Speech of the attorney-general at the second hearing, 27 April.
On the resumption of the hearing (27 April)[1534] Sir Robert Sawyer, the attorney-general, at whose suggestion and by whose authority the writ against the City had been issued, took up the argument, commencing his speech with an attempt to allay the apprehension excited by the prospect of forfeiture of the City's charter. "It was not the king's intention," he said, "to demolish at once all their liberties and to lay waste and open the city of London, and to reduce it to the condition of a country village," as some had maliciously reported, but to amend the government of the City "by running off those excesses and exorbitances of power which some[pg 497] men (contrary to their duty and the known laws of the land) have assumed to themselves under colour of their corporate capacity, to the reviling of their prince, the oppression of their fellow subjects and to the infinite disquiet of their fellow citizens."[1535] History had shown that the City had never been better governed than when it was in the king's hands. Its ancient customs had not been destroyed, but only restrained in subordination to the general government of the kingdom, and therefore the danger now threatened would not prove so fatal to the City as had been suggested.
Judgment pronounced against the City, 12 June, 1683.
After the conclusion of the arguments on both sides, nearly three months were allowed to pass before judgment was given, in the hope that the citizens of London might follow the example set by Norwich, Evesham and other boroughs, and freely surrender their charter. "I do believe nobody here wishes this case should come to judgment," was the remark made by Chief Justice Saunders at the conclusion of the hearing; but at length the patience of the Crown or of the judges was exhausted, and judgment was pronounced (12 June) by Justice Jones in the absence of the Lord Chief Justice, who was now on the point of death. Briefly, the judgment pronounced was to the effect (1) that a corporation aggregate might be seized; (2) that exacting and taking money by a "pretended" by-law was extortion and a forfeiture of franchise; (3) that the petition was scandalous and libellous, and the making and publishing it a forfeiture; (4) that an Act of Common Council is an Act of[pg 498] the Corporation; (5) that the matter set forth in the record did not excuse or avoid those forfeitures set forth in the replication, and (6) that the information was well founded. The result of these findings was that the franchise of the Corporation was ordered to be seized into the king's hands, but this judgment was not to be entered until the king's pleasure should be known. As to the right claimed by the citizens to have and constitute sheriffs (a right which they had recently shown no disposition to forego) and the claim of the mayor and aldermen to be Justices of the Peace and to hold Sessions, the attorney-general was content to enter a nolle prosequi.
Minutes of the Common Council reflecting on the late king ordered to be expunged from the Journals, 6 June, 1683.
A few days before delivery of judgment the Common Council agreed to expunge from the records of the court all minutes of proceedings during the late civil war that in any way reflected upon the late king.[1536] The list of the various minutes thus ordered to be annulled was a very long one, occupying more than ten pages of the city's Journal, and embraced a period of eighteen years (1641-1659). The municipal authorities may have thought that by this egregious act of self-stultification they might mitigate the judgment that was impending over them. If so they were sadly mistaken.
City address to the king, 18 June, 1683.
Finding that further resistance was useless the Common Council unanimously[1537] agreed (14 June) to present a humble petition to his majesty asking pardon for their late offences, and declaring their readiness to submit to anything that he might[pg 499] command or direct. Accordingly, on Monday the 18th June, the lord mayor proceeded to Windsor, accompanied by a deputation of aldermen and members of the Common Council, to lay this petition before the king in council, and his majesty's reply, given by the mouth of the lord keeper, was reported to the Common Council on the following Wednesday.[1538]
Speech of the lord keeper.
The king, he said, had been very loth to take action against the City, but had been driven to do so by the recent elections. Their petition would have been more gracious if presented earlier; nevertheless, his majesty would not reject it on that account. He would, however, show the City as much favour as could be reasonably expected. It was not his intention to prejudice them either in their properties or customs, and he had instructed Mr. Attorney not to enter judgment lest such a proceeding might entail serious consequences. The alterations he required were few and easy. They were these, viz., that no mayor, sheriff, recorder, common sergeant, town clerk or coroner of the city of London or any steward of the borough of Southwark should be appointed without his majesty's approval under his sign manual; that if his majesty should express disapproval of the choice of a mayor made by the citizens a new election should take place within a week, and if his majesty should disapprove of the second choice he shall, if he so please, himself nominate a mayor for the year ensuing; that if his majesty should in like manner disapprove of the[pg 500] persons chosen to be sheriffs, or either of them, he shall, if he please, proceed to appoint sheriffs by his commission, but subject to this restriction the election of these officers might take according to the ancient usuage of the city; that the lord mayor and Court of Aldermen might with leave of his majesty displace any alderman, recorder, common sergeant, town clerk, coroner of the city or steward of Southwark; that where an election of an alderman had been set aside by the Court of Aldermen another election should be held, and that the Justices of the Peace should be by his majesty's commission. These terms accepted by the citizens, his majesty would consent to confirm their charter in a manner consistent with them. But if they were not speedily complied with his majesty had given orders to enter up judgment by the Saturday following, and any consequences that might follow would be at the door of the citizens themselves.