(M567)

On the 8th December a Court of Aldermen sat and appointed a committee to confer with Fleetwood for preserving the peace and safety of the city and "for a right understanding between the city and army." He was to be desired in the meantime to keep his soldiers within barracks whilst the court of Common Council was sitting, unless the mayor or sheriffs expressed a wish to the contrary, and to cause the removal of certain "granadoes" recently stored at Gresham College and elsewhere in the city, which had caused strange apprehensions among the inhabitants. A petition to the Common Council for a parliament as in 1642 was unfavourably received, and handed back to the petitioners with a request to them not to print it.(1119) Anxious as the citizens were to get rid of the army's ammunition stored in the city, they were not so anxious to part with their own little stock of gunpowder, and hesitated to lodge it in the Tower as requested, lest it should be some day used against themselves. The City Remembrancer was instructed (17 Dec.) to see Fleetwood on the matter, and to represent to him the feeling of the inhabitants, that order might be taken for securing public peace and quiet.(1120)

(M568)

By the 19th matters were accommodated between Fleetwood and the City. A parliament was to be summoned which should be free from military influence or interference. The Common Council, on hearing of the success of the committee appointed to confer with Fleetwood, were so satisfied with the manner in which it had carried out its duties that they authorised it to continue to confer with his lordship from time to time as it should see cause for prevention of all misunderstandings between the city and the army.(1121) The action of the mayor, the common council and the committee in the matter was much canvassed, however, by a certain section of the community, and they were accused of betraying the rights and liberties of the city. A "declaration" was therefore drawn up in vindication of their conduct.(1122)

(M569)

On the 22nd a fresh committee was appointed to consult for the peace and safety of the city as well as to consider what answers should be sent to Monk, to the officers at Portsmouth and to Lawson, who was in command of a squadron in the Thames, all of whom were opposed to the army in London and in favour of a parliament.

(M570)

No time was lost; on the following day (23 Dec.) the committee reported to the Common Council recommending, among other things, that six regiments of trained bands should be at once called out and placed under the command of officers, whose commissions should be under the common seal of the city; that commissioners should be appointed to confer with Haslerigg, Morley, Walton and Vice-Admiral Lawson touching the safety of the city and the peace and settlement of the nation, and "in due time" to give an answer to General Monk's letter; and that the commissioners should be authorised to propound the convening of a free parliament according to the late "declaration" of the court. These recommendations being approved, commissioners were there and then appointed, and instructions drawn up for their guidance.(1123)

(M571)

The next day (Saturday, 24 Dec.) the Common Council was busy nominating officers of the trained bands. It also ordered the city's chains and posts to be set up in the several precincts, and the gates, portcullises and posterns to be looked to; but the council afterwards changed their minds on this matter, and the order was countermanded before the court rose.(1124)

(M572)

The revival of the city's militia was a welcome sign to the royalists. "What does the city?" wrote secretary Nicholas from Brussels about this time. "We know they talk of setting up a militia of their own, and that some of them say, as they helped to drive out the father, they will help to bring in the son."(1125) And again, a few days later, "The city should be made to understand how much their interests are concerned to suppress the illegal and boundless authority usurped by the army which cannot be done but by force, and by no force so well as that of the city and counties adjacent; for if the army shall ... get again to be absolute masters in London, no citizen or inhabitant there will be secure of anything they possess longer than it pleases the soldiery, which will soon make the citizens their absolute slaves." Once more, "The city cannot be secure," he repeats, "if the army continue their quarter and soldiers still among them, nor can any parliament be free whilst awed by an army.... Until it [the army] shall be made to obey orders from a power superior to it, there can be no security or peace, either in city or country."(1126)

(M573)

The spirit that had moved Haslerigg, Morley, Walton and Lawson at length moved the rank and file of the army in London. The soldiers placed themselves at the command of their cashiered officers. On the 24th December they marched to Lenthall's house in Chancery Lane, expressed their sorrow for the past, and promised to stand by parliament for the future. On the 26th the Rump was for the second time restored to power.(1127)

(M574) (M575)

The citizens had obtained their desire to have once more a parliament, but the parliament they got was far from being the free parliament they had been looking for. They wished to take an early opportunity—lest their action should be misinterpreted—to inform the Rump that the measures they had taken for "settling" the trained bands had been taken before "their honors came together this last time." They desired to explain the reasons for undertaking the work, and to show that in so doing the city had only acted within its rights. A petition was accordingly drawn up on the 28th December, setting forth that disorders in the city had increased "by the exorbitant actings of many of those men who at first being appointed by parliament a Committee of Militia within the city of London for their security and safety, have since their last interruption acted by a commission under the Great Seal of England against the same parliament," and that for the prevention of any disorder that might arise they had fallen back upon their ancient rights and usages, and had put themselves in a posture of defence, not for the purpose of acting against parliament, but for it. Whilst offering these explanations the City was anxious that parliament would receive into its House all such members as were still alive and fill up the places of all who were dead. On the 29th the Common Council resolved that this petition should not be laid before the House until further order.(1128) The commissioners appointed by the City to confer with Haslerigg, Morley and Walton at Portsmouth had returned, and their report made to the Common Council on that day may have given rise to the postponement.

(M576)

Monk's letter to the City, sent in November, had all this time remained unanswered. At last (29 Dec.) a reply was drawn up, and, after receiving the approval of the Common Council, was despatched to the general by the hands of the City Swordbearer.(1129)

(M577)

On the last day of the year a deputation from the House, including Lenthall, Haslerigg, Morley and others, waited upon the Court of Aldermen to confer with them about the safety of the city. The erection of the city posts and chains, which apparently had been proceeded with, and the calling out of the trained bands troubled parliament. By the 2nd January Haslerigg was able to satisfy parliament on the first head. It was contrary (he said) to the mind of the lord mayor, aldermen and Common Council to have any posts or chains set up, and those that were set up should be taken down.(1130) Two days later (4 Jan.) the Common Council ordered the settlement of the trained bands to be proceeded with, and nominated a committee to lay before parliament the grounds and reasons for so doing, the committee being instructed to again press for a full and free parliament.(1131) The attitude of the City towards the restored Rump was keenly watched by royalists abroad. "Let me know certainly the Londoners' intentions about the Rump," wrote secretary Nicholas, "and settling their own militia, and also the proceedings of Monk and Lambert, and how each of them approves the restoring of the Rump."(1132)

(M578)

The City's anxiety for a return of a full and free parliament in the place of the Rump was occasioned in some degree by the fact that in the existing House they had but a single representative, viz., Alderman Atkin, and without due representation the citizens refused to be subjected to taxation. "They were resolved," Pepys notes in his diary (13 Jan.), "to make no more applications to the parliament, nor to pay any money, unless the secluded members be brought in or a free parliament chosen."

(M579) (M580)

In the meantime Lambert, who had set out for the north of England with the intention of stopping Monk's passage from Scotland, had been recalled, and by the middle of January Monk and his army were well on their way to London. On the 6th January he had despatched a letter(1133) to the Common Council by the hands of the City Swordbearer, who having handed to the general the city's late missive, was about to return.(1134) As Monk approached London Alderman Fowke and two other commissioners were ordered (19 Jan.) to go out to meet him and thank him for his second letter, and for his cheerful concurrence with the declaration of the Common Council, and to desire the continuance of a good understanding between his excellency and the court for the settlement of the nation and peace of the city. By the 30th they had returned and were able to report to the Common Council the result of their interview.(1135) The nature of their report has not been recorded.

(M581) (M582)

In order to avoid as much as possible the appearance of entering London as a conqueror, Monk brought with him no more than 5,000 men, a force considerably less than that which was quartered in London and Westminster. Having reached St. Albans, he wrote to the Speaker asking that five of the regiments in the capital might be removed to a distance before his arrival lest his troops should become disaffected by intercourse with those who had been so recently engaged in rebellion. The House acquiesced and gave orders to that effect, but the soldiers refused to leave their quarters, swearing that they would not go without their money, and threatening if their pay was not received to "go where they might have it, and that was the city."(1136) A sum of money having been hastily raised to satisfy their demands, they consented to march out, and the next morning (3 Feb.) Monk entered at the head of his force—"in very good plight and stout officers"—and proceeded to the quarters assigned to him at Whitehall recently occupied by Bradshaw.(1137)

(M583)

Monk was anxious to feel the pulse of the City before committing himself to any definite policy. He had not long to wait before he was assured of its favour. On the 8th February the Common Council agreed to send a deputation to the general to congratulate him upon his coming to London and to thank him for his courtesy to the City's commissioners recently despatched to him, as well as to express a hope that the good understanding which had prevailed between his excellency and the City might continue.(1138)

(M584)

The friendly attitude of the City towards Monk, and its recent hostile attitude towards parliament—some of the Common Council, we are told, had been "very high" at the last court, and refused to pay taxes until the House should be filled up(1139)—was so marked that the Rump determined upon dissolving the Common Council, although it commended the "discreet carriage" of the lord mayor in conducting the business of the court.(1140) Not content with this the House went further, and ordered troops to be quartered in the city "for reducing the city to the obedience of the parliament." The city's gates and portcullises, moreover, were to be removed, and eleven citizens, including an alderman, were ordered into custody.(1141)

(M585)

The unenviable task of seeing these orders executed was, by a clever stroke of policy, committed to Monk himself. There was no alternative open to him but to obey, and to carry out the orders of parliament with as little friction to the citizens as was possible. No sooner had he taken up his residence in the city for this purpose than he was asked by the mayor to delay removing the city's gates until the matter should be communicated to the Court of Aldermen.

(M586)

A special court having been summoned Monk attended in person (10 Feb.) and informed the members of the commands that had been laid upon him by parliament touching the city's gates and portcullises. Being told that the execution of such commands would be "of very ill consequence both to parliament and the city" the general could only reply that the commands of the House were so positive that he could only hold his hand on one condition, and that was that the city should acknowledge the Rump that so he might have ground for writing to and mediating with the House. The court was allowed to consider the matter whilst Monk withdrew. Upon his return he was informed that the Court of Aldermen could not speak on behalf of the whole body of citizens, "and that the Common Council being now disabled to meet, there was none in capacity to do it." But, said his excellency, the Court of Aldermen might declare their own minds? Again Monk withdrew, only to be told, however, on his return that the court was of opinion that their doing so "would not at this time be a service either to the parliament or city."(1142)

(M587)

The next day (11 Feb.) the Court of Aldermen again met. Monk, too, was there. He had just despatched a letter to the Speaker of the House complaining of the invidious work he and his soldiers had been set to do—a work which served only to bring them into discredit with the city—and peremptorily demanding that every seat in the House should be filled up by the following Friday (17 Feb.) as a preliminary to the calling together of a new parliament. When the aldermen heard of this letter they were delighted, and ready to accede to anything Monk might suggest. He proposed quartering troops in the city "for a few days." The aldermen raised no objection, but asked his excellency to utilise as far as possible the inns and public victualling houses, "so as may be least offence to the citizens."(1143) They even displayed a readiness to give up their own houses to the use of the general and his officers, and promised that his soldiers should lack nothing.(1144) On his quitting the court such a shout was raised of "God bless your excellency" as had been seldom heard. Bonfires were lighted that evening from Cheapside to Temple Bar, bells were set ringing, and rumps carried in mock procession and solemnly roasted in token of the approaching dissolution of parliament. So great was the hospitality offered to the soldiers that most of them got gloriously drunk.(1145)

(M588)

The next day being Sunday (12 Feb.) Monk, whose wife had joined him in his lodgings in the city, attended morning service at St. Paul's, and in the afternoon went to a church in Broad Street, probably that of St. Peter le Poor, in the neighbourhood of his lodgings.(1146)

(M589)

On Monday (13 Feb.) he held a conference with the mayor and aldermen at Drapers' Hall, a stone's throw from where he lived, with reference to the peace and safety of the city. Alderman Atkin, a member of parliament, was sent for to be informed of "sundry matters of great danger to the city," of which information had reached the ears of the Court of Aldermen, and which he was to communicate to the House. But particulars are not recorded.(1147)

(M590)

The Council of State were far from being pleased with Monk for taking up his quarters in the city, and repeatedly urged him to leave the city for Whitehall, where they could keep a better watch on his movements. They particularly desired his company at Whitehall on Tuesday morning for the purpose (they said) of consulting him on matters relating to public safety, and in order that they might have an opportunity of communicating to him the recent proceedings of parliament.(1148)

(M591)

Monk was in no hurry to quit the city. On Wednesday (15 Feb.) he sent for Alderman Fowke to say that he purposed marching out of the city with his forces on the following afternoon, but that in so doing he had no intention of receding from his promise to secure the safety of the city. He would also endeavour to bring about a right understanding between parliament and the city. Fowke having reported this to the Court of Aldermen there was great alarm, and a deputation was despatched, with Fowke at its head, to beg the general to let his soldiers remain in the city "if it may consist with his trust." Word was brought next day to the court that in the event of his excellency quitting the city he would leave behind two regiments for its safety, and that if the court would give him the names of persons fit to be officers he would endeavour to get two regiments of their own appointed by parliament.(1149)

(M592)

Instead of quitting the city Monk only changed his quarters to the house of William Wale, alderman of the ward of Farringdon Without, whither he caused his goods to be removed from Whitehall, as to a more or less permanent residence.(1150) There he remained, holding frequent interviews with the leading citizens and preparing to carry into effect the project of restoring the king.(1151)

(M593)

In the meanwhile parliament had been busy completing the bill for the qualifications of electors and candidates for the new parliament, and on the day fixed (17 Feb.) by Monk writs were ready to be issued. According to the qualifications passed by the House, no one could be elected a member of the forthcoming parliament unless pledged to support a republican form of government. As this meant the exclusion of the members shut out by Pride's Purge in 1648 it gave rise to much dissatisfaction, and Monk was appealed to. A deputation of the sitting members met a deputation of the excluded members at Monk's new quarters, when it was decided that the Presbyterian members shut out by Pride's Purge should again be allowed to take their seats. Four days later (21 Feb.) they attended parliament at Monk's invitation and were admitted without opposition.

The day passed off without any disturbance, although it was feared that the "secluded" members might attempt to force their way into parliament. It was also feared that if such an attempt were made it would be backed up by some inhabitants of the city. The council had therefore asked Monk to take precautions for securing the freedom of parliament as well as maintaining peace within the city.(1152)

(M594)

The recent order of parliament dissolving the Common Council of the city was declared null and void, the municipal authorities were allowed to set up the city's gates and portcullises again, and the imprisoned citizens were liberated.(1153) That night was a joyous one in the city. Bells were rung and bonfires were lighted, so that the sky was ablaze with illuminations, "a most pleasant sight to see."(1154)

On the 28th February—a day set apart for public thanksgiving—Monk was invited to an entertainment at Grocers' Hall in honour of the restoration of a full parliament and of the Common Council of the city; but party spirit was so rife that it became necessary to warn the general against receiving anything that he might hear "as the sense of the city."(1155) Bonfires were forbidden to be lighted in the city that night by order of the Council of State, lest some discontented spirits might seize the opportunity to raise a disturbance.(1156)

(M595)

The day that the Common Council re-assembled (22 Feb.) it received a deputation from the restored House asking for a loan. With little hesitation the court voted a sum of L60,000 on the security of the monthly assessments. It was left to the aldermen, deputies and common councilmen of the wards to raise the money by subscription, and they were further instructed to take the best course they could for raising a sum of L100,000 upon the same account.(1157) It was subsequently (1 March) arranged that the sum of L27,000 should be advanced upon security of the six months' assessment, and in case the same should not be fully collected out of the assessment, the deficit, as well as the cost of repairing and setting up the gates, portcullises, etc., should be secured by Act of Parliament.(1158)

(M596)

The House acceded to the City's request that its militia might be placed in the hands of commissioners of its own choice. Monk himself was nominated by the Common Council (3 March) Sergeant-Major-General of the city's forces, a post which he signified his willingness to accept.(1159) The sooner the militia was settled the sooner would the city be rid of Monk's soldiers, of whose excesses the Common Council had had recent cause to complain.(1160) Armed once more with parliamentary powers, the commissioners for the militia of the city prepared to raise six regiments of auxiliaries and some cavalry, as well as a month's tax at the rate of L35,000 a month over England for their maintenance or "trophies."(1161)

(M597)

Having settled the militia of the kingdom as well as that of London, parliament—the Long Parliament, which during its actual or nominal existence for nearly twenty years had experienced every vicissitude of fortune—was at length dissolved (16 March) by its own act, and writs were issued for a fresh parliament to meet on the 25th April.(1162) The new parliament was known as the Convention Parliament on account of its members having been elected without the king's writs.

(M598)

Ten days after the dissolution of the Long Parliament there came to the Common Council of the city a deputation from the Council of State, in whose hands the sole government of the kingdom then lay, with a proposal to borrow the sum of half a million of money (L500,000) upon the security of a moiety of the excise. The court, after deliberation, agreed (2 April) to lend a sum of money (amount not specified) to the Council of State upon security of the moiety of the excise "and the honour of the said Council of State," and ordered that subscriptions should at once be set on foot in the several wards.(1163)

(M599)

Scarcely had the House broken up before people began to talk freely of the king and his probable restoration, a subject on which they had hitherto dared only to speak in a whisper. So bold indeed did they become that on the very day of the dissolution a man came with a ladder to the Exchange—not "Royal," but "Great" Exchange—in the city and obliterated with a brush the inscription, Exit Tyrannus Regum Ultimus, which had been set up in August, 1650, near the site of the late king's statue, destroyed by order of the then Council of State, as already narrated. Before the end of the month another statue was in course of making to take the place of the one that had been thus destroyed.(1164) As time went on, and Monk's design to bring in Charles became more apparent, the citizens grew yet bolder. The Skinners' Company went so far as to set up again the royal arms in their hall on the occasion of an entertainment given to Monk himself.(1165)

(M600)

Towards the close of April, when it was evident that the king's restoration was a mere question of time, the Common Council showed an anxiety to place on record an account of the attitude taken up by the City, and to vindicate its action throughout the late troublous times. It appointed (26 April) a committee "to peruse the records of this court and report what of them are fit to be considered of, and their opinions thereupon; and also to prepare a narrative for the vindication of this court and city touching the same." The committee at once set to work, and in four days were ready with a draft of "a declaration and vindication of the lord mayor, aldermen and commons of the city of London in Common Council assembled," which received the approval of the court (30 April), and a printed copy of which was ordered to be sent to every member of parliament and Council of State.(1166)

After expressions of satisfaction at the thought of an end having been put to the distractions of the kingdom by General Monk, and at the hopeful prospect of a return to the old form of government by king, lords and commons, under which the country had so long prospered at home and been respected abroad, this declaration proceeded to disavow the various Acts of the Common Council as established in 1648, when, "in the general deluge of disorder introduced upon these kingdoms" in that year, the government of the city passed into the hands of "men of loose and dangerous principles," who proceeded to pass Acts "tending to the murder of the late king and total extinguishment of kingly government," and who by no means were a fair representation of the city. It set forth various proceedings of the Common Council in connection with parliament and the city's Engagement to guarantee the personal safety of the late king from the 22nd June, 1648, down to the 13th January, 1649, when the lord mayor Reynardson was constrained to leave the council. The terms of this Engagement the City was prepared to carry out, "but it pleased Almighty God to permit their good intentions and endeavours to be frustrated by the destructive counsels and actings of those who had designed to build upp their dominion and fortunes on the ruin of the king and kingdom." The House of Lords was dissolved, and all the best members excluded from the House of Commons. By "pretended ordinances" of parliament, all those worthy citizens who, according to their allegiance and covenant, had engaged to procure and secure a personal treaty with the king, were rendered incapable to be elected into the Common Council or any other office of trust in the city.

What could be expected of a body thus emasculated? They declare themselves unable to find words to express their abhorrence of the proceedings that had taken place in the Common Council of the 13th January, 1649, and "profess their thankful memory of the noble gallant resolutions of the then lord mayor, Alderman Reynardson, and his brethren the aldermen, who so valiantly resisted the turbulent disorders of that mechanicke juncto during many hours' assault and at last prudently retreated and washed their hands from the guilt of those bloody resolves." In conclusion they express a hope and trust that since the recovery of the right of free election the Common Council had manifested an eagerness to act cordially and strenuously with parliament in everything tending towards good government, and that soon, by the aid of the parliament recently convened, they would be put under the protection of the first and fundamental government of hereditary monarchy according to the ancient laws of the nation.

(M601)

The City's declaration and vindication was scarcely printed and published before a letter from Charles himself(1167) was brought to the Common Council by Lord Mordaunt and Sir John Grenville (1 May), in which the prince expressed a wish that the City should know how little he desired revenge and how convinced he was that the peace, happiness and security of the kingdom were only to be secured by gaining the hearts and affections of his subjects. He felt that he could count upon the City to assist him in re-establishing those fundamental laws upon which the happiness of the country so much depended, and he avowed a "particular affection" for his native city, the charters of which he was not only ready to renew and confirm, but to grant such new favours as might advance its trade, wealth and honour.

(M602)

Enclosed in this letter was a declaration known as the Declaration of Breda, from the place where Charles had signed it on the 4th April (o.s.)(1168) It offered a general pardon to all except those specially exempted by parliament and promised liberty of conscience in matters of religion. Charles further expressed his willingness to leave questions of title to estates acquired during the late troublous times to be decided by parliament. He assured the soldiers of arrears of pay and promised to continue them in his service on the same terms as they then enjoyed.

(M603)

The letter and declaration having been read (1 May), the Common Council returned thanks to Charles for his condescension towards the City, and expressed their willingness to submit to his majesty's government, in token of which the arms of the Commonwealth (he was informed) had already been taken down and orders given for those of his majesty to be set up. A committee was appointed to draw up a formal answer in writing for conveyance to Charles by the same hands that had brought his letter, provided parliament would allow the City to return an answer. The late king's statue, which had been removed from the Guildhall chapel, was to be forthwith set up again.(1169)

(M604)

Charles having shrewdly thrown upon parliament the burden of naming the terms on which his restoration was to take place, it became necessary that a parliament should meet forthwith. Another Convention Parliament had accordingly met on the 25th April. The declaration of Breda reached it on the 1st May, and on the following day it sent to borrow L100,000 from the City. The Common Council at once took steps for raising the money.(1170) One half of this sum was destined for the king's own use, and sorely he stood in need of it. Pepys, who had it from an eye-witness, records "how overjoyed the king was when Sir J. Grenville brought him some money; so joyful that he called the Princess Royal and Duke of York to look upon it as it lay in the portmanteau before it was taken out."(1171)

(M605)

The same day (2 May) that the Common Council undertook to raise the loan for parliament it voted on its own account a gift of L10,000 to Charles. It also voted a sum of L2,000 for expenses in sending a deputation to the Hague; but it was subsequently resolved to divide the sum between the Dukes of York and Gloucester, and that the members of the deputation should discharge their own expenses. A further sum of L300 was voted for Lord Mordaunt and Sir John Grenville, the bearers of the king's letters, for the purchase of a ring apiece. The sum of L12,000 was raised among the livery companies on the understanding that this was an exceptional occasion and was not to be drawn into precedent.(1172)

(M606)

Besides returning an answer by the hands of the king's messengers, the Common Council appointed sixteen commissioners to wait upon the king at the Hague with the City's formal answer.(1173) By the 28th May the commissioners returned and reported the success of their expedition to the Common Council. They had been very graciously received by Charles, who had conferred knighthood upon those who had not already received that honour. The court gave them a hearty vote of thanks for the great pains and charges they had been put to.(1174)

(M607)

In the meantime Charles had been publicly proclaimed king in the city by the lord mayor (8 May), who, in honour of the occasion, had been specially provided with a new crimson velvet gown, whilst his Swordbearer in attendance was scarcely less gorgeous in a damask gown of the finest "branch."(1175) The Commons of England joining with them, the lord mayor, aldermen and commons of London unanimously acknowledged and proclaimed that by inherent right the crown had devolved upon Charles II immediately on the decease of his father as next heir.(1176)

(M608)

On the 25th May Charles landed at Dover, and four days later entered London, being met at St. George's Fields(1177) by the mayor and aldermen. The City's sword having been offered to the king and returned, Charles conferred the honour of knighthood upon Thomas Aleyne, the lord mayor, and partook of refreshment in the lord mayor's tent, set up for the purpose. From there to Whitehall the journey was one long triumphal procession through streets strewn with flowers and lined with members of the companies in their handsome liveries. Never was there such a restoration, wrote John Evelyn, since the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity.(1178)



CHAPTER XXVIII.



(M609)

On the afternoon of Saturday, the 2nd June (1660), the mayor and aldermen, accompanied by the Recorder, waited upon the king to congratulate him on his return and to restore to him Richmond Park, according to a resolution of the Common Council.(1179) Speaking on behalf of the City, the Recorder expressly declared that it was done by way of restitution and not as a gift. He assured the king that it was well that the park had been in the City's hands, for they had preserved the wood, vert and game. Not to be outdone in courtesy the king replied that "the city of London were still loading him with their kindness, and that he looked upon the said park to be kept for him, and that he accepted it not as restored, but as freely given unto him by the city, and thanked them for the same."(1180)

(M610)

The early days of June were busy days for lord mayor Aleyne, to whose house the citizens flocked in order to signify their acceptance of his majesty's offer of pardon.(1181) On the 5th June the mayor himself and those aldermen who were not barred by the Statute of Indemnity and Oblivion (12 Charles II, c. 11), subscribed a declaration of pardon, whilst members of the Common Council took the oaths of supremacy and allegiance pursuant to the king's orders.(1182) Later on the master and wardens of the livery companies, the presidents of the hospitals, the president and governors of the Irish Society, as well as the governors of the Merchant Adventurers and other trading companies, were called upon to do the like.(1183)

(M611)

Sir John Weld, who had been dismissed in 1642 from the office of town clerk(1184) for failing to attend the Common Council, a duty which he was rendered incapable of fulfilling owing to his having been appointed at that time high-sheriff of Shropshire, seized the opportunity of presenting a petition to the court of Common Council (5 June) to be re-instated in office. A committee to whom the matter was referred reported to the council that they found that it had been by special command of the late king that Weld had been prevented carrying out his duties, and recommended that he should now be restored. The court, however, seemed loth to re-instate him, and it was not until after the receipt of a letter from secretary Nicholas and a writ of restitution had been issued that it consented (21 Sept.) to re-admit him to office, and then only by deputy.(1185)

(M612)

John Sadler, who held the office of town clerk at the time, was promptly got rid of on a charge of having given judgment in "a late pretended court of justice," and of having signed the death-warrant of Christopher Love, a zealous Presbyterian and minister of the church of St. Lawrence, Jewry, who had been accused of treason in 1651 and beheaded on Tower Hill in the midst of ominous thunderings and clouds of darkness.(1186)

(M613)

On the 4th September the king wrote to the City stating that as by the passing of the Act of Indemnity many of the aldermen were rendered incapable of continuing in office, it was his wish that their places should be filled by restoring those aldermen who had in times past been removed for their allegiance to him. As many of the latter had submitted to pay fines rather than continue in office against their conscience, he further recommended that these fines should be returned to them.(1187) Pursuant to the king's wishes, the Common Council formally declared "that Sir Thomas Adams, Sir Abraham Reynardson, Sir Thomas Soame, Sir John Langham, Sir James Bunce and Sir Richard Browne are aldermen of this city," and called upon them to take upon themselves the execution of their respective places.(1188)

(M614)

One of these, Sir John Langham, then in his seventy-eighth year, wrote from Crosby House to the Court of Aldermen asking to be excused on the score of his advanced age. He had been, he said, laid aside about twelve years since and imprisoned in the Tower by order of parliament(1189) (24 Sept., 1647), chiefly to prevent his being chosen lord mayor, and had been released on the following 6th June without any effort being made on his part. He had afterwards (7 April, 1649) been removed from office with Sir John Gayer, Alderman Adams and "brother" Bunce by resolution of "that remain of a House of Commons that presumed to sit as a parliament," and others had been chosen in their stead.(1190) The Court of Aldermen acceded to the veteran's request(1191)

(M615)

At Michaelmas the citizens would again have placed the royalist Reynardson in the mayoralty chair, but he excused himself on the ground of ill-health,(1192) and the gallant Alderman Sir Richard Browne was elected in his stead. A twelvemonth later Reynardson was dead, having passed away on the 4th October, 1661.

(M616)

In the meantime (5 July) the king and parliament had been entertained at dinner by the City with great magnificence. The day was unfortunately rainy, and Pepys, who seems never to have quite forgotten that he was the son of a tailor, and never put on a new suit of clothes without recording the fact in his diary, remarks that the rain that day "spoiled many a fine suit of clothes." The entertainment on this occasion took place at the Guildhall instead of at the hall of one of the great city companies. The mayor took the opportunity in the course of the dinner to present the king with a "welcome cupp according to the usuall custome," as a token of loyalty and duty. On the following day the members of the Common Council and the masters and wardens of those companies which had advanced money to defray the cost of the entertainment dined together in the hall, when there was "the same musicke as was the day before at the entertainment of his majesty."(1193)

(M617)

When the Entertainment Committee waited on his majesty to thank him for his condescension in accepting the City's entertainment and to crave his pardon for whatever had gone amiss, they took the opportunity of satisfying him on certain matters—viz., the repair of St. Paul's and the building a drawbridge on London bridge—about which his majesty desired to be informed. They at the same time reported the City's choice of Sir Richard Browne to be major-general of the City's forces in the place of Monk, recently created Duke of Albemarle, who had been obliged to resign his commission "by reason of the multiplicity of affairs in his majesty's service."(1194)

(M618)

On the 14th August a deputation from the Lords and Commons attended a court of Common Council and desired a loan of L100,000 on the security of the poll tax. The court declined to commit itself to any promise. It was much dissatisfied, and more especially with the inequality of the poll tax; it therefore preferred submitting the matter to a committee for investigation before giving an answer.(1195) A committee was then and there nominated to consider the question.

By October matters were so pressing that Charles himself wrote to the City, insisting upon the money being advanced within ten days upon the security of the Act for two months' assessment about to be levied on the whole kingdom, and out of which he solemnly promised, "on the word of a king," that the loan, both principal and interest, should be repaid before any other disbursements were made. The money was wanted for the purpose, he said, of disbanding the army.(1196)

(M619) (M620)

Notwithstanding this pecuniary difficulty and the existence of certain grievances of which the City complained, more especially the abolition of the Court of Wards,(1197) for which the king was to receive another L100,000 by way of compensation, the good relationship between Charles and the City still continued; so that when a deputation waited on him with a petition from the livery companies relative to their Irish estates, the following gracious reply was given:—"That his majesty would perform what his father had promised and more, and that his majesty would deny the city nothing; that his majesty found they dealt honestly with him, and his majesty would deny them nothing."(1198)

(M621)

Thus far all had gone well with Charles. Within a month of his first letters from Breda he had recovered his father's throne without shedding one drop of blood. Of his enemies the more powerful were either in prison or had fled the country, whilst others had paid the penalty for their implication in the death of the late king with their own heads. Danger, however, lurked where least expected. A small band of fanatics known by the name of Fifth Monarchy men, who believed in the immediate coming of Christ upon earth to rule the world, were in the habit of holding meetings in Coleman Street. On Sunday, the 6th January, 1661, excited by a harangue uttered by their leader, a wine-cooper named Venner, they broke out, and with arms in their hands hurried to St. Paul's. There they posted sentries, and demanded of passers-by whom were they for? Upon one of them replying that he was for King Charles, he was at once shot by the fanatics, who cried out that they were for King Jesus. Luckily the city was at the time in the hands of that staunch soldier Sir Richard Browne. Upon his appearance on the scene with an armed force the rioters retreated to Highgate, but not before they had killed at least half-a-dozen men. During the next two days the streets were strongly patrolled; travellers abroad were strictly examined as to the nature of their business before being allowed to pass on their way, and suspected persons were disarmed and compelled to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy.(1199) Every moment the return of the rioters was expected, but Monday and Tuesday passed and none appeared. One of their meeting houses (probably that in Coleman Street) was ordered to be pulled down. At six o'clock on Wednesday morning the inhabitants were aroused by hearing again the cry of the fanatics, "The King Jesus and their heads upon the gates," as they madly attacked the king's life guards. Their whole number, it is said, did not amount to much more than thirty, of whom twenty were killed, whilst Venner and nearly all the rest were made prisoners. When questioned the prisoners one and all refused to make any confession, saying that they would not betray the servants of the Lord Jesus.(1200) Ten days later they expiated their crime on the scaffold, and the lord mayor, having received orders to seize all suspected persons in the city, proceeded to imprison a number of Quakers. These he kept in confinement until the following March, when all fear of further disturbance having passed away, they were discharged.(1201)

(M622)

The Common Council passed a vote of thanks (25 Jan.) to the lord mayor and sheriffs for their vigilant conduct during the outbreak,(1202) and appointed a deputation to wait on his majesty to know his pleasure as to when a day of public thanksgiving should be kept for its timely suppression. It also appointed a committee (28 Jan.) to enquire as to the number killed and the best means of raising money for the relief of their widows and children.(1203)

(M623)

Having successfully paid off and disbanded the army,(1204) the king turned his attention to paying off the navy, for which purpose he sent a deputation from the Privy Council to the City (11 March) with a letter asking for a speedy loan of L100,000. The city fathers at once took steps to raise the money in the several wards, and any able inhabitant refusing to subscribe was ordered to be reported to the lord mayor; but three days later the king again wrote saying that, as money was coming in from the country quicker than had been anticipated, the loan would not be required.(1205)

(M624)

A month had scarcely passed before the Duke of Albemarle, the Earl of Manchester, the Earl of Sandwich, Viscount Valentia, Denzill Holles, and Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper appeared before the court of Common Council (9 April) with a letter from the king asking for another loan of L60,000. As the City was anxious to have its rights and liberties ratified and confirmed by a new charter, it did wisely in giving an unanimous assent to this demand, more especially as the loan was to be made upon parliamentary security.(1206)

(M625)

The City had other expenses to meet. The day fixed for the king's coronation (23 April) was drawing near, and preparations had been going on since February.(1207) The sum of L6,000 had already been spent in "preparing ornaments for his majesty's passage through the city to his coronation," and L3,000 more was wanted. The money was immediately voted.(1208) On the 1st April the Court of Aldermen nominated twelve citizens to assist the chief butler on the day of the coronation,(1209) whilst the court of Common Council voted a sum of L1,000 in gold as a gift to be made by the City to the king on that occasion.(1210)

(M626)

The old regalia having been dispersed, broken up or lost after the death of Charles I, a commission was given to Sir Robert Vyner, alderman of the city and the king's goldsmith, to make a new set for the coronation of Charles II. This was accordingly done, care being taken to follow the old patterns as far as possible. The new regalia comprised two crowns, three sceptres, an orb, a mace and a quantity of collars, Georges and garters for the order of St. George. Vyner also supplied the king with plate for new year's gifts and for his majesty's own use, the entire cost amounting to over L30,000.(1211)

(M627)

On the day before the ceremony (22 April) Charles set out from the Tower to Whitehall. The procession was one of exceptional splendour as it passed through the streets new gravelled for the occasion.(1212) A special gallery was erected in Cheapside for the city aldermen, as well as a triumphal arch.(1213) Pepys, who dearly loved a gala day as affording him an excuse for putting on new finery, was lost in admiration at the sight which presented itself to his eyes as he viewed the procession from the windows of "Mr. Young's, the flagmaker," in Cornhill, and declared it to be "impossible to relate the glory of this day, expressed in the clothes of them that rid and their horses and horse-clothes." The mayor himself was provided with a crimson velvet gown for the occasion.(1214)

(M628) (M629)

The coronation ceremony was carried out the next day with all the customary formalities, and the evening was given up to bonfires and fireworks, not to mention also a considerable amount of tippling. Even Pepys himself was obliged to confess that he got to his bed only "pretty well." There was but one accident worth mentioning during the entire day. Sergeant Glyn, who had formerly been the City's Recorder, and had afterwards been raised to the Bench, was nearly killed by his horse falling on him whilst riding in the cavalcade with Maynard, another eminent lawyer. Had they both been killed the populace (we are told) would have only looked upon it as a judgment of a just God for their action under the Commonwealth.(1215)

(M630)

Meanwhile the Convention Parliament had been dissolved and a new one summoned to meet in May (1661). When the elections took place there was a hot contest in the city between Presbyterians and Episcopalians, resulting in the discomfiture of the latter, "who went away cursing and swearing and wishing they had never come."(1216) One writer describes the election as having been "the greatest appearance that ever the oldest men alive saw."(1217) Great efforts were made to obtain the re-election of those who had served the city in the last parliament.(1218) Unfortunately their names are not known to us with any certainty. The successful candidates consisted of three aldermen, viz., William Thompson, William Love and John Fowke and Captain John Jones. Thompson and Love are described as "godly men and of good parts, Congregationalists," Captain Jones as "a Presbyterian man," and Fowke as one "not much noted for religion, but a countenancer of good ministers," and as "deeply engaged in Bishop's lands."(1219) Pepys,(1220) who lived in the heart of the city, was himself surprised at the "strange election," and at the discomfiture of the Episcopalian party, "that thought themselves so strong. It do so make people to feare it may come to worse by being an example to the country to do the same. And, indeed, the bishops are so high that very few do love them."

(M631)

Others besides Pepys recognised the effect likely to be produced in the country by the example set by London; and those who, unlike Pepys, were of a Presbyterian turn of mind freely expressed their hopes that the keynote of the election struck by the City would be taken up by the country at large. "God has overruled the hearts of men and heard the prayers of his people in the city election, though the Episcopals were high and thought to have the day; a precedent is given to the whole country," writes a contemporary to a friend.(1221) "The city of London has set a good example," writes another.(1222) Another expresses a hope that "other places will be encouraged by the example of this to choose sober and moderate men for parliament men"; whilst another declares "the city was very unanimous and courageous in its choice," and that "if the country do the same, profaneness and superstition will no longer prevail, but Godly magistrates and ministers be settled in every place."(1223)

(M632) (M633)

That the court party were afraid of the effect that the result of the city election would have upon the rest of the kingdom, where elections were still going on, is evidenced by the fact that these letters just cited, as well as numerous others despatched to various parts of the country with details of the election, were intercepted at the post office.(1224) Neither the hopes of the one party nor the fears of the other as to the effect of the City's choice of members upon others were destined to be realised to the extent anticipated. The electors proved loyal, and the members returned to the new parliament which met on the 8th May were for the most part too young to remember the tyranny of the Stuarts.

(M634)

The new parliament agreed that neither House could claim the command of the militia nor lawfully make war upon the king. Act after Act was passed against those who refused to conform to the Established Church. Before the close of the year (1661) the Corporation Act received the assent of both Houses.(1225) Thenceforth no one was to be allowed to hold any municipal office unless he renounced the covenant, took the oath of non-resistance, and received the Sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England. By thus excluding Nonconformists (or "Dissenters," as they began now to be called) from municipal corporation, parliament indirectly excluded them from seats in the House of Commons.

(M635)

On the 9th July the Common Council approved of the presentation of a petition to the king for a confirmation of the City's charter.(1226) The time was not inopportune, inasmuch as a "free and voluntary present" to Charles had recently been set on foot,(1227) and the maxim of do ut des was one well understood between the City and the Crown. It is not surprising, therefore, that on the 17th an Order in Council was passed to the effect that the lord treasurer should assure the City that his majesty was highly sensible of their loyalty and affection, and would renew their charter with additions if desired and found fit.(1228) The lord chancellor happening to be in the city one day (8 Aug.) on the business of the "free and voluntary present," the civic authorities embraced the opportunity of urging him to press their suit with the king, whereupon "it pleased my lord chancellor to express much affection and forwardness to this great concernment of the city," and he promised to see the king on the matter that same evening, and to get the attorney-general, who was about to leave town, to defer his journey if the City would at once forward its old charter to Mr. Attorney for the purpose of renewal. This the Common Council readily agreed to do.(1229) In spite, however, of the exertions of the lord chancellor and of the City, no renewal of the charter of Charles I was obtained until nearly two years had elapsed.

(M636)

In October the mayor, aldermen and recorder attended his majesty in council, by request, when Charles repeated the promise made in his letter from Breda not to diminish or alter the rights of the City; but at the same time he informed them of his intention to make one exception, pro hac vice, by removing four or five of the aldermen who had been "faulty in the late troubles," and of putting others "of known worth and ability" in their places. He promised also to safeguard the City's interest in the Act then pending in parliament relative to corporations.(1230) The City could not do otherwise than submit,(1231) and the king carried out his threat. The commissioners who had been appointed under the Great Seal to "regulate" the Corporation removed at least two of the aldermen, viz., Tempest Miller, of Candlewick ward, and William Love, of Portsoken, who had recently been elected one of the city's representatives in parliament, their places being filled up by Sir Thomas Rich and Sir Thomas Bludworth, the king's own nominees.(1232)

(M637)

Pending the negotiations for a renewal of the City's charter, the Presbyterians of the city and their ultra-radical brethren the Fifth Monarchy men again caused disquietude. The latter had been "scotched not killed" after Venner's outbreak: "they are as bold in their meetings as before Venner's plot; Fifth Monarchy men preach and visit with Presbyterians, and encourage the people to withstand the common prayer and the oppression and idolatry of the court."(1233) The mayor had recently succeeded in breaking up a meeting and capturing ten men and thirty women, whom he lodged in Newgate. When remonstrated with they told the mayor that they had met to serve God, and when told that he best served God who obeyed the king, replied that they were not bound to obey him when the Spirit commanded the contrary.(1234) It was reported that there were no less than 3,000 men about the city maintained by Presbyterian ministers.(1235) The danger was increased by the large number of cashiered officers and soldiers who frequented the city.(1236) The king became anxious and wrote to the lord mayor (24 Oct.) complaining of the want of care and vigilance in setting the night watches, which consisted chiefly of feeble men unable to suppress such disorders as were likely to arise in those seditious times, and who broke up their watch some hours before daybreak, thereby giving encouragement to thieves and robbers. He therefore desired that the number of men should be increased, that only able men should be appointed, and that the watch should continue until daybreak.(1237)

(M638)

On Michaelmas-day Sir Richard Browne was succeeded in the mayoralty chair by Sir John Frederick.(1238) The banquet of the mayor and sheriffs, which had been allowed to drop in the time of trouble and scarceness, was again held at the Guildhall,(1239) and the new mayor revived the ancient custom of visiting St. Paul's on the day of his taking the oath of office, and offering a prayer for the soul of the good bishop by whose kind offices the citizens obtained their first charter from the Conqueror.(1240) Charles did not attend the banquet which took place on the 29th October, but viewed the pageants on lord mayor's day from the windows of a private house in Cheapside, where he was supplied with refreshments at the City's charge.(1241)

(M639)

When St. Thomas's day [21 Dec]—the day for the election of a new Common Council—was approaching, the king took occasion himself to write to the Court of Aldermen warning them to "take special care and give strict orders in your several wards that a peaceable and quiet election be made, and that the choice be of such persons as are every way well affected to the established Government, both in Church and State"—otherwise he would be forced to make a change in such elections.(1242)

(M640)

That the new council was favourable to the king is shown by the court passing a resolution (26 Feb., 1662) for expunging out of the city's records all acts, orders and other matters passed, made or registered either in the court of Common Council or the Court of Aldermen since the beginning of the late troubles "which savour of the disloyalty of those times and may continue the sad remembrance of them to posterity to the reproach and dishonour of this city."(1243) This resolution was made on the king's own suggestions, but although a committee was at once appointed to carry it out, it remained a dead letter for twenty years.

(M641)

The Common Council had previously (7 Feb.) shown its compliance by acceding to a demand for a loan of L200,000.(1244) But although the security offered was undeniably good, and every effort was made to get the inhabitants of the city to subscribe, no more than L60,000 or L61,000 at the most was collected by the 14th March,(1245) and a month later scarcely L100,000 had been subscribed. The king made no attempt to disguise his annoyance, and ordered the mayor to call a Common Council and request them to take steps for the collection of the whole sum.(1246)

(M642)

According to Pepys, who got his information from a city alderman, the finances of the Corporation were at such a low ebb that considerable difficulty was experienced in raising so small a sum as 1,000 gold pieces and the price of a gold cup to be presented to Catharine of Braganza on her arrival in England "and that they were fain to call two or three aldermen to raise fines to make up the amount."(1247)

(M643)

Whilst the civic authorities were vainly struggling to raise the last loan for the king, the House of Commons came to his assistance and voted him a tax of two shillings upon every chimney.(1248) The inquisitorial nature of the tax made it very offensive. Returns were to be made of the number of hearths and stoves in each dwelling by the end of May. As they did not come in as quickly as was desired an extension of time was granted until Midsummer Assizes.(1249) Even when sent in many of the returns were manifestly untrue. The returns made for the city of London and Bills of Mortality drew forth a remonstrance from Charles, who refused to attribute it to anything else but gross negligence or deceit.(1250) He was afraid lest the ill example set by London should influence the rest of the kingdom. He expressed himself as willing to bear the expense of finding two or three honest persons in each ward, if required, to join the constable in an "ocular view." But in spite of every precaution fraudulent returns continued to flow in, and the collection of the tax to be slow and precarious.(1251)

(M644)

The passing of the Uniformity Act(1252) which condemned every minister to lose his benefice unless he signified his assent to everything contained in the book of common prayer by the 24th August (1662) caused great dissatisfaction in the city—always a stronghold of Presbyterianism—and many a sad scene was witnessed in city churches on Sunday the 17th as ministers took farewell of their congregations.(1253) Driven from the national Church, the Presbyterians, like the Baptists, the Quakers and other "dissenters" formed a separate community, happy if only they were granted toleration. Many of the inhabitants of the city were already suffering confinement for attending "unlawful assemblies." On the occasion of the queen's first visit to Westminster the king gave directions to the mayor and sheriffs to release those Quakers and others who were in gaol in London and Middlesex for having been present at such assemblies, provided they professed allegiance and had not been ringleaders or preachers, "hoping thereby to reduce them to a better conformity."(1254)

(M645)

When lord mayor's day came round Charles again viewed the pageant from a house in Cheapside. This time he was accompanied by the queen. The City supplied the royal party with refreshments as before.(1255) The new mayor, Sir John Robinson,(1256) had been a promoter of the king's restoration, and in return for his services received an augmentation of arms.(1257) He was a nephew of the late Archbishop Laud, and full of his own self-importance "a talking, bragging, buffle-headed fellow," Pepys calls him—boasting of his powers over his brother aldermen, but nevertheless attentive to the wants of the city.(1258)

(M646)

A few weeks latter (27 Nov.) the streets of the city again presented a gala appearance, the occasion being the reception of the Russian ambassador. For the last three winters there had been, we are told, scarce any frost, and the opening of the year 1662 had been so exceptionally mild as to cause apprehension of dearth and disease.(1259) But now, on the very day that the Russian ambassador was to pass through the city from Tower wharf, where he had landed, he was reminded of his own country by seeing the roofs of the houses covered with snow.(1260) At eight o'clock in the morning 500 men "apparelled in velvet coats with chains of gold, well mounted on horseback," from the several livery companies made their way to Tower Hill to escort the ambassador.(1261) The streets were lined with the city trained bands and the king's Lifeguards. Pepys was there of course; he rarely missed any sight. He had been disappointed at not getting a better view of Sir Harry Vane's execution, which had taken place in June.(1262) This time he was more fortunate. The ambassador to be sure was late, but Pepys beguiled the time with dinner. "And after I had dined"—he records in his diary(1263)—"I walked to the conduit in the quarrefowr, at the end of Gracious Street and Cornhill and there (the spouts thereof running very near me, upon all the people that were under it) I saw them pretty well, go by." He failed to catch sight of the ambassador himself, but was struck with the handsome appearance of the ambassador's attendants, most of whom carried hawks on their "fists" as a present to Charles. The strangeness of this sight caused the mob to jeer, upon which the diarist characteristically remarks, "but lord! to see the absurd nature of Englishmen that cannot forbear laughing and jeering at every thing that looks strange." Later on he makes a note of having seen the ambassador's retinue at York House engaged in a manner that does not speak well for their habits of cleanliness.(1264)

(M647)

On the 2nd February, 1663, the fiat went forth for the confirmation of the City's charter, "they having fulfilled the required condition of displacing four or five of the aldermen."(1265) The charter itself bears date the 24th June.(1266) It is of all the City's charters the most ample, reciting and confirming as it does the entire Inspeximus Charter of Charles I, as well as the latter king's letters patent, granted in the 16th year of his reign, confirming to the mayor and citizens the offices of package and scavage.

(M648)

Notwithstanding the supplies voted to him by parliament, the advances made to him by the City, and the handsome dowry he received with his wife, Charles was continually in want of money. In November, 1662, he had sold Dunkirk to the French king for L200,000, much to the disgust of the English nation. Nevertheless, his extravagance soon reduced him to want, and by the following September (1663) he was in such straits that he sent to the City to borrow the comparatively small sum of L50,000. Seeing that the City had so recently received a confirmation of its charter, it could not refuse; and the money was raised among the aldermen as being a speedier way than applying to the Common Council.(1267)

(M649)

On the occasion of the king's return from a "great progress" in October, he was met by the mayor and aldermen and 500 members of the several livery companies, well and substantially horsed and apparelled in velvet coats and chains of gold according to custom.(1268)

(M650)

On the 29th October the new lord mayor, Sir Anthony Bateman, entered upon his mayoralty,(1269) with the customary procession and pageant, followed by a banquet at the Guildhall. The banquet was made the occasion of what appears on the face of it to have been a studied insult offered—not by the municipal authorities, but by the lord chancellor, the bishops and lords of the council—to the French ambassador. Whether the lord chancellor and other high officers of state arrived at the Guildhall before their time, or the French ambassador came late, one cannot say. But, however that may have been, it appears that on the latter's arrival the others had already commenced dinner, with the exception of the mayor himself and the municipal authorities, who had not yet taken their places. On the ambassador approaching the table where the lords sat at dinner, intending, as he informed the French king by letter,(1270) to rally them on their good appetite, he met with such a cold reception that he left the hall to go home and dine by himself, in spite of every endeavour on the part of the civic officials to smooth matters over. Two hours later the sheriffs presented themselves at the ambassador's house, accompanied by a deputation from the Common Council, for the purpose of offering excuses for the recent contretemps. The excuses they had to offer were, however, of the lamest character, as the ambassador took care to show. Firstly, they said they had been taken by surprise. This was manifestly false, as the ambassador attended at the Guildhall upon invitation. They next pleaded ignorance and incapacity in receiving one of so high degree, when the ambassador reminded them that they had recently done honour to the Spanish ambassador; and lastly they endeavoured to throw the whole of the blame upon the master of the ceremonies. This excuse, however, like the others, was easily shown to be false, inasmuch as that official was personally engaged in escorting the ambassador to the Guildhall and had nothing to do with the banquet. The deputation thereupon withdrew, being all the more discomforted by the excess of courtesy shown to them by the ambassador, who himself insisted on escorting them to the door (je leur dis que je voulois passer plus avant, et payer un assez mauvais traitement par une civilite extraordinaire).

(M651)

On the 11th November the lord mayor went in state to pay a visit to the ambassador and to beg his forgiveness. Not being able to speak French himself, he took with him an interpreter, who explained to the ambassador on his behalf that unless he (the ambassador) would set the example of forgiveness eternal shame would rest upon the citizens and they would incur the displeasure of the king and nation. Thereupon the ambassador showed himself satisfied and attended the lord mayor to his carriage with marked courtesy.(1271)

(M652)

In view of a war with the Dutch, which seemed inevitable, owing to their interference with English trade, Charles began taking steps to replenish his exhausted exchequer. In June and again in October (1664) he borrowed from the city sums of L100,000.(1272) In November the Commons voted him a sum of two millions and a half, a larger supply than any that had ever yet been granted to a king of England, and the thanks of both Houses were tendered to the city for its assistance.(1273) On the 22nd February, 1665, war was formally declared. Two heralds, in their coats of arms, with four mace-bearers, nine trumpeters and two troops of horse, assembled at Westminster, where the trumpet sounded and the declaration was read amid shouts of joy. "Thence they went to Temple Bar, where the lord mayor and aldermen, in scarlet gowns on horse-back, conducted them to Temple Gate over against Chancery Lane, where it was read with more acclamation than before, the Horseguards drawing their swords and clattering them; then again in Cheapside and before the Royal Exchange with great demonstration of joy and sounding of trumpets, after which many nobles of the court came into the city to dine with the lord mayor."(1274) A day for a public fast was appointed to invoke the Almighty's blessing upon the ignominious war about to commence, and all commercial intercourse with the States was interdicted.(1275)

(M653)

At this juncture an unfortunate accident occurred which deprived the fleet of one of its most valuable ships—the ship known as "The London," in which Sir John Lawson was about to put to sea—and caused the death of nearly 300 seamen. "The London" was being brought round from Chatham to the Hope, where she was to take on board her commander, when for some unaccountable reason she blew up and became a total wreck, all her ordnance, numbering 80 brass pieces, going to the bottom. The news of the disaster caused much excitement in the city.(1276)

(M654)

The Common Council (17 March) immediately offered its services to the king, and engaged to build another ship of the same tonnage to supply the place of the one that was lost. The king gladly availed himself of the offer of the City, promising "to retain the same in memory for the advantage of this royal chamber upon all occasions."(1277) Pepys's acquaintance with the jobbery of the day, more especially in connection with naval matters, had his misgivings about the City's offer. It was a handsome offer he acknowledged, "and if well managed might be done," but he had his fears lest the work should be put into ill hands.(1278) The work was put out to tender, but the final selection of a contractor was left to the king.(1279) Precepts were issued to the livery companies to "excite and persuade" their members in every possible way to subscribe to the undertaking.(1280) The money, however, was very slow in coming in, no more than L4,200 having been subscribed by May, 1666, when at least L10,000 was estimated to be required.(1281) Nor is this to be wondered at when it was a matter of public notoriety that the money voted expressly by parliament for fitting out a navy had been uselessly squandered. It was said at the time, although not credited by all, that many showed a willingness to advance a large sum of money if the Duke of York would guarantee its being employed on the navy by himself becoming treasurer of the fund; the Duke declined and the offers fell through.(1282)

(M655)

Pepys's misgivings about the City's new ship, called after its predecessor "Loyal London," appear to have been justified. The ship had to be launched in an unfinished state, and when her guns came to be tried every one of them burst. And yet the vessel was commended by Sir William Coventry, a navy commissioner and secretary to the Duke of York, admiral of the fleet, as "the best in the world, large and small."(1283)

(M656)

At the outset of the war the British fleet was not unattended with success. On the 3rd June, 1665, the Duke of York gained a signal victory over Opdam, admiral of the Dutch fleet, in an action fought off the coast of Suffolk. The report of the guns could be frequently heard on the Thames and caused much excitement in the city,(1284) to allay which the king caused a letter to be despatched to the lord mayor as soon as possible, giving details of the engagement and the losses on either side, and assuring the citizens of the safety of the Duke of York.(1285) Tuesday the 20th was appointed a day of public thanksgiving.(1286)

(M657)

Such a victory at another time would have been hailed with unbounded joy. As it was the enthusiasm of the citizens was damped by the presence among them of the most awful scourge that had ever yet visited the city. Towards the close of 1663 there had been rumours of an outbreak of plague on the continent, and more especially at Amsterdam and Hamburgh. The king communicated with the lord mayor to learn what measures had formerly been taken in like case to prevent the spread of infection. It was suggested by the Court of Aldermen that, after the custom of other countries, vessels coming from infected parts should perform quarantine at Gravesend or the neighbourhood, where a lazaretto should be established. The proposal was accepted,(1287) and to these precautions, taken on the instigation of the city authorities, was largely due the immunity from infection which the city enjoyed for the next fifteen months. In June, 1664, the lords of the council adopted similar precautions as their own and wrote to the lord mayor, in view of the increase of the plague in the Netherlands, desiring him "by all waies and meanes possible to be careful that no person or persons, goods or merchandises whatsoever be permitted to be received or harboured within the citty of London which come from Holland, Zealand or any other places infected with the plague, without certificates from the farmers of the customs or their officers that they have performed their quarantain."(1288)

(M658)

The plague made its first appearance in the city in June, 1665. The atmosphere had been very sultry—the 7th June being recorded by Pepys as the hottest day he had ever felt in his life—and the heat caused the infection to spread among the crowded population of the city with amazing rapidity. Many followed the example set by the king and court and fled to the country.(1289) The lord mayor, however, stuck to his post, and the aldermen were forbidden to leave the city without giving notice of some reasonable cause, those who had already absented themselves being ordered to return.(1290) The good example thus set was unhappily not followed by the city rectors. Many of them, to their shame, forsook their cures in abject fear, leaving their parishioners to die without the consolations of the Church, whilst their pulpits were seized upon by Presbyterian ministers, who embraced the opportunity of publicly declaiming against the sins of the court and the ill usage to which they had been compelled to submit.(1291) The first Wednesday of every month was appointed to be kept as a solemn fast day of humiliation until it should please God to put an end to the sickness.(1292) Schools were closed and inns and taverns kept open only for citizens. The streets were cleansed and kept free from vagrant dogs—always suspected of spreading infection. Nevertheless, the death rate rapidly increased. Pest-houses or hospitals were opened and the best medical aid supplied, whilst subscriptions were set on foot for the benefit of the poor.(1293) The last week of August claimed 700 victims within the city's walls, whilst in the week ending the 19th September no less than 1,189—the highest number recorded perished within the same limited area.(1294) The number of deaths that occurred outside the city, but within its liberties, was often three or four times larger than of those within the city's walls. Thus for the week last mentioned the number of deaths from the plague alone in parishes outside the city, but within its liberties, is returned in the Bills of Mortality as having exceeded 3,000.(1295) The continued increase in the number of deaths in the first half of September was a matter of surprise, for cold weather had set in and the lord mayor had caused fires to be lighted in the open thoroughfares for the benefit of the poor that lay starving in the streets, as well as (perhaps) with the view of purifying the atmosphere.(1296) When the plague was at its height deaths followed in such rapid succession that the work of burying its victims had to be carried on night and day. Even then there was only time to huddle the corpses together in a fosse commune, and to cover them with a scanty supply of earth. Small wonder if complaints were made to the Court of Aldermen of noisome smells arising from the churchyard of St. Mary's Bethlem. The court immediately (5 Sept.) gave orders for remedying the evil. No more pits were to be dug, but each corpse was to occupy a separate grave, fresh mould was to be laid over places complained of, and bones and coffin-boards found above ground were to be interred in the middle of the churchyard.(1297)

The worst was now over. From the middle of September the number of deaths in the city began to decrease almost as rapidly as they had risen. In the first week in November there was a sudden increase on the return of the previous week, but in the following week there was again a fall, and this continued until in the first week of December the deaths in the city numbered only twenty-four. Nevertheless it was thought advisable to prohibit the usual entertainments which took place after the wardmote elections on St. Thomas's day, in order to minimise the risk of infection.(1298) The mayor was justified in taking this precaution, for the very next week the number of deaths more than doubled itself (57). That the city of London was at this time one of the healthiest places in the kingdom is shown by the fact that just as it was one of the last places attacked by the plague, so it was one of the first to become free, in spite of its having been made "the receptacle of all the people from all infected places."(1299)

The total number of victims in the city proper during the twelve month ending the 19th December, 1665, is officially given as 9,887. When we consider that the entire population within the city walls—comprising an area of one square mile, more or less—could scarcely have reached 100,000,(1300) the extent of the calamity becomes appalling; the city was literally decimated.

(M659) (M660)

Whilst the plague was raging the English fleet had remained in the Thames, leaving the Dutch masters of the sea. The opening of the new year (1666) found England engaged in a war with France, as well as with the Dutch. Louis, however, was content to leave the English and the Dutch to settle matters between themselves at sea. On the 1st June a desperate naval battle commenced off the North Foreland and continued for four days, at the end of which neither party could claim a victory. Both fleets withdrew for repairs. It was at this crisis that the "Loyal London" was hastily launched and application made to the city for a loan of L100,000. The money was readily voted, contrary to expectations.(1301)

(M661)

When the last instalment (L1,500) of the loan was paid into the exchequer, the Guildhall and its surroundings were being threatened with destruction by the Great Fire,(1302) which, breaking out on the night of Saturday, 1st September, 1666, or early on Sunday morning, at a baker's shop in Pudding Lane, within five days reduced the greater part of the city to ashes. The king had long ago anticipated such a calamity, arising from the narrowness of the streets and the overhanging houses built for the most part of wood. More than a year before (11 April, 1665) he had written to the mayor, recorder and aldermen of the city(1303) warning them of the danger and recommending a more diligent execution of the Act for the repair of highways and sewers. He authorised them to imprison such persons as, after due warning, continued to erect buildings in contravention of the Act, and to pull the buildings down. He further desired them to open Temple Bar and the passage and gatehouse of Cheapside in St. Paul's Churchyard, as mentioned in the Act, and he would himself inspect what progress was being made in carrying out these improvements. He concluded by declaring that he had made the city his royal residence,(1304) and had received from it such marks of loyalty and affection as would ever make him concerned for its wealth, trade, reputation, beauty and convenience.

The outbreak of the fire at first caused no uneasiness, such sights being only too common. But when no less than 300 houses had been destroyed within a few hours, and the flames, carried by a strong east wind that prevailed, threatened others, the inhabitants began to take alarm. The mayor, Sir Thomas Bludworth, was early on the scene, but he lacked decision of character and failed to keep his head. He endeavoured to carry out the king's orders by pulling down houses to prevent the fire spreading, but as often as not he was overtaken by the flames. "Lord, what can I do?" he lack-a-daisically exclaimed in answer to a message from the king; "I am spent; people will not obey me. I have been pulling down houses; but the fire overtakes us faster than we can do it."(1305) The inhabitants were too busy removing their furniture and effects to a place of safety to render much assistance to the mayor, but he found willing hands in the soldiers supplied by the king and the Duke of York, both of whom displayed great personal energy. "The Duke of York," wrote an eye-witness of the mournful scene,(1306) "hath wonn the hearts of the people wth his continuall and indefatigable paynes day and night in helping to quench the fire, handing bucketts of water with as much diligence as the poorest man that did assist; if the lord maior had done as much his example might have gone far towards saveing the citty."

(M662)

In spite of every effort to stay its progress the fire continued to rage throughout the whole of Monday and Tuesday. By this time Lombard Street, Cannon Street and Gracechurch Street had been reduced to ashes. The houses on London Bridge were attacked and Southwark threatened with destruction. On Wednesday the flames devastated Cornhill and the Exchange. The following day they got hold of St. Paul's (at that time undergoing repairs and surrounded with scaffolding), and were carried by the east wind towards the Temple and Hatton Garden. The brick buildings of the Temple offered a more stubborn resistance than the wooden buildings of the city, and prevented the fire spreading further westward.(1307) In the meantime resort was had to gunpowder for the quicker destruction of houses in the city, and by this means much was eventually saved which otherwise would inevitably have been lost. But this was not done without considerable opposition from the owners of houses who objected to their property being blown up if there was a chance of it being saved.(1308) At last the "horrid, malicious, bloody flame," described by Pepys as so unlike the flame of an ordinary fire, burnt itself out, and at the close of Thursday, the 6th September, the inhabitants of the city were able for the first time since the outbreak to seek a night's rest without fear of further danger. When they rose the next morning and contemplated the extent of the havoc wrought on their city by the fire, the hearts of many must have fairly sunk within them. At least four-fifths of the whole of the buildings situate within the walls had been reduced to ashes. The official report was that no less than 13,200 houses and eighty-nine parish churches, besides St. Paul's and divers chapels, were destroyed, and that only seventy-five acres out of a total of 373 acres of ground within the walls escaped the conflagration.(1309) These seventy-five acres chiefly lay in the vicinity of Aldgate and Tower Hill, and probably owed their immunity from the fire to the free use of gunpowder, for it was in Tower Street, Pepys tells us, that the practice of blowing up houses began. Most of the livery companies lost their halls. Clothworkers' Hall burned for three days and three nights, the flames being fed with the oil that was stored in its cellars. The Leaden Hall was partly saved. Gresham House also escaped; but the Guildhall suffered severely, its outer walls only being left standing.

(M663)

Much dissatisfaction was displayed against Bludworth for his want of resolution during the crisis,(1310) and when Michaelmas-day arrived, and he was about to go out of office, he was called to account for his conduct. In anticipation of lord mayor's day he wrote to Joseph Williamson, afterwards Secretary of State, bespeaking his favour and support. He professed not to live by popular applause (he said), but he needed and desired the support and esteem of government, "having had the misfortune to serve in the severest year that ever man did."(1311)

(M664)

As to the origin of the fire the wildest rumours at the time prevailed, and for years afterwards it was commonly attributed to Papists wishing to destroy the stronghold of the reformed religion, notwithstanding the fact that not a scintilla of evidence was forthcoming in support of such a charge, after a most careful investigation.(1312) The citizens were not satisfied with the first inquiry, and in March, 1668, a petition was prepared to lay before parliament to re-open the question and to receive fresh evidence.(1313) Thirteen years later the belief that the Papists had a hand in causing the wholesale destruction of the city was formally promulgated by the House of Commons (10 Jan., 1681),(1314) and the same belief was perpetuated by an inscription on the Monument commemorating the fire, an inscription which met with the approval of the municipal authorities of the day.(1315)

(M665)

Sir Patience Ward happened to be mayor at the time, but was probably no more responsible for the inscription than any other member of the Court of Aldermen or Common Council, notwithstanding the severe reflection passed upon him by his namesake Thomas Ward,(1316) who, speaking of Titus Oates and his bogus "discoveries," wrote:

"He swore—with flaming faggot sticks, In sixteen hundred sixty-six, That they through London took their marches, And burnt the city down with torches; Yet all invisible they were, Clad in their coats of Lapland air. The sniffling Whig-mayor Patience Ward To this damn'd lie paid such regard, That he his godly masons sent, T' engrave it round the Monument: They did so; but let such things pass— His men were fools, himself an ass."

(M666)

On the accession of James II the obnoxious inscription was removed, but the feeling against Papists had obtained so strong a hold over the popular mind, that it was again set up as soon as William III came to the throne.(1317) There it remained until 1830, when, wisdom having come with years, it was finally removed by order of the Common Council (6 Dec.).(1318) No longer is it true, in the words of Pope, that