CHAPTER XXVI.
The Council of State, 14 Feb., 1649.
Within a week of the king's execution the Commons, confident in their own strength and that of the army, voted the abolition of king and house of lords, and declared England to be a Commonwealth.[931] They next proceeded (14 Feb.) to place the executive power in the hands of a Council of State of forty-one members, most of whom were also members of their own body, with Bradshaw as president. Cromwell, Fairfax and Skippon were members of the council, as also were two aldermen of the city, viz., Pennington and Wilson.[932] The post of Secretary for Foreign Languages was offered to a kinsman of Bradshaw, and one of whom the city of London is justly proud, to wit, John Milton.
Analogous changes in national and municipal government.
The revolution which was taking place in the government of the kingdom found its counterpart in the municipal government of the City, where the mayor, aldermen and commons bore close analogy to the king, lords and commons of the realm. The City was but the kingdom in miniature, the kingdom was but the City writ large. No sooner was the house of lords abolished, and with it the right of the lords to veto the Acts of the commons, than the Court of Aldermen was deprived of a similar right over the proceedings of the Common Council.
The right of veto by mayor and aldermen impugned, 24 Jan., 1645.
Until the year 1645 the right of the mayor and aldermen to veto an ordinance made by the commons in Common Council assembled appears never to have been disputed, but on the 24th January of that year, when fresh by-laws were under the consideration of the court, and the mayor and aldermen claimed this privilege as a matter of right, objection was raised, and the question was referred to a committee.[933] No settlement of the matter appears to have been arrived at until matters were brought to a crisis by the action of the mayor and aldermen on the 13th January, 1649, when, as we saw at the close of the last chapter, they got up and left the court.
Act of Parliament regulating proceedings of Common Council, 28 Feb., 1649.
In view of similar action being taken by the mayor and aldermen in future, it was enacted by parliament (28 Feb.),[934] that all things proposed in Common Council should thenceforth be fairly debated and determined in and by the same council as the major part of the members present should desire or think fit; "and that in every vote which shall passe and in the other proceedings of the said councell neither the lord maior nor aldermen, joynte or separate, shall have any negative or distinctive voice or vote otherwise than with and amonge and as parte of the rest of the members of the said councell, and in the same manner as the other members have; and that the absence or withdraweinge of the lord maior or aldermen from the said councell shall not stopp or prejudice the proceedings of the said councell; and that every[pg 305] Common Councell which shall be held in the city of London shall sitt and continue soe longe as the major parte of the saide councell shall thinke fitte, and shall not be dissolved or adjourned but by and accordinge to the order or consent of the major parte of the same councell." It was further enacted that "in all times to come the lord maior ... soe often and att such time as any tenn or more of the Common Councell men doe by wryting under theire hands request or desire him thereunto, shall summon, assemble and hold a Common Councell. And if at any tyme beinge soe requested or desired hee shall faile therein, then the tenn persons or more makeinge such request or desire shall have power, and are hereby authorized, by wrytinge under theire hands, to summon or cause to be summoned to the said councell the members belonginge thereunto in as ample manner as the lord maior himself usually heretofore hath done."
Proceedings of the Common Council, 14 June, 1650.
Pursuant to this enactment the mayor received a written request from fifteen members of the council for a court to meet at three o'clock of the afternoon of the 14th June, 1650. The court assembled, but neither mayor nor any alderman appeared until a message was sent to the Court of Aldermen then sitting requesting their attendance in the Common Council.[935] After prayers[936] his lordship declared that he had not summoned the court inasmuch as the[pg 306] members who came to him on the matter had refused to acquaint him with the reasons for which it was to be summoned, and he moved that the subscribers to the request for a court should state why the court was summoned before any other business was taken in hand. This proposal met with great opposition, and a debate arose on the question whether the mayor's motion should take precedence of the reading of the minutes of the last court or not, and lasted until nine o'clock at night. At length the mayor's motion was negatived and the minutes of the last court were read. It then became known that the reason for the court being summoned was to hear a committee's report read. But the mayor at this point declared himself tired with sitting so long and rose to go, promising to call a court the next morning or any time most convenient. Upon certain members insisting upon the report being read then and there, his lordship and all the aldermen except one left the court. Nevertheless the report was read, and the members themselves fixed a day for another court for taking it into consideration unless the mayor himself should summon one in the meantime. His lordship was informed of this resolution by a deputation sent for the purpose.[937]
A further purge to be administered to the Common Council, 17 March, 1649.
In the meantime the Common Council had resolved to administer to itself a further purge. A committee was appointed (17 March, 1649) to "consider what officers are properly to sitt in this courte as itt is a courte, and by what authority they doe sitt there, and are to doe and performe service in the courte, and what sallary or allowance they shall conceive[pg 307] expedient to bee made to them respectively, and whether those officers shall bee yearely chosen or to remain for soe long time as they shall well and honestly use and behave themselves in their places."[938] Another committee was appointed to enquire what members of the council or others holding positions under the council had subscribed engagements which brought them within the purview of the ordinances of parliament of the 18th and 20th December. It was further instructed to devise some good expedient "to heale upp all breaches and that may tende to union and to the peace and safety of this citty, and likewise for the begettinge of a right understandinge and to keepe a good correspondency both betweene the parliament and citty and betweene the army and this citty."[939] Three days later (20 March) the Common Council resolved that in the opinion of the court "such persons as were chosen to any places of trust within the city (before the two ordinances of the xviijth and xxth of December last were made) and doe continue in those places and are within the compasse of any the matters menconed in this same ordinances or either of them are as equally dangerous to be in any of those places as they that were forbidden to be chosen to any such place since the said ordinances made," and the committee last mentioned were to see how best to avert the danger.[940]
Reynardson deposed from the mayoralty, 2 April, 1649.
When it came to proclaiming in the city the decrees of parliament abolishing the kingly office and the House of Lords, Reynardson, the mayor, declined to do so, and defended his action before the House by the plea of conscientious scruples. He was forthwith deposed from the mayoralty, condemned to pay a fine of £2,000 and committed to the Tower.[941] As to the fine, he stoutly refused to pay it. His goods were therefore seized and, according to the custom that prevailed, sold "by the candle."[942]
Reynardson and four other aldermen deprived of their aldermanries, 7 April, 1649.
Not content with deposing him from the mayoralty, the House deposed (7 April) Reynardson also from his aldermanry and with him four other aldermen,[943] viz., John Gayer, Thomas Adams, John Langham and James Bunce—the same who had undergone impeachment in 1648. Bunce was a special object of aversion to the Council of State, who later on (14 April, 1651) ordered an Act to be prepared declaring all who had correspondence with the enemies of the Commonwealth, "and especially with James Bunce, late alderman of London," guilty of high treason.[944]
Difficulty in filling their places.
The times were so much "out of joint" that it was no easy matter to find well-to-do citizens willing to undertake an office which had become so unenviable, and many paid fines varying in amount[pg 309] from £400 to £1,000 rather than serve.[945] By paying a fine for not taking upon himself the duties of an alderman a man could generally, upon petition, be relieved from serving as sheriff.[946]
Misbehaviour of soldiers in the city.
Meanwhile the continued presence of the soldiers of Fairfax in the city was becoming more and more burdensome. Scarcely a day passed without some disturbance arising between the soldiers and the civil guardians of the peace. Occasionally there was bloodshed, and twice within a very few days appeal had to be made to the general himself to restrain the plundering and roystering habits of his men.[947] It is not surprising if, bearing in mind the horrors that the military occupation of the city had recently brought upon the inhabitants, the Common Council rejected a proposal (17 April) that the custody of the Tower should be placed in the hands of a national guard in preference to the city's own trained bands.[948]
Affairs in Ireland.
A series of royalist successes in Ireland now engaged the attention of Cromwell, recently appointed (15 March) lord-lieutenant of that country, but nothing could be done without money. More than a year ago (16 Feb., 1648) an ordinance had been passed for raising money for Ireland, but in the city it had been almost treated as a dead letter—"in divers wards no assessment at all, and in most very little paid in." The civic authorities had recently (22 March, 1649) been reminded of their remissness[pg 310] in this respect by a letter from the Council of State, who threatened to enforce their ordinance if the City could not be brought to execute it from a sense of duty.[949]
City loan of £120,000, 12 April, 1649.
Three weeks later (12 April) a deputation from parliament, including Cromwell himself, appeared before the Common Council and desired a loan of £120,000 upon the security of the Act for assessment of £90,000 per month and the Act for sale of fee-farm rents. The security was not liked, nevertheless the council nominated a committee to confer with parliament as to the best means of raising the money.[950]
A mutiny in the army, April, 1649.
Want of money was not the only difficulty that Cromwell had to contend with. The levelling spirit which two years before had displayed itself in the ranks of the army, and had ever since been fostered by speeches and writings of the wrong-headed and impracticable John Lilburne, again asserted itself. The troops refused to serve in Ireland. A mutiny broke out at "The Bull," in Bishopsgate Street, the soldiers refusing to obey their colonel's orders and seizing the regimental colours. An example had to be made, so one of the ringleaders was shot in St. Paul's Churchyard. Five others condemned to death were pardoned. The funeral of the unfortunate man who was executed was made the occasion of a public demonstration against parliament and the army,[951] and for some time afterwards the Levellers continued to give trouble in different parts of the country.
The Commonwealth at length proclaimed in the city, 30 May.
Time was passing rapidly and yet the establishment of the Commonwealth still remained unproclaimed in the city. On the 10th May Colonel Venn, one of the city members, was ordered to enquire and report to the House as to the cause of the delay.[952] At length, on the 30th May, the formal proclamation was made by Andrews, the new mayor, assisted by twelve of his brother aldermen[953] and by a posse of troops which had to be sent for to preserve order. "It was desired," wrote the secretary of the French ambassador in England to Cardinal Mazarin, "that this act should be effected in the ordinary form of a simple publication, without the mayor and aldermen being supported by any soldiers, in order to show that no violent means had been resorted to; but a crowd of people having gathered around them with hootings and insults, compelled them to send for some troops, who first drove away all bystanders, and thus they finished their publication."[954] A man named Prior was arrested for attempted riot and was sent by the mayor to the Council of State, by whom he was committed to the gatehouse.[955]
Aldermen punished for not attending proclamation.
Two aldermen, Sir Thomas Soame and Richard Chambers, who had absented themselves on the occasion, were called before the bar of the House (1 June) to answer for their conduct. Soame, who was himself a member of the House, boldly declared[pg 312] that the proclamation "was against several oaths which he had taken as an alderman of London, and against his judgment and conscience." Chambers said in defence "that his heart did not go along in that business." Both delinquents were adjudged to lose their aldermanries, and Soame was also condemned to lose his seat in the House.[956] Whilst inflicting punishment upon those who determined to remain staunch to the royalist cause, the House resolved to honour those who supported the new order of things, and on the 6th June a proposal was made to authorise the Speaker "to create the dignity of a knight, and to confer the same upon Thomas Andrews, alderman and lord mayor of London, and Isaac Pennington and Thomas Atkins [Atkin], aldermen and formerly lord mayors."[957]
The Commons and Council of State entertained in the city, 7 June, 1649.
Thursday, the 7th June, having been appointed a day of public thanksgiving for the suppression of the Levellers, the Common Council resolved (29 May) to invite the Commons of England, the Council of State and other high officers, as well as Fairfax and the chief officers of the army, to a dinner at Grocers' Hall, in order to "manifest the city's good affections towards them." The House accepted the invitation and appointed Christchurch, Newgate, to be the church wherein the thanksgiving service was to take place.[958] The same deference and respect was paid on this occasion to the Speaker as was customarily paid to the king, the mayor delivering the civic sword into[pg 313] his hands on entering the city and receiving it back again, whilst the chief seat at the banquet was also surrendered to him.[959]
Gifts of plate to Fairfax and Cromwell.
The City showed exceptional honour to Fairfax and to Cromwell, presenting the former with a bason and ewer of gold weighing 242 ozs. 14 dwts., and the latter with another bason and ewer, as well as with two flower pots, a perfume and chafing dish, two fruit baskets, a kettle and laver and a warming pan, the whole weighing 934 ozs. 9 dwts. Cromwell was also presented with a purse containing £200 in twenty-shilling pieces.[960] Thomas Vyner, a goldsmith of repute, who was sheriff at the time, provided the plate at a cost of £1,412 15s.[961]
Gift of Richmond Park to the city, 17 July.
The House was so pleased with the flattering reception it had received that the next day (8 June) it appointed a special committee "to consider of some mark of favour and respect" to be done to the City,[962] and on the 30th it resolved "that the city of London have the New Park in the county of Surrey settled upon them and their successors, as an act of favour from this House, for the use of the city and their successors, and that an Act be brought in for the purpose."[963] Accordingly, on the 17th July, an Act "for settling the New Park of Richmond, alias Richmond Great Park, on the mayor and commonalty and citizens of London and their successors" was brought in and passed.[964]
Demand for a further loan of £150,000, 5 July, 1649.
In the meantime (5 July) Cromwell had again appeared before the Common Council and had desired a further advance of £150,000 upon the security of the excise. The matter was referred to a committee.[965] By the 13th August the new lord-lieutenant had obtained sufficient resources for him to cross over to Ireland.
News of the defeat of Ormond before Dublin, 11 Aug.
Before he set sail a complete victory had been already gained over Ormond's forces before Dublin. The news of the success was despatched to the mayor of London by letter from the Council of State (11 Aug.), who ordered particulars of the victory to be printed and published in every church within the lines of communication and thanks to be rendered to Almighty God for his great goodness.[966] The 29th August was accordingly kept as a day of public thanksgiving, and whilst the Commons attended divine service at St. Margaret's, Westminster, the municipal authorities listened to sermons at Christchurch, Newgate, and afterwards dined together at Mercers' Hall.[967]
Letter from the Council of State threatening "free quarters" for the army, 22 Aug., 1649.
The citizens kept such a tight hold upon their purse-strings, and the money which they had been called upon to advance came in so slowly, that the Council of State began to lose all patience, and on the 22nd August wrote to the mayor and aldermen[968] reminding them of their remissness in obeying the council's previous orders, and informing them that[pg 315] the soldiers had got to the end of their pay and wanted more. "It is not reasonable," the letter went on to say, "that the country, which is far less able, should bear the burden of the city, or that the soldiers should quarter upon them to spare you; and if you suffer free quarter to come upon you it may produce great inconvenience. You are therefore to take it into serious consideration, and you will then be sensible of the effects this backwardness in payment may produce. We once more offer this to your consideration, resolving not to trouble you hereafter with further letters, which produce no better effect, but that the same clamour and complaints return to us every week."
Glyn, the Recorder, forced to resign. 25 Aug., 1649.
On the 25th August Glyn, the city's Recorder, yielded to pressure and resigned his office. An attempt had been made in January, 1648, to get him to resign in favour of William Steele, but he managed to keep his place notwithstanding his being a prisoner and threatened with impeachment at the time. On the 9th August, 1649, the Court of Aldermen desired him to surrender his place on the ground that both law and the custom of the city demanded that the Recorder of the city should be an apprentice of the law and not a sergeant-at-law.[969] The plea was a shallow one, and Glyn declined to accede to their request, as being prejudicial to himself and as casting[pg 316] a slur upon his profession. This answer he made on the 18th August. Nevertheless by that day week he had thought better of it, and came into court and there "freely tendred" his resignation, which was accepted as "his own free voluntary act." The court voted him the sum of £300 in recognition of his past services and appointed William Steele in his place.[970]
Election of Foote, mayor, 29 Sept.
When Michaelmas-day, the day of election of a fresh mayor, arrived Andrews was not re-elected, to the disappointment of a large number of citizens, who petitioned the Common Council to enquire into the manner in which the elections had taken place. The court, whilst declaring that the election had been carried out according to custom, was willing to appoint a committee to search the City's Records with the view of getting more definite information as to the mode of such election, as well as to enquire into charges that had been publicly made against Sir John Wollaston in connection with the recent election. Andrews himself appears to have suffered no little disappointment, if we may judge from his not presiding at any Common Council or Court of Aldermen after the 9th October, leaving that duty to Foote, the lord mayor elect, as his locum tenens.[971]
The trial of John Lilburne at the Guildhall, 25-27 Oct., 1649.
A few days before Andrews quitted the mayoralty the Guildhall was the scene of one of those trials for which it is historically famous. On the 24th October[pg 317] (1649) John Lilburne was brought to trial for spreading seditious pamphlets. Parliament had shown every disposition to conciliate this impracticable reformer, but all its efforts had been futile. "Tell your masters from me," said he to a friend who visited him in the Tower, "that if it were possible for me now to choose, I had rather choose to live seven years under old King Charles's government (notwithstanding their beheading him as a tyrant for it) when it was at the worst before this parliament, than live one year under their present government that now rule; nay, let me tell you, if they go on with that tyranny they are in, they will make Prince Charles have friends enow not only to cry him up, but also really to fight for him to bring him into his father's throne."[972] His trial was at length forced on parliament by the injudicious publication of a pamphlet[973] calculated to excite discontent in the army, and a mutiny broke out in the garrison at Oxford so soon after the issue of this pamphlet that it was justly thought to have occasioned the outbreak. The country became flooded with seditious pamphlets to such an extent that an Act was passed for their suppression and for the better regulation of printing. The civic authorities and the Stationers' Company were especially admonished to see the provisions of the Act carried out.[974] What brought matters to a climax was the discovery that the Levellers were entering upon[pg 318] negotiations with Prince Charles, and thereupon the House resolved (11 Sept.) that Lilburne's trial should at once be proceeded with.[975] A special commission of Oyer and Terminer, presided over by Andrews, the outgoing Lord Mayor, and including the Recorder, the Common Sergeant and nine aldermen, was opened at the Guildhall on Wednesday, the 24th October. The trial lasted three days. Lilburne made a spirited defence, winding up with a solemn peroration in which he invoked God Almighty to guide and direct the jury "to do that which is just, and for His glory." His words sent a thrill of enthusiasm through the crowded hall, the audience with "an extraordinary great hum" giving vent to cries of "Amen! Amen!" in such a manner that Skippon, who was in attendance, deemed it advisable to send for more troops in case of disturbance. When in the end a verdict of acquittal was brought in, a wild scene followed. "The whole multitude in the hall, for joy of the prisoner's acquittal, gave such a loud and unanimous shout as is believed was never heard in Guildhall, which lasted for about half an hour without intermission." The judges turned pale from fear, but the prisoner at the bar, so far from displaying any excess of joy, remained unmoved and silent, and "rather more sad in his countenance than he was before."[976] He was conducted back to the Tower, whence he had been brought, amid the acclamations of the multitude. At night bonfires were lighted in his honour. The government made an attempt to detain him still in[pg 319] prison, but in about a fortnight the general discontent of the people and the intercession of friends procured his liberation.
Lilburne elected member of Common Council, 21 Dec., 1649.
Philip Chetwyn disfranchised and sent to Warwick Castle.
The citizens of London further testified their appreciation of this champion of liberty by electing him a member of their Common Council on St. Thomas's Day (21 Dec.), but upon the mayor and aldermen representing the case to parliament the House declared his election void by statute.[977] The matter, however, was compromised by Lilburne consenting to take the engagement "with a declaration of his own sense upon it."[978] Philip Chetwyn, a man somewhat of Lilburne's stamp, who had interested himself in Lilburne's election, was ordered by parliament to lose the freedom of the City, and was committed to Warwick Castle.[979]
Colonel Pride elected member of Common Council, 21 Dec.
Browne dismissed from parliament and his aldermanry, 4 Dec.
Colonel Pride, whose famous "purge" had reduced the House to a mere shadow of its former self, and who was elected a member of the Common Council on the same day as Lilburne, was allowed to take his seat without objection,[980] whilst Colonel John Fenton was declared by the House to be disabled from service as a Common Councilman. On the other hand, the royalist alderman, Major-General Browne, had to go, notwithstanding his past services to parliament and the army. According to the record of the votes of the House of Commons for the 4th December, 1649, preserved in the Journal of the Common Council, Browne was not only dismissed[pg 320] from parliament, but was also discharged and disabled from being an alderman of the city; but in the Journal of the House itself the latter resolution relating to his discharge from his aldermanry was subsequently erased, and a note subscribed to the effect that the vote was vacated by order of parliament made the 26th March, 1659.[981]
Expenses of mayor and sheriffs cut down, 11 Dec, 1649.
The late troubles had sadly depleted the city's Chamber as well as increased the number of the poor within the city's walls. It became necessary to appoint a committee (18 Sept., 1649) to examine the state of the city's finances. The result was that in the following December the Common Council resolved to cut down the table expenses of the mayor and sheriffs, which were found to have materially increased since they were last taken in hand in 1555.[982] Thenceforth it was to be unlawful for any mayor or sheriff to be served at dinner with more than one course; nor were they to have at any time "any more sundry dishes of meat at that one course, to a mess of ten or twelve persons, upon the Lord's day, Tuesday, Thursday or any ordinary festival day, than seaven, whether the same be hot or cold." One or two of the dishes might (if they pleased) be brought to the table hot "after the first five or six be served." On Monday, Wednesday, Friday or Saturday the course was to comprise not more than five sundry dishes of meat or six of fish, to be served in such order as they pleased. Hors d'œuvres, such as "brawne, callups with eggs, sallettes, broth, butter, cheese, eggs,[pg 321] herings, shrimps," and dishes "serveinge onely for settinge forth and furnisheinge the table at any of the said dinners or feasts and not there to be cutt or eaten," were not to be accounted among the dishes thus limited. Similar restrictions were placed upon the diet of the members of the household of the mayor and sheriffs, and no lord mayor or sheriff was to "make any feast" on entering or leaving office.[983]
The mayor and sheriffs no longer to sell places, 1649.
Hitherto the mayor and sheriffs for the time being had been accustomed to sell offices and places as they happened to become vacant and to use the money so obtained towards defraying the expenses of their own year of office. This was to be no longer allowed. They were henceforth to be content with the allowance made to them by the Common Council, viz., a monthly allowance of £208 6s. 8d. for the mayor, and a monthly allowance of £150 to each of the sheriffs.
Means for replenishing the City's Chamber.
A committee was at the same time appointed to manage and let to farm to the best advantage for the City a number of offices, including those of garbling, package and scavage, metage of grain, coal, salt and fruit, as well as all fines, issues, amerciaments and estreated recognisances under the greenwax. It was to have entire control over the City's new acquisition, Richmond Park, the timber of which it was empowered to sell (notwithstanding a proviso in the Act of Parliament to the contrary), as well as the woods of the manors of Middleham and Richmond, which formed part of the Royal Contract estate in[pg 322] Yorkshire. All sums of money thus raised were to be paid forthwith into the Chamber.[984]
Proposed postal system in order to raise money for the poor of the city, 18 Sept., 1649.
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
The City's petition to parliament, 16 Nov., 1649.
to lay a petition 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
Danger of a Quo Warranto against the City.
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[pg 323] 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
The City's post to Scotland a subject of complaint to parliament, 21 March, 1650.
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
Resolution of the House of Commons, 21 March, 1650.
attorney-general and of the Council of State, the Commons passed 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
The City's posts suppressed.
the City could proceed no further. A petition to parliament was drafted, but failed to get the approval of the Common Council, and the City posts were summarily suppressed.[992]
£4,000 to be raised to find work for the poor, 21 May, 1650.
In the meantime steps had been taken towards raising a fund from the inhabitants of the wards to[pg 324] enable the municipal 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 assessments.[994] A year ago (6 June, 1649) parliament had assisted the City with the sum of £1,000 towards the relief of the poor, and had consented to convey to the municipal 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]
Inhabitants of borough of Southwark desire incorporation. 4 Dec., 1649.
There was another matter of municipal 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[pg 325] December of that year they petitioned 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]
The City's answer, 21 May, 1650.
Early in the following year (28 Jan., 1650) the City presented a counter petition 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 petitioners 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 assuring 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 assistance of the inhabitants in asking the supreme authority of parliament to amend it. No defect,[pg 326] 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.
Letter from the Council of State to the mayor touching the City's Irish estate, 15 Feb., 1650.
The city and companies assert their rights to their Irish estates.
Cromwell had not been long in Ireland before the country began to assume 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 God's blessing been reduced to obedience. He understood that the City had or "pretended[pg 327] 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 assent of the companies, recommended that counsel should forthwith be instructed to assert 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]
Cromwell welcomed on return from Ireland, 31 May, 1650.
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[pg 328] in Scotland. No time was lost. On Wednesday, the 26th June, an Act was passed constituting 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 Saturday he set out for the North.
Cromwell in Scotland.
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-manœuvred 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.
Thanksgiving day for victory at Dunbar, 3 Sept., 1650.
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[pg 329] 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]
Review of city forces in Hyde Park. 22 Oct., 1650.
A few weeks later (22 Oct.) the city forces and those of Middlesex 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]
Resolution of Common Council on elections in Common Hall, 14 Oct., 1650.
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[pg 330] 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."
Act of Common Council touching elections in Common Hall, 4 Nov., 1651.
The matter was not allowed, however, to rest here. Petitions 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 passed 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]
Removal of royal statues, arms, etc., by order of the Council of State.
Although the kingly office as forming part of the Constitution 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 façade 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[pg 331] 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]
Letter of thanks from Cromwell to the mayor, read 7 March, 1651.
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]
Petition by the City against excessive taxation, 24 March, 1651.
To such an extent were they ground down by taxation (the city alone being assessed at a fifteenth of the whole kingdom) that a petition 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[pg 332] 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 petitioners 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 class of citizens to the suburbs of London, where houses were increasing, and where taxation was less than in the city.
Parliament authorises the raising of 4,000 horse, 8 April, 1651.
Before the House found time to take this petition 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 assent was[pg 333] 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]
The lord mayor's allowance cut down, 1651.
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 hitherto 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[pg 334] 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]
Matters of difference between the aldermen and the Common Council.
Ever since the passing 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]
The aldermen complain of encroachments by the Common Council, Oct.-Nov., 1651.
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[pg 335] mayor and sheriffs, and abolishing perquisites whereby the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs were rendered unable to fulfil their duties; (3) to the assumption 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 petitioned 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]
The mayor and aldermen refuse to withdraw from the Common Council, 3 Dec., 1651.
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]
The question of allowances to mayor and sheriffs still undetermined, 1652.
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[pg 336] 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]
Simon Edmonds elected mayor, but refuses to serve, Sept., 1652.
Discharged on fine of £600.
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]
The mayoralty of John Fowke, 1652-1653.
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 assault 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[pg 338] 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 petition. 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]
Numerous refusals to serve as sheriff.
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 passed against aldermen who had not already served as sheriff resigning their gowns for the purpose of avoiding service.[1051]
The Scottish army enters England, Aug., 1651.
Notwithstanding Leslie's defeat at Dunbar, there still remained a strong royalist army in Scotland, which, in August of the following year, was pushed on into England with the hope of raising an insurrection in[pg 339] favour of Charles before Cromwell could overtake it. As soon as this sudden movement became known Cromwell wrote (4 Aug.) to parliament to gather a force together with all possible speed to hold the enemy in check until his arrival.[1052]
Measures taken by parliament, Aug., 1651.
The House at once (11 Aug.) communicated with the Common Council, who pledged themselves, with God's grace, to adventure their lives and estates, and to use their best endeavours in the defence of parliament and the Commonwealth against the king of Scotland and all who should invade England on his behalf.[1053] The City's Records are again provokingly meagre at this period, yielding us but scanty information on matters which must have deeply affected the citizens in general. From other sources, however, we learn that three regiments of volunteers were formed in London and its suburbs for the special purpose of serving as a guard to parliament. The powers of the Committee for the Militia of the City were enlarged, and the number of members increased by fifteen individuals, among whom was Lieutenant-Colonel John Fenton, who had been removed from the Common Council by order of parliament. The militia throughout the country was called out, and a month's pay ordered to be advanced by "each person who finds horsemen or footmen," the same to be repaid by assessments authorised by[pg 340] parliament. Anyone joining the Scottish army or inducing others to join, anyone found with papers or declarations of the Scottish king in his hands, or discovered inciting to a breach of the peace, was declared to be a traitor, and as such would be executed. Within the late lines of communication strict supervision was to be kept over all houses. Lodgers' names were to be taken and registered; servants and children were to be allowed out of doors only at certain hours. The execution of these and similar orders was entrusted to the lord mayor and the rest of the Committee for the Militia of the City in conjunction with the Commissioners for the Militia of Westminster, the Hamlets and Southwark, who were required to meet and sit daily for the purpose. A troop of horse was to be forthwith despatched to meet the invaders, the men to be mounted on horses lately seized in London and its neighbourhood, the proprietors of which were to receive tickets for payment of their value in case any of them should be "lost or spoiled."[1054]
A letter from Charles to the City to be burnt by the common hangman, 25 Aug.
On the 25th August a letter (dated 16 Aug.) from Charles, addressed "to our trusty and well-beloved the lord mayor, aldermen and sheriffs of our city of London," was read before parliament. The character of the letter was such that the House ordered it to be publicly burnt by the common hangman at the Exchange on the following day.[1055] A copy of it was afterwards burnt (2 Sept.) at the head of every regiment of the trained bands on the[pg 341] occasion of a muster in Finsbury Fields in the presence of Lenthall, the Speaker, the lord mayor and the sheriffs, amid shouts and acclamations.[1056] On the same day Charles, who had recently (22 Aug.) set up his standard at Worcester, and all his aiders and abettors were denounced by parliament as rebels and traitors.
Battle of Worcester, 3 Sept., 1651.
On the evening of Wednesday, the 3rd September—the anniversary of his victory at Dunbar Cromwell made himself master of Worcester after "as stiff a contest for four or five hours" as he declared himself ever to have seen;[1057] and Charles was driven forth to wander up and down the country with a price put on his capture,[1058] until, by the aid of still faithful friends, he managed to slip over to France. A day for solemn humiliation (23 Sept.), as well as a day for public thanksgiving (2 Oct., afterwards changed to 24 Oct.) was set aside by parliament for deliverance from threatened danger,[1059] whilst the City not only appointed a day for thanksgiving (16 Oct.) for the "several victories" obtained by the parliamentary forces, but kept the anniversary of the battle of Worcester by performing "the exercise of that day in Laurance Church."[1060]
Scottish prisoners brought to London.
For some days following the battle of Worcester the streets of the city were filled with Scottish prisoners of every degree passing on their way to the Tower or to the new artillery ground at Tothill[pg 342] Fields. Among those conveyed to the Tower were the Earls of Cleveland and Lauderdale. As they passed along Cornhill in their coaches, with a guard of horse, the Earl of Lauderdale was addressed by a by-stander—"Oh, my lord, you are welcome to London! I protest, off goes your head as round as a hoop!"[1061] The ill-timed jest, which the earl passed off with a laugh, was wanting in fulfilment, for he lived to witness the Restoration and to earn the universal hatred of his countrymen.
Cromwell's reception in London on his return from Worcester, 12 Sept., 1651.
On Friday, the 12th September, Cromwell himself reached London, being brought on his way by the Speaker, the Lord President and many members of parliament and Council of State, as well as by the lord mayor, sheriffs and aldermen of the city, amid shoutings and vollies of ordnance and muskets. The modesty and affability of the Lord General was much marked. Of the part he had himself taken in the battle of Worcester he seldom made mention, but of the gallantry of the officers and soldiers he was full of praise, "and gave (as was due) all the glory of the action unto God." On the 16th he and his companions in arms received the thanks of the House, and were afterwards entertained by the City.[1062] Cromwell's sword was now sheathed never to be drawn by him again; the rest of his life was devoted to work requiring weapons of a different kind.