To the Commons the City made answer (13 Sept.) that arrears were already being got in as speedily as possible, and asked that the hands of the collectors might be strengthened by additional parliamentary powers.[819] To Fairfax a long letter was sent the same day explaining the reason of the delay that had occurred in satisfying the demand of parliament, and informing him of the steps that were being taken to get in the arrears due to the army.[820]
Suggestions by Fairfax to parliament for enforcing a city loan, 16 Sept.
The excuses put forward were considered to be of so unsatisfactory and temporising a character that Fairfax and the General Council of the Army proposed to parliament, that unless the arrears came in by a certain day the general himself should be authorised to levy them and to inflict fines upon delinquents. This withholding the money by the City, said they, was but a scheme for bringing the army into disrepute, and for the purpose of causing disturbance; the Common Council had been ready enough to advance far larger sums to encourage designs against parliament and the army; it might again be induced to show a similar readiness in providing money, without which the army could not disperse, if parliament would but impose a fine upon them as a body, "which money being chargeable so properly upon themselves, we[pg 266] presume they will not have the like excuse not to provide."[821]
The mayor, one of the sheriffs, and three aldermen committed to the Tower, 24 Sept., 1647.
Warner elected mayor, loco Gayer, 28 Sept., 1647.
The new mayor presented to the House of Lords.
Before any further steps were taken to enforce the loan the committee appointed to investigate the outrage upon parliament in July reported (24 Sept.) to the House that they had discovered sufficient evidence for the impeachment of Sir John Gayer, the mayor, Thomas Cullum, one of the sheriffs, and three aldermen of the city, viz., James Bunce, John Langham and Thomas Adams, on the charge of threatening the Commons with force and raising a fresh war.[822] The House at once accepted the committee's report and ordered the accused parties to the Tower. On the following day it took into consideration the question as to how the city government was to be carried on in the absence of the mayor, and resolved to refer the matter to the rest of the aldermen who happened to be in London at the time, so that the civil government might continue "according to the charters, custom or usage of the city in like cases."[823] But on the 27th it was left to Alderman Pennington, in whom both Houses had confidence, to summon a Court of Aldermen and to direct that a Common Hall should be forthwith called for the purpose of electing someone to serve as mayor "until the 29th October next, or until Sir[pg 267] John Gayer should be either sentenced or acquitted."[824] The customary day for election (29 Sept.) having been appointed a solemn fast, the election took place by order of the Common Council on the 28th September,[825] when Alderman Warner, a strong Independent, was chosen mayor, the approaches to the Guildhall being guarded at the time of the election by a strong body of soldiers.[826] In the absence of the king, and there being no chancellor or lord keeper, the new mayor was presented to the House of Lords (30 Sept.), which approved of the city's choice and gave orders that the customary oaths should be administered to him in the exchequer as well as in the city.[827] On the 6th October an ordinance excluding delinquents from all municipal offices or from voting at municipal elections finally received the approval of both Houses.[828]
Threat of Fairfax to quarter troops on the city to assist in getting in arrears, 19 Nov.
A letter from Fairfax, dated at Kingston the 19th November,[829] threatening to quarter 1,000 men on the city to assist the municipal authorities in getting in arrears of assessments due to the army, created no little alarm in the city. Whilst the Common Council was deliberating on the matter news was brought that the Earl of Northumberland and a deputation from both Houses were waiting without the Council Chamber desiring to speak with some members of the court. A similar intimation to that contained in the letter of Fairfax had been made[pg 268] to parliament, and both Houses were anxious to urge upon the city the extreme importance of anticipating such a step as that which Fairfax threatened by getting in the arrears of assessments as speedily as possible. This the council expressed itself as very willing to do if parliament would relieve the collectors of certain pains and penalties recently imposed on them, which had only served to render them the more unwilling to execute their duties.[830]
The City's reply, 20 Nov., 1647.