The House, however, was unfortunate enough at this critical juncture to offend the Scots as well as the citizens of London. The Scottish army had been invited to march southward to attack Newark, whither Charles had betaken himself after witnessing from the walls of Chester the defeat of his troops on Rowton Heath (24 Sept.), and the Commons had promised to raise a sum of £30,000 for its pay provided it arrived before Newark by the 1st day of November.[689] This sum the City promised to find (10 Oct.), but only on the condition named.[690] On the 13th the House offended the dignity of the Scots by a series of resolutions protesting against the conduct of the Scottish[pg 223] army in not attacking the enemy as well as in levying money on the inhabitants of the northern counties, and demanded the removal of the garrisons which had been placed in Newcastle, Carlisle and other towns without the consent of parliament.[691]
Presbyterianism in the city, 1645.
The quarrel between parliament and the City was scarcely less serious, and arose out of an attempt to foist a system of Presbyterianism upon the citizens which should serve as a model for the rest of the kingdom. It was not that the Londoner objected to the principle of Presbyterianism; the natural bent of his mind was in that direction, and the City had already petitioned parliament for the election of elders to join with the parish ministers.[692] What he found fault with was the mode of electing the elders prescribed by parliament (23 Sept.).[693] The scheme was so far from satisfying the general body of citizens that a number of them presented a petition to the Common Council to address both Houses of Parliament, with a view to having the powers of the elders sufficiently enlarged to effect a genuine reform in the Church.[694] They wanted, in fact, to see parliamentary control over the Church in matters purely ecclesiastical withdrawn. Herein they were supported by the ministers of their own parish churches, who drew up a list of reforms they desired to see executed and the reasons why they so desired.[695] It was a difficult matter on which to approach parliament. Nevertheless, in accordance with a resolution of the Common Council (18 Nov.),[pg 224] a deputation of aldermen and common councillors, of whom Alderman Gibbs acted as spokesman, presented themselves (19 Nov.) before the House of Commons with the petition of the citizens, as well as with the "desires and reasons" of the city clergy. The reply they got was far from encouraging. They were given to understand that parliament was well aware of its trust and duty, and was quite able to discharge both, if only it was let alone, and its purpose not misconceived and prejudged as it appeared to have been in the city; and they were dismissed with the caution not to form premature opinions about matters which were still under discussion.[696] Notwithstanding this rebuff, the deputation the following day attended before the Lords (20 Nov.), who returned them a far more gracious and sympathetic answer. After thanking the deputation for their expressions of submission to the resolutions of parliament, their lordships assured them that none should excel them in their endeavours for the maintenance of the covenant, the advancement and settling of God's true religion, and the discharge of the trust reposed in them.[697]
City loan of £6,000 for siege of Chester, 12 Nov., 1645.
In the meantime a deputation from parliament had waited on the Common Council (12 Nov.) with a request for a loan of £6,000 for the troops engaged in blockading Chester. The court agreed to the request, but thought it high time to learn precisely how the city stood with respect to loans already made to parliament, and appointed (17 Nov.) a committee to report on the whole matter, with a view of[pg 225] addressing parliament for re-payment of monies in arrear.[698]
Parliament and the Scottish army.
It was feared that the Scottish army might change sides. It wanted supplies. The City, we have seen, had agreed with parliament to advance a sum of £30,000 for payment of the Scots, provided their army appeared before Newark by the 1st November. This condition had not been fulfilled. The army, nevertheless, appeared later on, and a committee of the House of Commons came down to the city and asked the citizens (6 Dec.) to stand by their former promise and advance the sum mentioned, which they readily consented to do.[699]
The king's proposal to come to Westminster, 26-29 Dec., 1645.
Answer of the House, 13 Jan., 1646.
The question with Charles was, from whom was he likely to obtain the better terms, the English or the Scots? On the 26th December he addressed a letter to the Speaker of the House of Lords, asking whether the two Houses of Parliament, the Scottish commissioners, the municipal authorities, as well as the militia of the city and the officers of both armies, would guarantee his personal security if he came to reside in London or Westminster, with a retinue not exceeding three hundred in number, for a period of forty days.[700] The risk of allowing such a step was too great. Already the Earl of Holland had been heard to threaten a royalist rising in the city if only Charles could be brought in safety to Westminster. Not getting a reply so quickly as he wished, Charles wrote again three days later (29 Dec.) urging his[pg 226] former proposal.[701] More delay took place, during which the Commons instructed the mayor to see well to the city's guards and scrutinise the passes of those coming and going,[702] and at last, on the 13th January, the Speakers wrote to Charles declining the proposal.[703]