(M773)

The next day (20 Sept.) the lord mayor and a deputation of aldermen waited on the king at Whitehall, and informed him of what had taken place. A council was thereupon summoned for that afternoon, which the sheriffs were ordered to attend. Upon their appearance they were told that they had behaved in a riotous manner, and must answer for their conduct before the King's Bench. They were accordingly made to enter into their own recognisances severally for L1,000, besides finding other security.(1513)

(M774)

On the 26th, when Rich was called before the Court of Aldermen to enter into bond to take office, a paper was handed to the court desiring that Papillon and Du Bois might be called to the shrievalty, but it was to no purpose. The same answer was returned as on previous occasions.(1514)

(M775)

Two days later (28 Sept.) Rich and North were sworn into office amid a great concourse of citizens at the Guildhall, the entrance to which was strongly guarded by a company of trained bands in case of disturbance. When the oath was about to be administered to them a protest was made by Papillon and Du Bois, who attempted to get possession of the book; but upon the lord mayor commanding them in the king's name to depart and keep the peace, they left the hall and with them went several of the aldermen who were their supporters. The new sheriffs entertained the mayor and aldermen, according to custom, at Grocers' Hall, Rich being a member of that company.(1515) Rich subsequently applied for and was allowed the sum of L100 out of the fine of L400 paid into the Chamber by Box.(1516) The election which had been so long and so hotly contested thus ended in a complete victory for the court party.

(M776)

It was the custom in those days, as it is now, for members of the livery company or companies to which a newly-elected sheriff belonged to accompany him to the Guildhall on the occasion of his entering upon his office. Dudley North, being a member of the Mercers' Company, had desired the officers of the company and several of the livery to pay him this compliment, but after considering the matter the court of the company passed a resolution to the effect that neither officers nor members should attend him on pain of being expelled from the company, but that they should accompany Papillon to the hall and present him to be sworn as one of the sheriffs.(1517)

(M777)

Cornish attended the ceremony at the Guildhall, and afterwards (2 Oct.) swore an information before Sir William Turner,(1518) a brother alderman, of the treatment he had received at the hands of the soldiers present. The information was to the effect that when he and several other aldermen entered the hall about nine o'clock in the morning they found a guard of soldiers placed at the hall door, and another drawn up before the hustings, "who were presently commanded by their officer to stand to their armes." After a short stay in the Council Chamber they returned into the hall to meet the lord mayor, and for a quarter of an hour walked up and down the hall "betweene the clock-house and the doore wch leads up to the Hustings Court on the north side of the hall." Hitherto they had met with no opposition from the soldiers, but now they were accosted by Lieutenant-Colonel Quiney, the officer in command, who desired "they would give him noe disturbance." To this they replied that "they would give him none and expected alsoe not to bee themselves disturbed by anie in that place." Quiney thereupon left, but soon after returned and told them he had orders from the lieutenancy to clear the hall. He was asked to produce the order, and if it were found to include aldermen of the city Cornish and his friends would obey. The order was not forthcoming; it was with the major, said Quiney, who soon afterwards formed up his men and, again addressing Cornish and the other aldermen, peremptorily required them to withdraw or he would expel them by force. Cornish again demanded to see the order, but the officer forthwith laid hands on him and thrust him out, declaring that he would abide by the order of the lieutenancy, who were his masters. So ends Cornish's information. Proceedings were subsequently taken against Quiney for keeping persons that were liverymen out of the Guildhall and offering abuse to others.(1519)

(M778)

The next day being Michaelmas-day a Common Hall met to elect a mayor for the ensuing year in the place of Sir John Moore.(1520) Four aldermen were nominated as candidates, viz., Sir William Pritchard, the senior alderman below the chair, Sir Henry Tulse, Sir Thomas Gold and Henry Cornish. The common sergeant having declared that the choice of the citizens lay between Pritchard and Gold, a poll was demanded and allowed, the result of which was declared (4 Oct.) to be as follows:—Gold 2,289, Cornish 2,259, Pritchard 2,233 and Tulse 236.(1521)

This result seems to have satisfied no one, and a scrutiny was asked for in order that the poll books might be compared with the lists of liverymen of the several companies. It was discovered that certain members of the livery of the Merchant Taylors' and other companies had recorded their votes although they had not taken the liveryman's oath prescribed by such companies. The question of the legality of such votes being submitted to the Court of Aldermen, that body decided (24 Oct.) against the voters.(1522) The election was watched with anxious interest. Pritchard, himself a Merchant Taylor, was known to be of the same political mind as the out-going mayor, and it was the common belief at the time that if the majority of votes should prove to be in favour of Gold or Cornish, who were of the Whig party, the king would interpose and continue Sir John Moore in office for another year.(1523) His majesty had recently been amusing himself at Newmarket, but he had been kept posted up in city news, and immediately after his return to Whitehall was waited on by the mayor and aldermen (22 Oct.) and informed of the state of affairs. The result of the scrutiny, according to the paper submitted to the Court of Aldermen, was still in favour of Gold and Cornish, but according to the return made by the mayor(1524) (25 Oct.) Pritchard was placed at the head of the poll with 2,138 votes, as against 2,124 for Gold, 2,093 for Cornish and 236 for Tulse. The first two named were therefore presented to the Court of Aldermen for them to choose one to be mayor according to custom, and their choice falling upon Pritchard he was declared elected, and on the following feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.) was admitted and sworn.

(M779)

A motion was afterwards made (24 Nov.) for a mandamus directing the mayor and aldermen to swear Gold or Cornish as duly elected mayor of London, but nothing came of it.(1525)

(M780)

The time was thought opportune by the Duke of York for prosecuting his action for slander against Pilkington commenced in June last. The words complained of, and for which the duke claimed damages to the extent of L50,000, were declared on the oath of two aldermen—Sir Henry Tulse and Sir William Hooker—to have been spoken by him at a Court of Aldermen at a time when that body was about to visit the duke to congratulate him upon his return from Scotland, and were to the effect that the duke had burnt the city and was then coming to cut their throats. That the words, if spoken—a question open to much doubt—were scandalous to a degree cannot be denied, but the claim for damages was none the less vindictive. Instead of laying his action in London the duke caused his action to be tried by a jury of the county of Hertford (24 Nov.). Pilkington made very little defence (he probably thought it useless), and the jury awarded the duke the full amount of damages claimed. The ex-sheriff was of course ruined; he surrendered himself into custody(1526) and gave up his aldermanry, in which he was succeeded by Dudley North, the sheriff.(1527)

(M781)

Still he was not allowed to rest. In the following February (16 Feb., 1683) he and his late colleague in the shrievalty, Samuel Shute, together with Lord Grey of Wark, Alderman Cornish, Sir Thomas Player, the city chamberlain (who had recently been called to account for moneys received), Slingsby Bethell, and others were brought to trial for the disturbance that had taken place last Midsummer-day. The trial was opened at the Guildhall on the 16th February, but the jury being challenged on the ground that the array contained no peer (a peer of the realm being about to be tried), the challenge was allowed, and the trial put off until the next term. On the 8th May, after a long trial, all the accused were found guilty, and were eventually (26 June) fined in various sums, amounting in all to L4,100.(1528)

(M782)

Pilkington's fall also dragged down Sir Patience Ward, who was proceeded against for perjury, he having stated on oath at the trial of the late sheriff that the debate in the Court of Aldermen concerning the Duke of York was over before Pilkington had arrived, and that there was no mention made of cutting throats while he was there. After much contradictory evidence the jury found the defendant guilty, and he, like Shaftesbury before him, sought refuge in Holland.(1529)

(M783)

In the meantime, having experienced so much difficulty in bending the City to his will, and having so far succeeded in his object as to have a royalist mayor in the chair, as well as royalist sheriffs, Charles took steps to obtain an equally subservient Common Council. To this end he had issued a command (18 Dec.) to the mayor to enforce on the electors at the coming feast of St. Thomas (21 Dec.) the obligation of electing only such men to be members of the new council as had conformed with the provisions of the Corporation Act. The king's letter was by the mayor's precept read at each wardmote on the day of election.(1530) It was hoped that by this means a Common Council might be returned which might be induced to make a voluntary surrender of the City's charter instead of forcing matters to an issue at law.(1531)

(M784)

The design failed and the king resolved at length to proceed with the Quo Warranto. After the lapse of more than a twelvemonth the trial came on for hearing (7 Feb., 1683). The solicitor-general, who opened the case, propounded to the court four questions: (1) Whether any corporation could be forfeited? (2) Whether the city of London differed from other corporations as to point of forfeiture? (3) Whether any act of the mayor, aldermen and Common Council in Common Council assembled be so much the act of the Corporation as could make a forfeiture? and (4) Whether the acts by them done in making a certain by-law and receiving money by it,(1532) or in making the petition of the 13th January, 1681, and causing it to be published, be such acts as, if done by the Corporation, would make a forfeiture of the Corporation? After a lengthy argument counsel for the Crown concluded by asking judgment for the king, and that the defendants might be ousted of their franchise as a Corporation.

(M785)

The City's Recorder, Sir George Treby, rose in reply. His argument in favour of the City(1533) tended to show that the corporation of London qua corporation could not forfeit its existence either by voluntary surrender or by abuse of its powers, much less could its existence be imperilled by the action of those representatives of the city to whom its government had been confided. The corporation of the City was a governing body elected for specific purposes; if it proceeded ultra vires to establish market tolls or to offer a petition to the king which was seditious, an indictment lay against every particular member of that body, but no execution could be taken against the mayor, commonalty and citizens of London, a body politic that is invisible, one that can neither see nor be seen.

Counsel on the other side had laid stress on the fact that the liberties and franchises of the City had been often seized or "taken into the king's hands," adducing instances with which the reader of the earlier pages of this work will be already familiar; and if they could be so seized, they could also be forfeited. The Recorder argued that this conclusion was a wrong one. The effect of the seizure of the City's liberties in former days had only been to place the government of the city in the hands of a custos or warden. The Corporation continued as before; it might sue and be sued as before; it was neither suspended nor destroyed. How could the king seize a Corporation? Could he himself constitute the mayor, commonalty and citizens of a city, or make anyone else such? No, a Corporation was not, to use a legal phrase, "manurable"; it could not be seized; nor had anyone (he believed) ever imagined such a thing as a dissolution of a corporation by a judgment in law until that day. At the conclusion of his speech the further hearing of the case was adjourned until April.

(M786)

On the resumption of the hearing (27 April)(1534) Sir Robert Sawyer, the attorney-general, at whose suggestion and by whose authority the writ against the City had been issued, took up the argument, commencing his speech with an attempt to allay the apprehension excited by the prospect of forfeiture of the City's charter. "It was not the king's intention," he said, "to demolish at once all their liberties and to lay waste and open the city of London, and to reduce it to the condition of a country village," as some had maliciously reported, but to amend the government of the City "by running off those excesses and exorbitances of power which some men (contrary to their duty and the known laws of the land) have assumed to themselves under colour of their corporate capacity, to the reviling of their prince, the oppression of their fellow subjects and to the infinite disquiet of their fellow citizens."(1535) History had shown that the City had never been better governed than when it was in the king's hands. Its ancient customs had not been destroyed, but only restrained in subordination to the general government of the kingdom, and therefore the danger now threatened would not prove so fatal to the City as had been suggested.

(M787)

After the conclusion of the arguments on both sides, nearly three months were allowed to pass before judgment was given, in the hope that the citizens of London might follow the example set by Norwich, Evesham and other boroughs, and freely surrender their charter. "I do believe nobody here wishes this case should come to judgment," was the remark made by Chief Justice Saunders at the conclusion of the hearing; but at length the patience of the Crown or of the judges was exhausted, and judgment was pronounced (12 June) by Justice Jones in the absence of the Lord Chief Justice, who was now on the point of death. Briefly, the judgment pronounced was to the effect (1) that a corporation aggregate might be seized; (2) that exacting and taking money by a "pretended" by-law was extortion and a forfeiture of franchise; (3) that the petition was scandalous and libellous, and the making and publishing it a forfeiture; (4) that an Act of Common Council is an Act of the Corporation; (5) that the matter set forth in the record did not excuse or avoid those forfeitures set forth in the replication, and (6) that the information was well founded. The result of these findings was that the franchise of the Corporation was ordered to be seized into the king's hands, but this judgment was not to be entered until the king's pleasure should be known. As to the right claimed by the citizens to have and constitute sheriffs (a right which they had recently shown no disposition to forego) and the claim of the mayor and aldermen to be Justices of the Peace and to hold Sessions, the attorney-general was content to enter a nolle prosequi.

(M788)

A few days before delivery of judgment the Common Council agreed to expunge from the records of the court all minutes of proceedings during the late civil war that in any way reflected upon the late king.(1536) The list of the various minutes thus ordered to be annulled was a very long one, occupying more than ten pages of the city's Journal, and embraced a period of eighteen years (1641-1659). The municipal authorities may have thought that by this egregious act of self-stultification they might mitigate the judgment that was impending over them. If so they were sadly mistaken.

(M789)

Finding that further resistance was useless the Common Council unanimously(1537) agreed (14 June) to present a humble petition to his majesty asking pardon for their late offences, and declaring their readiness to submit to anything that he might command or direct. Accordingly, on Monday the 18th June, the lord mayor proceeded to Windsor, accompanied by a deputation of aldermen and members of the Common Council, to lay this petition before the king in council, and his majesty's reply, given by the mouth of the lord keeper, was reported to the Common Council on the following Wednesday.(1538)

(M790)

The king, he said, had been very loth to take action against the City, but had been driven to do so by the recent elections. Their petition would have been more gracious if presented earlier; nevertheless, his majesty would not reject it on that account. He would, however, show the City as much favour as could be reasonably expected. It was not his intention to prejudice them either in their properties or customs, and he had instructed Mr. Attorney not to enter judgment lest such a proceeding might entail serious consequences. The alterations he required were few and easy. They were these, viz., that no mayor, sheriff, recorder, common sergeant, town clerk or coroner of the city of London or any steward of the borough of Southwark should be appointed without his majesty's approval under his sign manual; that if his majesty should express disapproval of the choice of a mayor made by the citizens a new election should take place within a week, and if his majesty should disapprove of the second choice he shall, if he so please, himself nominate a mayor for the year ensuing; that if his majesty should in like manner disapprove of the persons chosen to be sheriffs, or either of them, he shall, if he please, proceed to appoint sheriffs by his commission, but subject to this restriction the election of these officers might take according to the ancient usuage of the city; that the lord mayor and Court of Aldermen might with leave of his majesty displace any alderman, recorder, common sergeant, town clerk, coroner of the city or steward of Southwark; that where an election of an alderman had been set aside by the Court of Aldermen another election should be held, and that the Justices of the Peace should be by his majesty's commission. These terms accepted by the citizens, his majesty would consent to confirm their charter in a manner consistent with them. But if they were not speedily complied with his majesty had given orders to enter up judgment by the Saturday following, and any consequences that might follow would be at the door of the citizens themselves.

(M791)

A "long and serious" debate, we are told, followed the reading of this answer in the Common Council, after which a poll was taken on the question: whether the court should submit to the king's terms or not, with the result that 104 votes were recorded in favour of accepting them as against 85 votes to the contrary. Whereupon it was "unanimously" ordered that his majesty should be informed of the court's submission, and that the Midsummer-day elections should be put off until the 18th July.(1539)

(M792)

Whilst these proceedings against the city were going on, a writ had been obtained by Papillon and Du Bois for the arrest of Pritchard, the mayor, Dudley North, the sheriff, and several aldermen, for having made a false return to a mandamus directed to them in November last.(1540) The writ was directed to Broom, the city's coroner, who executed it by lodging the parties in his own house (24 April). No sooner was this done than one of the city sergeants proceeded to arrest the coroner, who was taken to the compter, where he had to pass the night, whilst the mayor and his fellow-prisoners made their way home. A cry that the Whigs had seized the mayor and carried him off caused great consternation, and the trained bands were immediately ordered out for the security of the city. The citizens themselves were much divided in their opinions on the matter, "some condemning it and others approving it, according to the different tempers of persons."(1541)

(M793)

A committee was appointed (26 April) by the Court of Aldermen to consider what was fit to be done by way of vindicating the honour of the mayor and the government of the city, as well as for punishing the authors of the indignity;(1542) whilst the Common Council caused it to be placed on record (22 May) that neither they nor the citizens at large had any participation in or knowledge of the action against the mayor, which Papillon and Du Bois alleged had been brought in the name of the citizens of London.(1543) Broom's conduct, as well as the terms on which he held his appointment, were made the subject of an investigation by a committee.(1544)

(M794)

After Pritchard's year of office expired he brought an action on the case against Papillon for false imprisonment, and eventually (6 Nov., 1684) obtained a verdict and damages to the respectable amount of L10,000. This verdict, whilst it caused amazement to many, met with the avowed approval of Jeffreys, recently promoted to be Lord Chief Justice, who complimented the jury upon their good sense. "Gentlemen," he remarked at the close of the trial, "you seem to be persons that have some sense upon you, and consideration for the government, and I think have given a good verdict and are to be greatly commended for it."(1545) Papillon thereupon absconded.

(M795)

Within a few days of delivery of judgment against the City, discovery was made of a plot against the lives of the king and the Duke of York.(1546) This was the famous Rye House Plot, which brought the heads of Lord Russell and Algernon Sydney to the block. Among the minor conspirators were two men who had been employed by Broom, the city coroner, in the recent arrest of the lord mayor. Broom himself was suspected of being implicated in the conspiracy, and was on that ground ordered into custody for the purpose of being examined by a justice of the peace. In the meantime he was to be suspended from his office of coroner, as well as from his duties as a member of the Common Council.(1547) Concurrently with the Rye House Plot there was, so it was said, a design to raise an insurrection in the city, in which Alderman Cornish was believed to be implicated.(1548) The municipal authorities, however, as a body, were indignant at the threatened attack on the king and his brother, and lost no time in voting an address (2 July) of congratulation upon their escape, assuring the king at the same time of their readiness to hazard their lives and fortunes in defence of his person and the maintenance of the government in Church and State.(1549)

(M796)

On Thursday, the 27th September, the mayor laid before the Common Council drafts of a surrender of the City's franchise to his majesty, and of a re-grant from his majesty which the Attorney-general had prepared for their acceptance. After long debate the opinion of the Attorney-general, the Solicitor-general, and the Recorder was taken upon the following questions, viz., (1) Whether the surrender was agreeable to the submission of the Common Council already made and necessary for the regulations required by his majesty; (2) whether by this surrender the office of mayoralty was surrendered; (3) if so, whether the customs and prescriptions belonging to that office were not thereby surrendered and lost; (4) whether in case judgment should be entered up (as the king had threatened) the consequences would not be worse than a surrender; and (5) how far did the re-grant confirm and restore the city to the liberties, etc., therein mentioned. On the following Tuesday (2 Oct.) the opinions of the several counsel were ready.(1550) Two of them, viz., that of the Attorney-general and that of the Solicitor-general were decidedly in favour of the City surrendering its liberties in preference to allowing judgment to be entered up. The Recorder took a diametrically opposite view of the matter, one of the reasons urged by him against a surrender being that such action would be against their oaths, and that if they freely surrendered their liberties there would be no redress left open to them. If, on the other hand, they suffered judgment to be entered up, they could take proceedings against it by writ of error. These opinions gave rise to much debate, and many hard things were spoken against the Recorder. At last the matter was put to the vote, when 103 were found against sealing the deed of surrender as against 85 who were in favour of it; and so this momentous question was settled, and the council broke up at eleven o'clock at night.(1551)

(M797)

Judgment was forthwith (4 Oct.) entered against the City. The mayor and the new sheriffs were summoned to attend the king. Pritchard received a commission to continue in office during pleasure, and similar commissions were handed to the new sheriffs. The Recorder was dismissed and his place given to Sir Thomas Jenner.(1552) Eight aldermen were turned out and their places filled by nominees of the king.(1553) On the 25th October the Court of Aldermen was informed of his majesty's commission having been issued for Sir Henry Tulse to be mayor for the ensuing year, and on the 29th he was sworn with the usual accompaniment of civic procession and banquet.(1554)

(M798)

Having thus reduced the Corporation of the city to submission, Charles proceeded to take similar action against the livery companies, with the object of getting into his own hands the power of appointing and dismissing their governing body. Seeing that opposition was useless, they submitted with the best grace they could, surrendering their former charters and receiving new charters in their place. The first master, wardens and assistants were usually named in these new charters, which provided (inter alia) that they should be removable at the king's pleasure by Order in Council, that they should take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy and make the declaration prescribed by the Corporation Act, that none should be elected members who were not of the Church of England, and that in all things concerning the government of the city they should be subject to the mayor and aldermen.

(M799)

Notwithstanding the treatment that the citizens had received at the king's hands they heard of his sudden illness (2 Feb., 1685) with unfeigned sorrow, and the Court of Aldermen (5 Feb.) instructed the sheriffs to attend at Whitehall every morning and Sir William Turner and Sir James Edwards every evening during his majesty's illness.(1555) Their attendance, however, was not long required, for next day (6 Feb.) the king died.



CHAPTER XXXI.



(M800)

"They will never kill me, James, to make you king," the late king is said to have cynically remarked to his brother; and, indeed, the accession of the Duke of York was accepted by the nation in general, as well as by the City of London in particular, with considerable foreboding. The new king for a short while was content to feel his way before plunging into the headstrong course of action which eventually lost him the crown. Although suspected of being a Catholic at heart, it was only during his last moments that Charles had accepted the ministrations of the Roman Church. The new king had for years been an avowed Catholic; nevertheless, in his first speech to the Privy Council he announced his intention of maintaining the established government, both in Church and State. This speech, made within an hour of the late king's death, was received with rapturous applause. It was quickly followed by a proclamation of his majesty's wish that all persons in office at the time of the decease of the late king should so continue until further notice.(1556) Another document proclaiming the death of the late king and the devolution of the crown to the Duke of York was at the same time drawn up by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, with the assistance of the privy council, the mayor, aldermen and citizens of London and others.(1557) This document did not bear the signature of the mayor as that proclaiming James I had done.

(M801)

James had not been many days on the throne before the question of supply had to be settled. More than one-half of the whole revenue of the crown was derived from the customs, and these had been settled on Charles for life only, and could not therefore be exacted by his successor without the assent of parliament. No parliament had been summoned since the dissolution of the parliament at Oxford four years since (28 March, 1681). As time was pressing and some delay must have taken place before a new parliament could meet, James took the advice of Chief Justice Jeffreys, and did violence to the constitution by proclaiming (9 Feb.) the continuation of the payment of customs as a matter of necessity, whilst at the same time he intimated his intention of speedily calling a parliament.(1558) The pill thus gilded was swallowed without protest. The excise duties was another matter and was dealt with differently. The "additional excise," like the customs, had been given to the late king for life, but there was a clause in the Act which empowered the Lords of the Treasury to let them to farm for a term of three years without any limitation as to their being so long due. A lease was now propounded as having been made during the late king's life (the document bearing date the 5th February, the day preceding his decease), although there was every reason for supposing it to have been made after his death and to have been post-dated. The judges were appealed to, and with every desire to curry favour with the new king, the majority pronounced the document to be good in law. Thus fortified, James no longer hesitated to issue a proclamation (16 Feb.) for the continuation of the excise.(1559)

(M802)

A parliament was summoned for the 9th April, but did not meet until the 19th May. In the meantime the king and queen had been crowned at Westminster on St. George's day (23 April). The City put in their customary claim,(1560) but this was at first disallowed "in regard of the judgment upon the Quo Warranto for seizure of the cities franchise." Upon appeal being made, however, to the king himself the claim was allowed, and the mayor, aldermen and citizens were treated with high honour both in the Abbey and at the banquet in Westminster Hall, the mayor being presented by the king with the cup of pure gold and cover, weighing in all upwards of twenty ounces, with which he had served his majesty with wine.(1561) A few days before the banquet took place Sir Robert Vyner sent to the mayor to borrow the City's plate for the occasion. The matter was laid before the Court of Aldermen and permission was granted the lord mayor to lend such plate as could be spared.(1562)

(M803)

When parliament met (19 May) the majority in favour of the court party was enormous. This was in no small measure due to the reformation that had been forced on other corporate towns besides the city of London. They had been made to surrender their charters, and the late king had in return granted them new charters in which Tories alone were named as members of the corporations. Only one more step was necessary in order to secure the return of a Tory parliament when the time for fresh elections should arrive, and that step was taken. The parliamentary franchise in boroughs was restricted to members of the corporations.(1563) In London the Whigs were kept down by fear, and the Tory party reigned supreme. The mayor and half the Court of Aldermen were nominees of the Crown, acting by royal commission. No Common Council sat, or if it did it was only for the purpose of enrolling a proclamation by the king or a precept by the mayor. As the election drew near the king, in order to render the result in his favour more sure, authorized the Court of Aldermen to grant liveries to several of the city companies, taking care that such only should be admitted to the livery as were of "unquestionable loyalty" for the purpose of voting.(1564) By this means four of the most pronounced Tories in the city were returned, all of them being aldermen. These were Sir John Moore and Sir William Pritchard, both of whom had been placed in the mayoralty chair, one after the other (in 1681 and 1682), by court influence, Sir Peter Rich, who had served as sheriff with Dudley North in 1682, and Sir Samuel Dashwood, who filled the same office the following year with Peter Daniel, both of them, like their immediate predecessors, being nominees of the Crown. As soon as the House met the Commons unanimously granted the king the full revenue which had been enjoyed by his brother.(1565)

(M804)

The bent of the king's mind was quickly discerned in the sentences pronounced by judges eager to secure his favour. Titus Oates was taken out of prison and whipt at the cart's tail from Aldgate to Newgate the day after parliament met. Two days later he was again whipt from Newgate to Tyburn, and the punishment was so mercilessly carried out that it nearly cost him his life. Precautions had to be taken by the mayor to prevent a display of force by Oates's partisans, who overturned the pillory on which he was to stand.(1566) Dangerfield, another professional informer, was made to undergo a punishment scarcely less severe. He survived the punishment, but only to die from the effect of a vicious blow dealt him by a bystander as he was being carried back to gaol from Tyburn.

(M805)

On the other hand Richard Baxter—the most learned and moderate of Nonconformists—was tried at the Guildhall on a charge of having introduced into his commentary on the New Testament some seditious remarks respecting the attitude of the government towards dissenters. The infamous Jeffreys presided at the trial, and spared neither counsel nor prisoner his insolent invectives. The whole proceedings were nothing less than a farce, and the evidence adduced was of such a flimsy character that Baxter volunteered a remark expressing a doubt whether any jury would convict a man on it. He was, however, mistaken. The sheriffs, like the mayor, were but tools of the court party, and the jurymen selected to sit on the trial did not hesitate to bring in a verdict of guilty. He was fortunate to get off with no worse sentence than a fine of 500 marks and imprisonment until it was paid.(1567)

(M806)

There was doubtless a large number of inhabitants of the city who would gladly have assisted Monmouth—"the champion of the dissenters and extreme Protestants"—had they been in a position to do so. But as soon as the news of the duke's landing in Dorsetshire reached London orders were issued by the mayor for a strict watch to be kept by night throughout the city, and for the arrest of all suspicious characters, whilst the duke and his supporters were proclaimed traitors and rebels. It was forbidden to circulate the duke's manifesto in the city, and on the 16th June, or within five days of his landing, a price of L5,000 was put upon his head.(1568) After Monmouth's defeat at Sedgmoor (6 July) he and his companions sought safety in flight. Monmouth himself fled to the New Forest, where he was captured in the last stage of poverty, sleeping in a ditch, and was brought to London. He was lodged in the Tower, where his wife and three children had already been sent. Thousands of spectators, who, we are told, "seemed much troubled," went forth to witness his arrival by water on the evening of the 13th July. Two days later he was executed on Tower Hill.

(M807)

The utmost cruelty, both military and judicial, was inflicted on Monmouth's supporters. Many were hanged by royalist soldiers—"Kirke's lambs," as they were called—without form of law. Others were committed for trial until Jeffreys came to hold his "Bloody Assize," when to the cruelty of the sentences passed on most of them was added the ribald insolence of the judge. The opportunity was taken of giving the city of London a lesson, and Henry Cornish, late alderman and sheriff, was suddenly arrested. This took place on Tuesday the 13th October. He was kept a close prisoner, not allowed to see friends or counsel, and deprived of writing materials. On Saturday he was informed for the first time that he would be tried on a charge of high treason, and that the trial would commence on the following Monday (19 Oct.). His attitude before the judges was calm and dignified. Before pleading not guilty to the charge of having consented to aid and abet the late Duke of Monmouth and others in their attempt on the life of the late king (the Rye House Plot), he entered a protest against the indecent haste with which he had been called upon to plead and the short time allowed him to prepare his case. He asked for further time, but this the judges refused.

One of the chief witnesses for the Crown was Goodenough, who had a personal spite against Cornish for his having objected to him (Goodenough) serving as under-sheriff in 1680-1, the year when Bethell and Cornish were sheriffs.(1569) Goodenough had risked his neck in Monmouth's late rebellion, but he had succeeded in obtaining a pardon by promises of valuable information against others. With the king's pardon in his pocket he unblushingly declared before the judges that he, as well as Cornish and some others, had determined upon a general rising in the city at the time of the Rye House Plot. "We designed," said he, "to divide it (i.e., the city) into twenty parts, and out of each part to raise five hundred men, if it might be done, to make an insurrection."(1570) The Tower was to be seized and the guard expelled.

Cornish had been afforded no opportunity for instructing counsel in his defence. He was therefore obliged to act as his own counsel, with the result usual in such cases. He rested his main defence upon the improbability of his having acted as the prosecution endeavoured to make out. This he so persistently urged that the judges lost patience. Improbability was not enough, they declared; let him call his witnesses. When, however, Cornish desired an adjournment in order that he might bring a witness up from Lancashire, his request was refused. His chief witness he omitted to call until after the lord chief justice had summed up. This man was a vintner of the city, named Shephard, at whose house Cornish was charged with having met and held consultation with Monmouth and the rest of the conspirators. The bench after some demur assented to the prisoner's earnest prayer that Shephard's evidence might be taken. He showed that he had been in the habit of having commercial transactions with Cornish and was at that moment in his debt; that on the occasion in question Cornish had come to his house, but whether he came to speak with the Duke of Monmouth or not the witness could not say for certain; that he only remained a few minutes, and that no paper or declaration (on which so much stress had been laid) in connection with the conspiracy was read in Cornish's presence; that in fact Cornish was not considered at the time as being in the plot. Such evidence, if not conclusive, ought to have gone far towards obtaining a verdict of acquittal for the prisoner. This was not the case, however; the witness was characterised by one of the judges as "very forward," and when Cornish humbly remonstrated with the treatment his witness was receiving from the bench he was sharply told to hold his tongue. The jury after a brief consultation brought in a verdict of guilty, and Cornish had to submit to the indignity of being tied—like a dangerous criminal—whilst sentence of death was passed upon him and three others who had been tried at the same time.

(M808)

The prisoner was allowed but three clear days before he was hanged at the corner of King Street and Cheapside, within sight of the Guildhall which he had so often frequented as an alderman of the city, and on which his head was afterwards placed. He met his end with courage and with many pious expressions, but to the last maintained his innocence with such vehemence that his enemies gave out that he had "died in a fit of fury."(1571) The injustice of his sentence was recognised and his conviction and attainder was afterwards reversed and annulled by parliament (22 June, 1689).(1572)

(M809)

Of the three others who had been tried with Cornish, two were reprieved (one was afterwards executed), but the third, Elizabeth Gaunt, was burnt at Tyburn the same day that Cornish suffered (23 Oct.) for having harboured an outlaw named Burton and assisted him to escape beyond the law. He had been implicated in the Rye House Plot, but with the aid of Mrs. Gaunt, who lived in the city, had contrived to avoid capture. In order to save his own skin the wretch did not hesitate to turn king's evidence and to sacrifice the life of his benefactress, a woman who is described as having "spent a great part of her life in acts of charity, visiting the gaols and looking after the poor." She too died with great fortitude, arranging with her own hands the straw around her, so as to burn the more speedily.(1573)

(M810)

Parliament began to be alarmed at the favour shown to Catholics, and this alarm was increased by a report from France that Louis XIV, with whom James was known to be closely allied, and on whom he depended, like his late brother, for pecuniary support, had revoked the Edict of Nantes granted by Henry IV in favour of his Protestant subjects. The report was soon confirmed by the appearance of numbers of French Protestants—refugees from persecution—in England, and more especially in the city of London. What Louis had done in France James, it was feared, would carry out in England by means of his standing army commanded by Roman Catholic officers. Hence the alarm which pervaded not only parliament, but also the city and the nation at large.

(M811)

Hence too it was that when the Houses, which had been adjourned during the campaign in the West, met on the 9th November,(1574) they remonstrated with him for the favour he had shown to Catholics in direct contravention of the law. Finding himself unable to bend parliament to his will, he determined to do without one, and accordingly, after a brief session, it stood prorogued (20 Nov.),(1575) never to meet again during the present reign.

(M812)

Without a parliament James could act with a free hand. By a piece of chicanery he managed to get a legal decision acknowledging the dispensing power of the king.(1576) He established an Ecclesiastical Commission Court, with the infamous Jeffreys at its head, the first act of which was to suspend the Bishop of London for upholding the Protestant faith. He removed the Earl of Clarendon (son of the late Chancellor), who had recently been appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,(1577) and appointed as lord deputy the Earl of Tyrconnel, a Roman Catholic of low character, who had gained an unenviable notoriety as the "lying Dick Talbot." The country was over-run with Papists from abroad. All the laws against the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion were set at defiance. There was no disguise. Mass was publicly celebrated at Whitehall and Roman Catholic chapels sprang up everywhere, giving rise to no small dissatisfaction and tumult. The agitation in London was great, but greater in the city, where men had been less accustomed to the sight of the Romish ceremonial than those who lived in the neighbourhood of the court. Riots in the city were of frequent occurrence, more especially on Sundays, when the Roman Catholics were more in evidence than on week days. A Roman Catholic chapel had recently been erected by the Elector Palatine in Lime Street. An ineffectual attempt had been made by the mayor and aldermen to stay the work. They were summoned to appear before the king and reprimanded. The work was accordingly allowed to go on and the chapel was opened. On Sunday, the 18th April (1686), the priests attached to the chapel were followed by a mob into Cheapside, and matters would have gone hard with them had not the mayor and aldermen appeared on the scene with a regiment of trained bands. James again sent for the mayor and told him that if he could not keep better order in the city he should himself send some "assistance."(1578) Nevertheless another riot broke out on the following Sunday. A mob entered a Roman Catholic chapel and carried away a crucifix, crying out they would have no "wooden gods." A cross was set up on the parish pump and mock obeisance made to it. The priests were insulted, but no violence was offered them. When the mayor appeared to quell the tumult the crowd affected to disbelieve that his lordship was in earnest. "What! the lord mayor of our city come to preach up popery! too sure, it cannot be!" When the trained bands were ordered to disperse the crowd they declared that in conscience they could not hinder them in their work.(1579)

(M813)

These disturbances were very injurious to the trade of the city, and caused a considerable fall in the amount of customs paid for merchandise entering the port of London. A regiment or two of the standing army which James had formed might any day appear in the city. "I shall not wonder if the Scotch regiment of guards now quartering at Greenwich be quartered in Cheapside before this week is out," wrote a contemporary on the 27th April.(1580) A month later the army was encamped at Hounslow, the king himself being also there, ready to send "assistance" to the city should occasion arise.(1581)

(M814)

For a time James had entertained the hope of obtaining favours for the Catholics with the goodwill of the Church of England, whilst continuing the persecution of dissenters. Finding this impossible he determined to make friends of the dissenters, and to include them in a general declaration of indulgence. Accordingly on the 4th April, 1687, there appeared a Declaration of Indulgence suspending all laws against Roman Catholics and dissenters alike.(1582)

(M815)

James would willingly have obtained parliamentary sanction for his declaration if he could. To this end he again took to tampering with corporations throughout the country, in the hope of securing thereby a parliament favourable to his policy of toleration. Six commissioners were appointed in November to "regulate" all the corporations of England, by turning out all who were opposed to the abolition of the penal laws and Test Act and putting in their place those who favoured it.(1583) In London dispensations were granted to the livery companies relieving their members from taking the oaths and test, whilst similar dispensations were included in the royal commissions appointing aldermen. In many of the companies Tories of a too pronounced character were turned out and their places taken by dissenters.(1584) Everywhere dissenters were treated with the greatest consideration. Notwithstanding every effort, however, to capture the constituencies at the next elections, James found public opinion against him to be too strong, and all thought of summoning a fresh parliament had to be abandoned.

(M816)

In the meanwhile addresses flowed in from various parts of the country thanking the king for his declaration. Presbyterians, Quakers, Independents, Congregationalists alike sent addresses, but as yet no address was presented on behalf of the Court of Aldermen—the governing body of the city, now that the Common Council was in abeyance. That body had to be largely remodelled before it would consent to present any such address. On Thursday, the 16th June, the infamous Jeffreys, who had been rewarded with the seals for his work at the Bloody Assizes, appeared before the Court of Aldermen and declared his majesty's pleasure that in future that court should nominate and recommend to the Crown such persons as they thought fit to be aldermen as vacancies occurred, and that no one so nominated should be exempt from service except for insufficiency of estate, to be declared on oath. Those who were capable of serving and refused to serve when nominated by the court were to be fined, and the fines were to be devoted to the use and benefit of the city's orphans. The ancient privilege, too, of the mayor drinking to a future sheriff received the king's sanction.(1585) Having listened to the lord chancellor's message the court resolved to wait upon the king at Windsor on the following Sunday to thank his majesty "for that and all other his majesties acts of grace to this court and city."(1586) Both the mayor and the Court of Aldermen lost no time in exercising their privileges, but they experienced great difficulty in getting any one to serve sheriff or alderman. Fines ran up apace, until no less than L8,500 had been paid by persons desirous at any cost to be discharged from filling either of those thankless offices. Many of the aldermen either voluntarily resigned their gowns or were dismissed from the court because they were unwilling to vote an address of thanks to James for his declaration.(1587)

(M817)

At length the court was sufficiently packed with dissenters to pass an address to the king (26 July) thanking him for his declaration, and assuring his majesty of their readiness to stand by him with their lives and fortunes.(1588) The orphans of the city also voted an address,(1589) as well they might, seeing the amount of money that the declaration had been the means of bringing into the orphans' fund.

(M818) (M819) (M820)

Not every dissenter welcomed the king's declaration. To many of them it seemed—what the king intended it to be—only a lever for raising the Roman Catholics. Baxter, to whom friendly overtures were made by government to win him over, refused to join in any address of thanks for the declaration. John Howe declared himself an opponent of the dispensing power, and Bunyan declined to enter into any negotiations on the matter at all. William Kiffin, on the other hand, an influential Baptist in the city, succumbed to the threats, if not to the blandishments, of James.(1590) In addition to possessing spiritual gifts of no mean order, Kiffin was also a man of wealth and position in the world of commerce. In every way he would prove a valuable ally, if only he could be won over. Against this, however, there was one great impediment: the recollection of the judicial murder of his two grandsons, Benjamin and William Hewling, by Jeffreys at the Bloody Assizes. Fondly imagining that the memory of that foul act could be blotted out and the stricken heart salved by an increase of wealth or elevation in rank, James sent for him to court, and after some preliminary remarks touching the royal favour that was being shown to dissenters, told Kiffin that he had put him down as an alderman in his "new charter," alluding no doubt to the royal commission of 6th August, in which Kiffin's name appears as alderman of Cheap ward in the place of Samuel Dashwood. On hearing this Kiffin replied, "Sir, I am a very old man,"—he was seventy years of age when he lost his grandchildren—"I have withdrawn myself from all kind of business for some years past, and am incapable of doing any service in such an affair to your majesty or the city. Besides, sir," the old man continued, with tears running down his cheeks, and looking the king steadily in the face, "the death of my grandsons gave a wound to my heart which is still bleeding, and never will close but in the grave." For a moment the king was abashed, but quickly recovering himself told Kiffin that he (James) would find "a balsam for that sore." The old man still held out, until, hearing that legal proceedings were about to be taken against him, he took counsel's opinion as to what was best to be done. He was told that he was running a great risk by refusing to become an alderman, for the judges, as they then were, might subject him to a penalty of ten, twenty, or thirty thousand pounds, "even what they pleased." Under such circumstances he consented to be made an alderman, rather than bring ruin on himself and family. He, however, put off the evil day as long as he could, and was not sworn into office until the 27th October.(1591)

Kiffin expressed himself as pleased with the reception he met with in his ward, where he was almost a stranger. But much of the business which the Court of Aldermen was called upon to execute in those days was distasteful to him. "We had frequently orders from the king" (he writes) "to send to the several companies to put out great numbers of liverymen out of the privilege of being liverymen, and others to be put in their rooms; most of which that were so turned out were Protestants of the Church of England. There has been a list of seven hundred at a time to be discharged, although no crime laid to their charge." The royal commission which appointed him an alderman also created him a justice of the peace and a member of the Court of Lieutenancy, but to use his own words, "I never meddled with either of those places, neither in any act of power in that court [i.e., Court of Aldermen] touching causes between man and man, but only such things as concerned the welfare of the city and good of the orphans, whose distressed condition called for help, although we were able to do little towards it." He was not called upon to discharge his invidious duties for any great length of time; for after being in office only nine months he obtained his discharge, to his "very great satisfaction." He continued to live for another thirteen years, dying on the 29th December, 1701, in his 86th year, and he was buried in Bunhill Fields—that "God's acre" which holds the dust of so many of his fellow non-conformists.

(M821)

In September the king had issued a patent for Sir John Shorter to be lord mayor for the year ensuing. Shorter was a dissenter—"an Anabaptist, a very odd ignorant person, a mechanic, I think," wrote Evelyn(1592) of him—and on that account a clause was inserted in his commission permitting him to have any preacher he might choose.(1593) His granddaughter was married to Sir Robert Walpole. He was at one time alderman of Cripplegate ward, but in December, 1682, he fell foul of Charles II for attending a conventicle at Pinmakers' Hall, and the Court of Aldermen received orders to remove him.(1594) He had recently, however (6 Aug., 1687), been restored to his aldermanry and to his rank of precedence by commission from James,(1595) and now, by the same usurped authority, he was to become lord mayor. The feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.) happening this year to fall on a Friday, the installation of the new lord mayor, as well as the banquet to which James and the Papal Nuncio had been invited, was postponed until the following day. The aldermen agreed to defray the cost of the entertainment out of their own pockets,(1596) each laying down the sum of L50. Kiffin also sent L50, although he had not yet been sworn a member of the court; but he afterwards regretted having done so when he learnt that the Pope's Nuncio and other priests had been invited as guests.(1597) The day passed off well. The Goldsmiths' Company, of which the new lord mayor was a member, made a particularly brave show. The entire roadway from Charing Cross to the city had been fresh gravelled that morning, and the king, who was accompanied by the queen, expressed himself as well pleased with the entertainment afforded him.(1598)

(M822)

The Dissenters now had matters all their own way. The livery companies had become so leavened with an influx of new members, whose claim for admittance rested chiefly on their antagonism to the established Church, that most of them now sent in addresses to the king thanking him for his Declaration of Indulgence. The Barber-Surgeons and the Apothecaries had already done so; so had the Clothworkers, the Mercers and the Glovers. Their example was now followed by the Cutlers, the Goldsmiths, the Haberdashers, the Joiners and the Weavers.(1599) The mayor, who kept his mayoralty at Grocers' Hall, openly held a conventicle there on Sunday, the 6th November,(1600) whilst he declined to listen to a sermon by the learned Dr. Stillingfleet in the Guildhall chapel.(1601) More than this, he would have turned the chapel itself into a conventicle could he have had his own way.(1602)

(M823)

In the Spring of 1688 James published a second Declaration of Indulgence varying but slightly from the former one, and ordered it to be read in the churches of London and Westminster on the 20th and 27th May, and in the country on the 3rd and 10th June. This was more than the clergy could stand. A meeting of bishops was held at Lambeth for the purpose of drawing up a petition to the king praying that the clergy might be excused reading an illegal document in the midst of public service. This petition was signed by Sancroft, the primate, and six bishops. Although the Bishop of London was not among those who signed the petition—he at the time being under disability—there is reason for believing that Compton had been taken into counsel by those who drafted it.(1603) On the petition being presented James pretended the utmost surprise, and insisted that the presentation of such a petition was "a standard of rebellion." This took place on Friday preceding the first Sunday (20th May) when the Declaration was to be read in the London churches. When Sunday arrived people flocked to the churches to hear what would happen. Only a few of the London clergy attempted to read the Declaration.(1604) In the country not more than 200 clergy carried out the king's orders, "and of these some read it the first Sunday, but changed their minds before the second; others declared in their sermons that though they obeyed the order they did not approve the Declaration." One minister in particular told his congregation that though he was obliged to read it they were not obliged to hear it, and waited until all had left the church before he commenced reading the hateful document. In other places the congregation took the initiative and rose to go as soon as the minister commenced reading it.(1605)

(M824)

What followed is well known. On Friday the 8th June the Archbishop of Canterbury and the six bishops who had signed the petition were summoned before the council and asked if they acknowledged their respective signatures. They were next required to enter into bond for appearance before the King's Bench. This they declined to do, and were thereupon committed to the Tower.(1606) To have carried them through the streets of the city might have caused a riot; they were therefore conveyed to the Tower by water, "and all along as they passed the banks of the river were full of people, who kneeled down and asked their blessing, and with loud shouts expressed their good wishes for them and their concern in their preservation."(1607) The enthusiasm of the Londoners did not end here. They continued to flock to the Tower, filling the small chapel where the bishops attended service to overflowing in order to gaze upon their beloved pastors and receive their blessing.(1608) After being kept in separate confinement, and allowed to meet only at meals and in chapel, for ten days, the bishops were allowed to come out on bail.

(M825)

On the 29th June they appeared before the King's Bench on a charge of publishing a seditious libel. A technical difficulty presented itself at the outset, but this was got over, and after a trial of some hours the question of their innocence or guilt was left to a jury drawn, not from London, but from the county of Middlesex. One of the panel stuck out against the rest, and wished to bring in a verdict of guilty, but after being locked up through the night he allowed himself to be persuaded by his fellow-jurymen, and on the morning of the 30th June a verdict of not guilty was found. Thereupon "there were such shoutings, so long continued, and as it were echoed into the city, that all people were struck with it."(1609) Bonfires were lighted, guns discharged and church bells rung, not only in London but throughout the kingdom.

(M826)

The beginning of the end was approaching. Already the troops encamped at Hounslow, on which James placed so much dependence, showed signs of disaffection. He had hoped that his army would have overawed London, instead of which the free spirit of London had, as a result of his policy, entirely captivated his army. So long as the king was in their midst the troops maintained a respectful demeanour, but as soon as his back was turned they threw off all restraint, and joined in the general exultation at the late joyful deliverance to the Church of England.(1610)

(M827)

The birth of a prince (10 June), which had recently taken place, served to hasten the crisis. Those who were willing to have waited patiently for a recurrence to the old order of things at the king's death now saw their hopes dashed to the ground. The king's heir and successor, brought up, as he undoubtedly would be, in the tenets of his father, promised them little relief. Even before the birth of the prince overtures had been made to William of Orange to appear in England at the head of an army. Nevertheless the Court of Aldermen displayed its loyalty by resolving that the conduits in Cheapside and at the Stocks Market should run with claret on Thanksgiving-day. The sheriffs were to take the matter in hand, whilst the sum of L50 was raised by the court to defray the cost, the mayor contributing L10, each of the sheriffs L5, and the rest of the aldermen the balance between them.(1611) Later on (29 June) the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs waited upon the infant prince and kissed his hand. The various nurses were presented by the Chamberlain with the respectable douceur of sixty guineas, whilst ten guineas were given to the lord chancellor's messenger who brought the news to the city of the prince's birth.(1612)

(M828)

The day that saw the bishops acquitted a letter was despatched, signed by Shrewsbury, Danby, Compton (the suspended Bishop of London) and others, to the Prince of Orange, again inviting him to land in England with an armed force, and promising to render him every assistance. After some hesitation William accepted the invitation, and began to make preparations, both naval and military, for his descent on England. Towards the close of September news came from Holland of the vast preparations that were being pushed forward in that country. A fleet of sixty sail was in readiness, and the prince himself was shortly expected on board. James lost no time in informing the lord mayor of the state of affairs, and desired that he and the aldermen would take measures for preserving the city in peace.(1613) On the 28th he issued a proclamation informing his subjects of the threatened invasion, and calling upon them to lay aside all jealousies and to unite in defending the country against the foreign enemy.(1614)

(M829)

James saw, when it was too late, that he had over-taxed the patience of his subjects. He was now ready to make any and every concession. As for the citizens of London, they should have their charter restored. Accordingly, on Saturday the 6th October Lord Chancellor Jeffreys appeared before the Court of Aldermen with two separate grants under the great seal, the one appointing Sir John Chapman to be mayor (in the place of Sir John Eyles(1615)) up to the feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.), with liberty to the citizens in the meantime to elect one of their own choice to be mayor for the year ensuing; the other, continuing in office Sir Samuel Thompson and Sir Humphrey Edwin, then sheriffs, until a new election of sheriffs should be made by the citizens. The newly-appointed mayor and the existing sheriffs thereupon went down into the Guildhall, accompanied by the lord chancellor, who informed the citizens of the restitution of their liberties.(1616) The mayor and sheriffs having taken the oaths and subscribed the declaration prescribed by the Corporation Act, the aldermen returned to their chamber, and such as had been aldermen at the time of the judgment upon the writ of Quo Warranto and were then present were forthwith sworn in for the respective wards from which they had been deposed. The court next proceeded to draw up an address to the king, in which his majesty was assured that with all duty and faithfulness they would cheerfully and readily discharge the trust reposed in them to the utmost hazard of their lives and fortunes.(1617) One cannot help noticing how studiously different the wording of this address is from those previously presented. Not a word about defending his majesty's person with their lives and fortunes; these are thenceforth to be expended in guarding their own liberties! When the Court of Aldermen met three days later (9 Oct.) the common sergeant, the town clerk, the comptroller, swordbearer, common crier and other officers who had been ousted from their places under the Quo Warranto were formally re-instated;(1618) and the same day Chapman issued his precept for a Common Hall to meet on the 11th for the election of sheriffs for the year ensuing.(1619) Several aldermen who had lost their places in 1683 declined to be re-instated, among them being Sir Robert Clayton.(1620) Sir George Treby, who had been recorder at the time of the confiscation of the city's liberties, also refused to accept office again; but the Court of Aldermen finding great difficulty in getting a suitable person to accept the appointment, Treby was finally induced to change his mind, and before the end of the year he occupied his old place and continued to occupy it until, in 1692, he was made chief justice of common pleas.(1621)

The city was still without a Common Council, and it was not until the 26th November that the Court of Aldermen advised the mayor to issue his precept for an election of common councilmen to take place on the 28th. The council so elected was to be but a provisional one until the regular election should take place on St. Thomas-day (21 Dec.).(1622) On the 1st December the new Common Council sat for the first time,(1623) none having met since the 2nd October, 1683.

(M830)

The day that a new Common Council was elected Jeffreys (who was already packing up to be off) notified that writs were about to be issued for a new parliament. The House was to meet on the 15th January (1689). James had purposed summoning a parliament for November (1688), and some of the writs had been actually sent out, but the Dutch preparations so alarmed him that the writs were recalled.(1624)

(M831)

In the meantime an extraordinary council had been held at Whitehall (20 Oct.) which the mayor and aldermen of the city had been invited to attend. The object of the meeting was to dissipate any doubt that had been entertained as to the infant prince being actually the king's son. There had been rumours to the contrary, and as the king was about to enter upon a dangerous enterprise in person, he declared his intention of settling the question beyond all doubt before leaving. Some twenty witnesses were accordingly examined then and there as to the prince's legitimacy, the king offering to send for the queen herself if the meeting so wished. This offer, one need scarcely say, was declined.(1625) The same day proclamation was made for guarding the sea coast and withdrawing all draft cattle into the interior.(1626)

(M832)

The feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.) falling on Sunday, Sir John Chapman, who had been re-elected mayor by free choice of the citizens, proceeded to Westminster by water according to custom on the following Monday, accompanied by the aldermen, and was sworn before the barons of the exchequer. He returned to Grocers' Hall and there entertained the lords of the council, the judges and many of the nobility. Notwithstanding the precautions taken against riot during the mayor's absence from the city the mob broke out and sacked and burnt a "mass house" in Bucklersbury. For this disturbance the mayor and sheriffs were called to account by the king.(1627)

(M833)

On the 5th November the Prince of Orange successfully effected a landing in Torbay. As soon as the news reached London James again sent for the mayor and aldermen, ordered them to take care of the city, and, if he should fall in battle, to proclaim the Prince of Wales successor to the crown.(1628) William proceeded to march upon London. At Exeter he was well received, but some little time elapsed before the gentry showed any disposition to throw in their lot with the prince. On the 17th James set out with his army to meet the invader, after receiving an assurance from the mayor and aldermen that they would take care of the city during his absence.(1629) He reached Salisbury, but soon found himself deserted by officers and friends. Among the former was Lord Churchill, afterwards known as the Duke of Marlborough, and the greatest soldier of the age. Left almost alone, James returned to London, having been absent from the capital less than ten days. Like his name-sake the Conqueror, William made no haste to reach London, but advanced by slow marches, putting up at various gentlemen's houses on the way. It was agreed that both armies should remain at a distance of forty miles from London in order to allow the new parliament to meet in safety.

(M834)

Since the news of the prince's landing there had been a renewal of the attacks made on Roman Catholics and their places of worship in London. On the 11th November the mob broke into St. John's, Clerkenwell, where rumour declared there were stored gridirons, spits and other instruments for torturing Protestants. The troops were called out and one or two of the rioters killed. It was deemed advisable to close all the Roman Catholic chapels except the royal chapels and those belonging to foreign ambassadors.(1630) Another sign of the times was the fact that the sceptre belonging to the statue of Queen Mary set up in the Royal Exchange had either accidentally fallen or (as was more probable) had been forcibly struck out of her hand.(1631) On the 7th December the mayor issued a precept to the aldermen of each ward for a careful search to be made in the city for all Papists and suspicious persons. He did this because he understood that the inhabitants of the city were much alarmed at the great resort of Papists to the city who were believed to be meditating some attack upon London.(1632)

(M835)

The negotiations which had been opened with William were only intended by James to serve the purpose of giving the latter time to place his wife and child in a place of security before he himself should seek safety in flight. On the 11th December he attempted to make good his escape. As soon as it was known that the king had left London a great number of lords, both spiritual and temporal, came to the Guildhall, as to a place of security, the better to consult and take measures for the common weal. Having informed the Court of Aldermen of the king's flight the lords retired into the "gallery adjoining to ye councell chamber," and there drew up a Declaration,(1633) containing in effect their resolution to assist the Prince of Orange in maintaining the religion, the rights and the liberties which had been invaded by Jesuitical counsels. This was communicated to the Court of Aldermen, who thanked the lords for the favour shown to the Court. As the occasion was an important one it was deemed advisable to summon forthwith a Common Council, as well as the law officers of the City, to advise the aldermen as to what was best to be done.(1634) A Common Council was accordingly held that same day. Being informed of the state of affairs, the court quickly resolved to follow the example set by the lords, and themselves to present an address to the prince.(1635) An address was accordingly prepared, in which, having warmly acknowledged the prince's zeal for the Protestant religion and expressed regret at the king's measures and his recent flight, the citizens implored the prince's protection, promising him at the same time a hearty welcome whenever he should repair to their city. The lieutenancy of the city followed suit the same day with another address, in which his highness was assured that measures had been taken for preserving the city in peace until his arrival.(1636) The lords, having finished their business in the city, dined the same evening with the lord mayor at Grocers' Hall.(1637)

(M836)

On the 17th a letter from the prince was read before the Common Council. The terms of the letter are not recorded in the City's archives, but it probably contained some reference to the peace of the city, for the council, after preparing an answer to it, forthwith gave orders for the guards of the trained bands to be increased by three regiments.(1638)

(M837)

The following day (18 Dec.) the prince himself entered London, and the council, having heard of his arrival, immediately despatched the sheriffs and the common sergeant to learn when his highness would be pleased to receive a deputation from the city. It was arranged that the aldermen and their deputies and one or two members of the council of each ward, according to the number of its representatives, should form the deputation.(1639) The lord mayor (Chapman) being indisposed was unable to attend. He had recently been seized with a fit of apoplexy whilst trying the terrible Jeffreys, who had been discovered and apprehended in disguise at Wapping. But Treby, the recorder, was there, and made a speech on the City's behalf.(1640)

(M838) (M839)

By this time James, who had been foiled in his first attempt to reach the coast, and had returned to London, had, with the connivance of the Prince of Orange, been more successful in a second attempt, and had crossed over to France, where he spent the remainder of his days. The country was therefore left without king, parliament or legal system for its government. In London the Corporation of the city was almost the only authority that remained unaffected by the king's abdication; and it is significant as well of its power as of the respect which that body commanded that when William was endeavouring to form an authoritative assembly by summoning all the members who had ever sat in parliament under Charles II,(1641) he likewise desired that the lord mayor of the city, the entire Court of Aldermen and fifty representatives of the Common Council should attend.(1642) This assembly met on the 26th December, and after due consultation decided to adopt the same procedure as was adopted in 1660 before the return of Charles II. As there was no king there could be no writs for a parliament, but William could call a Convention, which would be a parliament in everything but name. A Convention was accordingly summoned to meet on the 22nd January, 1689. The election of the city members to serve in the convention was ordered to take place on Wednesday the 9th January,(1643) when the choice of the citizens fell upon their former well-tried representatives, Sir Patience Ward, Sir Robert Clayton, Pilkington (who had regained his liberty in August, 1686)(1644) and Love.

(M840)

In the meantime (8 Jan.) the prince wrote to the civic authorities setting forth the inadequacy of the revenue to supply three pressing wants. These were the maintenance of the navy, the partial disbandment of the army and the furnishing of a force for the speedy relief of the Protestants in Ireland. He desired the City, therefore, to advance him such a sum as could be "conveniently spared."(1645) The City was still to keep up its character as the purse of the nation. The Common Council, having heard the letter read, at once resolved to assist the prince to the utmost of their power. A committee was appointed to settle with the revenue officers the nature of the security, and orders were given for precepts to be sent to the aldermen to raise subscriptions in the various wards.(1646) Sir Peter Rich, who had recently been re-instated in the office of city chamberlain from which he had been ousted, was instructed to pay into the exchequer all money received on account of the loan, and to strike tallies for the same in his own name in trust for the use of the several lenders. Ten days later (18 Jan.) the committee reported the steps taken for the security of repayment of the money already paid into the exchequer, and the council recommended that similar steps should be taken with respect to those sums yet to be paid in. It was at the same time unanimously agreed to ask the Prince to dinner in the city, and the recorder, the sheriffs and the common sergeant were instructed to wait on his highness and learn his pleasure.(1647)

(M841)

On the 22nd January the Convention met. On the 28th the Commons declared the throne to be vacant, and on the 6th February a vote to similar effect was passed by the Lords. Some over-zealous inhabitants of the city had in the meanwhile prepared a petition, which they purposed presenting to the House of Lords, praying that the crown might be offered to the Prince of Orange and his consort. The prince ordered the lord mayor to put a stop to such proceedings, and a precept (200 copies of which were ordered to be printed) was accordingly issued to this effect.(1648)

(M842)

A Declaration of Rights was drawn up condemning the unconstitutional acts of James II, and offering to settle the crown on William and Mary and their children, with remainders over. On the 13th February this offer was accepted,(1649) and the prince and princess were forthwith proclaimed king and queen with the usual ceremony. The next day the Common Council unanimously agreed to wait upon their majesties and congratulate them upon their accession to the throne.(1650)

(M843)

At the coronation banquet of the king and queen, which took place on the 11th April, the masters of the twelve principal livery companies were for the first time nominated by the Court of Aldermen to join with the lord mayor in assisting the chief butler,(1651) and they continued to be so nominated on like occasions up to the coronation of George IV, when in consequence of a change of masters taking place between the time of their nomination and the day of the coronation, the new masters presented a petition to the Court of Claims praying to have their names inserted in the place of the former masters whose term of office had expired. This petition was opposed by the Remembrancer, on behalf of the City, on the ground that the masters of the livery companies enjoyed no peculiar right to serve on such occasions, and after some deliberation the commissioners declined to interfere, inasmuch as the power of nominating the twelve citizens rested absolutely with the Court of Aldermen.(1652) The lord mayor and swordbearer were resplendent at the coronation ceremony in new crimson and damask gowns, whilst the city's plate—again lent for the occasion—added lustre to the banquet.(1653)



CHAPTER XXXII.



(M844)

The Convention having been converted by a formal Act into a true parliament (23 Feb.),(1654) one of the first motions put to the House was that a special committee should be appointed to consider the violations of the liberties and franchises of all the corporations of the kingdom, "and particularly of the city of London." The motion was lost by a majority of 24.(1655) The House nevertheless resolved to bring in a Bill for repealing the Corporation Act, and ten days later (5 March) the Grand Committee of Grievances reported to the House its opinion (1) that the rights of the city of London in the election of sheriffs in the year 1682 were invaded and that such invasion was illegal and a grievance, and (2) that the judgment given upon the Quo Warranto against the city was illegal and a grievance. The committee's opinion on these two points (among others) was endorsed by the House, and on the 16th March it ordered a Bill to be brought in to restore all corporations to the state and condition they were in on the 29th May, 1660, and to confirm the liberties and franchises which at that time they respectively held and enjoyed.(1656)

(M845)

A special committee appointed (5 March) to investigate the nature of the city's grievances, and to discover who were the authors and advisers of them, presented, on the 29th May, a long report to the House,(1657) giving the whole story of the election of sheriffs in June, 1682, and of Pritchard's election to the mayoralty in the following September; of the fines that had been imposed on Pilkington, Shute, Bethell, Cornish and others for so-called riots whilst engaged in asserting the rights of the citizens; of Papillon having been cast in damages to the amount of L10,000 at the suit of Pritchard, and of other matters which led up to the proceedings under the Quo Warranto, when, as the committee had discovered, two of the justices of the King's Bench—Pemberton and Dolben—were removed from the court because their opinion was found to be in favour of the city. The committee refer to the City's Records in support of the claim of the lord mayor to elect one of the sheriffs, and say "that from the twenty-first of Edward the IIId unto the year 1641 the way of making sheriffs was that the lord mayor named one to be sheriff and presented him to the Common Hall, who did confirm him, and chose another to act with him; except in three or four years within that time, when the Common Hall chose both the sheriffs, the persons drank to in those years by the lord mayor having refused to hold and paid their fines." They capitulated to the House the various occasions on which the mayor exercised his prerogative unchallenged, and those when the Common Hall refused to confirm the mayor's nomination, down to 1682, when matters were brought to a crisis by Sir John Moore claiming to have elected Dudley North by drinking to him according to custom; and in conclusion they reported their opinion to be that Sir John Moore and Dudley North were among the "authors of the invasion made upon the rights of the city of London in the election of sheriffs for the said city in the year 1682."

(M846)

In the meantime the civic authorities themselves had not been idle. The Common Council had already (1 March) appointed a committee to take steps for obtaining a reversal of the judgment on the Quo Warranto with the assistance of the recorder and the city's representatives in parliament. Before the end of May a draft Bill had been prepared for the purpose and been submitted to the court for approval.(1658)

(M847)

There was another matter pressing very heavily upon the City just now, and one which later on would also claim the attention of parliament, and that was the relationship of the civic authorities to the city orphans. By the custom of London the mayor and aldermen were the recognised guardians of all citizens' orphans, and as such took charge of their property until they came of age or married. A Court of Orphans was established, with the common sergeant as its chief officer, which exercised the same jurisdiction over the bodies and goods of orphans in the city that the Court of Chancery exercised outside. In course of time the fund paid into this court became very considerable, and in order to prevent it lying idle and thus deprive the orphans of interest that might accrue on their estate, the court lent large sums to the Crown on the security of exchequer bills. Could any guardian or trustee have acted more honestly or with greater prudence? They had not reckoned, however, upon a king being on the throne who should be sufficiently dishonest to stop all payments out of the exchequer in discharge of principal and interest of past loans. This is what Charles II did, as we have seen, in 1672; and his action not only ruined many bankers and merchants of the city, but inflicted great hardship upon the city's fatherless children. The City's revenue at the time of William's accession was little more than sufficient to meet the necessary expenses of the municipality, to say nothing of repaying the orphans their confiscated estates. This fact was recognised by the orphans themselves, who saw no other hope but to apply to parliament for assistance with the aid of the Common Council.

(M848)

To this end "a large number" of orphans of the city presented a petition to the court on the 1st March.(1659) Their fortunes (they said) had been paid into the Chamber of London according to the custom of the city, and they were now left destitute of support and reduced to great hardships and extremities, very many of them having their whole portions in the Chamber. They prayed the court, therefore, to appoint a committee to consider the whole matter with the view of approaching parliament with some recommendation. To this the court readily gave its consent, and a committee was then and there nominated.

(M849)

A week later (8 March) this committee made a report to the council.(1660) They had found upon investigation that the debt owing by the Chamber was very great, being upwards of L500,000 due on principal money to orphans and nearly L100,000 more due to others, besides "finding money" and interest. The committee were of opinion that before any application was made to parliament the City should first do what it could on its own account for the relief of the orphans. The City's lands of inheritance were estimated as bringing in about L4,000 a year, subject to a charge of L500 or L600 for charitable uses, and the committee recommended that lands to the value of L3,000 a year rental should be sold. By this means it was thought that L70,000 or thereabouts would be raised, and the sum being devoted to the relief of the orphans would be "a good introduction to request a further assistance from the parliament." The charges of municipal government must be met with the residue of the "casual profits" of the Chamber. If parliament (the report went on to say) would be pleased to assist by granting a duty on coals and allowing the City to tax hackney coachmen at 5s. a head, the whole debt, or at least the principal, might be liquidated. A Bill which the committee had prepared for presentation to parliament for this purpose was then read and referred to the town clerk and the city solicitor, as well as to the attorney and the solicitor-general for their opinions.

(M850)

The king's intimation to the House (1 March) that he was prepared, with its assent, to abolish the odious Hearth Tax was received with universal joy. The Commons immediately voted an address of thanks, and passed a formal resolution to stand by the king with their lives and fortunes in supporting his alliances abroad, in the reduction of Ireland, and the defence of the Protestant religion,(1661) whilst the Common Council of the city resolved to present a humble address of thanks to his majesty for the welcome relief from a tax that had been from its commencement obnoxious. The court at the same time resolved to return its thanks to both Houses of Parliament for their resolution to stand by the king.(1662) The Commons, in acknowledging the address, represented to the deputation by the mouth of the Speaker that they had taken notice of the courage and constancy displayed by the City in the late revolution, and more especially its action in advancing so large a sum of money to his majesty at so critical a time. The City's care for the public would never fail to receive the like return from the Commons.(1663)

(M851)

On Sunday the 17th March a special Court of Aldermen sat. The lord mayor, Sir John Chapman, had died at ten o'clock that morning, and it became necessary to take steps for the election of a mayor to serve for the remainder of the mayoralty year, and to secure, in the meantime, the peace of the city. Three aldermen were despatched, accompanied by the town clerk, to inform the king of the state of affairs, and to assure him that care would be taken to prevent disorder until a new mayor should be elected. To secure this latter object a precept was at once issued by the court for a double watch to be kept until further orders, whilst another precept was issued for a Common Hall to meet on the following Wednesday (20 March) for the election of a new mayor.(1664)

(M852)

When the Common Hall met the choice of the citizens fell upon their old friend and champion, Pilkington, and Thomas Stampe; but a poll was demanded by the supporters of two other candidates, viz., Sir John Moore—who had already served (1681-2) and in whose mayoralty there had been such a fight over the election of sheriffs—and Jonathan Raymond. It is said that the Tory party in the city put up Moore for re-election by way of showing their disgust at a recent resolution passed by the House of Commons to the effect that Moore had been a betrayer of the liberties of the City during his mayoralty.(1665) But however that may be (and no record of such a resolution appears in the Journal of the House), the result of the poll placed Stampe and Pilkington—with 1975 and 1973 votes respectively—far ahead of either of the other candidates. Moore, indeed, was at the bottom of the poll with only 780 votes, whilst Raymond only polled 930. Stampe and Pilkington having been returned to the Court of Aldermen for them to select one, according to the custom, they chose Pilkington, and he was accordingly admitted and sworn mayor for the remainder of the year, being presented to the Governor of the Tower by order of the king instead of before the barons of the exchequer.(1666) A few weeks later (10 April) he received the honour of knighthood.(1667)

(M853)

At Midsummer (1689) a difficulty again arose with the election of sheriffs for the ensuing year. The Common Hall elected Christopher Lethieullier, alderman and dyer, and John Houblon, grocer,(1668) but these preferring to pay a fine to serving, the Common Hall refused to elect others in their place. The Court of Aldermen, finding themselves in a fix, sent for the attorney-general to peruse the City's Records and to give his advice in the matter. Lethieullier had determined to cut all connection with the Corporation, and had paid another fine to be relieved of the aldermanry of the ward of Coleman Street. Nevertheless, by the 10th September both he and Houblon had been persuaded to change their minds, and professed themselves ready, if the Court of Aldermen so willed, to take upon themselves the office of sheriffs.(1669)

(M854)

The wheel of fortune had taken a sudden turn. Those who had suffered during the last two reigns for vindicating their liberties and upholding the reformed religion, found themselves again in favour. Papillon and Bethell, who had sought safety in Holland, returned to England, and the former was appointed a commissioner for victualling the navy.(1670) In June the attainder of Cornish was reversed by Act of Parliament,(1671) and in October, Ralph Box, who had refused to allow himself to be forced into the shrievalty in 1682 against the wish of the citizens, had the honour, as master of the Grocers' Company, of conferring the freedom of the company upon the king, who, in his turn, created Box a knight.(1672)

(M855)

North, on the other hand, was subjected to a severe cross-examination before a committee popularly called the "murder committee," and narrowly escaped a criminal trial for having systematically packed juries during his shrievalty. His statement that he had never troubled himself about the political opinions of those he had placed on the panel, but had only taken care to have good and substantial citizens, was with difficulty accepted.(1673) Broom, who had been deprived of his coronership for arresting North and Pritchard, the royalist mayor, was re-instated in January, 1690.(1674)

(M856)

William had achieved the crown of England without bloodshed. In Ireland, as well as in Scotland, he had to fight for his crown. The news that James had landed in Ireland (12 March) created no small excitement in the city. Volunteers were called for, and were readily found. The trained bands were augmented and new officers appointed.(1675) When it was found that James was marching to the north of Ireland, where the citizens of London held a large interest, the excitement was increased. On the 18th April he appeared before the walls of Londonderry, expecting the city to immediately surrender. Thanks to the strength of those walls, repaired and fortified by the care and at the charges of the citizens of London,(1676) and still more to the stout hearts behind them, the town was able to stand a long and dreary siege, with all its attendant horrors of slaughter and starvation, and at last, after heroic resistance and patient suffering for 105 days, to come off victorious. There is one name more especially honoured in connection with the famous siege, that of George Walker, who, although a clergyman and advanced in years, inspired the besieged with so much energy and courage that from first to last there was no thought of surrender. Attempts were made to win over the garrison by intrigue, and among the devices set on foot for establishing communication between besiegers and the besieged was that of placing a letter in an empty shell and firing the latter into the town.(1677) When Walker made his appearance in England he was graciously received by the king, who made him a present of L5,000 and promised to have a care for the rest of the garrison.(1678) The king afterwards desired Walker to furnish a list of the officers who had displayed such determined courage during the siege and blockade.(1679)

(M857)

Whilst Londonderry was thus besieged a discovery had been made by means of intercepted letters of further designs which James hoped to carry out with the assistance of the French king. On the 19th June Sir George Treby, who was both the city's recorder and the king's attorney-general, laid before the Common Council at his majesty's request certain letters which had been seized on board a ship at Liverpool and forwarded by special messenger to the government. The letters, which had already been submitted to both houses, were now read to the Common Council, and this having been done the council resolved to present an address to the king thanking him for his favour and condescension, and assuring him that they would stand by him with their lives and estates.(1680)

(M858)

Michaelmas-day this year (1689) happening to fall on Sunday, the election of a mayor for the year ensuing took place on the previous Saturday, when Pilkington was re-elected.(1681) Tuesday, the 29th October, was lord mayor's day, but why the ceremony of swearing in the lord mayor should have been observed on that day instead of on the feast of SS. Simon and Jude—the 28th October—as was the custom, is not clear. The lord mayor's show was (we are told) "very splendid," and was witnessed by the king and queen and the Prince of Denmark from a balcony in Cheapside. After the show they were entertained, together with the members of both Houses and high officers of state, at a banquet in the Guildhall. The cost of the entertainment was defrayed by voluntary subscriptions among the aldermen and members of the Common Council.(1682) In order to prevent unpleasant crowding the Commons were invited to make their way into the Guildhall through the church of St. Lawrence, Jewry.(1683) The king took occasion to knight the two sheriffs (Lethieullier and Houblon), and also Edward Clark and Francis Child, two aldermen who were chosen sheriffs the next year.(1684)

(M859)

Within a few weeks of this entertainment it was found that the portrait of William set up in the Guildhall had been maliciously mutilated. The crown and sceptre had been cut out of the picture by some Jacobite, and the reward of L500 offered (21 Nov.) by the Court of Aldermen failed to discover the perpetrator.(1685)

(M860)

On the 30th October (1689) a parliamentary committee was appointed to prepare a Bill for "restoring and confirming of corporations." A Bill was accordingly brought in, read for the second time and committed.(1686) The Bill was mainly concerned with those corporations that had surrendered their charters, and a great struggle took place upon the committee's report (2 Jan., 1690) over an attempt to introduce a clause providing that every municipal officer who had in any way been a party to the surrender of a borough's franchises should be incapable of holding any office in that borough for a period of seven years.(1687) The city of London had not surrendered its charters. It preferred, as we have seen, on the advice of its Recorder, to let judgment be entered up against it, and allow its privileges and franchises to be confiscated by process of law rather than voluntarily surrender them. London was therefore excepted out of this Bill, saving a clause touching the not taking or subscribing the oath and declaration.(1688)

(M861)

On the 6th February, 1690, the Convention Parliament was dissolved. Its greatest achievement had been the passing of the Bill of Rights, the third Great Charter (as it has been called) of English liberties. The Bill of Rights embodied the provisions of the Declaration of Rights, and strictly regulated the succession to the crown. It constituted the title-deed by which the king was thenceforth to hold his throne, and the people to enjoy their liberties. The late parliament had been none too liberal to William in the matter of supply. Money was much needed for carrying on war with France and for reducing Ireland. Extraordinary aids were voted from time to time, but the money came in so slowly that the king was fain to seek advances from the City.(1689) A new parliament was summoned to meet on the 20th March.(1690)

(M862)

The election of members to serve the City in the coming parliament took place on the 19th February, and was hotly contested. There appears to be no record extant among the City's archives of what took place, but from a petition laid before the new House (2 April) by Pilkington (the lord mayor) and three others, viz., Sir Robert Clayton, Sir Patience Ward and Sir William Ashurst(1691)—all professing more or less Whig principles—we learn that they claimed to have been elected by the Common Hall. A poll had been granted, and a scrutiny was in course of being held when (as they complained) the sheriffs declared the election to have gone against them. The petitioners had afterwards learnt that upon the completion of the scrutiny the majority of those that had a right to vote had proved to be in their favour. They prayed therefore for relief. Their petition was referred to the Committee of Privileges and Elections for them to consider and report thereon to the House; but nothing came of it. It was in vain that Pilkington issued precepts to the livery companies for returns to be made: (1) of the names of those who were on the livery at Midsummer, 1683; (2) of those who had been admitted since; (3) of those that had died since 1683, or who were absent; and (4) of those who had omitted to take the prescribed oaths for a freeman or liveryman—in order to affect the scrutiny.(1692) The result was declared to be in favour of two aldermen and two commoners of distinct Tory proclivities. These were Sir William Pritchard, Sir Samuel Dashwood, Sir William Turner (once an alderman and soon to become one again) and Sir Thomas Vernon. Upon Turner's death in February, 1693, Sir John Fleet, then lord mayor, was elected in his place.(1693) In the country the elections were carried on with the same heat as in the City,(1694) and with like result. The majority of the members of the new parliament were Tory.