Excitement in the city.
On the 12th January, 1641, the Scottish demands were formally submitted to parliament, but they were not taken into consideration until the 22nd. After much debate it was agreed in general terms that a "friendly assistance" should be given, leaving the amount and the manner of collection for future consideration.[433] In the meantime the Speaker, Lenthall, had written (15 Jan.) to the mayor directing him to summon a Common Hall for the purpose of raising a loan of £60,000 required for the army, and the Common Council had agreed (18 Jan.) that the amount should be collected from the wards.[434] But[pg 136] before this could be accomplished an incident occurred which threatened to jeopardise the loan. This was the reprieve of John Goodman, a Roman Catholic priest, who had been condemned to death. The morning after parliament had agreed to raise money for the Scottish commissioners alderman Pennington rose in the House and declared that, in consequence of Goodman's reprieve and other suspicious circumstances, the City had resolved to lend nothing.[435] The Lords as well as the Commons followed the initiative of the alderman and made a joint demand for the execution of the condemned priest. As he had often done before, Charles again threw over the Catholics. He announced his intention not to allow the increase of Popery or superstition in the country; he would forthwith issue a proclamation commanding Jesuits and priests to leave the kingdom within a month, and he was willing to submit the case of Goodman to the decision of both Houses.[436] Fortunately for Goodman, the City and the Commons had higher game to fly at in Strafford, and the humbler priest was allowed to remain unmolested in prison.
Letters from Lenthall to the City touching the loan of £60,000, 6 and 19 Feb., 1641.
On the 6th February the Speaker addressed a second letter to the mayor to the effect that the money was required sooner than it could be collected by way of subsidies, as formerly suggested to his lordship, and that consequently the House had directed him to take steps for having £60,000 raised[pg 137] by subscription and paid into the Chamber of London, to be at the disposal of parliament.[437] The money not coming in so speedily as was desired, the Speaker wrote a third time (19 Feb.) to the mayor, directing him to summon a Common Hall and to lay before it the extreme urgency of affairs.[438] The chief cause of the delay in getting in the money was the dissatisfaction felt in the city at Strafford's trial being put off so long. The 17th February being at last fixed for his trial, there was some hope that the money would speedily now be forthcoming,[439] and the same day the Commons commissioned Sir William Uvedale to go to the lord mayor and get an order for receiving the money that had been collected up to £50,000.[440] Three days later the Court of Aldermen made out the necessary order for the Chamberlain to pay over the money.[441]
Trial and execution of Strafford, March-May, 1641.
Again there was delay in bringing Strafford to trial, and it was not until the 22nd March that he was arraigned in Westminster Hall, where alone room could be found for the crowds that were anxious to witness the proceedings. The mayor took steps to prevent a rush of people to Westminster and to suppress any riot that might arise. From five o'clock in the morning until nine at night a double watch was kept at the city's gates and landing stages on the river. The trained bands were held in readiness, whilst servants and apprentices were ordered to keep indoors.[442] At the end of three weeks a Bill of Attainder[pg 138] was brought in and read a first time (10 April), and on the 21st April it was read a third time and passed.[443] The Lords would willingly have let matters rest here, but the discovery of a design entertained by the queen of bringing the defeated English army from the north to Westminster to overawe the parliament, and likewise of an attempt made by Charles to get possession of the Tower that he might liberate Strafford by force, hurried the unfortunate earl's end. The citizens were determined not to rest until his head was off his shoulders, and 20,000 Londoners signed a petition addressed to both Houses (24 April) demanding his execution on the ground that he had advised the plundering of the city and putting it to fine and ransom.[444] The Peers deemed it advisable to give way. They passed the Bill of Attainder and on the 12th May Strafford was beheaded.
The City stops the loan until justice is executed on Strafford, May, 1641.
The Lords had another pressing reason for giving way, for until the citizens were assured that the full penalty of the law would be executed on Strafford they determined to stop payment of the loan. Writing to Matthew Bradley on the 3rd May, the treasurer of the army tells him "a strange story." "There is," he says, "money ready in the city, but none will be delivered until justice be done upon my lord of Strafford."[445] On that very day, the letter continues, there had been a crowd of 10,000 well-to-do persons at Westminster—"citizens of very good account, some[pg 139] worth £30,000, some £40,000" demanding justice against Strafford and threatening to send their servants the next day unless justice were speedily executed. "Truly these unsettled times do much trouble me."
The "Protestation" accepted by the City, May, 1641.
The discovery of the so-called "army plot" had in the meanwhile led to a preamble being drawn up to a document known as the "Protestation," or declaration in favour of the reformed religion, in which the danger from the army was for the first time clearly mentioned. The Protestation passed the Commons on the 3rd May,[446] and on the following day received the assent of the House of Lords. On the 11th May a printed copy of this document was introduced into the Court of Aldermen, when it received the willing assent not only of the aldermen present, but also of the Town Clerk and the City Remembrancer.[447] On the 29th it was accepted by the Common Council, and two days later the mayor issued his precept for a house-to-house visitation to be made in every ward for the purpose of getting all the inhabitants of the city to give in their adherence to it.[448]