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.