"... London's column pointing at the skies Like a tall bully lifts the head and lies."

(M667)

As soon as the fire began to abate measures were taken to provide food for the houseless poor. A detachment of 200 soldiers was ordered to London from Hertfordshire with carts laden with pickaxes, ropes, buckets, etc., to prevent any further outbreak, whilst the justices of the peace and deputy lieutenants were instructed to forward provisions to the city, especially bread and cheese, lest the much suffering inhabitants should perish from starvation.(1319)

(M668)

The City received much sympathy and no little assistance from other cities, both in England and Ireland. The city of York not only despatched its town clerk to London to express its condolences with the Londoners in their great loss, but the lord mayor of York wrote (17 Sept.) to the lord mayor of London to tell him that a small sum of money—"as much as this poore decayed citty could furnish us with"—was on its way to London for the relief of the most necessitous and distressed.(1320)

(M669)

Ten days later (29 Sept.) Lord Ormond and the Lords of the Council of Ireland wrote to Bludworth expressing their hearty sorrow at the calamity that had befallen the citizens of London, who had shown so much humanity and kindness to the Protestants of Ireland in the late rebellion. They desired to assist the city in its distress, but money was so scarce in Ireland that they were compelled to ask the city to accept the greater part of such assistance as that country could offer in cattle, which should be despatched either alive or slaughtered, as his lordship should prefer, to any port in Ireland. But before this could be done the assent of parliament would have to be obtained.(1321)

(M670)

The inhabitants of Londonderry sent a deeply sympathetic and affectionate letter to their "deare mother citty," and forwarded a sum of L250 to assist those "who buylt or howses now their oune are in ashes." They could not send more (they said) because of the deep poverty that lay upon their city and the general want of money throughout the country. What they did send they sent as an expression of their love and duty to their "honoured mother."(1322)

(M671)

In the meantime a special Court of Aldermen had met in the afternoon of Thursday, the 6th September, and appointed Gresham House for the meetings of the Court of Aldermen and Common Council, and for transacting the general municipal business of the city until further order. The mayor and the sheriffs, whose houses had been destroyed, were also to take up their lodging there during the remainder of their year of office. The Exchange, too, was ordered to be kept in the gardens or walks of Gresham House. The house was to be got ready with all speed, and the governor of the East India Company was to be desired to see that the pepper stored in the walks was removed without delay. Temporary sites were at the same time appointed for the various markets until better accommodation could be found. Those who had been rendered houseless were allowed to erect sheds on the void places of London Bridge. It was further resolved to entreat his majesty to send tents into Finsbury Fields for housing the poor until they could provide themselves with habitations. The other wants of the poor were to be supplied as far as possible by the masters, wardens and assistants of the several companies of which they happened to be members.(1323) On Friday the court again met at Gresham House, when it gave orders for the ruins of the Guildhall to be cleared of all rubbish. Melted lead, iron, and such other materials as were of value were to be picked out and stored for further use. The passages to the Guildhall were to be boarded up. The chamberlain was ordered to remove his office to Gresham House; and thither also were to go the deputy town clerk and the city swordbearer, whose houses had been consumed. They were to take with them the city's records and such books and papers as were in actual use.(1324)

(M672)

The next day (8 Sept.) the court gave permission for any freeman of the city to erect a tent or shed wherein to carry on his trade or craft on any part of the artillery ground, or if he so wished, either outside London wall between the postern near Broad Street and Moorgate, or within the wall between the said postern and Coleman Street. He might also erect his tent or shed in the "Round" at Smithfield. But in every case the ground was to be set out as apportioned by the mayor and sheriffs with the assistance of "Mr." [Peter] Mills. Those who had formerly kept shop in the upper "pawne" of the Royal Exchange were at the same time permitted to erect sheds under certain conditions.(1325)

(M673)

On Monday, the 10th September, the Common Council met. It is the first court since the fire of which any record has come down to us. Its first care was to order every street and lane in each ward to be cleared of all rubbish by the late inhabitants, "every one before his grounds," and by no one else. It next proceeded to nominate a committee of aldermen and commoners to consider the best means of raising the city out of its ruins, and it was agreed that the Common Council should sit every Wednesday at Gresham House.(1326)

(M674)

When the fire was at its height the king had been anxious to send for the Duke of Albemarle, but hesitated to do so fearing lest he would be unwilling to be ordered home whilst engaged in the Dutch war.(1327) Representations of the king's wishes, however, having been made to the duke, he hurried home. On the 12th September a committee was appointed by the Court of Aldermen to wait upon him with a draft proclamation for the discovery and restoration of goods taken either wilfully, ignorantly, or of purpose during the confusion consequent on the late fire.(1328) The quantity of plate, money, jewels, household stuff, goods and merchandise discovered among the ruins was very great, and much of it had quickly been misappropriated. The proclamation ordered all persons who had so misappropriated property to bring the same within eight days into the armoury in Finsbury Fields; and by order of the Common Council no such property was to be given up to any claimant without permission of the Court of Aldermen or the lord mayor and sheriffs for the time being.(1329)

(M675)

A month later (19 Oct.) a letter was addressed to the mayor signed by the archbishop of Canterbury, the lords Clarendon, Albemarle, Manchester, Arlington and others, complaining that sundry materials of city churches destroyed by the fire had been embezzled and stolen, and also that smiths' forges and other artificers' shops and even alehouses were kept within the sacred ruins. The mayor was directed, with the assistance of the Court of Aldermen, to obtain inventories of all communion plate, vestments, records, books and other goods belonging to each church that the fire had destroyed, and of all that remained to each church after the fire, and he was to cause the plate and goods that survived the fire to be preserved for future use in their respective churches. He was further directed to collect and preserve the lead, bells and other appurtenances and materials of the various churches in order to assist in repairing and re-building them, and to prohibit any trade or selling of ale, beer, tobacco or victuals within their precincts.(1330)

(M676)

One effect of the fire, which was estimated at the time to have destroyed houses of the rental value of L600,000 a-year,(1331) was seen in the lack of pageantry which usually marked the day when the newly elected mayor proceeded to the Exchequer to be sworn. When Bludworth's successor—Sir William Bolton—went to take the oath on the 29th October, the meanness of the appearance of the civic fathers was remarked by the on-lookers, who reflected "with pity upon the poor city ... compared with what it heretofore was."(1332)

(M677)

Another result was that when the day for election of members of the Common Council was approaching, the Court of Aldermen, considering how difficult it would be, if not absolutely impossible, to hold the customary wardmotes, resolved to present a Bill to Parliament for permitting the sitting members to continue in their places for the year next ensuing without any election being held.(1333)

(M678)

Fourteen years after the fire (i.e., towards the close of the year 1680) the City projected a scheme for insurance against fire, and in 1681 a deed of conveyance of city lands of the estimated value of L100,000 was executed by the City to certain trustees as security to persons effecting insurances against fire.(1334) That the municipal body of the city should undertake a business of insurance and thus compete with private enterprise gave rise to no little discontent among the "gentlemen of the insurance office" carrying on business "on the backside of the Royal Exchange," who claimed to have originated the idea.(1335)



CHAPTER XXIX.



(M679)

The Great Fire had scarcely ceased smouldering before the inhabitants of the city set to work re-building their devastated houses. Information having reached the ear of the king that building operations were about to be carried out on the old foundations, he instructed Sir William Morice, secretary of state, to write to the lord mayor to put a stop to them until further orders, as his majesty had under consideration certain models and plans for re-building the city "with more decency and conveniency than formerly."(1336) Charles himself also wrote at the same time to the mayor and aldermen desiring them to afford every assistance to Wenceslas Hollar and Francis Sandford, whom he had appointed to make an exact survey of the city as it stood after the fire.(1337) The civic authorities on their part instructed Robert Hooke to devise a scheme for re-building the city, and on the 21st September he presented to the Common Council "an exquisite modell or draught" which found much favour with the court.(1338) Early in the following month (4 Oct.) the Common Council was informed that for the greater expedition in carrying out the work of re-building the city, the king had appointed Wren and two others to make a survey, with the assistance of such surveyors and workmen as the civic authorities should nominate. The city's choice fell upon Robert Hooke, described as "Reader of the Mathematicks in Gresham Colledge," Peter Mills and Edward Jermyn or Jarman. By way of preparation for the survey, the owners of houses that had been destroyed were again ordered (9 Oct.) to clear their foundations of rubbish, and to pile up the bricks and stones within fourteen days, so that every man's property might be "more exactly measured and asserted."(1339)

(M680)

The impracticability of re-building the city except on old foundations soon become manifest, and the handsome design which Wren prepared had to be dismissed. There was difficulty enough as it was, and the four sworn viewers of the city whose duty at ordinary times was to guard against encroachments and other nuisances were unusually busy. Sometimes the old foundations proved too weak to support a new building, sometimes the new building threatened to encroach on the public thoroughfare. Such matters required the constant attention of the viewers. Disputes would also arise between the landlords and tenants of houses destroyed by the fire. In order to settle all differences that arose, a special Court of Judicature was established by Act of Parliament (31 Jan., 1667).(1340) The court sat at Clifford's Inn, and the decrees signed by the judges, as well as the portraits of the judges themselves, are preserved at the Guildhall.(1341) The city authorities were very urgent in getting this Act passed, and pressed the judges to give the Bill all dispatch they could, "as a matter of principal concernment and encouragement to the great worke of re-building the citty." This their lordships promised to do.(1342)

(M681)

It was not deemed in any way derogatory in those days to give and receive presents for services either past or prospective. We need not be surprised therefore to find that whilst this and other Bills in which the City was interested were before Parliament, the Court of Aldermen voted a sum of L100 in gold as a gift to the Speaker of the House of Commons, "as a loving remembrance from this court for his many kind offices performed to the State of this citty."(1343)

(M682)

Whilst a Bill for re-building the city was being prepared for parliament the civic authorities were busy considering how to find the money necessary for re-building the Guildhall, the city's gates, the prisons and other public buildings. On the 6th November (1666) the Court of Aldermen resolved to sit every Wednesday afternoon at the house of the new lord mayor (Sir William Bolton) to consider this important question, and to continue such weekly sittings until the matter was settled.(1344) It was not long before the court determined to apply to parliament for an imposition of twelve pence a chaldron on coals brought into the Port of London, wherewith to meet the expense. The advice and assistance of the solicitor-general and of Sir Job Charlton were to be solicited, and L10 in "old gold" given to each of them, in addition to "such other charges and rewards" as might be necessary for the furtherance of the business.(1345) Later on the court resolved to approach the Lord Chancellor and to entreat him to recommend the City's proposals to his majesty and to the House of Lords.(1346) By the end of November the Common Council had agreed to certain "heads thought requisite to be inserted" into the Bill for re-building the city,(1347) and on the 29th December the Bill was brought in and read the first time.

For fear lest some of the clauses might offend the king a petition was drawn up for presentation to his majesty, in which matters were explained, and his majesty's favourable interpretation and pardon asked for anything omitted in the Bill or done amiss.(1348) A report had got abroad that the City had caused a clause to be inserted in the Bill forbidding any one to engage in building operations who refused to abjure the Covenant. This made the Common Council very angry, and the mayor and sheriffs were desired to investigate the matter.(1349) On the 5th February (1667) the Bill passed the Commons, and two days later received the assent of the Lords.(1350)

In the meantime the Court of Aldermen had drafted (22 Jan.) a petition to the king for permission to introduce a Bill for an impost on coals, to assist the City in re-building the conduits, aqueducts and other public works, as it had "no common stock, nor revenue, nor any capacity to raise within itself anything considerable towards so vast an expense."(1351) But instead of a new Bill for this purpose, a clause was inserted in the Bill for re-building the city (Stat. 19 Car. II, c. 3), authorising such an impost as was desired.(1352)

(M683)

The Common Council directed (19 Feb.) the lord mayor, the recorder and the sheriffs to attend the king and the Duke of York with the most humble thanks of the court for the favour they had shown the City in passing the Bill, and to learn his majesty's pleasure as to the enlargement of the streets of the city in pursuance of the recent Act.(1353)

(M684)

On the 12th March certain proposals for widening streets which had received the approval of the Common Council were submitted to Charles at a council held at Berkshire House, now Cleveland House, St. James's. On the following day they were returned to the Common Council with his majesty's recommendations and suggestions thereon. The same day (13 March), the City nominated Peter Mills, Edward Jarman, Robert Hooke and John Oliver to be surveyors and supervisors of the houses about to be re-built; the king's commissioners, Christopher Wren, Hugh May and "Mr." Prat being ordered by his majesty to afford them their best advice and assistance whenever it should be required.(1354)

In September the king suggested the appointment of Sir William Bolton, the lord mayor, as surveyor-general for the re-building of the city. The suggestion was referred to a committee, who reported to the Common Council (25 Oct.) their opinion that there was "noe use or occasion for a surveyor-generall," as the work could be well and sufficiently managed by the surveyors already appointed.(1355)

(M685)

Pursuant to the Building Act the Common Council proceeded (21 March) to parcel out the streets of the city, placing them under the several categories of "high and principal streets," "streets or lanes of note," and "by-lanes."(1356) The scheme met with the approval of the king and council.(1357) Towards the end of the following month (29 April) a schedule was drawn up of streets and narrow passages which it was proposed to enlarge.(1358) For the next few months the authorities were busy seeing to the clearing and staking out of the various streets.(1359) In September the Common Council resolved that the new street which it was proposed to make from the Guildhall to Cheapside should be called King Street, whilst its continuation from Cheapside to the river should be known as Queen Street.(1360)

(M686)

A fresh distribution of markets and market places was proposed (21 Oct.).(1361) Three markets and no more were to be allotted for the sale of flesh and other victuals brought into the city by country butchers and farmers, viz., Leadenhall and the Greenyard for the east end of the city, Honey Lane for the centre, and a market near Warwick Lane, which was to take the place of Newgate Market, for the west end. Two places were to be assigned for herb and fruit markets, viz., the site of the king's wardrobe (if the king would give his consent) and the ground whereon recently had stood the church of St. Laurence Pulteney. The markets formerly held in Aldersgate Street and Gracechurch Street were to be discontinued. A place was to be found at or near Christ Church as a site for the meat market, hitherto kept in Newgate market. These suggestions were with slight alteration accepted in the following February (1668), when provision was also made for a fish market on the site of the ancient stocks and the Woolchurch and churchyard.(1362) On the 23rd Oct. (1667) the king went in state into the city to lay "the first stone of the first pillar of the new building of the Exchange."(1363)

(M687)

The impost of twelve pence a chaldron on coals brought into the port of London was soon found inadequate to meet the expense of re-building the Guildhall, the prisons and other public edifices of the city, and in 1670 it was raised by statute (22 Car. II, c. 11) to two shillings a chaldron. Great irregularities, however, were allowed to take place in collecting and accounting for the duty thus imposed, and between 1667 and 1673 the City was obliged to borrow no less than L83,000.(1364) In March, 1667, the Court of Aldermen resolved that all fines paid by persons to be discharged from the office of alderman between that day and Midsummer next should be devoted to the restoration of the Guildhall and the Justice Hall, Old Bailey.(1365) Not only money but material also was required to enable the City to carry out its building operations. To this end a Bill was introduced into parliament to facilitate the City's manufacture of lime, brick and tile.(1366) A sub-tenant of the City holding five acres of land in the parish of St. Giles in the Fields obtained permission from the Court of Aldermen to "digg and cast upp the said ground for the making of bricke any covenant or clause in the lease of the said ground to the contrary notwithstanding."(1367) Application was made to Charles for liberty to fetch Portland stone for the City's use, but this was refused as the stone was required for works at Whitehall.(1368)

(M688)

In the meanwhile negotiations for a peace had been opened at Breda. The Londoners more especially desired peace(1369) in order to devote their energies to re-building their city. In anticipation of a cessation of hostilities Charles set about discharging his navy, leaving the Thames and Medway open to attack. The Dutch took advantage of his precipitancy and at once sailed up the Medway, burnt three men-of-war, among them being the "Loyal London," and carried off a fourth.(1370) This took place in June (1667). The city never presented so dejected an appearance as on the arrival of the news of this disgrace. The cry of treason was raised and endeavours made to fasten the blame upon any one and every one. The Dutch fleet was every hour expected up the Thames,(1371) and vessels were sunk in the bed of the channel at Barking, Woolwich and Blackwall to stop its progress. But so great was the confusion that one of the king's store ships for victualling the navy is said to have been sunk among the rest, as well as vessels that had been fitted out as fire-ships at great expense. The Common Council interposed on behalf of interested owners of merchandise on board the ship "Diana," lying in the Thames, to prevent if possible the sinking of that vessel.(1372)

(M689)

The Common Council ordered (13 June) every able-bodied man in the city forthwith to enlist, and resolved to petition the king that the auxiliaries then to be raised might remain as a guard to the city.(1373) The same day the city's militia was reviewed by Charles himself on Tower Hill. He addressed them in a speech assuring them that he would personally share their danger. But here, too, was confusion and lack of organization. "The city is troubled at their being put upon duty," wrote Pepys (14 June), "summoned one hour and discharged two hours after: and then again summoned two hours after that; to their great charge as well as trouble."

(M690)

Above all there was a lack of money to pay the seamen. Had the Dutch fleet sailed up the Thames immediately after its success at Chatham, instead of wasting its time at Portsmouth and Plymouth and other places on the south coast, matters would have gone hard with the capital. As it was the delay gave time for recovery from the recent scare and for measures to be taken against its approach, with the result that after getting up the river as far as Tilbury it was compelled to retire.(1374)

(M691)

On the morning of the 20th June the Dutch fleet was believed to be sailing homewards, but by midday news arrived of its appearance off Harwich, which was threatened with an immediate attack.(1375) The next day (21 June) the mayor and aldermen obeyed a summons to attend upon the king in council, when, a proposal having been made to fortify Sheerness and other places on the river, they agreed to raise the sum of L10,000 for the purpose.(1376) That the government should be driven to borrow so small a sum excited the contempt of Pepys, who thought it "a very poor thing that we should be induced to borrow by such mean sums." That the City could afford no more is not surprising when we consider what had been the state of trade during the last three years. As it was the money was paid by small instalments. The coffers of the city merchant or goldsmith keeping "running cashes" were well nigh empty, and the credit of some of the best men was shaken.(1377)

(M692)

There was another difficulty besides the want of money. There was a deficiency of workmen to carry out the works at Sheerness. Application was accordingly made to the wardens of the several companies of masons and bricklayers to furnish able men so that the fortifications might be completed before the cold weather came on.(1378)

(M693)

At last negotiations for a peace were concluded and the Treaty of Breda was signed (31 July). The peace was proclaimed at Temple Bar in the presence of the lord mayor on St. Bartholomew's Day (24 Aug.).

The bells were set ringing in honour of the event, but there were no bonfires at night "partly"—writes Pepys—"from the dearness of firing, but principally from the little content most people have in the peace." Yet the terms of the treaty were not wholly ruinous to the country. England, at least, gained New York, hitherto known as New Amsterdam.

(M694)

The lull in the storm afforded the municipal authorities an opportunity of taking stock of their own Chamber. To this end a committee was appointed on the 12th February, 1668. For nine months that committee was employed examining the state of the City's finances, and then had not finished their task. Nevertheless, on the 23rd November they made a report to the Common Council of the result of their labours so far as they had gone.(1379) The state of the Chamber, they said, was so low that it would require the utmost care and industry to restore it and save it from utter decay and ruin, "for what by misemployment of the treasure in the late troubles and other ill managements," as well as by extraordinary expenses occasioned by the Plague and Fire, the City's debt had still increased notwithstanding its income having been largely augmented by fines of aldermen and chamber and bridge-house leases, which within the last fifteen years had exceeded L200,000. It was clear that when these extraordinary accessories to the City's income ceased—and they had already begun to decline—the City's debt would increase and would indeed become desperate unless some remedy were found. The committee, therefore, made certain suggestions with the view of cutting down expenses. The City Chronologer,(1380) in the first place, could be dispensed with altogether. The salary of the City Waits, which had lately been increased, should be reduced to its former amount. Some saving might be made in allowance of stationery in the various offices, in expenses attending Courts of Conservancy, in allowance of boots to City labourers and artificers. The personal expenses of the City's Remembrancer for diet, coach hire, boat hire, etc., should be no longer allowed; and the Chamber should not be called upon to make any disbursement for military purposes beyond the sum of L4,666 13s. 4d., for which the City was yearly liable by Act of Parliament. Lastly, neither the court of Aldermen nor the court of Common Council ought to have power to draw upon the Chamber for a sum exceeding L500, except it were in connection with the re-building of the Guildhall and other specified objects. These and other recommendations of the committee, being carefully considered by the court, were for the most part accepted with certain amendments.

(M695)

On the other hand there was due to the city's Chamber no less a sum than L77,409 6s. 6d. for principal and interest on former loans to the king. This sum Alderman Backwell undertook himself to pay to the City, accepting a transfer of the Treasury Bills in the hands of the City Chamberlain. The Common Council was only too ready to accept the offer.(1381) Edward Backwell, alderman of Bishopsgate Ward, was one of those city princes whose wealth brought them into close relation with the Crown. A goldsmith by trade, he, like others of his class, took to keeping "running cashes" and transacting generally the business of a banker at his house known as the "Unicorn" in Lombard Street. Pepys mentions him frequently in his Diary. In the days of the Commonwealth he was paymaster of the garrison at Dunkirk, and continued to act as financial agent in all matters connected with that town until it was sold to the French king. His house in Lombard Street having perished in the Great Fire, he was, by the king's special command, accommodated with lodgings in Gresham College, in order that his business relations with the king might not be interrupted pending the re-building of his premises.(1382)

(M696)

In March, 1669, a riot occurred in the Temple on the occasion of the mayor and aldermen going to dine with the reader of the Inner Temple. The question whether the Temple is situate within the city and liberties or not was then a debateable one, whatever it may be at the present day. The lord mayor of that time (William Turner) evidently thought that it lay within his jurisdiction, and insisted upon being preceded by the city's sword-bearer carrying the sword up. To this the students strongly objected. The story, as told by Pepys, is to the effect that on Wednesday, 3rd March, "my lord mayor being invited this day to dinner at the readers at the Temple, and endeavouring to carry his sword up, the students did pull it down, and forced him to go and stay all the day in a private counsellor's chamber until the reader himself could get the young gentlemen to dinner; and then my lord mayor did retreat out of the Temple by stealth with his sword up. This do make great heat among the students, and my lord mayor did send to the king, and also I hear that Sir Richard Browne did cause the drums to beat for the trained bands; but all is over, only I hear that the students do resolve to try the charter of the city." From a draft report(1383) of the incident which was probably made for the purpose of being laid before the Council Board,(1384) we learn that as soon as the civic procession entered the Temple cloisters it was met by a man named Hodges and others coming down the back stairs of the Inner Temple Hall; that Hodges threatened the lord mayor if he would not take down his sword, declaring that the Temple was excepted out of the city's charter, that the sword was not the king's sword, but the lord mayor's, and that "they were as good men as he, and no respect was to be given him there." A struggle then took place for the possession of the sword, in which the sword-bearer was slightly hurt and some of the pearls from the scabbard were lost. The students made a snatch at the "cap of maintenance" worn by the sword-bearer. The marshal's men who were in attendance suffered some rough treatment, and narrowly escaped being put under the pump. The mayor and aldermen in the meanwhile sought refuge in the chambers of Mr. Auditor Phillips, and awaited the return of Sir John Nicholas, who with the recorder and the sheriffs had been despatched to Whitehall to report the matter to the king. As soon as they returned the mayor and aldermen essayed to make their way out of the Temple, but were again opposed by the students, with Hodges at their head. The scene was one of wild excitement and confusion; blows were showered upon the aldermen, and one of the sheriffs was seized by the collar in the frantic attempts of the students to pull down the sword. The mayor and aldermen were called "cuckolds," and their officers "dogs, rogues, rascals and other very bad names." Some of the students are said to have had weapons concealed under their gowns, and to have threatened to draw them. The sheriffs, the recorder and Sir John Nicholas having again been sent to the king, it was intimated to the mayor by some of the benchers, and by Mr. Goodfellow, the Reader, at whose invitation the civic fathers were in the Temple, that he might now leave without any interruption (the "young gentlemen," according to Pepys, had been persuaded to go to dinner), which, after some display of opposition, he was allowed to do. Such is the City's own version of the affair, which concludes with the remark "that the proceedings aforesaid were greatly affrontive and dishonourable to the government of the city," a remark with which most people will be disposed to agree. Nor is it surprising to find that two years later the mayor and aldermen declined a similar invitation from Sir Francis North to attend his "feast" at the Temple, more especially as another disturbance was threatened if the sword should be borne up before his lordship.(1385)

(M697)

In July, 1670—at a time when the City could ill afford to part with money—the king sent to borrow L60,000.(1386) He had recently entered into a secret treaty with France (1 June), whereby he had pledged himself to assist the French king in subjugating Holland, in return for pecuniary support. The City agreed to advance the money, but in order to raise the sum required it became necessary to draw upon the coal dues.(1387) Much opposition was raised to the loan by the inhabitants,(1388) so that in November it became necessary for the city Chamberlain to borrow at interest more than L1,000 to complete the loan.(1389) In addition to the loan by the City Charles obtained considerable supplies from parliament when it met in the autumn. The House had been kept in complete ignorance of the arrangement that had been made with France, and voted the money on the understanding that it would be used in assisting the Dutch against Louis and not Louis against the Dutch.

(M698)

In order to keep up the illusion Charles treated the Prince of Orange (afterwards William III of England), who was on a visit to this country at the time, with the highest consideration and insisted on the lord mayor giving "hand and place" to his foreign guest (contrary to city custom) at an entertainment given by the City in the prince's honour.(1390)

(M699)

As soon as parliament had voted supplies it was prorogued (11 Dec.), Charles and his "cabal" being determined to have no restraint put upon them in carrying out the terms of the shameful treaty with France. No long time elapsed before they had to face the difficulty of an empty exchequer. It was useless to declare war without funds. Charles was at his wits' end for money and promised high office to any one who should point out a successful way of raising it. Clifford and Ashley, two members of the cabal, put their heads together and hit upon the bold plan of declaring a moratorium, or suspension of payments out of the royal exchequer. For many years past it had been the custom for the goldsmiths of London and others who had been in the habit of keeping the money of private individuals, either on deposit or running account, to lend it to the king, who could afford to pay them a higher rate of interest than they paid to their private customers. The money was paid into the exchequer, the bankers taking assignments of the public revenue for payment of principal and interest, as it came in. Most of this money had already been spent by Charles in paying off the fleet that brought him over, and in carrying on the late war with the Dutch;(1391) but the bankers and capitalists who had provided the money were content to abide by the king's frequent assurance that he would continue to make good all assignments until their whole debt should be wiped out. We may judge therefore of their surprise and disappointment when they learnt, as they did on the 2nd January, 1672, that the king proposed to suspend all payments out of the public revenue for one whole year!

(M700)

It is true that he promised to add the interest then due to the capital and to allow six per cent. interest on the whole as some compensation to his creditors for the delay; but this, even if carried into practice, proved unavailing to ward off disaster. The inevitable crash came. Many of the London bankers, and among them Alderman Backwell, who held revenue assignments exceeding a quarter of a million sterling, were made utterly bankrupt. A few of them who had interest at court got wind of the threatened danger and managed to withdraw their money from the exchequer in time, whilst Shaftesbury, one of the prime movers in closing the exchequer, foreseeing the inevitable result, took all of his own money out of his banker's hands and warned his friends to do the same.

(M701)

The exchequer having been in this way made richer by L1,300,000, Charles was prepared to declare war. An attempt to intercept a fleet of Dutch merchantmen before any declaration of war had been made—a piratical act admitting of no possible justification—brought matters to a climax and war was declared (17 March, 1672) by England and France. The 27th March was appointed by royal proclamation to be kept as a solemn fast for the purpose of begging the Almighty's blessing on his majesty's forces, the same prayers being used as had been specially ordained for the late war.(1392)

(M702)

The war, which was chiefly remarkable for the noble stand made by the Dutch under the young William, Prince of Orange, Charles's own nephew and afterwards King of England, soon drained the king's resources, and once more he had to face a parliament. The parliament, which met on the 4th February, 1673, showed itself willing to vote a subsidy of L70,000 a month for a period of eighteen months, but only on its own terms. These were (1) the repeal of the Declaration of Indulgence which Charles, who was beginning to show signs of favouring the Roman Church, had by a stretch of prerogative recently caused to be issued, and (2) the passing of a Test Act which should bind all public officers to take the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, receive the sacrament, and abjure the doctrine of transubstantiation. By this means parliament hoped to maintain the supremacy of the Church.

(M703)

The assessments which the City was now called upon to pay were far beyond its powers, seeing that many merchants and traders who had left the city at the time of the Plague and Fire refused to return, preferring to live in the suburbs, and thus a large number of the houses that had recently been re-built were left unoccupied. Every exertion was made to get some remission of the burden, but although the king signified his intention of making some abatement, little appears to have been done.(1393)

(M704)

In March of this year (1673) an individual named Philip De Cardonel came forward with a scheme for raising money by way of annuities to be granted by the city to every subscriber of L20 or more.(1394) The matter was in the first instance brought before the Court of Aldermen, who, upon consideration, declared that the proposal appeared to them "very faire and reasonable, and in all likelihood of very great advantage to the city," and forthwith resolved themselves into a committee of the whole court to treat with Cardonel and take such further proceedings as might be thought requisite.(1395) In the following month (11 April) the same proposals were submitted to the Common Council, where they met with similar favour. The court also appointed a committee to take them into further consideration, promising in the meantime that no advantage should be taken or benefit derived from the scheme without the special leave and consent of the proposer.(1396) Although the committee reported favourably on the scheme(1397) it was allowed to drop.

(M705)

By February of the next year (1674) trade had become so bad that a number of the inhabitants of the city petitioned the Common Council (13 Feb.) to seek some relief from parliament. An address was accordingly drawn up, setting forth the miserable state to which the city had been reduced by the ravages of the plague and the fire, the increase of new buildings in the suburbs, which not only injured the trade of the city, but afforded a retreat for disorderly persons, and excessive taxation (the city being called upon to pay the same amount of taxes as in its most prosperous days), and praying the Commons to apply some timely remedy. The address was to have been laid before the house on Monday, the 23rd February,(1398) but no mention of it appears in the Commons Journal. On the 24th the House was prorogued.

(M706)

In September (1674) the old question again cropt up as to the power of the Court of Aldermen to veto matters ordained by the Common Council. The question had arisen, it will be remembered, in January, 1649,(1399) when Reynardson, the mayor, got up and left the Common Council, followed by the aldermen, and the court, instead of breaking up according to custom, proceeded to pass measures in their absence. Its action on this occasion was reported to parliament, and the house signified its approval of the court's proceedings and passed an ordinance which practically deprived the Court of Aldermen of all control over the Common Council. Since that time the matter had remained dormant, until jealousy between the two bodies was again excited by the Common Council passing an Act (17 Sept., 1674) for compelling the aldermen to reside within the city under the penalty of a fine of L500.(1400) Against the passing of any such Act the Recorder, on behalf of the Court of Aldermen, formally reported their protest to the Common Council, and the Commons as formerly protested against that protest (13 Nov.).(1401)

It was not that the mayor and aldermen were not fully conscious of the mischief arising from their own non-residence in the city, for they themselves passed an order for every alderman to return with his family into the city before the following Easter on pain of heavy penalty,(1402) but they objected to the court of Common Council presuming to dictate to them.

(M707)

In the meantime the Court of Aldermen had appointed a committee (24 Sept.) to examine the question of the right of veto, and this committee had reported (20 Oct.) in favour of the court.(1403) "We find," said the committee, "that the court of Common Council hath always consisted, and still it doth, of three distinct degrees of persons, viz., of the lord mayor in the first place as the chefe magistrate, and secondly of the aldermen as subordinate magistrates, and thirdly of the commons, or of a select number of the commons representing all the commoners of the said city as now is, and for a long time before hath been used." In this respect the committee proceeded to say, "the Common Councill of the city doth much resemble the constitution of the Common Council of the kingdom, and we further find that the order of proceeding in the making of lawes for the good government of the citty doth imitate the paterne sett them by the High Court of Parliament, in making lawes for the government of the nation, in regard that noe ordinance made in the Common Councell of this city can be a binding law to any without the joint consent and concurrence of the Lord Mayor, Court of Aldermen and commoners in Common Councell assembled, they having a joynt power and equal authority in making of lawes. So that the mayor and aldermen cannot impose upon the commoners, nor e converso; each degree having a power to dissent or assent as to them seems best."

The committee next pointed out how Bills for the better government of the city had formerly originated for the most part with the mayor and aldermen, and had been by them transmitted to the Common Council, where, after being read in two several courts (and not twice in one court) and assented to, they became complete acts and binding laws. Such had been the usual and salient practice. Nevertheless, the committee had found that sometimes the Common Council had petitioned the Court of Aldermen for redress of certain grievances and the latter had complied with such petitions, "and so sometimes Acts of Common Council have been made at the desire of the lord mayor and aldermen signifyed to the commons by the Recorder." The conclusion that the committee arrived at was that "the lord mayor and aldermen have negative votes as the commoners also have, and contrary to this order of proceeding in making Acts of Common Council wee cannot find any presedent."

On the 13th November a joint Committee of Aldermen and Commoners was appointed by the Common Council to search the city's Records as to "the respective privileges of the lord mayor and aldermen and of the commons in Common Council assembled, and of the most ancient and decent method in making laws within this citty," and to report thereon.(1404) Four days later (17 Nov.) the Court of Aldermen instructed their committee to make further search on the question.(1405)

(M708) (M709)

Matters were brought to a crisis on the 12th March, 1675, when the mayor and aldermen, dissatisfied with the proceedings of the court of Common Council, got up and left the court. The Common Sergeant—the notorious George Jeffreys—refusing to follow the example set by the Common Sergeant in 1649, remained behind, and went so far as to put a question to the court of which the mayor and aldermen had previously disapproved. For this he was shortly afterwards called to account. His defence was that he only obeyed the wishes of the majority; but this being deemed unsatisfactory, the Court of Aldermen ordered him to be suspended from office.(1406)

(M710) (M711)

He afterwards (23 March) offered an apology to the Court of Aldermen for his conduct, confessing "that the question by him put at the last Common Council after the lord mayor was out of the chair was altogether irregular," and asked pardon. His apology, so far as it went, was accepted in good part by the court, but upon some explanation being asked of him as to his not refusing to put a question when commanded to refuse, and his offering to put another question at the request of some members of the council, he desired to be allowed time before he made answer.(1407) Meanwhile the dispute between the Aldermen and Common Council had been brought to the notice of the king,(1408) who, with his brother the Duke of York, had recently received the freedom of the City.(1409)

(M712) (M713)

A week later (30 March) the Recorder, John Howell, reported to the Court of Aldermen(1410) that he and the Common Sergeant had by command appeared before his majesty the previous day touching the unhappy difference existing between the Aldermen and the Common Council; that the Common Sergeant being asked to whom it devolved to put the question on a debate in council, had in the Recorder's hearing replied to the effect "that the question had always been used to be put by the lord mayor or by his lordship's appointment and not otherwise, so far as he had observed," and he had never known the matter disputed; that he had then likewise declared to his majesty that he was "sorry for his deportment at the last Common Council, saying that what he did was a sudden act and rashly done without any intention to make any disturbance, and that he would freely acknowledge the same wheresoever his majesty should command him"; that therefore his majesty had commanded the Recorder to acquaint the court that the best expedient he could suggest, as the case stood, for a settlement of the difficulty, was that the old order of things should be re-established, that (among other things) the suspension of the Common Sergeant should be removed, and that the books and records of the city should be searched by six such aldermen as the lord mayor should appoint, and six such commoners as the Common Council should appoint, in order to satisfy themselves of the respective privileges of the lord mayor and aldermen and commons in Common Council assembled, and to settle the same in a quiet and peaceable manner if they could. Failing this his majesty would appoint a judge to arbitrate in the matter.

(M714)

The court followed the king's suggestion so far as related to the Common Sergeant, and having listened to his expressions of regret for his late conduct, and his assurances that he would always endeavour to "promote the honour and government of the city," it removed his suspension.

(M715)

As regards the real issue between the two Courts of Aldermen and Common Council, matters remained much as they were before. Although the Court of Aldermen gave orders (12 April) that the proceedings relative to the dispute between the two courts should be faithfully recorded, the minutes of the Common Council at this period are particularly lacking in information as well on this as on other matters in which the City was concerned.(1411)

(M716)

One result of the contretemps which had occurred in the court of Common Council of the 12th March was that the Court of Aldermen resolved to retain certain counsel to advise them as occasion should arise on the question of their rights and privileges, and to create a fund by subscription among themselves to meet the necessary expenses.(1412)

(M717)

In April the Town Clerk and the four clerks of the outer court (i.e. mayor's court) were instructed to search the books and records of the city on the question whether or not it was the province of the lord mayor (1) to direct and put the question in the Common Council, (2) to name committees, and (3) to nominate persons to be put in election to any office.(1413) This last point especially affected the right claimed by the mayor to nominate (if not to elect) one of the sheriffs by virtue of his prerogative—a claim which had already been more than once canvassed and which was destined shortly to bring the City and the Crown into violent opposition.

(M718)

On the 7th September, 1675, the Court of Aldermen directed that the opinion of counsel should be taken on the power of the mayor and aldermen to put their veto on matters passed by the Common Council.(1414) After the lapse of fifteen months the opinions of Sir William Jones, the attorney-general, Sir Francis Winnington, solicitor-general, Sir John Maynard and Sir Francis Pemberton, sergeants-at-law, and of "Mr. William Steele" (not a former Recorder of that name as some have supposed(1415)) were presented to the court (5 Dec., 1676);(1416) and with the exception of the last mentioned, all the lawyers declared in favour of the mayor and aldermen. There the matter was allowed to rest for a year or more until in February, 1678, the opinions of Sir William Dolben, not long since appointed the city's Recorder, and of Jeffreys, the Common Sergeant, who was destined in a few months to succeed Dolben on the latter's promotion to the bench, were taken and found to coincide with the opinions already delivered with the exception of that of William Steele.(1417)

(M719) (M720) (M721) (M722)

In the meantime Charles had concluded a separate treaty with the Dutch (19 Feb., 1674), who continued to struggle manfully against the French king, with such assistance as they derived from the emperor and the German states. The Commons were fearful of entrusting the king with either money or troops lest he should employ them against the Dutch, or against their own liberties. The successes of Louis at length provoked a general cry for war against France, and the Commons went so far as to pass a bill (8 March, 1678) imposing a poll tax as part of the supply.(1418) Charles lost no time in applying to the City for the sum of L100,000 on the security of this tax, and the court of Common Council signified its readiness to advance the money (9 April).(1419) Finding that parliament hesitated to furnish the supplies it had voted, and without which he assured the members he would have to lay up the fleet and disband some of the newly raised forces, Charles applied to the City for another L50,000. This, too, was granted (14 May);(1420) and Charles, in order to show his displeasure with the Commons, resorted to his usual tactics and prorogued parliament, but only for ten days.(1421) A few days after the Commons had again met they resolved (27 May) that if the king would declare war against France they would give him their hearty support, otherwise they would at once proceed to take into consideration the speedy disbandment of the army.(1422) The king refusing to declare war, parliament proceeded (4 June) to carry out its threat and voted the sum of L200,000 for the disbandment of all the forces that had been raised since the 29th September, 1677.(1423) The disbandment did not take place, however, but in its stead a force was despatched to Holland. Scarcely had it arrived before the peace of Nimeguen was signed.

(M723)

Just when the war was brought so unexpectedly to an end Charles signified his desire for another loan by the City to the extent of L200,000. The matter was brought to the notice of the Common Council on the last day of July, and on the 1st August the lord mayor issued his precept to the aldermen of the several wards to invite subscriptions.(1424) For what purpose the money was required we are not told. It was generally feared that the king meditated a suppression of the liberties of his subjects by the introduction of foreign troops. This fear was enhanced by the knowledge that if Charles died the crown would fall to his brother, an uncompromising Catholic. The public mind became so unhinged that every breath or rumour created the greatest trepidation. Within a fortnight after the City had signified its assent to the last loan the nation was suddenly surprised by some words let drop by Dr. Tonge, the weak and credulous rector of St. Michael's, Wood Street, and the tool of the infamous Titus Oates. A Popish plot was, he said, on foot and the king's life in danger, in proof of which he produced documentary evidence. Oates, the prime mover in starting the idea of a plot, was ready in the most shameless way with depositions to corroborate all that Tonge had said. These depositions he made before a Middlesex magistrate, Sir Edmondesbury Godfrey. The next morning Godfrey's corpse was found lying in a ditch near Primrose Hill. All London was wild with excitement and jumped to the conclusion that the Middlesex Justice had met a violent death for listening to Oates's evidence, although there is reason for believing him to have fallen by his own hands. The cry against Papists continued unabated for years.(1425) The city presented the appearance of a state of siege with its gates kept closed, its streets protected with posts and chains, and an armed watch kept by night and day.(1426) In October, when according to custom the king was to be invited to the lord mayor's banquet, the Recorder was instructed to congratulate his majesty upon his recent escape and to make arrangements for a deputation to wait upon him in person.(1427)

(M724)

When parliament met on the 21st of this month it passed a new Test Act rigidly excluding all Catholics from both Houses. Five Catholic peers were committed to the Tower, and Coleman, the secretary of the Duchess of York, was tried and executed for having in his possession papers betraying a design for forcing the Roman Catholic religion on the nation. It next proceeded to impeach Danby for having been concerned in certain money transactions between Charles and the king of France. Knowing the danger likely to arise from such an investigation, Charles dissolved (24 Jan., 1679) the parliament, which had now sat for more than seventeen years.

(M725)

When the elections for the new parliament were over it was found that the opposition to the king was greater than ever. Of the city members who had sat in the last parliament only one—Alderman Love—was returned, the remaining seats being taken by Alderman Sir Robert Clayton, Sir Thomas Player, the city chamberlain, and Thomas Pilkington, afterwards elected alderman of the ward of Farringdon Without. This second parliament—the first of a series of short parliaments—in Charles's reign met on the 6th March, 1679, but was suddenly dissolved on the 27th May in order to stop the progress of an Exclusion Bill depriving the Duke of York of his right of succession to the crown.(1428) It left its mark, however, on the statute book by passing the Habeas Corpus Act. It also voted a sum exceeding L200,000 for disbandment of the forces raised since Michaelmas, 1677.(1429) Just a week before parliament dissolved the Court of Aldermen was asked (20 May) to forward an address thanking both Houses for their care in securing the personal safety of the king and maintaining the Protestant religion. The address was referred back in order to include the king in the vote of thanks, and was then submitted (23 May) to the Common Council for approval. That body made a further amendment by adding the words: "The Protestant religion according to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England as it is now established by law."(1430)

(M726)

In August the king was confined to his bed with a fever so violent that it was deemed advisable to send for his brother the Duke of York. He recovered however; and on the 11th September a deputation of city aldermen waited on him to learn when the court might come in person to congratulate him on his convalescence.(1431) On the 17th the mayor issued his precept for bells to be set ringing and bonfires to be lighted in the city in honour of his majesty's return from Windsor to Whitehall after his late indisposition.(1432) The Duke of York did not return to England until February, 1680, when a special Court of Aldermen sat to make arrangements for presenting their congratulations to him and the duchess.(1433)

(M727)

The elections for a fresh parliament which had taken place in the meantime having gone against the court party, parliament no sooner met (17 Oct.) than it was prorogued; and in consequence of repeated prorogations never sat again for a whole twelvemonth (21 Oct., 1680).(1434) Nor would it in all probability have been allowed to meet even then, had it not been for a constant succession of petitions addressed to the king insisting upon a session being held. So annoyed was Charles with this demonstration of popular feeling in favour of parliament that he issued a proclamation (12 Dec., 1679) prohibiting such "tumultuous petitions."(1435)

(M728)

This led to the presentation of a number of counter-addresses to the king, expressing the greatest confidence in his majesty's wisdom, the most dutiful submission to his prerogative, and abhorrence of those who had dared to encroach upon it by petitions. The two parties thus became distinguished as Petitioners and Abhorrers; names which were subsequently replaced by Whigs and Tories.

(M729)

The citizens were Petitioners. On the 29th July (1680) the Livery assembled in Common Hall for the election of sheriffs took the opportunity of desiring Sir Robert Clayton, the lord mayor, to beseech his majesty on their behalf, that for the preservation of his royal person and government and the Protestant religion he would graciously please to order that parliament, his great council, might assemble and sit to take measures against the machinations of Rome.(1436) Clayton showed himself very willing to comply with the wishes of Common Hall, but pointed out at the same time that he had reason to believe that parliament was to meet in November. "If that be so," said he, "I hope your great concern for that matter might have been spared, being anticipated by his majesties gracious intention. However, I shall not be wanting with all humility to lay the whole matter before him." In spite of Jeffreys, the Recorder, having ruled that such a petition bordered on treason, and in spite of a warning received from the lord chancellor, Clayton insisted on presenting a petition, and for doing so was rewarded with the grateful thanks of the Common Council on his quitting the mayoralty.(1437) Jeffreys on the other hand was compelled to resign the recordership.(1438)

(M730) (M731)

When parliament was at last allowed to meet the City lost no time in presenting a dutiful address(1439) to Charles acknowledging his majesty's favour and their own satisfaction. They besought him to lend a ready ear to the humble advice tendered by his great council for the safety of his royal person and the preservation of the true Protestant religion, and promised to be ready at all times to promote his majesty's ease and prosperity, and to stand by him against all dangers and hazards whatsoever. Had Charles accepted this address in the spirit with which it was made matters might have gone better with him, and the Stuart family might never have been driven from the throne; but he was in no mood to accept advice either from parliament or the city, and the only answer he vouchsafed to the citizens was to tell them to mind their own business. He knew what he had to do, without their advice.(1440)

(M732)

As soon as the House met it commenced an attack upon Papists. The Exclusion Bill was again passed, but was thrown out by the Lords. Thus baulked the Commons revived the impeachment of the Catholic lords. During the trial of Stafford on a charge of a design to murder the king, more than ordinary precautions had to be taken by the mayor to maintain order and prevent too great a crowd assembling at Westminster.(1441) Being condemned to death, the king was ready to spare Stafford the grosser indignities attached to a felon's execution, but the royal act of clemency was not allowed to pass unchallenged by the sheriffs of London on the ground that if the king could dispense with some part of the execution why not of all?(1442) The House had passed a vote of thanks to the City for its "manifest loyalty to the king" and its care and vigilance for the preservation of his majesty's person and of the Protestant religion, and had got as far as the second reading of a Bill for repealing the Corporation Act of 1661 when it found itself suddenly prorogued from the 10th January to the 20th.(1443)

(M733)

During the interval a petition was drawn up by the Common Council (13 Jan.) and presented to the king, in which the petitioners expressed their surprise at the late prorogation "whereby the prosecution of the public justice of the kingdom ... have received an interruption," and after referring to the action taken by parliament for the defence of his majesty's person and the preservation of the Protestant religion, prayed that the House might be allowed to resume its session on the day to which parliament had been prorogued as being "the only means to quiet the minds and extinguish the fears of your Protestant subjects."(1444) This petition, and more especially that part of it which spoke of the interruption of justice, was highly resented by Charles, and was one of the causes which led to the issue of the writ of Quo Warranto against the city in the following year. In the meanwhile it served only to make the king more determined than ever to dissolve the parliament, which he did by proclamation on the 18th January. A new parliament was summoned for the 21st March; it was not however to sit in London, but in the royalist city of Oxford.(1445)

(M734)

The City sent up to Oxford the same members that had represented them in the last two parliaments. The election took place at a Common Hall held on Friday the 4th February, but no record of the proceedings is to be found in the city's archives.(1446) From other sources, however,(1447) we learn that after an opening speech by one of the secondaries, or under-sheriffs, Henry Cornish, one of the sheriffs, addressed the meeting and explained how the mayor (Sir Patience Ward) had been asked to allow himself to be put in nomination but had declined. One or two aldermen were nominated for form's sake, but the choice of the citizens was unanimously in favour of the old members—Sir Robert Clayton, Alderman Pilkington, Sir Thomas Player, the city chamberlain, and William Love. The election over, the Common Hall presented an address to the members, acknowledging their past services and promising to support them in their determination to grant no money supply until they had effectually secured the city against Popery and arbitrary power. To this address Sir Robert Clayton made a brief reply, promising, on behalf of himself and colleagues, to continue their endeavours to attain the ends desired. The fact that the new parliament was to sit at Oxford, a stronghold of the Tory party, caused no little alarm, and this alarm was increased when it became known that Charles was bringing his own guards with him. The city's representatives were brought on their way by a large number of followers with ribbons in their hats bearing the words "No Popery! No Slavery!" whilst Shaftesbury and his supporters made no disguise that they were well equipt with arms.(1448)

(M735)

Charles soon perceived that he had little to gain from the new parliament, which insisted on having its own way, and refused even the king's humiliating proposal to place the government of the country after his demise in the hands of a regent, leaving the bare title of king to his brother, the Duke of York. It caused an impeachment to be laid against an Irishman named Fitzharris whom Charles had recently removed from Newgate to the Tower in order to prevent the civic authorities taking the prisoner's depositions,(1449) and it otherwise proved so uncompromising that at the end of a week (28 March) it was sent about its business. Charles afterwards (8 April) published a "declaration" of his reasons for taking that course.(1450)

(M736)

On the 13th May the Common Council passed a vote of thanks to the city members for their faithful services in the last three parliaments, and more especially in the late parliament at Oxford. It also agreed by a narrow majority of fourteen to present an address to the king praying him to cause a parliament to meet and continue to sit until due provision be made for the security of his majesty's person and his people.(1451) The first attempt (13 May) to present this address failed, the deputation being told to meet the king at Hampton Court another day (19 May). When it was presented the deputation were told to go home and mind their own business. Other addresses—one from the lieutenancy of London and another from the borough of Southwark—presented the same day, in which thanks were tendered to his majesty for dissolving the last two parliaments, met with a very different reception. Undismayed at the rebuff thus administered to the City, the Grand Jury at the Old Bailey passed a vote of thanks (20 May) to the mayor for the part he had taken in presenting the address, and ordered a similar address to that of the City to be presented to Charles on their own account.(1452)



CHAPTER XXX.



(M737)

The country seemed to be on the verge of another civil war. A re-action, however, in favour of the king set in. The nation began to view the situation more dispassionately and to entertain serious doubts whether parliament had acted rightly in pushing matters to such an extremity. The religious question after all might not be so important or so fraught with danger as they had been led to believe by professional informers. Addresses of the type of those presented by the lieutenancy of London and the borough of Southwark, among them being one signed by over twenty thousand apprentices of the city,(1453) began to flow in; and proceedings were commenced against Protestants on no better evidence than had previously been used against Catholics.

(M738)

Among the first against whom proceedings were taken was a Londoner named Stephen College, a joiner by trade, who from his zeal in the cause of religion came to be known as the "Protestant joiner." An attempt to get a true bill returned against him at the Old Bailey, where the juries were empanelled by the sheriffs of London and Middlesex, having failed, he was removed to Oxford and tried there on a charge of high treason. After much hard swearing a verdict was at length obtained.(1454)

(M739)

Having secured the conviction of College the council flew at higher game in the person of the Earl of Shaftesbury. He was arrested at his house in Aldersgate Street on the 2nd July, but it was not until November that a bill of high treason was preferred against him at the Old Bailey. The nomination of juries practically rested with the sheriffs, and the court party had recently endeavoured to force the election of candidates of their own political complexion. In this they had failed, although in December last the king had endeavoured to change the character of city juries by ordering the mayor (Sir Patience Ward) to issue his precept to the Aldermen to see that none were returned by their wards for service on juries "of inferior degree than a subsidy man."(1455) The sheriffs for the year, Thomas Pilkington and Samuel Shute, who were zealous Whigs, took care to empanel a grand jury which would be inclined to ignore the bill against the earl, and under these circumstances the bill was thrown out (24 Nov.).(1456)

(M740)

The failure of the court party to obtain a conviction of Shaftesbury owing to the political bias of the sheriffs for the time being, determined them to resort to more drastic measures to obtain the election of candidates with Tory proclivities. In order to understand the method pursued it will be necessary to review briefly the manner in which the election of sheriffs had from time to time been carried out.

(M741)

From the earliest times of which we have any city record until the commencement of the 14th century it had been the custom for the sheriffs of London and Middlesex to be elected by the mayor, aldermen and "the good men of the city" or "commonalty." But a custom sprang up in 1301 of summoning twelve men only from each ward to take part with the mayor and aldermen in such elections,(1457) a custom which found little favour with the bulk of the inhabitants of the city, who insisted upon being present and taking part in the proceedings. An attempt was made by the civic authorities in 1313 to put a stop to the noise and confusion resulting from the presence of such vast numbers at the Guildhall by an order providing that thenceforth only the best men from each ward should be summoned to take part in the elections, and two years later (4 July, 1315) this order was enforced by royal proclamation.(1458) Nevertheless the practice of summoning representatives from the wards was soon dropt, and for more than thirty years the sheriffs continued to be elected by the mayor, aldermen and the "whole commonalty." Another attempt (made under Brembre in 1384) to restrict the number of the commonalty to "so many and such of them as should seem needful for the time" (tantz et tieux come lour semble busoignable pur le temps)(1459) was not more successful.

(M742)

In 1347 we meet for the first time with a new method of procedure. In that year one of the sheriffs was elected by the mayor and the other by the commonalty;(1460) and this prerogative of the mayor for the time being to elect one of the sheriffs continued to be exercised with few (if any) exceptions down to 1638. Neither in 1639 nor in the following year was the prerogative exercised. In 1641 the mayor attempted to exercise it, but through some negligence on his part was declared by the House of Commons to have forfeited his right, and the election of both sheriffs devolved, pro hac vice, upon the commonalty.(1461)

(M743)

From 1642 to 1651 the mayor for the time being exercised his prerogative in electing as well as nominating one of the sheriffs, but the commonalty always challenged his right to elect, although they paid the mayor the compliment of electing his nominee to serve with the sheriff of their own choice. From 1652 to 1660 (or 1661(1462)?) the mayor did not attempt to exercise a right either of electing or nominating one of the sheriffs, but in 1662, when the mayor would have elected as well as nominated Thomas Bludworth as sheriff, the commonalty claimed their rights. Bludworth was eventually returned together with Sir William Turner.(1463)

(M744)

In the following year (1663) the prerogative exercised by the mayor passed unchallenged, and so continued until 1674, when, objection being raised,(1464) the Common Council appointed a committee "to consider of the matters in difference and now long debated in this court between ye right honorable ye lord maior and commons of this citty concerneing the eleccon of one of ye sheriffes and to finde out some expedient for ye reconciling ye same."(1465)

(M745)

We now read for the first time in the City's Records of a custom in connection with the election of sheriffs (although that custom is said to have arisen in the reign of Elizabeth),(1466) namely, the nomination or election of a sheriff by the mayor drinking to an individual at a public banquet. It appears that the lord mayor had recently drunk to William Roberts, citizen and vintner, thereby intimating that it was his lordship's wish that Roberts should be one of the sheriffs for the year ensuing. The commons objected to the mayor thus exercising his prerogative, whilst the aldermen were no less determined to support him.(1467) The committee to whom the matter was referred suggested a compromise, namely, that Roberts should be bound over to take upon himself the office if within the next two or three years he should be either drunk to by the mayor or elected by the commons to be sheriff; and that, further, an Act of Common Council should be forthwith made for settling the shrievalty and all matters connected with it.(1468)

(M746)

No Act of Common Council appears to have been passed pursuant to the committee's recommendation, but in the following year (1675) and down to 1679 the mayor exercised his full prerogative of electing one of the sheriffs without opposition, although the person so elected did not always undertake the office.

(M747)

On Midsummer-day, 1680, the mayor elected George Hockenhall, citizen and grocer, to be one of the sheriffs, but Hockenhall refused to serve and was discharged on his entering into a bond for the payment of L400. The commons thereupon stept in and elected Slingsby Bethell, leatherseller, and Henry Cornish, haberdasher.(1469) At this juncture political influence was brought to bear upon the elections. Bethell was particularly an object of aversion to the court party. He is reported to have declared himself ready to have acted as executioner of the late king if no one else could be found for the job,(1470) and to have made himself obnoxious in other ways. With Cornish little fault could at present be found. Objection was raised to both these gentlemen acting as sheriffs, on the ground that they had not taken the oath or received the sacrament as prescribed by law, and another election demanded. Before this second election took place (14 July) they had qualified themselves according to the Corporation Act.(1471) The mayor did not claim his prerogative on this occasion. Bethell and Cornish were put up again for office, and against them two others, Ralph Box, grocer, and Humphrey Nicholson, merchant taylor, who, although nominated like Bethell and Cornish by the commonalty, were in reality candidates put forward by the court party.(1472) Bethell and Cornish having been again declared elected, a poll was demanded, which lasted several days. At its close it was found that Cornish was at the head with 2,483 votes, Bethell next with 2,276, whilst Box and Nicholson followed with 1,428 and 1,230 votes respectively.(1473)

(M748)

The two first named were declared (29 July) duly elected. Bethell has been described as a "sullen and wilful man," a republican at heart and one that "turned from the ordinary way of a sheriff's living into the extreme of sordidness." Cornish on the other hand was "a plain, warm, honest man and lived very nobly all his year."(1474) It was doubtless Bethell's proposal that the customary dinner to the aldermen on the day the new sheriffs were sworn in should be omitted. If so, Cornish had to give way to the parsimonious whim of his fellow sheriff. "What an obstinate man he was!" remarked Cornish of him, when brought to trial five years later.(1475) The aldermen refused to accompany the sheriffs to the Guildhall unless they were invited to dinner.(1476)

(M749)

In the following year (1681) two other sheriffs of the same political character, viz., Pilkington and Shute, were elected over the heads of the same court candidates that had stood the previous year, the defeat of the latter being still more pronounced.(1477)

(M750)

The king did not attempt to conceal his displeasure at the City's proceedings, and when the recorder and the sheriffs came to invite him to dinner on lord mayor's day,(1478) made the following answer:—"Mr. Recorder, an invitation from my lord mayor and the city is very acceptable to me, and to show that it is so, notwithstanding that it is brought by messengers that are so unwelcome to me as these two sheriffs are, yet I accept it."(1479)

(M751)

The outgoing sheriffs were presented (27 June) with an address(1480) from the citizens assembled in Common Hall thanking them for their faithful discharge of their office of trust and complimenting them more especially upon their successful efforts to maintain and assert the undoubted rights and privileges of the citizens and their "continual provision of faithful and able juries." The address concluded with thanks to them for their despatch in carrying out the recent "unnecessary" poll in connection with the election of new sheriffs, and not delaying the matter by troublesome adjournments.

(M752)

Opportunity was also taken of thanking the lord mayor (Sir Patience Ward) and the members of the Common Council for presenting the recent address to his majesty praying him to confide in parliament,(1481) and desired his lordship to assure his majesty that the address reflected the true feeling and desires of all his loyal subjects there assembled in Common Hall, notwithstanding rumours to the contrary. They also desired to join in the vote of thanks which the Common Council had passed to the city members sitting in the last parliament for their faithful services.

(M753)

It required some courage for the mayor to again face the king and his chancellor and to run the risk of another rebuff. Nevertheless, on Thursday, the 7th July, the mayor went to Hampton Court, attended by Sir Robert Clayton, Sir John Shorter and others, as well as by the sheriffs Bethell and Cornish (the new sheriffs not coming into office until September), to present to the king in council another address from the Common Hall. It was received with no more favour than the last. The chancellor affected to believe that it was but the address of a faction in the city, and not the unanimous vote of the citizens at large. "The king takes notice there are no aldermen," he said, whilst Alderman Clayton and Alderman Shorter were at his elbow! In fine they were again told to mind their own business.(1482)

(M754)

Although the court party had twice signally failed to obtain the appointment of sheriffs who should be amenable to its control, they were fortunate in having an adherent in the mayor elected on Michaelmas-day to succeed Sir Patience Ward. The senior alderman who had not already passed the chair happened to be Sir John Moore. It does not often occur that in the choice of a mayor the Common Hall passes over the senior alderman who is both capable and willing to take upon himself the office; but there was some chance of it doing so in this case, inasmuch as Sir John Moore had rendered himself unpopular with a large section of citizens by presenting an address of thanks to the king for the declaration which his majesty had published in defence of his having dissolved parliament.(1483) Two aldermen, Sir John Shorter and Thomas Gold, were nominated with Moore for the office. A poll was demanded, with the result that Moore was elected by a majority of nearly 300 votes over his opponents.(1484) On his being presented (7 Oct.) to the lord chancellor for the king's approbation, he was told that his majesty experienced much satisfaction at the choice of so loyal and worthy a magistrate.(1485) Three days before (4 Oct.) the Court of Aldermen nominated a committee to take informations concerning the scandalous remarks that had been made against him in Common Hall on the day of his election.(1486)

(M755)

Not content with this success, the king's advisers determined upon bringing the City to book for its recent attitude in the election of sheriffs. The anomaly by which the citizens of London enjoyed the right of electing their own sheriffs, as they had done with short intermissions for the past 500 years, whilst in nearly every county of the kingdom the sheriffs were nominated by the king, must be abolished. A writ in the nature of a Quo Warranto was accordingly issued to the sheriffs in January, 1682, calling upon them to summon the mayor and commonalty and citizens of the city to appear in his majesty's court of King's Bench to answer by what warrant they claimed divers liberties, franchises and privileges of which the writ declared they were impeached.(1487)

(M756)

Notification of service of the writ was formally made to the Common Council on the 18th January. The council showed no signs of dismay; they scarcely realized, perhaps, at the outset the true significance of the writ or the consequence it was likely to entail. They had no cause to think that the mayor, commonalty and citizens had usurped any liberties, franchises or privileges without due warrant or had abused any to which they had lawful title. One thing was plain. It was their duty to maintain the rights of the City. They therefore appointed a committee to consult with counsel learned in the law, and prepare a defence such as they might be advised to make, and ordered the Chamberlain to disburse such sums of money as might be required for the purpose.(1488)

(M757)

More than a twelvemonth was taken up in preparing the long and technical pleadings(1489) preliminary to trial, and in the meantime another severe struggle took place in assertion of the right claimed by the citizens to elect both their sheriffs. The citizens ranged themselves in separate factions, the Whig party under sheriff Pilkington, the Tories under the mayor. Each leader entertained his supporters at dinner.(1490) There was to have been a banquet held on the 21st April at Haberdashers' Hall, at which the Duke of Monmouth, Lord Shaftesbury and others of the Whig party were to have been present, but the proposal getting wind, the mayor was strictly enjoined by the Privy Council to prevent it as being a seditious meeting and tending to create factions among the king's subjects.(1491)

(M758)

The Duke of York, who had for some time past resided in Scotland, had not increased in favour with the citizens of London. It is true that the mayor and aldermen of the city paid their respects to his highness (10 April, 1682) at St. James's Palace, on his return from the north, after paying a similar visit to the king, who had recently returned to Whitehall from Newmarket;(1492) but a proposal to offer an address to the duke praying him to reside in London found but little response in the Court of Aldermen, and was allowed to drop.(1493) It was not so long ago that his picture hanging in the Guildhall was found to have been mutilated, an offer of L500 for the discovery of the perpetrator of the outrage being without effect.(1494) Just when Pilkington was about to lay down his office of sheriff the duke entered an action against him for slander, claiming damages to the extent of L50,000. For a time he managed to escape service of the writ,(1495) but if he was not served before, his presence in the Common Hall on Midsummer-day for the election of new sheriffs afforded ample opportunity to serve him then.

(M759)

This election is one of the most remarkable elections in the City's annals. The royalist mayor, Sir John Moore, having previously drunk to Dudley North at a banquet at the Bridge House (18 May), thereby intimating that he nominated North as one of the sheriffs for the year ensuing, according to custom, had issued his precept to the several companies (19 June) to meet in Common Hall for the purpose of confirming his nomination and electing another sheriff to serve with his nominee.(1496) This form of precept was objected to, and when the Common Cryer called upon the livery assembled in Common Hall to appear for the "confirmation" of North, he was met with cries of "No confirmation! No confirmation!" and the rest of his proclamation was drowned in uproar. "Thereupon," runs the City's Record,(1497) "Thomas Papillon, esq., mercer, John Du Bois, weaver, and Ralph Box, grocer, citizens of London (together with the said Dudley North, so as aforesaid elected by the lord mayor), were nominated by the commonalty, that two of them by the said commonalty might be chosen into the office of sheriffs of the city of London and county of Middlesex." The Common Sergeant having declared Papillon and Du Bois duly elected, a poll was demanded. This was granted and proceeded with until seven o'clock in the evening, when the meeting was adjourned by the mayor until the 27th. The outgoing sheriffs (Pilkington and Shute), however, disregarded the mayor's order for adjournment and continued the poll for some time longer, but at last adjourned the meeting to the day fixed by the mayor.

(M760)

A fresh question thus arose, namely, whether the right of adjourning a Common Hall was vested in the mayor for the time being or in the sheriffs. Sir John Moore reported the conduct of Pilkington and Shute to the king's council, with the result that before the 27th day of June arrived they were both committed to the Tower. They were afterwards admitted to bail.(1498)

(M761) (M762) (M763)

In the meantime the Common Hall had been adjourned by the mayor from the 27th June to the 5th July. On the latter day the sheriffs duly appeared on the husting, but the mayor being absent through indisposition, the Recorder declared his lordship's order that a further adjournment should take place until the 7th July. The sheriffs again interposed and asked the Common Hall if it was their wish that an adjournment should take place, and the answer being in the negative they proceeded to finish the poll, with the result that Papillon and Du Bois were again declared elected by a large majority. Orders having been given to the Town Clerk to place their proceedings on record, the Common Hall broke up.(1499)

(M764)

On the 7th the mayor and aldermen appeared in the Guildhall prepared to proceed with the poll, ignoring all that had taken place two days before. The Hall was very crowded, and soon debate arose as to whom belonged the right of adjournment. The opinion of counsel was taken by both parties then and there,(1500) but with little practical result, and the lord mayor further adjourned the Hall until that day week (14 July).

(M765)

In the meanwhile several aldermen and citizens waited on his majesty in council, and gave him an account of the late proceedings, with the result that an order was sent to the mayor to hold a new election, the last being declared irregular.(1501)

(M766)

The City's own account of what took place at the Common Hall on the 14th is thus recorded. After the order for a new election had been read, "relation was ... de novo made that Dudley North, esq., citizen and mercer of London, was elected by the mayor by his prerogative, according to the custom, into the office of one of the sheriffs of the city of London and county of Middlesex for the year ensuing, that another might be associated to him by the commonalty. And upon this, after declaration made that the said Dudley North was confirmed and Thomas Papillon, esq., citizen and mercer of London, was chosen sheriffs, certain of the commons demanded that it might be decided by the voices of the commons between the said Dudley North and Thomas Papillon and John Du Bois, weaver, and Ralph Box, grocer (named also by the commonalty), that the two of those four who should have the most voices might be the sheriffs elected for the city of London and county of Middlesex for the year ensuing. Whereupon the sheriffs and other officers of the city in the accustomed manner went into the upper chamber, where declaration of the premisses was made by the common sergeant to the mayor and aldermen there sitting; which said mayor and aldermen, the relation aforesaid well weighing, did declare the said Dudley North to be rightly and duly elected and confirmed according to the law and custom of the said city, and immediately came down upon the place where the Court of Hustings is usually held, and there, in their presence and by their command, the said Dudley North was solemnly called to come forth and give his consent to take upon him the said office.(1502) And the said lord mayor did then direct that the poll should be taken only for the said Thomas Papillon, John Du Bois and Ralph Box, by certain persons thereunto particularly appointed by the said lord mayor, that one of those three who had the most voices might be associated to the said Dudley North. And afterwards the said mayor and aldermen departed out of the hall. And the poll for the said three persons last named was immediately begun, and continued until the evening of that day. And then the said congregation was, by order of the lord mayor, adjourned until the next day, being Saturday, the 15th of July aforesaid, at 9 o'clock in the afternoon [sic.]. At which day the said poll being continued was in the afternoon of that day finished. And thereupon relation was made by the common sergeant to the mayor and aldermen that upon the poll taken by the severall persons appointed by the said lord mayor as aforesaid, there were 60 voices for Mr. Papillon, 60 voices for Mr. Du Bois, and 1,244 voices for Mr. Box. By which it appeared that the said Ralph Box had the most voices, and so was elected into the office of one of the sheriffs of the city of London and county of Middlesex for the year ensuing. And the same in the afternoon was so declared by the common sergeant to the commons then and there assembled, which said election of the said Ralph Box was by the aforesaid mayor, aldermen and commonalty ratified and confirmed. And thereupon, according to the form and effect of the Act of Common Council in that case made and provided, publication thereof by proclamation being then made in the place where the Hustings Court is usually held in the presence of the said lord mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, the said Ralph Box was then and there solemnly called, etc."

Very different is the account of the proceedings as given us in a tract of the day.(1503) From the latter we learn that a separate poll was opened the same day by the sheriffs, in which all four candidates were submitted to the choice of the citizens, and the result of which was declared by Sheriff Pilkington on the 15th, prior to the mayor's declaration. According to this poll, Papillon and Du Bois were again returned at the head with 2,487 and 2,481 votes respectively. There were only 107 in favour of confirming North's election, whilst 2,414 gave their votes against it. Box found himself with only 173 supporters. It was after the declaration of this result that the mayor ordered the common sergeant to declare the result of the other poll, but the declaration of the large number of votes alleged to have been given in favour of Box caused so much uproar that he could proceed no further. The mayor and aldermen thereupon left the hall, and Papillon and Du Bois were declared by the sheriffs duly elected.

(M767)

It was expected that Box would attend before the next Court of Aldermen to be held on the 18th July to give bond for holding office as North had already done, but he failed to appear. A petition, therefore, was presented to the court praying that as Papillon and Du Bois had been elected sheriffs the court should call them forth according to custom. The mayor being advised to postpone giving an answer, another petition to the same effect was presented at the next court (20 July), whilst yet a third prayed that a caveat might be entered against North and Box being admitted and sworn sheriffs. The mayor was again advised to take time to consider his answer.(1504)

(M768)

A week later (27 July) the mayor made the following reply to the petitioners, by advice of the court:—"Gentlemen, this court hath considered of your petition, and will take care that such persons shall take the office of sheriffs upon them as are duly elected according to law and the ancient customs of this city; and in this and all other things this court will endeavour to maintain the rights and privileges of the chair and of the whole city; and wherein you think that we do otherwise the law must judge between us."(1505) This was little to the liking of the petitioners, who complained that it was no answer to their petition; but they were summarily dismissed.(1506)

(M769)

Thus the matter was allowed to rest until the 5th September, when the Court of Aldermen were again prayed that Papillon and Du Bois might be called upon to enter into bond according to custom. The only answer returned was that Box, who in the opinion of the court had been duly elected one of the sheriffs, had been discharged from service on payment of a fine, and that another election would shortly take place. Thereupon murmurs arose. There had been too many Common Halls already over this affair, cried some, and their choice of sheriffs had been made. The mayor bade them begone in the king's name, or they would be looked upon as tumultuous.(1507)

(M770)

The court sat again on the 12th September, when, we are told, a petition similar to those before presented being again brought forward, a debate arose which occasioned some sharp words, and the mayor ordered the sword to be taken up and so dissolved the court; but nothing of this is recorded in the minutes of the court.(1508) Two days later (14 Sept.), several petitions were presented to the court, one being from the free-holders of Middlesex.(1509) To these the same reply was made as had been given to the petitioners of the 27th July. The petitioners were further told that it was the mayor's intention to call a Common Hall on Tuesday, the 19th September, to elect one to serve in the place of Box.(1510)

(M771) (M772)

When that day arrived and the common sergeant, acting on instructions from the mayor, put forward the name of Peter Rich, there arose repeatedly the cry of "No Rich!" and such a din followed, the citizens declaring loudly that they would stand by their old choice, that nothing else could be heard. At length the sheriffs were given to understand that a poll was demanded. The mayor hearing of the proposed poll thereupon came on to the hustings and declared Rich to be duly elected. The whole business was carried on in dumb show, it being impossible to hear anything that was said. Having done this, the mayor dissolved the Common Hall and went home. The sheriff proceeded nevertheless to open the poll in the afternoon, with the result that 2,082 votes were found in favour of standing by their old choice, whilst only thirty-five were for Rich. Hearing that the mayor was returning, the sheriffs made a hurried declaration of the result of the poll, proclaiming Papillon and Du Bois to have been again elected, and dismissed the assembly. The mayor on his arrival caused the gates of the Guildhall to be closed. Such is the account of what took place on the 19th September, as given by the diarist of the day.(1511) The City's Journal merely records in the briefest manner possible the election of Rich.(1512)