CHAPTER XXIX.
Preparations for re-building the city.
The Great Fire had scarcely ceased smouldering before the inhabitants of the city set to work re-building their devastated houses. Information having reached the ear of the king that building operations were about to be carried out on the old foundations, he instructed Sir William Morice, secretary of state, to write to the lord mayor to put a stop to them until further orders, as his majesty had under consideration certain models and plans for re-building the city "with more decency and conveniency than formerly."[1336] Charles himself also wrote at the same time to the mayor and aldermen desiring them to afford every assistance to Wenceslas Hollar and Francis Sandford, whom he had appointed to make an exact survey of the city as it stood after the fire.[1337] The civic authorities on their part instructed Robert Hooke to devise a scheme for re-building the city, and on the 21st September he presented to the Common Council "an exquisite modell or draught" which found much favour with the court.[1338] Early in the following month (4 Oct.) the Common Council was informed that for the greater expedition in carrying out the[pg 428] work of re-building the city, the king had appointed Wren and two others to make a survey, with the assistance of such surveyors and workmen as the civic authorities should nominate. The city's choice fell upon Robert Hooke, described as "Reader of the Mathematicks in Gresham Colledge," Peter Mills and Edward Jermyn or Jarman. By way of preparation for the survey, the owners of houses that had been destroyed were again ordered (9 Oct.) to clear their foundations of rubbish, and to pile up the bricks and stones within fourteen days, so that every man's property might be "more exactly measured and asserted."[1339]
A special Court of Judicature created by Stat. 19 Car. II, c. 2.
The impracticability of re-building the city except on old foundations soon become manifest, and the handsome design which Wren prepared had to be dismissed. There was difficulty enough as it was, and the four sworn viewers of the city whose duty at ordinary times was to guard against encroachments and other nuisances were unusually busy. Sometimes the old foundations proved too weak to support a new building, sometimes the new building threatened to encroach on the public thoroughfare. Such matters required the constant attention of the viewers. Disputes would also arise between the landlords and tenants of houses destroyed by the fire. In order to settle all differences that arose, a special Court of Judicature was established by Act of Parliament (31 Jan., 1667).[1340] The court sat at Clifford's Inn, and the decrees signed by the judges, as well as the portraits of the judges themselves, are preserved at[pg 429] the Guildhall.[1341] The city authorities were very urgent in getting this Act passed, and pressed the judges to give the Bill all dispatch they could, "as a matter of principal concernment and encouragement to the great worke of re-building the citty." This their lordships promised to do.[1342]
Gift of £100 to the Speaker. 4 Dec., 1666.
It was not deemed in any way derogatory in those days to give and receive presents for services either past or prospective. We need not be surprised therefore to find that whilst this and other Bills in which the City was interested were before Parliament, the Court of Aldermen voted a sum of £100 in gold as a gift to the Speaker of the House of Commons, "as a loving remembrance from this court for his many kind offices performed to the State of this citty."[1343]
Building Act, 19 Car. II, c. 3, 1667.
Whilst a Bill for re-building the city was being prepared for parliament the civic authorities were busy considering how to find the money necessary for re-building the Guildhall, the city's gates, the prisons and other public buildings. On the 6th November (1666) the Court of Aldermen resolved to sit every Wednesday afternoon at the house of the new lord mayor (Sir William Bolton) to consider this important question, and to continue such weekly sittings until the matter was settled.[1344] It was not[pg 430] long before the court determined to apply to parliament for an imposition of twelve pence a chaldron on coals brought into the Port of London, wherewith to meet the expense. The advice and assistance of the solicitor-general and of Sir Job Charlton were to be solicited, and £10 in "old gold" given to each of them, in addition to "such other charges and rewards" as might be necessary for the furtherance of the business.[1345] Later on the court resolved to approach the Lord Chancellor and to entreat him to recommend the City's proposals to his majesty and to the House of Lords.[1346] By the end of November the Common Council had agreed to certain "heads thought requisite to be inserted" into the Bill for re-building the city,[1347] and on the 29th December the Bill was brought in and read the first time.
For fear lest some of the clauses might offend the king a petition was drawn up for presentation to his majesty, in which matters were explained, and his majesty's favourable interpretation and pardon asked for anything omitted in the Bill or done amiss.[1348] A report had got abroad that the City had caused a clause to be inserted in the Bill forbidding any one to engage in building operations who refused to abjure the Covenant. This made the Common Council very angry, and the mayor and sheriffs were desired to investigate the matter.[1349] On the 5th February (1667) the Bill passed the Commons, and two days later received the assent of the Lords.[1350]
In the meantime the Court of Aldermen had drafted (22 Jan.) a petition to the king for permission to introduce a Bill for an impost on coals, to assist the City in re-building the conduits, aqueducts and other public works, as it had "no common stock, nor revenue, nor any capacity to raise within itself anything considerable towards so vast an expense."[1351] But instead of a new Bill for this purpose, a clause was inserted in the Bill for re-building the city (Stat. 19 Car. II, c. 3), authorising such an impost as was desired.[1352]
Vote of thanks to the king and the Duke of York, 19 Feb., 1667.
The Common Council directed (19 Feb.) the lord mayor, the recorder and the sheriffs to attend the king and the Duke of York with the most humble thanks of the court for the favour they had shown the City in passing the Bill, and to learn his majesty's pleasure as to the enlargement of the streets of the city in pursuance of the recent Act.[1353]
Appointment of four city surveyors, 13 March, 1667.
On the 12th March certain proposals for widening streets which had received the approval of the Common Council were submitted to Charles at a council held at Berkshire House, now Cleveland House, St. James's. On the following day they were returned to the Common Council with his majesty's recommendations and suggestions thereon. The same day (13 March), the City nominated Peter Mills, Edward Jarman, Robert Hooke and John Oliver to be surveyors and supervisors of the houses about to be re-built; the king's commissioners, Christopher Wren, Hugh May and "Mr." Prat being[pg 432] ordered by his majesty to afford them their best advice and assistance whenever it should be required.[1354]
In September the king suggested the appointment of Sir William Bolton, the lord mayor, as surveyor-general for the re-building of the city. The suggestion was referred to a committee, who reported to the Common Council (25 Oct.) their opinion that there was "noe use or occasion for a surveyor-generall," as the work could be well and sufficiently managed by the surveyors already appointed.[1355]
Classification of streets, lanes, etc., 21 March. 1667.
Pursuant to the Building Act the Common Council proceeded (21 March) to parcel out the streets of the city, placing them under the several categories of "high and principal streets," "streets or lanes of note," and "by-lanes."[1356] The scheme met with the approval of the king and council.[1357] Towards the end of the following month (29 April) a schedule was drawn up of streets and narrow passages[pg 433] which it was proposed to enlarge.[1358] For the next few months the authorities were busy seeing to the clearing and staking out of the various streets.[1359] In September the Common Council resolved that the new street which it was proposed to make from the Guildhall to Cheapside should be called King Street, whilst its continuation from Cheapside to the river should be known as Queen Street.[1360]
Allotment of market sites.
A fresh distribution of markets and market places was proposed (21 Oct.).[1361] Three markets and no more were to be allotted for the sale of flesh and other victuals brought into the city by country butchers and farmers, viz., Leadenhall and the Greenyard for the east end of the city, Honey Lane for the centre, and a market near Warwick Lane, which was to take the place of Newgate Market, for the west end. Two places were to be assigned for herb and fruit markets, viz., the site of the king's wardrobe (if the king would give his consent) and the ground whereon recently had stood the church of St. Laurence Pulteney. The markets formerly held in Aldersgate Street and Gracechurch Street were to be discontinued. A place was to be found at or near Christ Church as a site for the meat market, hitherto kept in Newgate market. These suggestions were with slight alteration accepted in the following February (1668), when provision was also made for a fish market on the site of the ancient stocks and the Woolchurch and[pg 434] churchyard.[1362] On the 23rd Oct. (1667) the king went in state into the city to lay "the first stone of the first pillar of the new building of the Exchange."[1363]
The coal duty raised to 2 s. a chaldron. 1670. Stat. 22 Car. II, c. 11.
The impost of twelve pence a chaldron on coals brought into the port of London was soon found inadequate to meet the expense of re-building the Guildhall, the prisons and other public edifices of the city, and in 1670 it was raised by statute (22 Car. II, c. 11) to two shillings a chaldron. Great irregularities, however, were allowed to take place in collecting and accounting for the duty thus imposed, and between 1667 and 1673 the City was obliged to borrow no less than £83,000.[1364] In March, 1667, the Court of Aldermen resolved that all fines paid by persons to be discharged from the office of alderman between that day and Midsummer next should be devoted to the restoration of the Guildhall and the Justice Hall, Old Bailey.[1365] Not only money but material also was required to enable the City to carry out its building operations. To this end a Bill was introduced into parliament to facilitate the City's manufacture of lime, brick and tile.[1366] A sub-tenant of the City holding five acres of land in the parish of St. Giles in the Fields obtained permission from the Court of Aldermen to "digg and cast upp the said ground for the making of bricke any covenant or clause in the lease of the said ground to the contrary notwithstanding."[1367] Application was made to Charles for liberty to fetch[pg 435] Portland stone for the City's use, but this was refused as the stone was required for works at Whitehall.[1368]
The Dutch fleet in the Medway, June, 1667.
In the meanwhile negotiations for a peace had been opened at Breda. The Londoners more especially desired peace[1369] in order to devote their energies to re-building their city. In anticipation of a cessation of hostilities Charles set about discharging his navy, leaving the Thames and Medway open to attack. The Dutch took advantage of his precipitancy and at once sailed up the Medway, burnt three men-of-war, among them being the "Loyal London," and carried off a fourth.[1370] This took place in June (1667). The city never presented so dejected an appearance as on the arrival of the news of this disgrace. The cry of treason was raised and endeavours made to fasten the blame upon any one and every one. The Dutch fleet was every hour expected up the Thames,[1371] and vessels were sunk in the bed of the channel at Barking, Woolwich and Blackwall to stop its progress. But so great was the confusion that one of the king's store ships for victualling the navy is said to have been sunk among the rest, as well as vessels that had been fitted out as fire-ships at great expense. The Common Council interposed on behalf of interested owners of merchandise on board the ship "Diana," lying in the[pg 436] Thames, to prevent if possible the sinking of that vessel.[1372]
Auxiliaries raised in the city, 13 June, 1667.
The Common Council ordered (13 June) every able-bodied man in the city forthwith to enlist, and resolved to petition the king that the auxiliaries then to be raised might remain as a guard to the city.[1373] The same day the city's militia was reviewed by Charles himself on Tower Hill. He addressed them in a speech assuring them that he would personally share their danger. But here, too, was confusion and lack of organization. "The city is troubled at their being put upon duty," wrote Pepys (14 June), "summoned one hour and discharged two hours after: and then again summoned two hours after that; to their great charge as well as trouble."
The Dutch fleet retires, 19 June.
Above all there was a lack of money to pay the seamen. Had the Dutch fleet sailed up the Thames immediately after its success at Chatham, instead of wasting its time at Portsmouth and Plymouth and other places on the south coast, matters would have gone hard with the capital. As it was the delay gave time for recovery from the recent scare and for measures to be taken against its approach, with the result that after getting up the river as far as Tilbury it was compelled to retire.[1374]
A City loan of £10,000 for fortifying Sheerness, 21 June, 1667.
On the morning of the 20th June the Dutch fleet was believed to be sailing homewards, but by midday news arrived of its appearance off Harwich, which was threatened with an immediate attack.[1375] The next[pg 437] day (21 June) the mayor and aldermen obeyed a summons to attend upon the king in council, when, a proposal having been made to fortify Sheerness and other places on the river, they agreed to raise the sum of £10,000 for the purpose.[1376] That the government should be driven to borrow so small a sum excited the contempt of Pepys, who thought it "a very poor thing that we should be induced to borrow by such mean sums." That the City could afford no more is not surprising when we consider what had been the state of trade during the last three years. As it was the money was paid by small instalments. The coffers of the city merchant or goldsmith keeping "running cashes" were well nigh empty, and the credit of some of the best men was shaken.[1377]
The companies of Masons and Bricklayers to furnish workmen.
There was another difficulty besides the want of money. There was a deficiency of workmen to carry out the works at Sheerness. Application was accordingly made to the wardens of the several companies of masons and bricklayers to furnish able men so that the fortifications might be completed before the cold weather came on.[1378]
The Treaty of Breda signed, 31 July, 1667.
At last negotiations for a peace were concluded and the Treaty of Breda was signed (31 July). The peace was proclaimed at Temple Bar in the presence of the lord mayor on St. Bartholomew's Day (24 Aug.).
The bells were set ringing in honour of the event, but there were no bonfires at night "partly"—writes Pepys—"from the dearness of firing, but principally from the little content most people have in the peace." Yet the terms of the treaty were not wholly ruinous to the country. England, at least, gained New York, hitherto known as New Amsterdam.
Report on state of the City's Chamber, 23 Nov., 1668.
The lull in the storm afforded the municipal authorities an opportunity of taking stock of their own Chamber. To this end a committee was appointed on the 12th February, 1668. For nine months that committee was employed examining the state of the City's finances, and then had not finished their task. Nevertheless, on the 23rd November they made a report to the Common Council of the result of their labours so far as they had gone.[1379] The state of the Chamber, they said, was so low that it would require the utmost care and industry to restore it and save it from utter decay and ruin, "for what by misemployment of the treasure in the late troubles and other ill managements," as well as by extraordinary expenses occasioned by the Plague and Fire, the City's debt had still increased notwithstanding its income having been largely augmented by fines of aldermen and chamber and bridge-house leases, which within the last fifteen years had exceeded £200,000. It was clear that when these extraordinary accessories to the City's income ceased—and they had already begun to decline—the City's debt would increase and would indeed become desperate unless some remedy were found. The committee, therefore, made certain[pg 439] suggestions with the view of cutting down expenses. The City Chronologer,[1380] in the first place, could be dispensed with altogether. The salary of the City Waits, which had lately been increased, should be reduced to its former amount. Some saving might be made in allowance of stationery in the various offices, in expenses attending Courts of Conservancy, in allowance of boots to City labourers and artificers. The personal expenses of the City's Remembrancer for diet, coach hire, boat hire, etc., should be no longer allowed; and the Chamber should not be called upon to make any disbursement for military purposes beyond the sum of £4,666 13s. 4d., for which the City was yearly liable by Act of Parliament. Lastly, neither the court of Aldermen nor the court of Common Council ought to have power to draw upon the Chamber for a sum exceeding £500, except it were in connection with the re-building of the Guildhall and other specified objects. These and other recommendations of the committee, being carefully considered by the court, were for the most part accepted with certain amendments.
Alderman Backwell.
On the other hand there was due to the city's Chamber no less a sum than £77,409 6s. 6d. for principal and interest on former loans to the king. This sum Alderman Backwell undertook himself to pay to the City, accepting a transfer of the Treasury[pg 440] Bills in the hands of the City Chamberlain. The Common Council was only too ready to accept the offer.[1381] Edward Backwell, alderman of Bishopsgate Ward, was one of those city princes whose wealth brought them into close relation with the Crown. A goldsmith by trade, he, like others of his class, took to keeping "running cashes" and transacting generally the business of a banker at his house known as the "Unicorn" in Lombard Street. Pepys mentions him frequently in his Diary. In the days of the Commonwealth he was paymaster of the garrison at Dunkirk, and continued to act as financial agent in all matters connected with that town until it was sold to the French king. His house in Lombard Street having perished in the Great Fire, he was, by the king's special command, accommodated with lodgings in Gresham College, in order that his business relations with the king might not be interrupted pending the re-building of his premises.[1382]
The rights of the mayor within the precincts of the Temple.
In March, 1669, a riot occurred in the Temple on the occasion of the mayor and aldermen going to dine with the reader of the Inner Temple. The question whether the Temple is situate within the city and liberties or not was then a debateable one, whatever it may be at the present day. The lord mayor of that time (William Turner) evidently thought that it lay within his jurisdiction, and insisted upon being preceded by the city's sword-bearer carrying the sword up. To this the students strongly objected. The story, as told by Pepys, is to the effect that on Wednesday, 3rd March,[pg 441] "my lord mayor being invited this day to dinner at the readers at the Temple, and endeavouring to carry his sword up, the students did pull it down, and forced him to go and stay all the day in a private counsellor's chamber until the reader himself could get the young gentlemen to dinner; and then my lord mayor did retreat out of the Temple by stealth with his sword up. This do make great heat among the students, and my lord mayor did send to the king, and also I hear that Sir Richard Browne did cause the drums to beat for the trained bands; but all is over, only I hear that the students do resolve to try the charter of the city." From a draft report[1383] of the incident which was probably made for the purpose of being laid before the Council Board,[1384] we learn that as soon as the civic procession entered the Temple cloisters it was met by a man named Hodges and others coming down the back stairs of the Inner Temple Hall; that Hodges threatened the lord mayor if he would not take down his sword, declaring that the Temple was excepted out of the city's charter, that the sword was not the king's sword, but the lord mayor's, and that "they were as good men as he, and no respect was to be given him there." A struggle then took place for the possession of the sword, in which the sword-bearer was slightly hurt and some of the pearls from the scabbard were lost. The students made a snatch at the "cap of maintenance" worn by the sword-bearer. The marshal's men who were in attendance suffered some rough treatment, and narrowly escaped being[pg 442] put under the pump. The mayor and aldermen in the meanwhile sought refuge in the chambers of Mr. Auditor Phillips, and awaited the return of Sir John Nicholas, who with the recorder and the sheriffs had been despatched to Whitehall to report the matter to the king. As soon as they returned the mayor and aldermen essayed to make their way out of the Temple, but were again opposed by the students, with Hodges at their head. The scene was one of wild excitement and confusion; blows were showered upon the aldermen, and one of the sheriffs was seized by the collar in the frantic attempts of the students to pull down the sword. The mayor and aldermen were called "cuckolds," and their officers "dogs, rogues, rascals and other very bad names." Some of the students are said to have had weapons concealed under their gowns, and to have threatened to draw them. The sheriffs, the recorder and Sir John Nicholas having again been sent to the king, it was intimated to the mayor by some of the benchers, and by Mr. Goodfellow, the Reader, at whose invitation the civic fathers were in the Temple, that he might now leave without any interruption (the "young gentlemen," according to Pepys, had been persuaded to go to dinner), which, after some display of opposition, he was allowed to do. Such is the City's own version of the affair, which concludes with the remark "that the proceedings aforesaid were greatly affrontive and dishonourable to the government of the city," a remark with which most people will be disposed to agree. Nor is it surprising to find that two years later the mayor and aldermen declined a similar invitation from Sir Francis North to attend his "feast" at the[pg 443] Temple, more especially as another disturbance was threatened if the sword should be borne up before his lordship.[1385]
Secret treaty of Dover, 1 June, 1670.
In July, 1670—at a time when the City could ill afford to part with money—the king sent to borrow £60,000.[1386] He had recently entered into a secret treaty with France (1 June), whereby he had pledged himself to assist the French king in subjugating Holland, in return for pecuniary support. The City agreed to advance the money, but in order to raise the sum required it became necessary to draw upon the coal dues.[1387] Much opposition was raised to the loan by the inhabitants,[1388] so that in November it became necessary for the city Chamberlain to borrow at interest more than £1,000 to complete the loan.[1389] In addition to the loan by the City Charles obtained considerable supplies from parliament when it met in the autumn. The House had been kept in complete ignorance of the arrangement that had been made with France, and voted the money on the understanding that it would be used in assisting the Dutch against Louis and not Louis against the Dutch.
The Prince of Orange entertained in the city, Dec., 1670.
In order to keep up the illusion Charles treated the Prince of Orange (afterwards William III of England), who was on a visit to this country at the time, with the highest consideration and insisted on the lord mayor giving "hand and place" to his foreign guest[pg 444] (contrary to city custom) at an entertainment given by the City in the prince's honour.[1390]
The Exchequer stops payment, 2 Jan., 1672.
As soon as parliament had voted supplies it was prorogued (11 Dec.), Charles and his "cabal" being determined to have no restraint put upon them in carrying out the terms of the shameful treaty with France. No long time elapsed before they had to face the difficulty of an empty exchequer. It was useless to declare war without funds. Charles was at his wits' end for money and promised high office to any one who should point out a successful way of raising it. Clifford and Ashley, two members of the cabal, put their heads together and hit upon the bold plan of declaring a moratorium, or suspension of payments out of the royal exchequer. For many years past it had been the custom for the goldsmiths of London and others who had been in the habit of keeping the money of private individuals, either on deposit or running account, to lend it to the king, who could afford to pay them a higher rate of interest than they paid to their private customers. The money was paid into the exchequer, the bankers taking assignments of the public revenue for payment of principal and interest, as it came in. Most of this money had already been spent by Charles in paying off the fleet that brought him over, and in carrying on the late war with the Dutch;[1391] but the bankers and capitalists who had provided the money were content to abide by the[pg 445] king's frequent assurance that he would continue to make good all assignments until their whole debt should be wiped out. We may judge therefore of their surprise and disappointment when they learnt, as they did on the 2nd January, 1672, that the king proposed to suspend all payments out of the public revenue for one whole year!
London bankers brought to bankruptcy.
It is true that he promised to add the interest then due to the capital and to allow six per cent. interest on the whole as some compensation to his creditors for the delay; but this, even if carried into practice, proved unavailing to ward off disaster. The inevitable crash came. Many of the London bankers, and among them Alderman Backwell, who held revenue assignments exceeding a quarter of a million sterling, were made utterly bankrupt. A few of them who had interest at court got wind of the threatened danger and managed to withdraw their money from the exchequer in time, whilst Shaftesbury, one of the prime movers in closing the exchequer, foreseeing the inevitable result, took all of his own money out of his banker's hands and warned his friends to do the same.
Declaration of war with the Dutch, 17 March, 1672.
The exchequer having been in this way made richer by £1,300,000, Charles was prepared to declare war. An attempt to intercept a fleet of Dutch merchantmen before any declaration of war had been made—a piratical act admitting of no possible justification—brought matters to a climax and war was declared (17 March, 1672) by England and France. The 27th March was appointed by royal proclamation to be kept as a solemn fast for the purpose of begging the Almighty's blessing on his majesty's forces, the[pg 446] same prayers being used as had been specially ordained for the late war.[1392]
Parliament and the Test Act, 1673.
The war, which was chiefly remarkable for the noble stand made by the Dutch under the young William, Prince of Orange, Charles's own nephew and afterwards King of England, soon drained the king's resources, and once more he had to face a parliament. The parliament, which met on the 4th February, 1673, showed itself willing to vote a subsidy of £70,000 a month for a period of eighteen months, but only on its own terms. These were (1) the repeal of the Declaration of Indulgence which Charles, who was beginning to show signs of favouring the Roman Church, had by a stretch of prerogative recently caused to be issued, and (2) the passing of a Test Act which should bind all public officers to take the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, receive the sacrament, and abjure the doctrine of transubstantiation. By this means parliament hoped to maintain the supremacy of the Church.
The City in arrears with assessments.
The assessments which the City was now called upon to pay were far beyond its powers, seeing that many merchants and traders who had left the city at the time of the Plague and Fire refused to return, preferring to live in the suburbs, and thus a large number of the houses that had recently been re-built were left unoccupied. Every exertion was made to get some remission of the burden, but although the king signified his intention of making some abatement, little appears to have been done.[1393]
Cardonel's proposals for raising money by annuities.
In March of this year (1673) an individual named Philip De Cardonel came forward with a scheme for raising money by way of annuities to be granted by the city to every subscriber of £20 or more.[1394] The matter was in the first instance brought before the Court of Aldermen, who, upon consideration, declared that the proposal appeared to them "very faire and reasonable, and in all likelihood of very great advantage to the city," and forthwith resolved themselves into a committee of the whole court to treat with Cardonel and take such further proceedings as might be thought requisite.[1395] In the following month (11 April) the same proposals were submitted to the Common Council, where they met with similar favour. The court also appointed a committee to take them into further consideration, promising in the meantime that no advantage should be taken or benefit derived from the scheme without the special leave and consent of the proposer.[1396] Although the committee reported favourably on the scheme[1397] it was allowed to drop.
The City's petition to parliament for relief, Feb., 1674.
By February of the next year (1674) trade had become so bad that a number of the inhabitants of the city petitioned the Common Council (13 Feb.) to seek some relief from parliament. An address[pg 448] was accordingly drawn up, setting forth the miserable state to which the city had been reduced by the ravages of the plague and the fire, the increase of new buildings in the suburbs, which not only injured the trade of the city, but afforded a retreat for disorderly persons, and excessive taxation (the city being called upon to pay the same amount of taxes as in its most prosperous days), and praying the Commons to apply some timely remedy. The address was to have been laid before the house on Monday, the 23rd February,[1398] but no mention of it appears in the Commons Journal. On the 24th the House was prorogued.
The question of aldermanic veto again raised, Sept., 1674.
In September (1674) the old question again cropt up as to the power of the Court of Aldermen to veto matters ordained by the Common Council. The question had arisen, it will be remembered, in January, 1649,[1399] when Reynardson, the mayor, got up and left the Common Council, followed by the aldermen, and the court, instead of breaking up according to custom, proceeded to pass measures in their absence. Its action on this occasion was reported to parliament, and the house signified its approval of the court's proceedings and passed an ordinance which practically deprived the Court of Aldermen of all control over the Common Council. Since that time the matter had remained dormant, until jealousy between the two bodies was again excited by the Common Council passing an Act (17 Sept., 1674) for compelling the aldermen to reside within the city[pg 449] under the penalty of a fine of £500.[1400] Against the passing of any such Act the Recorder, on behalf of the Court of Aldermen, formally reported their protest to the Common Council, and the Commons as formerly protested against that protest (13 Nov.).[1401]
It was not that the mayor and aldermen were not fully conscious of the mischief arising from their own non-residence in the city, for they themselves passed an order for every alderman to return with his family into the city before the following Easter on pain of heavy penalty,[1402] but they objected to the court of Common Council presuming to dictate to them.
Report to Court of Aldermen re veto, 20 Oct., 1674.
In the meantime the Court of Aldermen had appointed a committee (24 Sept.) to examine the question of the right of veto, and this committee had reported (20 Oct.) in favour of the court.[1403] "We find," said the committee, "that the court of Common Council hath always consisted, and still it doth, of three distinct degrees of persons, viz., of the lord mayor in the first place as the chefe magistrate, and secondly of the aldermen as subordinate magistrates, and thirdly of the commons, or of a select number of the commons representing all the commoners of the said city as now is, and for a long time before hath been used." In this respect the committee proceeded to say, "the Common Councill of the city doth much resemble the constitution of the Common Council of the kingdom, and we further find that the order of[pg 450] proceeding in the making of lawes for the good government of the citty doth imitate the paterne sett them by the High Court of Parliament, in making lawes for the government of the nation, in regard that noe ordinance made in the Common Councell of this city can be a binding law to any without the joint consent and concurrence of the Lord Mayor, Court of Aldermen and commoners in Common Councell assembled, they having a joynt power and equal authority in making of lawes. So that the mayor and aldermen cannot impose upon the commoners, nor e converso; each degree having a power to dissent or assent as to them seems best."
The committee next pointed out how Bills for the better government of the city had formerly originated for the most part with the mayor and aldermen, and had been by them transmitted to the Common Council, where, after being read in two several courts (and not twice in one court) and assented to, they became complete acts and binding laws. Such had been the usual and salient practice. Nevertheless, the committee had found that sometimes the Common Council had petitioned the Court of Aldermen for redress of certain grievances and the latter had complied with such petitions, "and so sometimes Acts of Common Council have been made at the desire of the lord mayor and aldermen signifyed to the commons by the Recorder." The conclusion that the committee arrived at was that "the lord mayor and aldermen have negative votes as the commoners also have, and contrary to this order of proceeding in making Acts of Common Council wee cannot find any presedent."
On the 13th November a joint Committee of Aldermen and Commoners was appointed by the Common Council to search the city's Records as to "the respective privileges of the lord mayor and aldermen and of the commons in Common Council assembled, and of the most ancient and decent method in making laws within this citty," and to report thereon.[1404] Four days later (17 Nov.) the Court of Aldermen instructed their committee to make further search on the question.[1405]
The conduct of Jeffreys the Common Sergeant, 12 March, 1675.
Ordered to be suspended from office.
Matters were brought to a crisis on the 12th March, 1675, when the mayor and aldermen, dissatisfied with the proceedings of the court of Common Council, got up and left the court. The Common Sergeant—the notorious George Jeffreys—refusing to follow the example set by the Common Sergeant in 1649, remained behind, and went so far as to put a question to the court of which the mayor and aldermen had previously disapproved. For this he was shortly afterwards called to account. His defence was that he only obeyed the wishes of the majority; but this being deemed unsatisfactory, the Court of Aldermen ordered him to be suspended from office.[1406]
Offers an apology which is deemed unsatisfactory, 23 March.
The matter referred to the king.
He afterwards (23 March) offered an apology to the Court of Aldermen for his conduct, confessing "that the question by him put at the last Common Council after the lord mayor was out of the chair was altogether irregular," and asked pardon. His apology, so far as it went, was accepted in good part by the court, but upon some explanation being asked of him as to his not refusing to put a question when[pg 452] commanded to refuse, and his offering to put another question at the request of some members of the council, he desired to be allowed time before he made answer.[1407] Meanwhile the dispute between the Aldermen and Common Council had been brought to the notice of the king,[1408] who, with his brother the Duke of York, had recently received the freedom of the City.[1409]
Jeffreys questioned by the king, 29 March, 1675.
The king recommends his restoration to office.
A week later (30 March) the Recorder, John Howell, reported to the Court of Aldermen[1410] that he and the Common Sergeant had by command appeared before his majesty the previous day touching the unhappy difference existing between the Aldermen and the Common Council; that the Common Sergeant being asked to whom it devolved to put the question on a debate in council, had in the Recorder's hearing replied to the effect "that the question had always been used to be put by the lord mayor or by his lordship's appointment and not otherwise, so far as he had observed," and he had never known the matter disputed; that he had then likewise declared to his majesty that he was "sorry for his deportment at the last Common Council, saying that what he did was a sudden act and rashly done without any intention to make any disturbance, and that he would freely acknowledge the same wheresoever his majesty should command him"; that therefore his majesty had commanded the Recorder to acquaint the court that the best expedient he could suggest, as the case[pg 453] stood, for a settlement of the difficulty, was that the old order of things should be re-established, that (among other things) the suspension of the Common Sergeant should be removed, and that the books and records of the city should be searched by six such aldermen as the lord mayor should appoint, and six such commoners as the Common Council should appoint, in order to satisfy themselves of the respective privileges of the lord mayor and aldermen and commons in Common Council assembled, and to settle the same in a quiet and peaceable manner if they could. Failing this his majesty would appoint a judge to arbitrate in the matter.
Jeffreys restored, 30 March, 1675.
The court followed the king's suggestion so far as related to the Common Sergeant, and having listened to his expressions of regret for his late conduct, and his assurances that he would always endeavour to "promote the honour and government of the city," it removed his suspension.
City Records defective.
As regards the real issue between the two Courts of Aldermen and Common Council, matters remained much as they were before. Although the Court of Aldermen gave orders (12 April) that the proceedings relative to the dispute between the two courts should be faithfully recorded, the minutes of the Common Council at this period are particularly lacking in information as well on this as on other matters in which the City was concerned.[1411]
Standing counsel for the Court of Aldermen.
One result of the contretemps which had occurred in the court of Common Council of the 12th March was that the Court of Aldermen resolved to retain certain counsel to advise them as occasion should arise on the question of their rights and privileges, and to create a fund by subscription among themselves to meet the necessary expenses.[1412]
Further search to be made amongst the city's archives touching rights of mayor and aldermen.
In April the Town Clerk and the four clerks of the outer court (i.e. mayor's court) were instructed to search the books and records of the city on the question whether or not it was the province of the lord mayor (1) to direct and put the question in the Common Council, (2) to name committees, and (3) to nominate persons to be put in election to any office.[1413] This last point especially affected the right claimed by the mayor to nominate (if not to elect) one of the sheriffs by virtue of his prerogative—a claim which had already been more than once canvassed and which was destined shortly to bring the City and the Crown into violent opposition.
The opinion of counsel on the question of aldermanic veto, 1675-1678.
On the 7th September, 1675, the Court of Aldermen directed that the opinion of counsel should be taken on the power of the mayor and aldermen to put their veto on matters passed by the Common Council.[1414] After the lapse of fifteen months the opinions of Sir William Jones, the attorney-general, Sir Francis Winnington, solicitor-general, Sir John Maynard and Sir Francis Pemberton, sergeants-at-law, and of "Mr. William Steele" (not a former Recorder of that name as some have supposed[1415]) were presented[pg 455] to the court (5 Dec., 1676);[1416] and with the exception of the last mentioned, all the lawyers declared in favour of the mayor and aldermen. There the matter was allowed to rest for a year or more until in February, 1678, the opinions of Sir William Dolben, not long since appointed the city's Recorder, and of Jeffreys, the Common Sergeant, who was destined in a few months to succeed Dolben on the latter's promotion to the bench, were taken and found to coincide with the opinions already delivered with the exception of that of William Steele.[1417]
A cry for war against France, 1678.
A City loan of £100,000, afterwards raised to £150,000.
Parliamentary vote of £200,000 for disbandment of the army, 4 June.
Peace of Nimeguen, 31 July, 1678.
In the meantime Charles had concluded a separate treaty with the Dutch (19 Feb., 1674), who continued to struggle manfully against the French king, with such assistance as they derived from the emperor and the German states. The Commons were fearful of entrusting the king with either money or troops lest he should employ them against the Dutch, or against their own liberties. The successes of Louis at length provoked a general cry for war against France, and the Commons went so far as to pass a bill (8 March, 1678) imposing a poll tax as part of the supply.[1418] Charles lost no time in applying to the City for the sum of £100,000 on the security of this tax, and the court of Common Council signified its readiness to advance the money (9 April).[1419] Finding that parliament hesitated to furnish the supplies it had voted, and without which he assured the members he would have to lay up the fleet and disband some of the newly raised forces, Charles applied to the City for[pg 456] another £50,000. This, too, was granted (14 May);[1420] and Charles, in order to show his displeasure with the Commons, resorted to his usual tactics and prorogued parliament, but only for ten days.[1421] A few days after the Commons had again met they resolved (27 May) that if the king would declare war against France they would give him their hearty support, otherwise they would at once proceed to take into consideration the speedy disbandment of the army.[1422] The king refusing to declare war, parliament proceeded (4 June) to carry out its threat and voted the sum of £200,000 for the disbandment of all the forces that had been raised since the 29th September, 1677.[1423] The disbandment did not take place, however, but in its stead a force was despatched to Holland. Scarcely had it arrived before the peace of Nimeguen was signed.
The Popish plot, 1678.
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[pg 457] liberties of his subjects by the introduction of foreign troops. This fear was enhanced by the knowledge that if Charles died the crown would fall to his brother, an uncompromising Catholic. The public mind became so unhinged that every breath or rumour created the greatest trepidation. Within a fortnight after the City had signified its assent to the last loan the nation was suddenly surprised by some words let drop by Dr. Tonge, the weak and credulous rector of St. Michael's, Wood Street, and the tool of the infamous Titus Oates. A Popish plot was, he said, on foot and the king's life in danger, in proof of which he produced documentary evidence. Oates, the prime mover in starting the idea of a plot, was ready in the most shameless way with depositions to corroborate all that Tonge had said. These depositions he made before a Middlesex magistrate, Sir Edmondesbury Godfrey. The next morning Godfrey's corpse was found lying in a ditch near Primrose Hill. All London was wild with excitement and jumped to the conclusion that the Middlesex Justice had met a violent death for listening to Oates's evidence, although there is reason for believing him to have fallen by his own hands. The cry against Papists continued unabated for years.[1425] The city presented the appearance of a state of siege with its gates kept closed, its streets protected with posts and chains, and an armed watch kept by night and day.[1426] In October, when according to custom the king was to be invited to the lord mayor's banquet, the Recorder was instructed to congratulate his majesty upon his recent escape and to make[pg 458] arrangements for a deputation to wait upon him in person.[1427]
The dissolution of the Cavalier Parliament, 24 Jan., 1679.
When parliament met on the 21st of this month it passed a new Test Act rigidly excluding all Catholics from both Houses. Five Catholic peers were committed to the Tower, and Coleman, the secretary of the Duchess of York, was tried and executed for having in his possession papers betraying a design for forcing the Roman Catholic religion on the nation. It next proceeded to impeach Danby for having been concerned in certain money transactions between Charles and the king of France. Knowing the danger likely to arise from such an investigation, Charles dissolved (24 Jan., 1679) the parliament, which had now sat for more than seventeen years.
The first short parliament, 6 March-27 May, 1679.
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[pg 459] to the crown.[1428] It left its mark, however, on the statute book by passing the Habeas Corpus Act. It also voted a sum exceeding £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]
The king's illness and recovery, Aug.-Sept., 1679.
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[pg 460] to make arrangements for presenting their congratulations to him and the duchess.[1433]
Proclamation against "tumultuous petitions," 12 Dec., 1679.
The elections for a fresh parliament which had taken place in the meantime having gone against the court party, parliament no sooner met (17 Oct.) than it was prorogued; and in consequence of repeated prorogations never sat again for a whole twelvemonth (21 Oct., 1680).[1434] Nor would it in all probability have been allowed to meet even then, had it not been for a constant succession of petitions addressed to the king insisting upon a session being held. So annoyed was Charles with this demonstration of popular feeling in favour of parliament that he issued a proclamation (12 Dec., 1679) prohibiting such "tumultuous petitions."[1435]
Petitioners and Abhorrers.
This led to the presentation of a number of counter-addresses to the king, expressing the greatest confidence in his majesty's wisdom, the most dutiful submission to his prerogative, and abhorrence of those who had dared to encroach upon it by petitions. The two parties thus became distinguished as Petitioners and Abhorrers; names which were subsequently replaced by Whigs and Tories.
The petition of Common Hall, 29 July, 1680.
The citizens were Petitioners. On the 29th July (1680) the Livery assembled in Common Hall for the election of sheriffs took the opportunity of desiring Sir Robert Clayton, the lord mayor, to beseech his majesty on their behalf, that for the preservation of his royal person and government and the Protestant[pg 461] religion he would graciously please to order that parliament, his great council, might assemble and sit to take measures against the machinations of Rome.[1436] Clayton showed himself very willing to comply with the wishes of Common Hall, but pointed out at the same time that he had reason to believe that parliament was to meet in November. "If that be so," said he, "I hope your great concern for that matter might have been spared, being anticipated by his majesties gracious intention. However, I shall not be wanting with all humility to lay the whole matter before him." In spite of Jeffreys, the Recorder, having ruled that such a petition bordered on treason, and in spite of a warning received from the lord chancellor, Clayton insisted on presenting a petition, and for doing so was rewarded with the grateful thanks of the Common Council on his quitting the mayoralty.[1437] Jeffreys on the other hand was compelled to resign the recordership.[1438]
The City's address to the king, 12 Nov., 1680.
The king's reply.
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[pg 462] 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]
The second short parliament, 1680-1681.
As soon as the House met it commenced an attack upon Papists. The Exclusion Bill was again passed, but was thrown out by the Lords. Thus baulked the Commons revived the impeachment of the Catholic lords. During the trial of Stafford on a charge of a design to murder the king, more than ordinary precautions had to be taken by the mayor to maintain order and prevent too great a crowd assembling at Westminster.[1441] Being condemned to death, the king was ready to spare Stafford the grosser indignities attached to a felon's execution, but the royal act of clemency was not allowed to pass unchallenged by the sheriffs of London on the ground that if the king could dispense with some part of the execution why not of all?[1442] The House had passed a vote of thanks to the City for its "manifest loyalty to the king" and its care and vigilance for the preservation of his majesty's person and of the Protestant religion,[pg 463] 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]
The City's petition to the king for parliament to be allowed to sit, 13 Jan., 1681.
During the interval a petition was drawn up by the Common Council (13 Jan.) and presented to the king, in which the petitioners expressed their surprise at the late prorogation "whereby the prosecution of the public justice of the kingdom ... have received an interruption," and after referring to the action taken by parliament for the defence of his majesty's person and the preservation of the Protestant religion, prayed that the House might be allowed to resume its session on the day to which parliament had been prorogued as being "the only means to quiet the minds and extinguish the fears of your Protestant subjects."[1444] This petition, and more especially that part of it which spoke of the interruption of justice, was highly resented by Charles, and was one of the causes which led to the issue of the writ of Quo Warranto against the city in the following year. In the meanwhile it served only to make the king more determined than ever to dissolve the parliament, which he did by proclamation on the 18th January. A new parliament was summoned for the 21st March; it was not however to sit in London, but in the royalist city of Oxford.[1445]
Parliamentary elections in the city, 1681.
The City sent up to Oxford the same members that had represented them in the last two parliaments.[pg 464] 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[pg 465] his supporters made no disguise that they were well equipt with arms.[1448]
Dissolution of the third short parliament, 28 March, 1681.
Charles soon perceived that he had little to gain from the new parliament, which insisted on having its own way, and refused even the king's humiliating proposal to place the government of the country after his demise in the hands of a regent, leaving the bare title of king to his brother, the Duke of York. It caused an impeachment to be laid against an Irishman named Fitzharris whom Charles had recently removed from Newgate to the Tower in order to prevent the civic authorities taking the prisoner's depositions,[1449] and it otherwise proved so uncompromising that at the end of a week (28 March) it was sent about its business. Charles afterwards (8 April) published a "declaration" of his reasons for taking that course.[1450]
City's address to the king, presented 19 May, 1681.
On the 13th May the Common Council passed a vote of thanks to the city members for their faithful services in the last three parliaments, and more especially in the late parliament at Oxford. It also agreed by a narrow majority of fourteen to present an address to the king praying him to cause a parliament to meet and continue to sit until due provision be made for the security of his majesty's person and his people.[1451] The first attempt (13 May) to present this address failed, the deputation being[pg 466] told to meet the king at Hampton Court another day (19 May). When it was presented the deputation were told to go home and mind their own business. Other addresses—one from the lieutenancy of London and another from the borough of Southwark—presented the same day, in which thanks were tendered to his majesty for dissolving the last two parliaments, met with a very different reception. Undismayed at the rebuff thus administered to the City, the Grand Jury at the Old Bailey passed a vote of thanks (20 May) to the mayor for the part he had taken in presenting the address, and ordered a similar address to that of the City to be presented to Charles on their own account.[1452]