As soon as the House met it commenced an attack upon Papists. The Exclusion Bill was again passed, but was thrown out by the Lords. Thus baulked the Commons revived the impeachment of the Catholic lords. During the trial of Stafford on a charge of a design to murder the king, more than ordinary precautions had to be taken by the mayor to maintain order and prevent too great a crowd assembling at Westminster.[1441] Being condemned to death, the king was ready to spare Stafford the grosser indignities attached to a felon's execution, but the royal act of clemency was not allowed to pass unchallenged by the sheriffs of London on the ground that if the king could dispense with some part of the execution why not of all?[1442] The House had passed a vote of thanks to the City for its "manifest loyalty to the king" and its care and vigilance for the preservation of his majesty's person and of the Protestant religion,[pg 463] and had got as far as the second reading of a Bill for repealing the Corporation Act of 1661 when it found itself suddenly prorogued from the 10th January to the 20th.[1443]
The City's petition to the king for parliament to be allowed to sit, 13 Jan., 1681.
During the interval a petition was drawn up by the Common Council (13 Jan.) and presented to the king, in which the petitioners expressed their surprise at the late prorogation "whereby the prosecution of the public justice of the kingdom ... have received an interruption," and after referring to the action taken by parliament for the defence of his majesty's person and the preservation of the Protestant religion, prayed that the House might be allowed to resume its session on the day to which parliament had been prorogued as being "the only means to quiet the minds and extinguish the fears of your Protestant subjects."[1444] This petition, and more especially that part of it which spoke of the interruption of justice, was highly resented by Charles, and was one of the causes which led to the issue of the writ of Quo Warranto against the city in the following year. In the meanwhile it served only to make the king more determined than ever to dissolve the parliament, which he did by proclamation on the 18th January. A new parliament was summoned for the 21st March; it was not however to sit in London, but in the royalist city of Oxford.[1445]
Parliamentary elections in the city, 1681.
The City sent up to Oxford the same members that had represented them in the last two parliaments.[pg 464] The election took place at a Common Hall held on Friday the 4th February, but no record of the proceedings is to be found in the city's archives.[1446] From other sources, however,[1447] we learn that after an opening speech by one of the secondaries, or under-sheriffs, Henry Cornish, one of the sheriffs, addressed the meeting and explained how the mayor (Sir Patience Ward) had been asked to allow himself to be put in nomination but had declined. One or two aldermen were nominated for form's sake, but the choice of the citizens was unanimously in favour of the old members—Sir Robert Clayton, Alderman Pilkington, Sir Thomas Player, the city chamberlain, and William Love. The election over, the Common Hall presented an address to the members, acknowledging their past services and promising to support them in their determination to grant no money supply until they had effectually secured the city against Popery and arbitrary power. To this address Sir Robert Clayton made a brief reply, promising, on behalf of himself and colleagues, to continue their endeavours to attain the ends desired. The fact that the new parliament was to sit at Oxford, a stronghold of the Tory party, caused no little alarm, and this alarm was increased when it became known that Charles was bringing his own guards with him. The city's representatives were brought on their way by a large number of followers with ribbons in their hats bearing the words "No Popery! No Slavery!" whilst Shaftesbury and[pg 465] his supporters made no disguise that they were well equipt with arms.[1448]
Dissolution of the third short parliament, 28 March, 1681.
Charles soon perceived that he had little to gain from the new parliament, which insisted on having its own way, and refused even the king's humiliating proposal to place the government of the country after his demise in the hands of a regent, leaving the bare title of king to his brother, the Duke of York. It caused an impeachment to be laid against an Irishman named Fitzharris whom Charles had recently removed from Newgate to the Tower in order to prevent the civic authorities taking the prisoner's depositions,[1449] and it otherwise proved so uncompromising that at the end of a week (28 March) it was sent about its business. Charles afterwards (8 April) published a "declaration" of his reasons for taking that course.[1450]
City's address to the king, presented 19 May, 1681.
On the 13th May the Common Council passed a vote of thanks to the city members for their faithful services in the last three parliaments, and more especially in the late parliament at Oxford. It also agreed by a narrow majority of fourteen to present an address to the king praying him to cause a parliament to meet and continue to sit until due provision be made for the security of his majesty's person and his people.[1451] The first attempt (13 May) to present this address failed, the deputation being[pg 466] told to meet the king at Hampton Court another day (19 May). When it was presented the deputation were told to go home and mind their own business. Other addresses—one from the lieutenancy of London and another from the borough of Southwark—presented the same day, in which thanks were tendered to his majesty for dissolving the last two parliaments, met with a very different reception. Undismayed at the rebuff thus administered to the City, the Grand Jury at the Old Bailey passed a vote of thanks (20 May) to the mayor for the part he had taken in presenting the address, and ordered a similar address to that of the City to be presented to Charles on their own account.[1452]