London and the Kingdom Volume II Part 30

Just when the war was brought so unexpectedly to an end Charles signified his desire for another loan by the City to the extent of 200,000. The matter was brought to the notice of the Common Council on the last day of July, and on the 1st August the lord mayor issued his precept to the aldermen of the several wards to invite subscriptions.(1424) For what purpose the money was required we are not told. It was generally feared that the king meditated a suppression of the liberties of his subjects by the introduction of foreign troops. This fear was enhanced by the knowledge that if Charles died the crown would fall to his brother, an uncompromising Catholic. The public mind became so unhinged that every breath or rumour created the greatest trepidation. Within a fortnight after the City had signified its a.s.sent to the last loan the nation was suddenly surprised by some words let drop by Dr. Tonge, the weak and credulous rector of St. Michael's, Wood Street, and the tool of the infamous t.i.tus Oates. A Popish plot was, he said, on foot and the king's life in danger, in proof of which he produced doc.u.mentary evidence. Oates, the prime mover in starting the idea of a plot, was ready in the most shameless way with depositions to corroborate all that Tonge had said.

These depositions he made before a Middles.e.x magistrate, Sir Edmondesbury G.o.dfrey. The next morning G.o.dfrey's corpse was found lying in a ditch near Primrose Hill. All London was wild with excitement and jumped to the conclusion that the Middles.e.x Justice had met a violent death for listening to Oates's evidence, although there is reason for believing him to have fallen by his own hands. The cry against Papists continued unabated for years.(1425) The city presented the appearance of a state of siege with its gates kept closed, its streets protected with posts and chains, and an armed watch kept by night and day.(1426) In October, when according to custom the king was to be invited to the lord mayor's banquet, the Recorder was instructed to congratulate his majesty upon his recent escape and to make arrangements for a deputation to wait upon him in person.(1427)

(M724)

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

(M725)

When the elections for the new parliament were over it was found that the opposition to the king was greater than ever. Of the city members who had sat in the last parliament only one-Alderman Love-was returned, the remaining seats being taken by Alderman Sir Robert Clayton, Sir Thomas Player, the city chamberlain, and Thomas Pilkington, afterwards elected alderman of the ward of Farringdon Without. This second parliament-the first of a series of short parliaments-in Charles's reign met on the 6th March, 1679, but was suddenly dissolved on the 27th May in order to stop the progress of an Exclusion Bill depriving the Duke of York of his right of succession to the crown.(1428) It left its mark, however, on the statute book by pa.s.sing the Habeas Corpus Act. It also voted a sum exceeding 200,000 for disbandment of the forces raised since Michaelmas, 1677.(1429) Just a week before parliament dissolved the Court of Aldermen was asked (20 May) to forward an address thanking both Houses for their care in securing the personal safety of the king and maintaining the Protestant religion. The address was referred back in order to include the king in the vote of thanks, and was then submitted (23 May) to the Common Council for approval. That body made a further amendment by adding the words: "The Protestant religion according to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England as it is now established by law."(1430)

(M726)

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

(M727)

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

(M728)

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

(M729)

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

(M730) (M731)

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

(M732)

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

(M733)

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

(M734)

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

(M735)

Charles soon perceived that he had little to gain from the new parliament, which insisted on having its own way, and refused even the king's humiliating proposal to place the government of the country after his demise in the hands of a regent, leaving the bare t.i.tle of king to his brother, the Duke of York. It caused an impeachment to be laid against an Irishman named Fitzharris whom Charles had recently removed from Newgate to the Tower in order to prevent the civic authorities taking the prisoner's depositions,(1449) and it otherwise proved so uncompromising that at the end of a week (28 March) it was sent about its business.

Charles afterwards (8 April) published a "declaration" of his reasons for taking that course.(1450)

(M736)

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

CHAPTER x.x.x.

(M737)

The country seemed to be on the verge of another civil war. A re-action, however, in favour of the king set in. The nation began to view the situation more dispa.s.sionately and to entertain serious doubts whether parliament had acted rightly in pushing matters to such an extremity. The religious question after all might not be so important or so fraught with danger as they had been led to believe by professional informers.

Addresses of the type of those presented by the lieutenancy of London and the borough of Southwark, among them being one signed by over twenty thousand apprentices of the city,(1453) began to flow in; and proceedings were commenced against Protestants on no better evidence than had previously been used against Catholics.

(M738)

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

(M739)

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

(M740)

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

(M741)

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

(M742)

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

(M743)

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

(M744)

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

(M745)

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

(M746)