London and the Kingdom Volume II Part 20

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

(M480)

When it came to proclaiming in the city the decrees of parliament abolishing the kingly office and the House of Lords, Reynardson, the mayor, declined to do so, and defended his action before the House by the plea of conscientious scruples. He was forthwith deposed from the mayoralty, condemned to pay a fine of 2,000 and committed to the Tower.(941) As to the fine, he stoutly refused to pay it. His goods were therefore seized and, according to the custom that prevailed, sold "by the candle."(942)

(M481)

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

(M482)

The times were so much "out of joint" that it was no easy matter to find well-to-do citizens willing to undertake an office which had become so unenviable, and many paid fines varying in amount from 400 to 1,000 rather than serve.(945) By paying a fine for not taking upon himself the duties of an alderman a man could generally, upon pet.i.tion, be relieved from serving as sheriff.(946)

(M483)

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

(M484)

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

(M485)

Three weeks later (12 April) a deputation from parliament, including Cromwell himself, appeared before the Common Council and desired a loan of 120,000 upon the security of the Act for a.s.sessment of 90,000 per month and the Act for sale of fee-farm rents. The security was not liked, nevertheless the council nominated a committee to confer with parliament as to the best means of raising the money.(950)

(M486)

Want of money was not the only difficulty that Cromwell had to contend with. The levelling spirit which two years before had displayed itself in the ranks of the army, and had ever since been fostered by speeches and writings of the wrong-headed and impracticable John Lilburne, again a.s.serted itself. The troops refused to serve in Ireland. A mutiny broke out at "The Bull," in Bishopsgate Street, the soldiers refusing to obey their colonel's orders and seizing the regimental colours. An example had to be made, so one of the ringleaders was shot in St. Paul's Churchyard.

Five others condemned to death were pardoned. The funeral of the unfortunate man who was executed was made the occasion of a public demonstration against parliament and the army,(951) and for some time afterwards the Levellers continued to give trouble in different parts of the country.

(M487)

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

(M488)

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

(M489)

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

(M490)

The City showed exceptional honour to Fairfax and to Cromwell, presenting the former with a bason and ewer of gold weighing 242 ozs. 14 dwts., and the latter with another bason and ewer, as well as with two flower pots, a perfume and chafing dish, two fruit baskets, a kettle and laver and a warming pan, the whole weighing 934 ozs. 9 dwts. Cromwell was also presented with a purse containing 200 in twenty-shilling pieces.(960) Thomas Vyner, a goldsmith of repute, who was sheriff at the time, provided the plate at a cost of 1,412 15s.(961)

(M491)

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

(M492)

In the meantime (5 July) Cromwell had again appeared before the Common Council and had desired a further advance of 150,000 upon the security of the excise. The matter was referred to a committee.(965) By the 13th August the new lord-lieutenant had obtained sufficient resources for him to cross over to Ireland.

(M493)

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

(M494)

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

(M495)

On the 25th August Glyn, the city's Recorder, yielded to pressure and resigned his office. An attempt had been made in January, 1648, to get him to resign in favour of William Steele, but he managed to keep his place notwithstanding his being a prisoner and threatened with impeachment at the time. On the 9th August, 1649, the Court of Aldermen desired him to surrender his place on the ground that both law and the custom of the city demanded that the Recorder of the city should be an apprentice of the law and not a sergeant-at-law.(969) The plea was a shallow one, and Glyn declined to accede to their request, as being prejudicial to himself and as casting a slur upon his profession. This answer he made on the 18th August. Nevertheless by that day week he had thought better of it, and came into court and there "freely tendred" his resignation, which was accepted as "his own free voluntary act." The court voted him the sum of 300 in recognition of his past services and appointed William Steele in his place.(970)

(M496)

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

(M497)

A few days before Andrews quitted the mayoralty the Guildhall was the scene of one of those trials for which it is historically famous. On the 24th October (1649) John Lilburne was brought to trial for spreading seditious pamphlets. Parliament had shown every disposition to conciliate this impracticable reformer, but all its efforts had been futile. "Tell your masters from me," said he to a friend who visited him in the Tower, "that if it were possible for me now to choose, I had rather choose to live seven years under old King Charles's government (notwithstanding their beheading him as a tyrant for it) when it was at the worst before this parliament, than live one year under their present government that now rule; nay, let me tell you, if they go on with that tyranny they are in, they will make Prince Charles have friends enow not only to cry him up, but also really to fight for him to bring him into his father's throne."(972) His trial was at length forced on parliament by the injudicious publication of a pamphlet(973) calculated to excite discontent in the army, and a mutiny broke out in the garrison at Oxford so soon after the issue of this pamphlet that it was justly thought to have occasioned the outbreak. The country became flooded with seditious pamphlets to such an extent that an Act was pa.s.sed for their suppression and for the better regulation of printing. The civic authorities and the Stationers' Company were especially admonished to see the provisions of the Act carried out.(974) What brought matters to a climax was the discovery that the Levellers were entering upon negotiations with Prince Charles, and thereupon the House resolved (11 Sept.) that Lilburne's trial should at once be proceeded with.(975) A special commission of Oyer and Terminer, presided over by Andrews, the outgoing Lord Mayor, and including the Recorder, the Common Sergeant and nine aldermen, was opened at the Guildhall on Wednesday, the 24th October. The trial lasted three days.

Lilburne made a spirited defence, winding up with a solemn peroration in which he invoked G.o.d Almighty to guide and direct the jury "to do that which is just, and for His glory." His words sent a thrill of enthusiasm through the crowded hall, the audience with "an extraordinary great hum"

giving vent to cries of "Amen! Amen!" in such a manner that Skippon, who was in attendance, deemed it advisable to send for more troops in case of disturbance. When in the end a verdict of acquittal was brought in, a wild scene followed. "The whole mult.i.tude in the hall, for joy of the prisoner's acquittal, gave such a loud and unanimous shout as is believed was never heard in Guildhall, which lasted for about half an hour without intermission." The judges turned pale from fear, but the prisoner at the bar, so far from displaying any excess of joy, remained unmoved and silent, and "rather more sad in his countenance than he was before."(976) He was conducted back to the Tower, whence he had been brought, amid the acclamations of the mult.i.tude. At night bonfires were lighted in his honour. The government made an attempt to detain him still in prison, but in about a fortnight the general discontent of the people and the intercession of friends procured his liberation.

(M498) (M499)

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

(M500) (M501)

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

(M502)

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

(M503)

Hitherto the mayor and sheriffs for the time being had been accustomed to sell offices and places as they happened to become vacant and to use the money so obtained towards defraying the expenses of their own year of office. This was to be no longer allowed. They were henceforth to be content with the allowance made to them by the Common Council, viz., a monthly allowance of 208 6_s._ 8_d._ for the mayor, and a monthly allowance of 150 to each of the sheriffs.

(M504)

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

(M505)