Proclamation against "tumultuous petitions," 12 Dec., 1679.
The elections for a fresh parliament which had taken place in the meantime having gone against the court party, parliament no sooner met (17 Oct.) than it was prorogued; and in consequence of repeated prorogations never sat again for a whole twelvemonth (21 Oct., 1680).[1434] Nor would it in all probability have been allowed to meet even then, had it not been for a constant succession of petitions addressed to the king insisting upon a session being held. So annoyed was Charles with this demonstration of popular feeling in favour of parliament that he issued a proclamation (12 Dec., 1679) prohibiting such "tumultuous petitions."[1435]
Petitioners and Abhorrers.
This led to the presentation of a number of counter-addresses to the king, expressing the greatest confidence in his majesty's wisdom, the most dutiful submission to his prerogative, and abhorrence of those who had dared to encroach upon it by petitions. The two parties thus became distinguished as Petitioners and Abhorrers; names which were subsequently replaced by Whigs and Tories.
The petition of Common Hall, 29 July, 1680.
The citizens were Petitioners. On the 29th July (1680) the Livery assembled in Common Hall for the election of sheriffs took the opportunity of desiring Sir Robert Clayton, the lord mayor, to beseech his majesty on their behalf, that for the preservation of his royal person and government and the Protestant[pg 461] religion he would graciously please to order that parliament, his great council, might assemble and sit to take measures against the machinations of Rome.[1436] Clayton showed himself very willing to comply with the wishes of Common Hall, but pointed out at the same time that he had reason to believe that parliament was to meet in November. "If that be so," said he, "I hope your great concern for that matter might have been spared, being anticipated by his majesties gracious intention. However, I shall not be wanting with all humility to lay the whole matter before him." In spite of Jeffreys, the Recorder, having ruled that such a petition bordered on treason, and in spite of a warning received from the lord chancellor, Clayton insisted on presenting a petition, and for doing so was rewarded with the grateful thanks of the Common Council on his quitting the mayoralty.[1437] Jeffreys on the other hand was compelled to resign the recordership.[1438]
The City's address to the king, 12 Nov., 1680.
The king's reply.
When parliament was at last allowed to meet the City lost no time in presenting a dutiful address[1439] to Charles acknowledging his majesty's favour and their own satisfaction. They besought him to lend a ready ear to the humble advice tendered by his great council for the safety of his royal person and the preservation of[pg 462] the true Protestant religion, and promised to be ready at all times to promote his majesty's ease and prosperity, and to stand by him against all dangers and hazards whatsoever. Had Charles accepted this address in the spirit with which it was made matters might have gone better with him, and the Stuart family might never have been driven from the throne; but he was in no mood to accept advice either from parliament or the city, and the only answer he vouchsafed to the citizens was to tell them to mind their own business. He knew what he had to do, without their advice.[1440]
The second short parliament, 1680-1681.