and there was some little bloodshed, two men being killed. This brought the army into greater disrepute than ever, and the cry became general that "it was only kept on foot for the murder of citizens." The next day (6 Dec.) the Court of Aldermen sent a deputation to the Committee of Safety to excuse the recent outbreak and to disavow any complicity in it.(1117) The Committee desired to know particulars as to how the men came by their death, and to understand how far the Court of Aldermen would be responsible for the peace of the city. The Committee was told in reply that the recent deaths were under the consideration of the coroner, and that as to the steps about to be taken for the preservation of the peace of the city, further information would shortly be given.(1118)