Others besides Pepys recognised the effect likely to be produced in the country by the example set by London; and those who, unlike Pepys, were of a[pg 393] Presbyterian turn of mind freely expressed their hopes that the keynote of the election struck by the City would be taken up by the country at large. "God has overruled the hearts of men and heard the prayers of his people in the city election, though the Episcopals were high and thought to have the day; a precedent is given to the whole country," writes a contemporary to a friend.[1221] "The city of London has set a good example," writes another.[1222] Another expresses a hope that "other places will be encouraged by the example of this to choose sober and moderate men for parliament men"; whilst another declares "the city was very unanimous and courageous in its choice," and that "if the country do the same, profaneness and superstition will no longer prevail, but Godly magistrates and ministers be settled in every place."[1223]
The court party afraid.
Letters intercepted at the post office.
That the court party were afraid of the effect that the result of the city election would have upon the rest of the kingdom, where elections were still going on, is evidenced by the fact that these letters just cited, as well as numerous others despatched to various parts of the country with details of the election, were intercepted at the post office.[1224] Neither the hopes of the one party nor the fears of the other as to the effect of the City's choice of members upon others were destined to be realised to the extent anticipated. The electors proved loyal, and the[pg 394] members returned to the new parliament which met on the 8th May were for the most part too young to remember the tyranny of the Stuarts.
The Corporation Act, 1661.
The new parliament agreed that neither House could claim the command of the militia nor lawfully make war upon the king. Act after Act was passed against those who refused to conform to the Established Church. Before the close of the year (1661) the Corporation Act received the assent of both Houses.[1225] Thenceforth no one was to be allowed to hold any municipal office unless he renounced the covenant, took the oath of non-resistance, and received the Sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England. By thus excluding Nonconformists (or "Dissenters," as they began now to be called) from municipal corporation, parliament indirectly excluded them from seats in the House of Commons.
Petition for confirmation of City's charter, 9 July, 1661.
On the 9th July the Common Council approved of the presentation of a petition to the king for a confirmation of the City's charter.[1226] The time was not inopportune, inasmuch as a "free and voluntary present" to Charles had recently been set on foot,[1227] and the maxim of do ut des was one well understood between the City and the Crown. It is not surprising, therefore, that on the 17th an Order in Council was[pg 395] passed to the effect that the lord treasurer should assure the City that his majesty was highly sensible of their loyalty and affection, and would renew their charter with additions if desired and found fit.[1228] The lord chancellor happening to be in the city one day (8 Aug.) on the business of the "free and voluntary present," the civic authorities embraced the opportunity of urging him to press their suit with the king, whereupon "it pleased my lord chancellor to express much affection and forwardness to this great concernment of the city," and he promised to see the king on the matter that same evening, and to get the attorney-general, who was about to leave town, to defer his journey if the City would at once forward its old charter to Mr. Attorney for the purpose of renewal. This the Common Council readily agreed to do.[1229] In spite, however, of the exertions of the lord chancellor and of the City, no renewal of the charter of Charles I was obtained until nearly two years had elapsed.
The mayor and aldermen attend the king touching renewal of charter, Oct., 1661.
In October the mayor, aldermen and recorder attended his majesty in council, by request, when Charles repeated the promise made in his letter from Breda not to diminish or alter the rights of the City; but at the same time he informed them of his intention to make one exception, pro hac vice, by removing four or five of the aldermen who had been "faulty in the late troubles," and of putting others "of known worth and ability" in their places. He promised also to safeguard the City's interest in the Act then pending in parliament relative to corporations.[1230] The City[pg 396] could not do otherwise than submit,[1231] and the king carried out his threat. The commissioners who had been appointed under the Great Seal to "regulate" the Corporation removed at least two of the aldermen, viz., Tempest Miller, of Candlewick ward, and William Love, of Portsoken, who had recently been elected one of the city's representatives in parliament, their places being filled up by Sir Thomas Rich and Sir Thomas Bludworth, the king's own nominees.[1232]