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]