London and the Kingdom Volume II Part 21

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

(M511)

In the meantime steps had been taken towards raising a fund from the inhabitants of the wards to enable the munic.i.p.al authorities to find work for the poor.(993) On the 2nd April the President and Governors for the Poor of the city reported to the Common Council that they stood in need of 12,000 at the least, in order to start the poor on work. The court thought best to begin by raising only 4,000, and there was some talk of applying to parliament to increase (if need be) the powers of the Corporation for the Poor, so as to charge both real and personal estate in a.s.sessments.(994) A year ago (6 June, 1649) parliament had a.s.sisted the City with the sum of 1,000 towards the relief of the poor, and had consented to convey to the munic.i.p.al authorities a certain storehouse in the Minories, as well as the wardrobe near the Blackfriars, the latter to be used as a work-house.(995) The City now took the opportunity of thanking the Commons for these gifts as well as for the gift of Richmond Park, and promised to stand by them "against all wicked practices and opposite pretended powers whatsoever."(996)

(M512)

There was another matter of munic.i.p.al interest which claimed the attention of the civic authorities about this time. Ever since 1550, when, as we have seen, the borough of Southwark first became completely subject to the jurisdiction of the city, the inhabitants of the borough had suffered from the anomalous position of being ruled by an alderman not of their choosing, and by a Common Council to which they sent no representatives.

Nevertheless, it was not until the close of 1649 that they began to raise any serious objection to the existing state of things. On the 4th December of that year they pet.i.tioned parliament that they might be incorporated or enfranchised either with or without the City, on the ground that, as matters stood, their poor were neglected and they suffered from "diversity of jurisdictions," under which they were subjected to "double service and charges," such as no other body suffered throughout the kingdom.(997)

(M513)

Early in the following year (28 Jan., 1650) the City presented a counter pet.i.tion in defence of its rights and privileges in Southwark, and the whole matter was referred by parliament to the Committee for Corporations.(998) The inhabitants of Southwark having submitted their case to the committee, the City were called upon to make reply.(999) They, in effect, denied that the inconveniences mentioned by the pet.i.tioners were caused by their being under the City's government. As to the alleged grievance of being subject to concurrent jurisdictions, that was nothing uncommon. Not that the City itself countenanced variety of jurisdiction over the borough. Far from it. In fact, the civic authorities had recently themselves applied to parliament for the removal of the "Court Marshall"

(or Marshalsea) and the abolition of the "Marshall of the Upper Bench"

from the borough. The answer concluded by a.s.suring the Committee for Corporations that if any inconveniences arose in the borough from any defect in the City's government the City would be pleased to receive the a.s.sistance of the inhabitants in asking the supreme authority of parliament to amend it. No defect, however, could justify the separation of the borough from the City. There was another objection. The incorporation of Southwark would not only be an invasion of the City's rights, but would work injury to the several companies and fraternities of the city which for trade purposes had become incorporated. These exercised their power of government over, and received support from, their members who were not exclusively inhabitants of the city, but dwellers in the suburbs two or three miles away. A conference was proposed between the parties,(1000) but nothing appears to have come of it, and the matter was allowed to rest for another hundred years and more.

(M514) (M515)

Cromwell had not been long in Ireland before the country began to a.s.sume at least a semblance of prosperity. The good achieved by the city of London and the companies in Ulster in the earlier years of the plantation had well nigh disappeared during the troublous times of the civil war.

Londonderry itself had suffered two sieges at the hands of the royalists, but the garrison on both occasions had displayed the same indomitable courage as that which in later years made them famous in the pages of history, and with like success. Cruel as was Cromwell's policy in Ireland it accomplished its object. By February, 1650, Bradshaw was able to write to the mayor of London(1001) informing him of the intention of the Council of State to "plant" the seaports in Ulster, which had by G.o.d's blessing been reduced to obedience. He understood that the City had or "pretended to have" some interest in the towns of Londonderry and Coleraine, with other lands and fishings in Ulster, and he desired to know if the City intended to vindicate its right or claim. If so, the lord mayor was advised to depute someone to attend the committee appointed by the Council of State for Irish affairs and explain to him the nature of the City's rights. This letter having been read to the Court of Aldermen on the 19th February, counsel was instructed to investigate the City's interest in Ireland.(1002) A committee of aldermen was subsequently appointed to confer with representatives of the several livery companies on the matter.

Although Bradshaw's letter had desired a speedy reply, it was not until the 9th May that a report was submitted to the Court of Aldermen. This report, which had received the a.s.sent of the companies, recommended that counsel should forthwith be instructed to a.s.sert the rights of the City and the companies to the towns and lands originally conveyed by letters patents of the 30th March, 1613, to the Irish Society.(1003)

(M516)

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

(M517)

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

(M518)

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

(M519)

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

(M520)

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

(M521)

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

(M522)

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

(M523)

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

(M524)

To such an extent were they ground down by taxation (the city alone being a.s.sessed at a fifteenth of the whole kingdom) that a pet.i.tion was ordered to be laid before parliament on the subject a fortnight later (24 March).(1020) Whilst acknowledging the care bestowed by parliament in managing the affairs of the nation at the least possible charge, and declaring their willingness to bear their share in defraying expenses with the rest of the nation, the pet.i.tioners prayed for a more equitable amount of taxation than that which they had hitherto been called upon to bear.

The reasons they gave were (1) the losses which merchants had sustained within the last few years by the interruption of foreign trade, vessels belonging to citizens of London having been constantly seized by Prince Rupert and others who roamed the seas for piratical purposes, and (2) the withdrawal of the wealthier cla.s.s of citizens to the suburbs of London, where houses were increasing, and where taxation was less than in the city.

(M525)

Before the House found time to take this pet.i.tion into consideration(1021) it had granted (8 April) authority to the Council of State to raise out of the militias of the several counties a force of horse and dragoons not exceeding the number of 3,000 horse and 1,000 dragoons. The civic authorities lost no time in representing to parliament that the City had always been exempt from the charge of providing horse. They were ready, however, to bear their proportion of the necessary charge with the rest of the kingdom.(1022) Later on they became more complaisant, and expressed their readiness to furnish the number of horse demanded "in respect of the pressing occasions and necessities now lying on the Commonwealth,"

notwithstanding the proportion laid on the City was greater than that imposed on any other part of the nation. It was stipulated that the City's a.s.sent was not to be drawn into a precedent for the future.(1023) The Council of State, on the other hand, would not for a moment allow that the City had been called upon to contribute more than its just proportion.

London was a large place, they said, where many opportunities arose for outbreaks, and where there was not always a force at hand to put them down. They doubted not there were many well-affected persons within London, Westminster, the Hamlets and Southwark, able and willing to lend their horses, with well-affected riders, for the prevention of mischief, and they recommended that such should be encouraged.(1024)

(M526)

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

(M527)

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

(M528)

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

(M529)

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

(M530)

In February of the next year (1652) the question of allowances to be made to the mayor and sheriffs was referred to another committee, with the result that in the following June the court voted an allowance to lord mayor Kendricke of 1,500, the same to be reduced by 100 for succeeding lord mayors, and an allowance of 600 to each of the sheriffs present and to come. Neither mayor nor sheriffs were to be allowed "standing houses."(1033) The matter, however, was by no means settled. On the 13th August the court reverted to the old system of perquisites, and resolved "that the succeeding lord mayors and sheriffs of this city shall have allowances from this city towards the maintenance of their public charges, and that those allowances shall be the ancient perquisites themselves."(1034) This was followed a month later (15 Sept.) by another resolution to the effect that future sheriffs should have no allowances from the city other than the perquisites.(1035)

(M531) (M532)

The election of a successor to Kendricke on Michaelmas-day in the person of Simon Edmonds was made the occasion of fixing the amount of profits the new mayor was to enjoy from the various offices of package, scavage, metage and others.(1036) Edmonds, like his predecessor in office, had reported to the Court of Aldermen soon after his election that he could not undertake the charge of the mayoralty without those "encouragements and allowances" which former lord mayors had enjoyed.(1037) Finding that Edmonds could not be brought to accept their terms,(1038) the Common Council discharged him from service (19 Oct.) on the plea of old age and ill-health, but fined him 600.(1039) The Court of Aldermen subsequently discharged him from his aldermanry.(1040)

(M533)

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

(M534)

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

(M535)