CHAPTER XXX.
A re-action in favour of the court party, July, 1681.
The country seemed to be on the verge of another civil war. A re-action, however, in favour of the king set in. The nation began to view the situation more dispassionately and to entertain serious doubts whether parliament had acted rightly in pushing matters to such an extremity. The religious question after all might not be so important or so fraught with danger as they had been led to believe by professional informers. Addresses of the type of those presented by the lieutenancy of London and the borough of Southwark, among them being one signed by over twenty thousand apprentices of the city,[1453] began to flow in; and proceedings were commenced against Protestants on no better evidence than had previously been used against Catholics.
Proceedings against College.
Among the first against whom proceedings were taken was a Londoner named Stephen College, a joiner by trade, who from his zeal in the cause of religion came to be known as the "Protestant joiner." An attempt to get a true bill returned against him at the Old Bailey, where the juries were empanelled by[pg 468] the sheriffs of London and Middlesex, having failed, he was removed to Oxford and tried there on a charge of high treason. After much hard swearing a verdict was at length obtained.[1454]
Proceedings against the Earl of Shaftesbury, July-Nov., 1681.
Having secured the conviction of College the council flew at higher game in the person of the Earl of Shaftesbury. He was arrested at his house in Aldersgate Street on the 2nd July, but it was not until November that a bill of high treason was preferred against him at the Old Bailey. The nomination of juries practically rested with the sheriffs, and the court party had recently endeavoured to force the election of candidates of their own political complexion. In this they had failed, although in December last the king had endeavoured to change the character of city juries by ordering the mayor (Sir Patience Ward) to issue his precept to the Aldermen to see that none were returned by their wards for service on juries "of inferior degree than a subsidy man."[1455] The sheriffs for the year, Thomas Pilkington and Samuel Shute, who were zealous Whigs, took care to empanel a grand jury which would be inclined to ignore the bill against the earl, and under these circumstances the bill was thrown out (24 Nov.).[1456]
The manner of election of sheriffs.
The failure of the court party to obtain a conviction of Shaftesbury owing to the political bias of the sheriffs for the time being, determined them to resort to more drastic measures to obtain the election of candidates with Tory proclivities. In order to understand the[pg 469] method pursued it will be necessary to review briefly the manner in which the election of sheriffs had from time to time been carried out.
Attempt to restrict the number of electors in the 14th century.
From the earliest times of which we have any city record until the commencement of the 14th century it had been the custom for the sheriffs of London and Middlesex to be elected by the mayor, aldermen and "the good men of the city" or "commonalty." But a custom sprang up in 1301 of summoning twelve men only from each ward to take part with the mayor and aldermen in such elections,[1457] a custom which found little favour with the bulk of the inhabitants of the city, who insisted upon being present and taking part in the proceedings. An attempt was made by the civic authorities in 1313 to put a stop to the noise and confusion resulting from the presence of such vast numbers at the Guildhall by an order providing that thenceforth only the best men from each ward should be summoned to take part in the elections, and two years later (4 July, 1315) this order was enforced by royal proclamation.[1458] Nevertheless the practice of summoning representatives from the wards was soon dropt, and for more than thirty years the sheriffs continued to be elected by the mayor, aldermen and the "whole commonalty." Another attempt (made under Brembre in 1384) to restrict the number of the commonalty to "so many and such of them as should seem needful for the time" (tantz et tieux come lour semble busoignable pur le temps)[1459] was not more successful.
The mayor's claim to elect one of the sheriffs.
In 1347 we meet for the first time with a new method of procedure. In that year one of the sheriffs was elected by the mayor and the other by the commonalty;[1460] and this prerogative of the mayor for the time being to elect one of the sheriffs continued to be exercised with few (if any) exceptions down to 1638. Neither in 1639 nor in the following year was the prerogative exercised. In 1641 the mayor attempted to exercise it, but through some negligence on his part was declared by the House of Commons to have forfeited his right, and the election of both sheriffs devolved, pro hac vice, upon the commonalty.[1461]
The mayor's prerogative, 1642-1662.
From 1642 to 1651 the mayor for the time being exercised his prerogative in electing as well as nominating one of the sheriffs, but the commonalty always challenged his right to elect, although they paid the mayor the compliment of electing his nominee to serve with the sheriff of their own choice. From 1652 to 1660 (or 1661[1462]?) the mayor did not attempt to exercise a right either of electing or nominating one of the sheriffs, but in 1662, when the mayor would have elected as well as nominated Thomas Bludworth as sheriff, the commonalty claimed their rights. Bludworth was eventually returned together with Sir William Turner.[1463]
Appointment of committee of enquiry, 1674.
In the following year (1663) the prerogative exercised by the mayor passed unchallenged, and so[pg 471] continued until 1674, when, objection being raised,[1464] the Common Council appointed a committee "to consider of the matters in difference and now long debated in this court between ye right honorable ye lord maior and commons of this citty concerneing the eleccon of one of ye sheriffes and to finde out some expedient for ye reconciling ye same."[1465]
Custom of the mayor drinking to a future sheriff, 1674.
We now read for the first time in the City's Records of a custom in connection with the election of sheriffs (although that custom is said to have arisen in the reign of Elizabeth),[1466] namely, the nomination or election of a sheriff by the mayor drinking to an individual at a public banquet. It appears that the lord mayor had recently drunk to William Roberts, citizen and vintner, thereby intimating that it was his lordship's wish that Roberts should be one of the sheriffs for the year ensuing. The commons objected to the mayor thus exercising his prerogative, whilst the aldermen were no less determined to support him.[1467] The committee to whom the matter was referred suggested a compromise, namely, that Roberts should be bound over to take upon himself the office if within the next two or three years he should be either drunk to by the mayor or elected by the commons to be sheriff; and that, further, an Act of Common Council should be forthwith made for settling the shrievalty and all matters connected with it.[1468]
The mayor's prerogative unchallenged, 1675-1679.
No Act of Common Council appears to have been passed pursuant to the committee's recommendation, but in the following year (1675) and down to 1679 the mayor exercised his full prerogative of electing one of the sheriffs without opposition, although the person so elected did not always undertake the office.
Election of Bethell and Cornish Sheriffs, 24 June, 1680.
On Midsummer-day, 1680, the mayor elected George Hockenhall, citizen and grocer, to be one of the sheriffs, but Hockenhall refused to serve and was discharged on his entering into a bond for the payment of £400. The commons thereupon stept in and elected Slingsby Bethell, leatherseller, and Henry Cornish, haberdasher.[1469] At this juncture political influence was brought to bear upon the elections. Bethell was particularly an object of aversion to the court party. He is reported to have declared himself ready to have acted as executioner of the late king if no one else could be found for the job,[1470] and to have made himself obnoxious in other ways. With Cornish little fault could at present be found. Objection was raised to both these gentlemen acting as sheriffs, on the ground that they had not taken the oath or received the sacrament as prescribed by law, and another election demanded. Before this second election took place (14 July) they had qualified themselves according to the Corporation Act.[1471] The mayor did not claim his prerogative on this occasion. Bethell and Cornish[pg 473] were put up again for office, and against them two others, Ralph Box, grocer, and Humphrey Nicholson, merchant taylor, who, although nominated like Bethell and Cornish by the commonalty, were in reality candidates put forward by the court party.[1472] Bethell and Cornish having been again declared elected, a poll was demanded, which lasted several days. At its close it was found that Cornish was at the head with 2,483 votes, Bethell next with 2,276, whilst Box and Nicholson followed with 1,428 and 1,230 votes respectively.[1473]
The character of the new Sheriffs.
The two first named were declared (29 July) duly elected. Bethell has been described as a "sullen and wilful man," a republican at heart and one that "turned from the ordinary way of a sheriff's living into the extreme of sordidness." Cornish on the other hand was "a plain, warm, honest man and lived very nobly all his year."[1474] It was doubtless Bethell's proposal that the customary dinner to the aldermen on the day the new sheriffs were sworn in should be omitted. If so, Cornish had to give way to the parsimonious whim of his fellow sheriff. "What an obstinate man he was!" remarked Cornish of him, when brought to trial five years later.[1475] The aldermen refused to accompany the sheriffs to the Guildhall unless they were invited to dinner.[1476]
Election of Pilkington and Shute sheriffs, 24 June, 1681.
In the following year (1681) two other sheriffs of the same political character, viz., Pilkington and Shute, were elected over the heads of the same court[pg 474] candidates that had stood the previous year, the defeat of the latter being still more pronounced.[1477]
The king signifies his displeasure.
The king did not attempt to conceal his displeasure at the City's proceedings, and when the recorder and the sheriffs came to invite him to dinner on lord mayor's day,[1478] made the following answer:—"Mr. Recorder, an invitation from my lord mayor and the city is very acceptable to me, and to show that it is so, notwithstanding that it is brought by messengers that are so unwelcome to me as these two sheriffs are, yet I accept it."[1479]
Thanks of the Common Hall to the late sheriffs, 27 June, 1681.
The outgoing sheriffs were presented (27 June) with an address[1480] from the citizens assembled in Common Hall thanking them for their faithful discharge of their office of trust and complimenting them more especially upon their successful efforts to maintain and assert the undoubted rights and privileges of the citizens and their "continual provision of faithful and able juries." The address concluded with thanks to them for their despatch in carrying out the recent "unnecessary" poll in connection with the[pg 475] election of new sheriffs, and not delaying the matter by troublesome adjournments.
The mayor desired to present an address to the king, 27 June, 1681.
Opportunity was also taken of thanking the lord mayor (Sir Patience Ward) and the members of the Common Council for presenting the recent address to his majesty praying him to confide in parliament,[1481] and desired his lordship to assure his majesty that the address reflected the true feeling and desires of all his loyal subjects there assembled in Common Hall, notwithstanding rumours to the contrary. They also desired to join in the vote of thanks which the Common Council had passed to the city members sitting in the last parliament for their faithful services.
Address to the king, 7 July.
It required some courage for the mayor to again face the king and his chancellor and to run the risk of another rebuff. Nevertheless, on Thursday, the 7th July, the mayor went to Hampton Court, attended by Sir Robert Clayton, Sir John Shorter and others, as well as by the sheriffs Bethell and Cornish (the new sheriffs not coming into office until September), to present to the king in council another address from the Common Hall. It was received with no more favour than the last. The chancellor affected to believe that it was but the address of a faction in the city, and not the unanimous vote of the citizens at large. "The king takes notice there are no aldermen," he said, whilst Alderman Clayton and Alderman Shorter were at his elbow! In fine they were again told to mind their own business.[1482]
Sir John Moore elected mayor, Sept., 1681.
Although the court party had twice signally failed to obtain the appointment of sheriffs who should be amenable to its control, they were fortunate in having an adherent in the mayor elected on Michaelmas-day to succeed Sir Patience Ward. The senior alderman who had not already passed the chair happened to be Sir John Moore. It does not often occur that in the choice of a mayor the Common Hall passes over the senior alderman who is both capable and willing to take upon himself the office; but there was some chance of it doing so in this case, inasmuch as Sir John Moore had rendered himself unpopular with a large section of citizens by presenting an address of thanks to the king for the declaration which his majesty had published in defence of his having dissolved parliament.[1483] Two aldermen, Sir John Shorter and Thomas Gold, were nominated with Moore for the office. A poll was demanded, with the result that Moore was elected by a majority of nearly 300 votes over his opponents.[1484] On his being presented (7 Oct.) to the lord chancellor for the king's approbation, he was told that his majesty experienced much satisfaction at the choice of so loyal and worthy a magistrate.[1485] Three days before (4 Oct.) the Court of Aldermen nominated a committee to take informations concerning the scandalous remarks that had been made against him in Common Hall on the day of his election.[1486]
Issue of a Quo Warranto, Jan., 1682.
Not content with this success, the king's advisers determined upon bringing the City to book for its[pg 477] recent attitude in the election of sheriffs. The anomaly by which the citizens of London enjoyed the right of electing their own sheriffs, as they had done with short intermissions for the past 500 years, whilst in nearly every county of the kingdom the sheriffs were nominated by the king, must be abolished. A writ in the nature of a Quo Warranto was accordingly issued to the sheriffs in January, 1682, calling upon them to summon the mayor and commonalty and citizens of the city to appear in his majesty's court of King's Bench to answer by what warrant they claimed divers liberties, franchises and privileges of which the writ declared they were impeached.[1487]
A committee appointed to take steps for the City's defence, 18 Jan., 1682.
Notification of service of the writ was formally made to the Common Council on the 18th January. The council showed no signs of dismay; they scarcely realized, perhaps, at the outset the true significance of the writ or the consequence it was likely to entail. They had no cause to think that the mayor, commonalty and citizens had usurped any liberties, franchises or privileges without due warrant or had abused any to which they had lawful title. One thing was plain. It was their duty to maintain the rights of the City. They therefore appointed a committee to consult with counsel learned in the law, and prepare a defence such as they might be advised to make, and ordered the Chamberlain to[pg 478] disburse such sums of money as might be required for the purpose.[1488]
Rival factions touching election of sheriffs.
More than a twelvemonth was taken up in preparing the long and technical pleadings[1489] preliminary to trial, and in the meantime another severe struggle took place in assertion of the right claimed by the citizens to elect both their sheriffs. The citizens ranged themselves in separate factions, the Whig party under sheriff Pilkington, the Tories under the mayor. Each leader entertained his supporters at dinner.[1490] There was to have been a banquet held on the 21st April at Haberdashers' Hall, at which the Duke of Monmouth, Lord Shaftesbury and others of the Whig party were to have been present, but the proposal getting wind, the mayor was strictly enjoined by the Privy Council to prevent it as being a seditious meeting and tending to create factions among the king's subjects.[1491]
The Duke of York and Sheriff Pilkington, June, 1682.
The Duke of York, who had for some time past resided in Scotland, had not increased in favour with the citizens of London. It is true that the mayor and aldermen of the city paid their respects to his highness (10 April, 1682) at St. James's Palace, on his return from the north, after paying a similar visit to the king, who had recently returned to Whitehall from Newmarket;[1492] but a proposal to offer[pg 479] an address to the duke praying him to reside in London found but little response in the Court of Aldermen, and was allowed to drop.[1493] It was not so long ago that his picture hanging in the Guildhall was found to have been mutilated, an offer of £500 for the discovery of the perpetrator of the outrage being without effect.[1494] Just when Pilkington was about to lay down his office of sheriff the duke entered an action against him for slander, claiming damages to the extent of £50,000. For a time he managed to escape service of the writ,[1495] but if he was not served before, his presence in the Common Hall on Midsummer-day for the election of new sheriffs afforded ample opportunity to serve him then.
The election of sheriffs, 24 June, 1682.
This election is one of the most remarkable elections in the City's annals. The royalist mayor, Sir John Moore, having previously drunk to Dudley North at a banquet at the Bridge House (18 May), thereby intimating that he nominated North as one of the sheriffs for the year ensuing, according to custom, had issued his precept to the several companies (19 June) to meet in Common Hall for the purpose of confirming his nomination and electing another sheriff to serve with his nominee.[1496] This form of precept was objected to, and when the Common Cryer called upon the livery assembled in Common Hall to appear for the "confirmation" of North, he was met with cries of "No confirmation! No confirmation!"[pg 480] and the rest of his proclamation was drowned in uproar. "Thereupon," runs the City's Record,[1497] "Thomas Papillon, esq., mercer, John Du Bois, weaver, and Ralph Box, grocer, citizens of London (together with the said Dudley North, so as aforesaid elected by the lord mayor), were nominated by the commonalty, that two of them by the said commonalty might be chosen into the office of sheriffs of the city of London and county of Middlesex." The Common Sergeant having declared Papillon and Du Bois duly elected, a poll was demanded. This was granted and proceeded with until seven o'clock in the evening, when the meeting was adjourned by the mayor until the 27th. The outgoing sheriffs (Pilkington and Shute), however, disregarded the mayor's order for adjournment and continued the poll for some time longer, but at last adjourned the meeting to the day fixed by the mayor.
Pilkington and Shute committed to the Tower, 26 June, 1682.
A fresh question thus arose, namely, whether the right of adjourning a Common Hall was vested in the mayor for the time being or in the sheriffs. Sir John Moore reported the conduct of Pilkington and Shute to the king's council, with the result that before the 27th day of June arrived they were both committed to the Tower. They were afterwards admitted to bail.[1498]
Further adjournment of Common Hall to the 5 July.
Again adjourned to 7 July, 1682.
Papillon and Du Bois declared elected.
In the meantime the Common Hall had been adjourned by the mayor from the 27th June to the 5th July. On the latter day the sheriffs duly appeared on the husting, but the mayor being absent[pg 481] through indisposition, the Recorder declared his lordship's order that a further adjournment should take place until the 7th July. The sheriffs again interposed and asked the Common Hall if it was their wish that an adjournment should take place, and the answer being in the negative they proceeded to finish the poll, with the result that Papillon and Du Bois were again declared elected by a large majority. Orders having been given to the Town Clerk to place their proceedings on record, the Common Hall broke up.[1499]
Counsel's opinion as to right of adjourning Common Hall.
On the 7th the mayor and aldermen appeared in the Guildhall prepared to proceed with the poll, ignoring all that had taken place two days before. The Hall was very crowded, and soon debate arose as to whom belonged the right of adjournment. The opinion of counsel was taken by both parties then and there,[1500] but with little practical result, and the lord mayor further adjourned the Hall until that day week (14 July).
A fresh election ordered.
In the meanwhile several aldermen and citizens waited on his majesty in council, and gave him an[pg 482] account of the late proceedings, with the result that an order was sent to the mayor to hold a new election, the last being declared irregular.[1501]
The City's account of proceedings of Common Hall, 14 July, 1682.
The City's own account of what took place at the Common Hall on the 14th is thus recorded. After the order for a new election had been read, "relation was ... de novo made that Dudley North, esq., citizen and mercer of London, was elected by the mayor by his prerogative, according to the custom, into the office of one of the sheriffs of the city of London and county of Middlesex for the year ensuing, that another might be associated to him by the commonalty. And upon this, after declaration made that the said Dudley North was confirmed and Thomas Papillon, esq., citizen and mercer of London, was chosen sheriffs, certain of the commons demanded that it might be decided by the voices of the commons between the said Dudley North and Thomas Papillon and John Du Bois, weaver, and Ralph Box, grocer (named also by the commonalty), that the two of those four who should have the most voices might be the sheriffs elected for the city of London and county of Middlesex for the year ensuing. Whereupon the sheriffs and other officers of the city in the accustomed manner went into the upper chamber, where declaration of the premisses was made by the common sergeant to the mayor and aldermen there sitting; which said mayor and aldermen, the relation aforesaid well weighing, did declare the said Dudley North to be rightly and duly elected and confirmed according to[pg 483] the law and custom of the said city, and immediately came down upon the place where the Court of Hustings is usually held, and there, in their presence and by their command, the said Dudley North was solemnly called to come forth and give his consent to take upon him the said office.[1502] And the said lord mayor did then direct that the poll should be taken only for the said Thomas Papillon, John Du Bois and Ralph Box, by certain persons thereunto particularly appointed by the said lord mayor, that one of those three who had the most voices might be associated to the said Dudley North. And afterwards the said mayor and aldermen departed out of the hall. And the poll for the said three persons last named was immediately begun, and continued until the evening of that day. And then the said congregation was, by order of the lord mayor, adjourned until the next day, being Saturday, the 15th of July aforesaid, at 9 o'clock in the afternoon [sic.]. At which day the said poll being continued was in the afternoon of that day finished. And thereupon relation was made by the common sergeant to the mayor and aldermen that upon the poll taken by the severall persons appointed by the said lord mayor as aforesaid, there were 60 voices for Mr. Papillon, 60 voices for Mr. Du Bois, and 1,244 voices for Mr. Box. By which it appeared that the said Ralph Box had the most voices, and so was elected into the office of one of the sheriffs of the city of London and county of Middlesex for the year ensuing. And the same in the afternoon was so declared by the common[pg 484] sergeant to the commons then and there assembled, which said election of the said Ralph Box was by the aforesaid mayor, aldermen and commonalty ratified and confirmed. And thereupon, according to the form and effect of the Act of Common Council in that case made and provided, publication thereof by proclamation being then made in the place where the Hustings Court is usually held in the presence of the said lord mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, the said Ralph Box was then and there solemnly called, etc."
Very different is the account of the proceedings as given us in a tract of the day.[1503] From the latter we learn that a separate poll was opened the same day by the sheriffs, in which all four candidates were submitted to the choice of the citizens, and the result of which was declared by Sheriff Pilkington on the 15th, prior to the mayor's declaration. According to this poll, Papillon and Du Bois were again returned at the head with 2,487 and 2,481 votes respectively. There were only 107 in favour of confirming North's election, whilst 2,414 gave their votes against it. Box found himself with only 173 supporters. It was after the declaration of this result that the mayor ordered the common sergeant to declare the result of the other poll, but the declaration of the large number of votes alleged to have been given in favour of Box caused so much uproar that he could proceed no further. The mayor and aldermen thereupon left the hall, and Papillon and Du Bois were declared by the sheriffs duly elected.
Petitions for Papillon and Du Bois to be called upon to take office, July, 1682.
It was expected that Box would attend before the next Court of Aldermen to be held on the 18th July to give bond for holding office as North had already done, but he failed to appear. A petition, therefore, was presented to the court praying that as Papillon and Du Bois had been elected sheriffs the court should call them forth according to custom. The mayor being advised to postpone giving an answer, another petition to the same effect was presented at the next court (20 July), whilst yet a third prayed that a caveat might be entered against North and Box being admitted and sworn sheriffs. The mayor was again advised to take time to consider his answer.[1504]
The mayor's unsatisfactory reply, 27 July.
A week later (27 July) the mayor made the following reply to the petitioners, by advice of the court:—"Gentlemen, this court hath considered of your petition, and will take care that such persons shall take the office of sheriffs upon them as are duly elected according to law and the ancient customs of this city; and in this and all other things this court will endeavour to maintain the rights and privileges of the chair and of the whole city; and wherein you think that we do otherwise the law must judge between us."[1505] This was little to the liking of the petitioners, who complained that it was no answer to their petition; but they were summarily dismissed.[1506]
Box discharged sheriff, 5 Sept.
Thus the matter was allowed to rest until the 5th September, when the Court of Aldermen were[pg 486] again prayed that Papillon and Du Bois might be called upon to enter into bond according to custom. The only answer returned was that Box, who in the opinion of the court had been duly elected one of the sheriffs, had been discharged from service on payment of a fine, and that another election would shortly take place. Thereupon murmurs arose. There had been too many Common Halls already over this affair, cried some, and their choice of sheriffs had been made. The mayor bade them begone in the king's name, or they would be looked upon as tumultuous.[1507]
More petitions to the Court of Aldermen, 12, 14 Sept.
The court sat again on the 12th September, when, we are told, a petition similar to those before presented being again brought forward, a debate arose which occasioned some sharp words, and the mayor ordered the sword to be taken up and so dissolved the court; but nothing of this is recorded in the minutes of the court.[1508] Two days later (14 Sept.), several petitions were presented to the court, one being from the free-holders of Middlesex.[1509] To these the same reply was made as had been given to the petitioners of the 27th July. The petitioners were further told that it was the mayor's intention to call a Common Hall on Tuesday, the 19th September, to elect one to serve in the place of Box.[1510]
Proceedings of Common Hall, 19 Sept.
Peter Rich a candidate loco Box.
When that day arrived and the common sergeant, acting on instructions from the mayor, put forward the name of Peter Rich, there arose repeatedly the cry of[pg 487] "No Rich!" and such a din followed, the citizens declaring loudly that they would stand by their old choice, that nothing else could be heard. At length the sheriffs were given to understand that a poll was demanded. The mayor hearing of the proposed poll thereupon came on to the hustings and declared Rich to be duly elected. The whole business was carried on in dumb show, it being impossible to hear anything that was said. Having done this, the mayor dissolved the Common Hall and went home. The sheriff proceeded nevertheless to open the poll in the afternoon, with the result that 2,082 votes were found in favour of standing by their old choice, whilst only thirty-five were for Rich. Hearing that the mayor was returning, the sheriffs made a hurried declaration of the result of the poll, proclaiming Papillon and Du Bois to have been again elected, and dismissed the assembly. The mayor on his arrival caused the gates of the Guildhall to be closed. Such is the account of what took place on the 19th September, as given by the diarist of the day.[1511] The City's Journal merely records in the briefest manner possible the election of Rich.[1512]
Pilkington and Shute to appear before the King's Bench, 20 Sept., 1682.
The next day (20 Sept.) the lord mayor and a deputation of aldermen waited on the king at Whitehall, and informed him of what had taken place. A council was thereupon summoned for that afternoon, which the sheriffs were ordered to attend. Upon their appearance they were told that they had behaved in a riotous manner, and must answer for their conduct before the King's Bench. They were accordingly[pg 488] made to enter into their own recognisances severally for £1,000, besides finding other security.[1513]
Rich enters into bond to take office, 26 Sept., 1682.
On the 26th, when Rich was called before the Court of Aldermen to enter into bond to take office, a paper was handed to the court desiring that Papillon and Du Bois might be called to the shrievalty, but it was to no purpose. The same answer was returned as on previous occasions.[1514]
North and Rich sworn into office, 28 Sept.
Two days later (28 Sept.) Rich and North were sworn into office amid a great concourse of citizens at the Guildhall, the entrance to which was strongly guarded by a company of trained bands in case of disturbance. When the oath was about to be administered to them a protest was made by Papillon and Du Bois, who attempted to get possession of the book; but upon the lord mayor commanding them in the king's name to depart and keep the peace, they left the hall and with them went several of the aldermen who were their supporters. The new sheriffs entertained the mayor and aldermen, according to custom, at Grocers' Hall, Rich being a member of that company.[1515] Rich subsequently applied for and was allowed the sum of £100 out of the fine of £400 paid into the Chamber by Box.[1516] The election which had been so long and so hotly contested thus ended in a complete victory for the court party.
The Mercers' Company and Sheriff North.
It was the custom in those days, as it is now, for members of the livery company or companies to which a newly-elected sheriff belonged to accompany[pg 489] him to the Guildhall on the occasion of his entering upon his office. Dudley North, being a member of the Mercers' Company, had desired the officers of the company and several of the livery to pay him this compliment, but after considering the matter the court of the company passed a resolution to the effect that neither officers nor members should attend him on pain of being expelled from the company, but that they should accompany Papillon to the hall and present him to be sworn as one of the sheriffs.[1517]
Sworn information of Henry Cornish as to what took place in the Guildhall, 28 Sept., 1682.
Cornish attended the ceremony at the Guildhall, and afterwards (2 Oct.) swore an information before Sir William Turner,[1518] a brother alderman, of the treatment he had received at the hands of the soldiers present. The information was to the effect that when he and several other aldermen entered the hall about nine o'clock in the morning they found a guard of soldiers placed at the hall door, and another drawn up before the hustings, "who were presently commanded by their officer to stand to their armes." After a short stay in the Council Chamber they returned into the hall to meet the lord mayor, and for a quarter of an hour walked up and down the hall "betweene the clock-house and the doore wch leads up to the Hustings Court on the north side of the hall." Hitherto they had met with no opposition from the soldiers, but now they were accosted by Lieutenant-Colonel Quiney, the officer in command, who desired "they would give him noe disturbance." To this they replied that "they would[pg 490] give him none and expected alsoe not to bee themselves disturbed by anie in that place." Quiney thereupon left, but soon after returned and told them he had orders from the lieutenancy to clear the hall. He was asked to produce the order, and if it were found to include aldermen of the city Cornish and his friends would obey. The order was not forthcoming; it was with the major, said Quiney, who soon afterwards formed up his men and, again addressing Cornish and the other aldermen, peremptorily required them to withdraw or he would expel them by force. Cornish again demanded to see the order, but the officer forthwith laid hands on him and thrust him out, declaring that he would abide by the order of the lieutenancy, who were his masters. So ends Cornish's information. Proceedings were subsequently taken against Quiney for keeping persons that were liverymen out of the Guildhall and offering abuse to others.[1519]
Election of Pritchard, mayor, loco Moore, Sept., 1682.
The next day being Michaelmas-day a Common Hall met to elect a mayor for the ensuing year in the place of Sir John Moore.[1520] Four aldermen were nominated as candidates, viz., Sir William Pritchard, the senior alderman below the chair, Sir Henry Tulse, Sir Thomas Gold and Henry Cornish. The common sergeant having declared that the choice of the citizens lay between Pritchard and Gold, a poll was demanded and allowed, the result of which was[pg 491] declared (4 Oct.) to be as follows:—Gold 2,289, Cornish 2,259, Pritchard 2,233 and Tulse 236.[1521]
This result seems to have satisfied no one, and a scrutiny was asked for in order that the poll books might be compared with the lists of liverymen of the several companies. It was discovered that certain members of the livery of the Merchant Taylors' and other companies had recorded their votes although they had not taken the liveryman's oath prescribed by such companies. The question of the legality of such votes being submitted to the Court of Aldermen, that body decided (24 Oct.) against the voters.[1522] The election was watched with anxious interest. Pritchard, himself a Merchant Taylor, was known to be of the same political mind as the out-going mayor, and it was the common belief at the time that if the majority of votes should prove to be in favour of Gold or Cornish, who were of the Whig party, the king would interpose and continue Sir John Moore in office for another year.[1523] His majesty had recently been amusing himself at Newmarket, but he had been kept posted up in city news, and immediately after his return to Whitehall was waited on by the mayor and aldermen (22 Oct.) and informed of the state of affairs. The result of the scrutiny, according to the paper submitted to the Court of Aldermen, was still in favour of Gold and Cornish, but according to the return made by the mayor[1524] (25 Oct.) Pritchard[pg 492] was placed at the head of the poll with 2,138 votes, as against 2,124 for Gold, 2,093 for Cornish and 236 for Tulse. The first two named were therefore presented to the Court of Aldermen for them to choose one to be mayor according to custom, and their choice falling upon Pritchard he was declared elected, and on the following feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.) was admitted and sworn.
A mandamus to swear in Gold or Cornish refused.
A motion was afterwards made (24 Nov.) for a mandamus directing the mayor and aldermen to swear Gold or Cornish as duly elected mayor of London, but nothing came of it.[1525]
The Duke of York's action against Pilkington for slander, 24 Nov., 1682.
The time was thought opportune by the Duke of York for prosecuting his action for slander against Pilkington commenced in June last. The words complained of, and for which the duke claimed damages to the extent of £50,000, were declared on the oath of two aldermen—Sir Henry Tulse and Sir William Hooker—to have been spoken by him at a Court of Aldermen at a time when that body was about to visit the duke to congratulate him upon his return from Scotland, and were to the effect that the duke had burnt the city and was then coming to cut their throats. That the words, if spoken—a question open to much doubt—were scandalous to a degree cannot be denied, but the claim for damages was none the less vindictive. Instead of laying his action in London the duke caused his action to be tried by a jury of the county of Hertford (24 Nov.). Pilkington made very little defence (he probably thought it useless), and the jury awarded the duke the full[pg 493] amount of damages claimed. The ex-sheriff was of course ruined; he surrendered himself into custody[1526] and gave up his aldermanry, in which he was succeeded by Dudley North, the sheriff.[1527]
Pilkington and others fined for disturbance last Midsummer-day, 16 Feb., 1683.
Still he was not allowed to rest. In the following February (16 Feb., 1683) he and his late colleague in the shrievalty, Samuel Shute, together with Lord Grey of Wark, Alderman Cornish, Sir Thomas Player, the city chamberlain (who had recently been called to account for moneys received), Slingsby Bethell, and others were brought to trial for the disturbance that had taken place last Midsummer-day. The trial was opened at the Guildhall on the 16th February, but the jury being challenged on the ground that the array contained no peer (a peer of the realm being about to be tried), the challenge was allowed, and the trial put off until the next term. On the 8th May, after a long trial, all the accused were found guilty, and were eventually (26 June) fined in various sums, amounting in all to £4,100.[1528]
Sir Patience Ward tried and convicted of perjury, 19 May, 1683.
Pilkington's fall also dragged down Sir Patience Ward, who was proceeded against for perjury, he having stated on oath at the trial of the late sheriff that the debate in the Court of Aldermen concerning the Duke of York was over before Pilkington had arrived, and that there was no mention made of cutting throats while he was there. After much contradictory evidence the jury found the defendant[pg 494] guilty, and he, like Shaftesbury before him, sought refuge in Holland.[1529]
The new Common Council, 21 Dec., 1682.
In the meantime, having experienced so much difficulty in bending the City to his will, and having so far succeeded in his object as to have a royalist mayor in the chair, as well as royalist sheriffs, Charles took steps to obtain an equally subservient Common Council. To this end he had issued a command (18 Dec.) to the mayor to enforce on the electors at the coming feast of St. Thomas (21 Dec.) the obligation of electing only such men to be members of the new council as had conformed with the provisions of the Corporation Act. The king's letter was by the mayor's precept read at each wardmote on the day of election.[1530] It was hoped that by this means a Common Council might be returned which might be induced to make a voluntary surrender of the City's charter instead of forcing matters to an issue at law.[1531]
The first hearing of the Quo Warranto case, 7 Feb., 1683.
The design failed and the king resolved at length to proceed with the Quo Warranto. After the lapse of more than a twelvemonth the trial came on for hearing (7 Feb., 1683). The solicitor-general, who opened the case, propounded to the court four questions: (1) Whether any corporation could be forfeited? (2) Whether the city of London differed from other corporations as to point of forfeiture? (3) Whether any act of the mayor, aldermen and[pg 495] Common Council in Common Council assembled be so much the act of the Corporation as could make a forfeiture? and (4) Whether the acts by them done in making a certain by-law and receiving money by it,[1532] or in making the petition of the 13th January, 1681, and causing it to be published, be such acts as, if done by the Corporation, would make a forfeiture of the Corporation? After a lengthy argument counsel for the Crown concluded by asking judgment for the king, and that the defendants might be ousted of their franchise as a Corporation.
The speech of the City's Recorder.
The City's Recorder, Sir George Treby, rose in reply. His argument in favour of the City[1533] tended to show that the corporation of London quâ corporation could not forfeit its existence either by voluntary surrender or by abuse of its powers, much less could its existence be imperilled by the action of those representatives of the city to whom its government had been confided. The corporation of the City was a governing body elected for specific purposes; if it proceeded ultra vires to establish market tolls or to offer a petition to the king which was seditious, an indictment lay against every particular member of that body, but no execution could be taken against the mayor, commonalty and citizens of London, a body politic that is invisible, one that can neither see nor be seen.
Counsel on the other side had laid stress on the fact that the liberties and franchises of the City had been often seized or "taken into the king's hands," adducing instances with which the reader of the earlier[pg 496] pages of this work will be already familiar; and if they could be so seized, they could also be forfeited. The Recorder argued that this conclusion was a wrong one. The effect of the seizure of the City's liberties in former days had only been to place the government of the city in the hands of a custos or warden. The Corporation continued as before; it might sue and be sued as before; it was neither suspended nor destroyed. How could the king seize a Corporation? Could he himself constitute the mayor, commonalty and citizens of a city, or make anyone else such? No, a Corporation was not, to use a legal phrase, "manurable"; it could not be seized; nor had anyone (he believed) ever imagined such a thing as a dissolution of a corporation by a judgment in law until that day. At the conclusion of his speech the further hearing of the case was adjourned until April.
Speech of the attorney-general at the second hearing, 27 April.
On the resumption of the hearing (27 April)[1534] Sir Robert Sawyer, the attorney-general, at whose suggestion and by whose authority the writ against the City had been issued, took up the argument, commencing his speech with an attempt to allay the apprehension excited by the prospect of forfeiture of the City's charter. "It was not the king's intention," he said, "to demolish at once all their liberties and to lay waste and open the city of London, and to reduce it to the condition of a country village," as some had maliciously reported, but to amend the government of the City "by running off those excesses and exorbitances of power which some[pg 497] men (contrary to their duty and the known laws of the land) have assumed to themselves under colour of their corporate capacity, to the reviling of their prince, the oppression of their fellow subjects and to the infinite disquiet of their fellow citizens."[1535] History had shown that the City had never been better governed than when it was in the king's hands. Its ancient customs had not been destroyed, but only restrained in subordination to the general government of the kingdom, and therefore the danger now threatened would not prove so fatal to the City as had been suggested.
Judgment pronounced against the City, 12 June, 1683.
After the conclusion of the arguments on both sides, nearly three months were allowed to pass before judgment was given, in the hope that the citizens of London might follow the example set by Norwich, Evesham and other boroughs, and freely surrender their charter. "I do believe nobody here wishes this case should come to judgment," was the remark made by Chief Justice Saunders at the conclusion of the hearing; but at length the patience of the Crown or of the judges was exhausted, and judgment was pronounced (12 June) by Justice Jones in the absence of the Lord Chief Justice, who was now on the point of death. Briefly, the judgment pronounced was to the effect (1) that a corporation aggregate might be seized; (2) that exacting and taking money by a "pretended" by-law was extortion and a forfeiture of franchise; (3) that the petition was scandalous and libellous, and the making and publishing it a forfeiture; (4) that an Act of Common Council is an Act of[pg 498] the Corporation; (5) that the matter set forth in the record did not excuse or avoid those forfeitures set forth in the replication, and (6) that the information was well founded. The result of these findings was that the franchise of the Corporation was ordered to be seized into the king's hands, but this judgment was not to be entered until the king's pleasure should be known. As to the right claimed by the citizens to have and constitute sheriffs (a right which they had recently shown no disposition to forego) and the claim of the mayor and aldermen to be Justices of the Peace and to hold Sessions, the attorney-general was content to enter a nolle prosequi.
Minutes of the Common Council reflecting on the late king ordered to be expunged from the Journals, 6 June, 1683.
A few days before delivery of judgment the Common Council agreed to expunge from the records of the court all minutes of proceedings during the late civil war that in any way reflected upon the late king.[1536] The list of the various minutes thus ordered to be annulled was a very long one, occupying more than ten pages of the city's Journal, and embraced a period of eighteen years (1641-1659). The municipal authorities may have thought that by this egregious act of self-stultification they might mitigate the judgment that was impending over them. If so they were sadly mistaken.
City address to the king, 18 June, 1683.
Finding that further resistance was useless the Common Council unanimously[1537] agreed (14 June) to present a humble petition to his majesty asking pardon for their late offences, and declaring their readiness to submit to anything that he might[pg 499] command or direct. Accordingly, on Monday the 18th June, the lord mayor proceeded to Windsor, accompanied by a deputation of aldermen and members of the Common Council, to lay this petition before the king in council, and his majesty's reply, given by the mouth of the lord keeper, was reported to the Common Council on the following Wednesday.[1538]
Speech of the lord keeper.
The king, he said, had been very loth to take action against the City, but had been driven to do so by the recent elections. Their petition would have been more gracious if presented earlier; nevertheless, his majesty would not reject it on that account. He would, however, show the City as much favour as could be reasonably expected. It was not his intention to prejudice them either in their properties or customs, and he had instructed Mr. Attorney not to enter judgment lest such a proceeding might entail serious consequences. The alterations he required were few and easy. They were these, viz., that no mayor, sheriff, recorder, common sergeant, town clerk or coroner of the city of London or any steward of the borough of Southwark should be appointed without his majesty's approval under his sign manual; that if his majesty should express disapproval of the choice of a mayor made by the citizens a new election should take place within a week, and if his majesty should disapprove of the second choice he shall, if he so please, himself nominate a mayor for the year ensuing; that if his majesty should in like manner disapprove of the[pg 500] persons chosen to be sheriffs, or either of them, he shall, if he please, proceed to appoint sheriffs by his commission, but subject to this restriction the election of these officers might take according to the ancient usuage of the city; that the lord mayor and Court of Aldermen might with leave of his majesty displace any alderman, recorder, common sergeant, town clerk, coroner of the city or steward of Southwark; that where an election of an alderman had been set aside by the Court of Aldermen another election should be held, and that the Justices of the Peace should be by his majesty's commission. These terms accepted by the citizens, his majesty would consent to confirm their charter in a manner consistent with them. But if they were not speedily complied with his majesty had given orders to enter up judgment by the Saturday following, and any consequences that might follow would be at the door of the citizens themselves.
The City accept the king's terms, 20 June, 1683.
A "long and serious" debate, we are told, followed the reading of this answer in the Common Council, after which a poll was taken on the question: whether the court should submit to the king's terms or not, with the result that 104 votes were recorded in favour of accepting them as against 85 votes to the contrary. Whereupon it was "unanimously" ordered that his majesty should be informed of the court's submission, and that the Midsummer-day elections should be put off until the 18th July.[1539]
The mayor and others arrested, 24 April.
Whilst these proceedings against the city were going on, a writ had been obtained by Papillon and[pg 501] Du Bois for the arrest of Pritchard, the mayor, Dudley North, the sheriff, and several aldermen, for having made a false return to a mandamus directed to them in November last.[1540] The writ was directed to Broom, the city's coroner, who executed it by lodging the parties in his own house (24 April). No sooner was this done than one of the city sergeants proceeded to arrest the coroner, who was taken to the compter, where he had to pass the night, whilst the mayor and his fellow-prisoners made their way home. A cry that the Whigs had seized the mayor and carried him off caused great consternation, and the trained bands were immediately ordered out for the security of the city. The citizens themselves were much divided in their opinions on the matter, "some condemning it and others approving it, according to the different tempers of persons."[1541]
Indignation of the Court of Aldermen and the Common Council.
A committee was appointed (26 April) by the Court of Aldermen to consider what was fit to be done by way of vindicating the honour of the mayor and the government of the city, as well as for punishing the authors of the indignity;[1542] whilst the Common Council caused it to be placed on record (22 May) that neither they nor the citizens at large had any participation in or knowledge of the action against the mayor, which Papillon and Du Bois alleged had been brought in the name of the citizens of London.[1543] Broom's conduct, as well as the terms on which he held his appointment, were made the subject of an investigation by a committee.[1544]
Pritchard recovers £10,000 damages, 6 Nov., 1684.
After Pritchard's year of office expired he brought an action on the case against Papillon for false imprisonment, and eventually (6 Nov., 1684) obtained a verdict and damages to the respectable amount of £10,000. This verdict, whilst it caused amazement to many, met with the avowed approval of Jeffreys, recently promoted to be Lord Chief Justice, who complimented the jury upon their good sense. "Gentlemen," he remarked at the close of the trial, "you seem to be persons that have some sense upon you, and consideration for the government, and I think have given a good verdict and are to be greatly commended for it."[1545] Papillon thereupon absconded.
The Rye House Plot, 1683.
Within a few days of delivery of judgment against the City, discovery was made of a plot against the lives of the king and the Duke of York.[1546] This was the famous Rye House Plot, which brought the heads of Lord Russell and Algernon Sydney to the block. Among the minor conspirators were two men who had been employed by Broom, the city coroner, in the recent arrest of the lord mayor. Broom himself was suspected of being implicated in the conspiracy, and was on that ground ordered into custody for the purpose of being examined by a justice of the peace. In the meantime he was to be suspended from his office of coroner, as well as from his duties as a member of the Common Council.[1547] Concurrently[pg 503] with the Rye House Plot there was, so it was said, a design to raise an insurrection in the city, in which Alderman Cornish was believed to be implicated.[1548] The municipal authorities, however, as a body, were indignant at the threatened attack on the king and his brother, and lost no time in voting an address (2 July) of congratulation upon their escape, assuring the king at the same time of their readiness to hazard their lives and fortunes in defence of his person and the maintenance of the government in Church and State.[1549]
The question of surrender or no surrender of the City's franchise, Sept.-Oct., 1683.
On Thursday, the 27th September, the mayor laid before the Common Council drafts of a surrender of the City's franchise to his majesty, and of a re-grant from his majesty which the Attorney-general had prepared for their acceptance. After long debate the opinion of the Attorney-general, the Solicitor-general, and the Recorder was taken upon the following questions, viz., (1) Whether the surrender was agreeable to the submission of the Common Council already made and necessary for the regulations required by his majesty; (2) whether by this surrender the office of mayoralty was surrendered; (3) if so, whether the customs and prescriptions belonging to that office were not thereby surrendered and lost; (4) whether in case judgment should be entered up (as the king had threatened) the consequences would not be worse than a surrender; and (5) how far did the re-grant confirm and restore the city to the liberties, etc., therein mentioned. On the following Tuesday[pg 504] (2 Oct.) the opinions of the several counsel were ready.[1550] Two of them, viz., that of the Attorney-general and that of the Solicitor-general were decidedly in favour of the City surrendering its liberties in preference to allowing judgment to be entered up. The Recorder took a diametrically opposite view of the matter, one of the reasons urged by him against a surrender being that such action would be against their oaths, and that if they freely surrendered their liberties there would be no redress left open to them. If, on the other hand, they suffered judgment to be entered up, they could take proceedings against it by writ of error. These opinions gave rise to much debate, and many hard things were spoken against the Recorder. At last the matter was put to the vote, when 103 were found against sealing the deed of surrender as against 85 who were in favour of it; and so this momentous question was settled, and the council broke up at eleven o'clock at night.[1551]
Judgment against the City entered up, 4 Oct., 1683.
Judgment was forthwith (4 Oct.) entered against the City. The mayor and the new sheriffs were summoned to attend the king. Pritchard received a commission to continue in office during pleasure, and similar commissions were handed to the new sheriffs. The Recorder was dismissed and his place given to Sir Thomas Jenner.[1552] Eight aldermen were turned out and their places filled by nominees of the king.[1553] On the 25th October the Court of Aldermen was informed of his majesty's commission having been issued for Sir Henry Tulse to be mayor for the ensuing year,[pg 505] and on the 29th he was sworn with the usual accompaniment of civic procession and banquet.[1554]
The king's action against the livery companies.
Having thus reduced the Corporation of the city to submission, Charles proceeded to take similar action against the livery companies, with the object of getting into his own hands the power of appointing and dismissing their governing body. Seeing that opposition was useless, they submitted with the best grace they could, surrendering their former charters and receiving new charters in their place. The first master, wardens and assistants were usually named in these new charters, which provided (inter alia) that they should be removable at the king's pleasure by Order in Council, that they should take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy and make the declaration prescribed by the Corporation Act, that none should be elected members who were not of the Church of England, and that in all things concerning the government of the city they should be subject to the mayor and aldermen.
Death of the king, 6 Feb., 1685.
Notwithstanding the treatment that the citizens had received at the king's hands they heard of his sudden illness (2 Feb., 1685) with unfeigned sorrow, and the Court of Aldermen (5 Feb.) instructed the sheriffs to attend at Whitehall every morning and Sir William Turner and Sir James Edwards every evening during his majesty's illness.[1555] Their attendance, however, was not long required, for next day (6 Feb.) the king died.