The election of members to serve the City in the coming parliament took place on the 19th February, and was hotly contested. There appears to be no record extant among the City's archives of what took place, but from a petition laid before the new House (2 April) by Pilkington (the lord mayor) and three others, viz., Sir Robert Clayton, Sir Patience Ward and Sir William Ashurst[1691]—all professing more or less Whig principles—we learn that they claimed to have been elected by the Common Hall. A poll had been granted, and a scrutiny was in course of being held when (as they complained) the sheriffs declared the election to have gone against them. The petitioners had afterwards learnt that upon the[pg 554] completion of the scrutiny the majority of those that had a right to vote had proved to be in their favour. They prayed therefore for relief. Their petition was referred to the Committee of Privileges and Elections for them to consider and report thereon to the House; but nothing came of it. It was in vain that Pilkington issued precepts to the livery companies for returns to be made: (1) of the names of those who were on the livery at Midsummer, 1683; (2) of those who had been admitted since; (3) of those that had died since 1683, or who were absent; and (4) of those who had omitted to take the prescribed oaths for a freeman or liveryman—in order to affect the scrutiny.[1692] The result was declared to be in favour of two aldermen and two commoners of distinct Tory proclivities. These were Sir William Pritchard, Sir Samuel Dashwood, Sir William Turner (once an alderman and soon to become one again) and Sir Thomas Vernon. Upon Turner's death in February, 1693, Sir John Fleet, then lord mayor, was elected in his place.[1693] In the country the elections were carried on with the same heat as in the City,[1694] and with like result. The majority of the members of the new parliament were Tory.
The reversal of judgment on the Quo Warranto, 14 May, 1690.
In November last (1689) a new committee was appointed to prepare a Bill for the reversal of the proceedings upon the Quo Warranto and for the removal of other grievances.[1695] The provisions of the Bill had[pg 555] been scarcely settled before the House, of its own motion, granted (8 April) leave for a Bill to be brought in to reverse the judgment on the Quo Warranto against the City as arbitrary and illegal, and appointed a committee to prepare such a Bill.[1696] A Bill was accordingly prepared, was brought in, and passed the first and second reading on the 14th April.[1697] On the 7th May it passed the committee stage and was ordered to be engrossed, and on the following day it passed and was ordered to be carried up to the House of Lords.[1698] On the 14th the Bill passed the Lords without amendment, after counsel for the City had been heard during its progress through the House.[1699]
Election of City officers, pursuant to the Act, 26 May, 1690.
Pursuant to provisions of the Act (sec. 10) thus passed an election of mayor, sheriffs and city chamberlain took place on the 26th May, and an election of a Common Council on the 10th June following. Such as were then elected were according to the statute to hold office not only for the remainder of the usual term, but to continue in office throughout the year ensuing. On the 26th May Pilkington was again elected mayor, although the majority of votes in Common Hall was in favour of Sir Jonathan Raymond,[1700] whilst Edward Clark, mercer, and Francis Child, goldsmith, were chosen sheriffs.[1701] Sir Peter Rich was re-elected chamberlain by a narrow majority over the head of Leonard Robinson, who had ousted[pg 556] him the previous Midsummer,[1702] but he was not admitted to office, his rival being imposed upon the citizens as chamberlain in spite of his having been in the minority.
Election of Common Council, 10 June, 1690.
When the elections for a new Common Council took place on the 10th June there were severe contests in several of the wards between the "Church party" and the Whigs, involving irregularities which led to disputes between the aldermen and the Common Council.[1703] The working of the new Act, as a matter of fact, gave rise to much dissatisfaction, and scarcely was it passed before the Court of Aldermen resolved (27 May) to take counsel's opinion upon some of its clauses.[1704]
Complaint made to parliament, 3 Dec., 1690.
The matter allowed to drop, 11 Dec., 1690.
The state of affairs was at length brought to the notice of parliament by a petition subscribed by members of the Common Council and presented to the House of Commons on the 3rd December.[1705] The petitioners explained to the House that they had conceived and hoped that the late Act would have restored the city to its ancient rights and privileges. It had, however, done quite the contrary. They then proceeded to relate how, notwithstanding the Act, several aldermen of the city who had been appointed by commissions under the late king continued to act as such by virtue of certain doubtful expressions in the Act; that by their illegally assumed authority Pilkington had been declared and made mayor, although not duly returned by the Common Hall; that by the contrivance of the said mayor and[pg 557] the aldermen Leonard Robinson had been made chamberlain, notwithstanding another having been declared duly elected by the sheriffs, and the Common Hall had been thereupon dissolved. Nor was this all. The petitioners went on to complain that divers members of the Common Council had been illegally excluded, whilst others who had been duly elected had been refused admittance; that the place of town clerk having been vacant for three months and more—an office, they remind the House, of great trust in the city and one to which only the Common Council had the right of appointment—the mayor and aldermen had of their own authority appointed several persons to execute the office against the consent of the Common Council; that the petitioners had not been allowed to meet and consult about the necessary affairs of the city according to their ancient rights and customs; and that a Common Council having met on the 3rd October, and a majority of the members having agreed upon the presentation of a humble address to parliament with the view of explaining the recent Act and settling the rights of the city, the mayor refused to allow the question to be put and immediately dissolved the court. The petitioners therefore, finding all their ancient rights and privileges thus invaded, prayed the House to grant them relief. Having heard the petition read the House ordered a copy of it to be given to the mayor and aldermen,[1706] and appointed Monday, the 8th December, for hearing both parties by themselves or by counsel. Accordingly, on that day the petitioners were heard by their counsel, and divers witnesses[pg 558] were examined, after which the further hearing was postponed until the morrow. On the 9th the case of the mayor and aldermen was opened by counsel and was continued on the 10th and the 11th, when by a majority of thirteen it was decided to adjourn the matter for a week.[1707] It never was taken up again, parliament being probably unwilling to run the risk of losing the favour of those in the city who were in power at a time when interference on its part might be the cause of stopping the flow of money into the coffers of the exchequer.[1708]