London and the Kingdom

A HISTORY DERIVED MAINLY FROM THE ARCHIVES AT GUILDHALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON.

By
Reginald R. Sharpe, D.C.L.,

RECORDS CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK OF THE CITY OF LONDON; EDITOR OF "CALENDAR OF WILLS ENROLLED IN THE COURT OF HUSTING," ETC.

IN THREE VOLUMES.

Vol II

PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE CORPORATION UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE LIBRARY COMMITTEE.

LONDON
LONGMANS, GREEN & Co.
and New York: 15 East 16th Street.
1894.

Contents

[pg 001]

CHAPTER XIX.

The accession of James, 24 March, 1603.

The proclamation announcing James VI of Scotland to be "by law, by lineal succession and undoubted right," heir to the throne of England, now that Elizabeth was dead, illustrates again the ancient right of the citizens of London to a voice in electing a successor to the crown. The document not only acknowledges the assistance received by the lords of the realm from the lord mayor, aldermen and citizens of London in determining the succession, but at the very head of the signatories to the proclamation stands the name of "Robert Lee, Maior," precedence being allowed him over the primate and other lords spiritual and temporal.[1]

Correspondence between the king and the City.

Whatever failings the new king may have had, he possessed sufficient shrewdness to know the value of the favour of the City, which he hastened to acknowledge with "thankfull mynde" within a few days of his accession.[2] A reply was sent to the king's letter the following day, signed by the mayor and aldermen, in which, after expressing their twofold feelings of sorrow and joy—sorrow at losing a mother in the late queen and joy at gaining a father in the person of the new king—they declared they had used all their powers to advance his just claim to the[pg 002] crown, and would preserve the city of London, the king's Chamber, against every enemy at home or abroad. He was invited to notify his wishes to them through their secretary or remembrancer, "Mr. Doctor Fletcher," whom they sent as their special messenger.[3] The king returned for answer, that although he had been already aware of the City's forwardness in joining with the nobility in proclaiming him rightful successor to the crown, he was pleased to learn from their trusty messenger that the citizens had advocated his cause not only from the consciousness of its being a just one, but also because they were assured of his zeal for the preservation of religion.[4] This was one of James's mystifying remarks which he was accustomed to throw out in order to raise the hopes of the Catholics, who questioned his title to the crown, whilst affording no cause for alarm or discontent among the Protestants.

James leaves Edinburgh for London, 5 April.

On the 5th April James left Edinburgh for London, where every precaution was taken to prevent disturbance by ridding the streets of rogues, vagabonds and "masterless" men.[5] He proceeded southward by easy stages, accompanied by a long retinue of Scotsmen, until he reached Theobald's, at that time the mansion house of Sir Robert Cecil, but soon to become a royal hunting-lodge. On the 19th the mayor issued his precept to the livery companies to prepare a certain number of members[pg 003] to accompany the mayor in his attendance upon the king, who was shortly expected in the city. It was intended that not only the mayor and aldermen but also the full number of 500 of the "best and gravest" citizens should wait upon his majesty on horseback, clothed in coats of velvet with velvet sleeves and adorned with chains of gold, and each accompanied by "one comlie person, well apparelled in his doublet and hose," on foot. In a word, the cavalcade was to be furnished on a more sumptuous scale than had yet been seen within the memory of man.[6] The Court of Aldermen in the meantime appointed a committee to consider what suits were "fitt to be made to the Kinges most excellent Maiestye for ye good of this Cittie and the enlarging of the libertyes and priviledge of the same."[7]

The citizens ride forth to meet him, 7 May.

After resting a few days at Theobald's, James set out (7 May) for the last stage of his journey. At Stamford Hill he was met by the mayor and aldermen and a deputation from the livery companies. At every stopping-place on his journey from Scotland he had lavishly bestowed knighthoods.[8] On the 11th May he entered the Tower of London, having come from Whitehall by water for fear of the plague which was ravaging the city.

The plague of 1603.

The coronation ceremony was hurried over owing to the presence of the plague. Only the mayor, the aldermen and twelve of the principal citizens[pg 004] were permitted to attend, and much labour bestowed on preparations for the event was consequently lost.[9] The civic authorities did their utmost to stay the sickness and alleviate distress. The streets were ordered to be kept better cleansed. Infected houses were marked with papers bearing the words "Lord have mercy upon us," and when these were torn down a red painted cross, fourteen inches in length and breadth, and not so easily effaced, was added.[10] Persons stricken with the plague were forbidden to leave their houses. A master who had been inhuman enough to turn out into the street a domestic servant who had fallen a victim to the prevailing disorder was ordered by the Court of Aldermen to take her back again into his house,[11] a circumstance which seems to point to the pest-house or hospital being already overcrowded. Instructions were given for seeing that the graves of those who died of the plague were sufficiently covered with earth, and that the number of mourners attending funerals should be as far as possible limited. Women whose duty it was to search the bodies of the dead, as well as all those who were brought into contact with the sick, were forbidden to go abroad unless they carried before them a red rod three feet in length in order to give notice to passers by. It was a common belief that infection was carried about by stray dogs. To those, therefore, who killed dogs found in the streets without an owner a reward was[pg 005] given.[12] The sufferings of the afflicted were alleviated, as far as circumstances permitted, by money subscribed by the livery companies, which were further called upon to forego their customary banquets in order to relieve the poor.[13] The plague was accompanied, as was usually the case, with a scarcity of corn, and again the assistance of the companies was invoked.[14]

The king's public passage through the city, 15 Mar., 1604.

By the end of the year (1603) the city was almost free of the plague, and in the following March (1604) James determined to make his first public entry into London. A sum of £400 was raised by the livery companies[15] for furnishing pageants and stands for the occasion, and steps were taken to remove from the streets everything that might be offensive to the king's eye or ear. Thursday, the 15th March, was the day fixed for his entry, and from the preceding Wednesday until the following Friday no refuse of any kind was to be thrown into the street.[16] It was further ordered that no church bells should be rung before seven o'clock in the evening of the eventful day, lest the noise should prove offensive and hinder his majesty from hearing[pg 006] the speeches that were to be made.[17] When all was over and the pageants were about to be taken down, the Court of Aldermen, with the frugal mind of men of business, ordered the master and wardens of the Company of Painter Stainers to examine the painters' work bestowed on them, and report whether, in their opinion, such work had been well and honestly executed, and what amount of remuneration the workmen deserved.[18] It is said that the Recorder, Sir Henry Montagu, welcomed the king on this occasion with a speech, wishing him on behalf of the city "a golden reigne," and that a cup of gold was presented to the king, the queen and the young prince who accompanied them respectively;[19] but no record of the speech or gifts appears in the City's archives.

Catholic plots against the king, June, 1603.

One of the first questions James had to decide on his accession to the throne was that of religious toleration; and his settlement of the question was anxiously looked for as well by the Puritans as the Catholics. The fear lest the policy which the king should advocate might prove adverse to their interests determined the Catholics to resort to strong measures, and the life of James was threatened by a series of plots, as that of Elizabeth had been before him. Among these was a plan for seizing the king at Greenwich on Midsummer-day, 1603. The plan was laid by a secular priest named William Watson, who had previously sounded James as to his probable attitude to the Catholics if he came to the throne, Sir Griffin Markham, a Catholic gentleman, who for[pg 007] private reasons was discontented with the government, and one Antony Copley. News of the plot having reached the government, the conspirators fled for their lives. Proclamations were issued for their capture,[20] in which details were given of their personal appearance. Thus Watson was described as a man of the lowest sort about thirty-six years of age, "he lookethe a squinte and is verie purblynde," and had formerly worn a long beard which he was believed to have cut off; whilst Sir Griffin Markham is credited with having a large broad face of a "bleake" complexion, a big nose, and a hand maimed by a bullet. His brethren "have all verie greate noses." Copley's description is not given, but we have that of another conspirator, William Clarke, a priest, whose hair is represented as having been "betwixte redd and yeallowe." The whole party was subsequently taken, one after another, and their examination disclosed traces of another conspiracy, the object of which was to place Arabella Stuart on the throne.

The discovery of Watson's conspiracy—generally known as the "Bye" or "Surprise" Plot—so alarmed the king that he lost no time in making known his intention to exact no longer the recusancy fines. The result was such as might be expected. The Puritans were disgusted, whilst the number of recusants increased to such an alarming extent that in February, 1604, the king took the extreme measure of ordering the expulsion of all Jesuits and Seminary priests from the country before the 19th March,[21] the day fixed for the meeting of parliament.

The first parliament of James, Mar., 1604.

As soon as parliament met a crisis was felt to be at hand; the new king and the Commons were for the first time to measure their strength. The city's representatives are duly recorded.[22] At the head of them was Sir Henry Billingsley,[23] a former mayor, Sir Henry Montague,[24] recently appointed Recorder of the city upon the king's own recommendation, Nicholas Fuller, of whom little is known beyond the fact that he came from Berkshire and married the daughter of Nicholas Backhouse,[25] alderman and grocer, and Richard Gore, a merchant tailor.

Proposed union of England and Scotland.

With his customary self-complacency and patronising air James told the assembled Commons that he had brought them two gifts, the one peace abroad,[26] and the other the union of England with Scotland under the title of Great Britain,[27] and he expressed no little surprise and indignation when he found that neither one nor the other was acceptable. The question of the union of the two kingdoms, seeing that it involved some political difficulties necessary of solution, was referred to a commission.[28] James showed his[pg 009] displeasure at the want of compliance displayed by the Commons by refusing to accept a scheme of commutation of his rights of purveyance and wardship, which had now grown so burdensome.

Attempt to put down purveyance.

The abuse of purveyance, more especially, had become a standing grievance to the burgesses of London as well as of other cities and towns, in spite of attempted remedies by statute or charter.[29] An offer of £50,000 a year was made to the king by way of commuting any shred of right he might still have to purveyance after thirty-six statutes had pronounced it altogether illegal. This, however, he refused, and the matter was allowed to drop. Two years later, almost to the day (23 April, 1606), the king endeavoured so far to remedy the evil as to issue a proclamation against exactions and illegal acts of his purveyors,[30] and yet scarcely a month elapsed before the lord mayor had occasion to call the attention of the lords of the council to the great inconvenience caused in the city by their recent demand for 200 carts with two horses to each, together with the lord mayor's own barge, for the purpose of conveying his majesty's effects to Greenwich. As for the barge, the mayor wrote that the lord chamberlain sometimes borrowed it for conveying the king's guard, and it might haply be required again for the same purpose, "but for carringe anie stuffe or lugedge whereby it maie receave hurt it was never[pg 010] yet required," and he hoped their lordships would see the matter in that light.[31]

The House of Commons and Free Trade.

Another important matter which occupied the attention of the House at this session—although no reference to it appears in the City's records of the day—was the introduction of Free Trade, to the prejudice of the chartered rights of various trading companies. The citizens of London were deeply interested in the bill which was introduced for this purpose, for although it little affected the livery companies, it touched very closely the interests of those companies which were incorporated for the purpose of trading with foreign countries, such as that of the Merchant Adventurers, the Levant Company, the Russia Company, and others. These companies had been formed at a time when few individuals were sufficiently wealthy to bear the risk of distant enterprises. Not every citizen was a Whitington or a Gresham. The risk incurred by these associations in undertaking voyages to distant countries was compensated by the advantage gained by the enjoyment of a monopoly of the trade with those countries by charter from the Crown. At the outset there had been no cry raised against monopolies of this kind, but as time wore on and the merchant navy increased, as it did in the last reign with extraordinary rapidity, a feeling of jealousy grew up on the part of shipowners who were not members of one or other of these chartered companies. By the beginning of the seventeenth century dissatisfaction with the privileges of these trading companies had become so general that appeals were[pg 011] made to the Privy Council. These being without effect, the whole matter was referred to a parliamentary committee. No pains were spared to get at the root of the grievance. The committee were attended by "a great concourse of clothiers and merchants of all parts of the realm and especially of London."[32] Counsel was heard in favour of the bill which had been drafted for the purpose of throwing open foreign trade to all merchants alike, and the bill was supported by all the merchants attending the committee with the exception of the merchants of London, who were represented on the occasion by the principal aldermen of the city. The free traders urged the natural right of every one to the free exercise of his own industry and the example set by other nations. They declared that the passing of the bill would lead to the more even distribution of wealth,[33] the greater increase of shipping, and the augmentation of the revenues of the Crown. The upholders of the companies, on the other hand, could find no better arguments in their favour than that no company could be a monopoly inasmuch as a monopoly was something granted exclusively to a single individual, and that if the existence of the companies was determined, apprenticeship would cease and difficulties arise in collecting the king's customs! After three days' debate on the third reading the bill passed the Commons by a large majority.[34] It met, however, with so much[pg 012] opposition in the House of Lords that it was eventually dropt.

The Speaker and Commons entertained at Merchant Taylors' Hall, 3 July, 1604.

A quarrel afterwards arose between the king and the Commons on financial and ecclesiastical questions, and matters being brought to a deadlock, the House was adjourned (7 July). A few days before the adjournment the Speaker and over a hundred members held "a friendly and loving meeting" at Merchant Taylors' Hall, before departing to their country homes. The king contributed a buck and a hogshead of wine towards the entertainment, which proved so popular that thirty more guests appeared on the scene than was originally intended. The "Solemn Feast" was further graced by a "marchpane"—(a confection of bitter almonds and sugar)—representing the House of Commons sitting.[35]

Prince Henry becomes a Merchant Taylor, 17 July, 1607.

Three years later (17 July, 1607) the king himself honoured the company with his presence at dinner in their hall. The Merchant Taylors would gladly have welcomed him as one of their number and admitted him to the honorary freedom of their company, but James had already been made free of the company of Clothworkers. His son, Prince Henry, who was present at the entertainment, declared himself willing to accept the freedom, and made those of his suite who were not already members of some other company follow his example.[36]

A City loan of £15,000, Aug., 1604.

In August (1604) the king sent to borrow £20,000 from the City, a sum which was afterwards, at the City's earnest request, reduced to £15,000. The money was to be levied by order of the court of Common Council (23 Aug.) on the companies, according to rates agreed upon at the time of the loan of £20,000 to the late queen in 1598,[37] and it was to be delivered to Sir Thomas Lowe, the treasurer of the fund, by the 5th September. Some of the companies, however, proved remiss in paying their quota.[38]

The gunpowder plot, 1604-1605.

The action of James in expelling the Jesuits and Seminary priests had in the meantime so incensed the Catholics that a plot was set on foot for blowing up the king, the lords and commons, with gunpowder, as soon as parliament should re-assemble. In May (1604) a house had been hired by a Catholic named Robert Catesby, through which access might be gained to the basement of the parliament-house. The party-wall, however, proved exceptionally thick, and more than a year elapsed before the necessary mining operations were complete. Catesby was assisted in his work by a Spaniard named Guy Fawkes, who assumed the name of John Johnson. In the spring of 1605 the exasperation of the Catholics was increased by James again imposing the recusancy fines, and the little band of plotters increased in numbers, although never allowed to become large. The design of the conspirators was rendered more easy of execution by the discovery that a cellar reaching under the parliament-house was to be let. This was hired by one of the plotters,[pg 014] and a large quantity of gunpowder was safely deposited there and carefully concealed. After several adjournments parliament was summoned to assemble on the 5th November. On the eve of its meeting Fawkes entered the cellar with a lantern, ready to fire the train in the morning. One of the conspirators, however, Tresham by name, had given his friends some hint of the impending danger. Fawkes was seized and committed to the Tower, where he was subjected to the most horrible torture by the king's orders.[39] The rest of the conspirators, with the exception of Winter, took immediate flight. Hue and cry was raised,[40] and a personal description of the leaders for their better identification was scattered throughout the country. Winter was described as "a man of meane stature, rather lowe than otherwise, square made, somewhat stouping, neere fortie yeares of age, his haire and beard browne, his beard not much and his haire short"; Stephen Littleton, another conspirator, as "a verye tall man, swarthy of complexion, of browne coloured haire, no beard or litle, about thirty yeares of age"; and Thomas Percy, another, as "a tall man, with a great broad beard, a good face, the colour of his beard and head mingled with white heares, but stoupeth somewhat in the shoulders, well coloured in the face, long-footed, small legged."[41]

On the 8th November the mayor issued his precept for bonfires to be lighted that evening in the[pg 015] principal streets of the city in token of joy and thanksgiving for the deliverance of the king and parliament from this "most horrible treason."[42] A week later (16 Nov.) another precept was addressed to the alderman of each ward to furnish an extra watch, as those who had been engaged in safe-guarding the city had found the work too much for them "since the troubles begonne."[43] A diligent search was subsequently ordered to be made in every cellar and vault for any illegal store of gunpowder.[44] Fawkes and such of his fellow-conspirators as were taken alive were brought to trial at Westminster, in January (1606), and executed, some in St. Paul's Churchyard and others before the parliament-house, their quarters being afterwards placed on the city's gates, whilst their heads were stuck up on London bridge.[45] Pending their trial a double watch was kept in the city and fresh halberds issued.[46]

Three Jesuits were implicated in the plot, their names being John Gerrard, Oswald Greenway, and Henry Garnet. Gerrard and Greenway effected their escape, but Garnet was captured after having suffered much deprivation whilst in hiding, and was brought to trial at the Guildhall. Gerrard is described as tall and well set up, but his complexion "swart or blackish, his face large, his cheeks sticking out and somewhat hollow underneath," his hair long unless recently cut, his beard cut close, "saving littell mustachoes and a littell tuft under his lower lippe," his age about forty. Equally precise descriptions are[pg 016] given of Greenway and Garnet; the former being represented as of "meane stature, somewhat grosse," his hair black, his beard bushy and brown, his forehead broad, and his age about the same as that of Gerrard; whilst Garnet is described as an older man, between fifty and sixty years of age, of fair complexion, full face and grisly hair, with a high forehead, and corpulent.[47] At his trial, which took place on the 28th March, Garnet denied all knowledge of the plot save what he had heard under the seal of confession. He was nevertheless convicted and executed (3 May) in St. Paul's Churchyard.[48]

Rumour of the king being assassinated 22 March, 1606.

Notwithstanding the capture and execution of the chief actors in the late conspiracy, some time elapsed before the nation recovered from the shock, and every idle rumour of mishap to the king soon became exaggerated as it flew from one end of the kingdom to the other. Thus it was that the citizens of London awoke on the morning of Saturday, the 22nd March, to learn that the king was reported to have been killed with a poisoned dagger whilst engaged in his favourite pursuit of hunting. The alarm thus raised was with difficulty laid to rest by the following precept[49]:—

By ye Mayor.

"Where rumor hath this morninge bine dispersed abroad within this cittie and ells where neere about the same that his maties person was in very greate dainger for asmuch I have even now receaved intelligence from the lords of his maties most honorable[pg 017] pryvye counsell that his matie god be thancked is in saftie, and that I should presently make knowne the same to all his lovinge subiects which by theis presents I doe.

God save ye kinge."

On the 10th June James signed a proclamation ordering all Priests, Jesuits, Seminaries and such like to depart the kingdom before the first day of August. Any priest presenting himself to the officer of a sea-port, and acknowledging his profession, would be forwarded on his way across the sea, with the exception of Gerrard and Greenway, or Greenwell.[50]

Visit of the king of Denmark to England, July, 1606.

In July of this year (1606) the king of Denmark arrived in England on a visit to his brother-in-law, king James. The mayor, being informed by the lords of the council that the Danish fleet was already in the Thames, summoned a Common Council (17 July) to consider what steps should be taken to give the royal visitor a befitting reception in the city. A committee was thereupon appointed to make the necessary preparations.[51] They had but a fortnight before them for contriving a pageant, cleansing the streets, setting up rails and executing the thousand little things which always require to be done on such occasions. The sum of £1,000 was raised by the livery companies,[52] and each alderman was directed to see that the inhabitants of his ward hung out suitable tapestry from houses on the line of procession. The distinguished visitor was presented with a gold cup taken from the king's jewel-house in the Tower. It weighed 62-3/4 ozs., and the City paid for it at the rate of £3 10s.[pg 018] per ounce.[53] There was but one thing to mar the general rejoicing in the city, and that was the presence of the plague. This necessitated special precautions being taken to prevent the spread of infection, and an additional number of wardens were appointed to take their stand, halberd in hand, at the doors of infected houses on the day of the king's visit to prevent anyone going in or coming out.[54]

The city's water supply.

That the chief cause of the city being so often visited by epidemics in former days was the lack of a plentiful supply of wholesome water will scarcely be denied. When we consider with what rapidity the population of the city increased, more especially under the Tudors, the short-sighted policy of a government which forbade the erection of new buildings within three miles of the city's gates,[55] and drove so many families to find shelter under one roof within the limited area of the city proper, in spite of proclamations to the contrary,[56] the want of any organised system of drainage, and the scanty supply of water—we can only marvel that the city was ever free from epidemics.

In 1543 the municipal authorities obtained statutory powers to amend decayed conduits and erect new ones, as well as to bring water to the city from Hampstead,[57] and from that time they appear to have taken a more active interest in the water supply. They made periodical visits to the various conduits, and more especially the conduit-head[pg 019] at Marylebone, where a banqueting-house was erected for their convenience. Nevertheless they preferred encouraging private individuals (and these not infrequently foreigners) in attempts to improve the city's water supply, as necessity arose, to undertaking the work themselves in their corporate capacity. In 1570 the City acquired parliamentary powers to break soil for the purpose of conveying water from the river Lea, "otherwise called Ware River," at any time within the next ten years,[58] but these powers were allowed to lapse by default. In 1581 Peter Morice, a Dutchman, obtained permission to set up a water-mill in the Thames at London Bridge, and by some mechanical contrivance—a "most artificial forcier"—succeeded in conveying water as far as Leadenhall and Gracechurch. The civic authorities were so pleased with the result of his first efforts that they assisted him with a loan of £1,000 to perfect his work.[59] Ten years later (1591) the famous Italian engineer—of "fire-ship" fame—Frederico Gianibelli obtained the consent of the Court of Aldermen to erect new water-works at Tyburn for the purpose of providing the city with a better supply.[60] In 1593 Beavis Bulmer, another foreigner (to judge from his name), obtained a lease for 500 years permitting him to set up an engine at Broken Wharf for the purpose of supplying water to the inhabitants of the city. The Court of Aldermen granted him the use of the green-yard at Leadenhall for putting together his engine, whilst the court of Common[pg 020] Council advanced him the sum of £1,000 on easy terms.[61] Soon after the granting of Bulmer's lease the Common Council conceded to Henry Shaw a right to convey water from Fogwell pond, Smithfield, and to supply it to anyone willing to pay him for it, for a similar term of 500 years.[62]

Hugh Middleton and the New River Company, 1609-1613.

At length a scheme was started at the opening of the seventeenth century which not only proved itself equal to the task of supplying the ever-increasing population of London with an adequate supply of water, but was destined in after years to render its undertakers rich "beyond the dreams of avarice." The New River Company, the original shares of which are of almost fabulous value at the present day, had its commencement in an Act of Parliament (3 James I, c. 18) which empowered the mayor, commonalty and citizens of London and their successors at any time to make an open trench[63] for the purpose of bringing a fresh stream of running water to the north parts of the city from springs at Chadwell and Amwell, co. Herts. Whilst showing themselves ready and anxious to render the city more healthy and less subject to epidemics by cleansing the city's ditches of all filth and draining Finsbury and the Moorfields,[64] the civic authorities were appalled at the enormity of their own proposals, and hesitated to carry out what at that time[pg 021] appeared to be an engineering task of stupendous difficulty. Three years elapsed and nothing was done. Offers were made by various individuals to execute the work for them, but these were declined.[65] At length, on the 28th March, 1609, Hugh Middleton, a goldsmith of London, but of Welsh extraction, declared himself ready to undertake the work and to complete it within four years. His offer was accepted, and an agreement was drawn up and executed on the 21st April.[66]

Opposition to Middleton's work.

Notwithstanding the lords of the council having been desired by the lord mayor to instruct the Justices of the Peace of Hertfordshire and Middlesex to assist Middleton and his men in carrying out their work,[67] the undertaking met with great opposition. Among the various objections raised to the New River scheme was one to the effect that the municipal authorities had done nothing in the business themselves, but had by Act of Common Council irrevocably conveyed their whole interest in fee simple to Middleton, who was carrying out the work "for his own private benefit." To this objection answer was made that if the mayor and citizens would not adventure upon so uncertain a work Middleton deserved the greater commendation in adventuring his money and labour for the good of the city, and if the city was benefited and the country not[pg 022] prejudiced Middleton deserved all that he gained.[68] A bill was introduced into parliament to repeal the Acts authorising the construction of the New River, and a committee appointed (20 June, 1610) to survey the damages caused or likely to be caused by the work,[69] and report thereon to the House. "Much ado there is also in the House," wrote a contemporary to his friend,[70] "about the work undertaken and far advanced already by Middleton, of the cutting of a river and bringing it to London from ten or twelve miles off, through the grounds of many men who, for their particular interest, do strongly oppose themselves to it, and are like (as 'tis said) to overthrow it all." The bill was opposed by the City. A deputation consisting of two aldermen, the Town Clerk and the City Remembrancer was appointed (25 May, 1610) to wait upon Sir John Herbert, one of the principal Secretaries of State, Sir Julius Cæsar, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other influential members of parliament, for the purpose of entreating them to use their efforts to prevent the repeal of the statutes on the ground that the stream of fresh water which would thereby be brought to the north parts of the city would tend to the preservation of health; that the work had already been carried ten miles, and that Middleton had already expended more than £3,000 in carrying it out.[71]

Pecuniary assistance granted to Middleton by James, May, 1612.

Middleton was eventually allowed to proceed with his work, but the delay that had taken place made it necessary for him to apply to the Common Council for an extension of time within which to complete it. The City readily consented to grant him an extension of five years (27 Feb., 1611).[72] No application for pecuniary assistance however appears to have been made to the City at this or any other time whilst the work was in progress by Middleton, although he lacked funds and was compelled in the following year to seek the assistance of James himself. The king was familiar with Middleton and his undertaking, for the New River was carried past his own hunting-lodge of Theobalds. In May (1612) he agreed to pay half the cost of the whole work on condition that Middleton would convey to him one-half of the property. Middleton could not do otherwise than accept the king's offer, and in the following August executed a deed conveying thirty-six shares to James.[73]

The New River opened, 29 Sept., 1613.

With royalty at his back Middleton was enabled to complete his undertaking, and the New River was opened with befitting ceremony on the very day (29 Sept., 1613) that Thomas,[74] his elder brother,[pg 024] was elected to the mayoralty chair for the ensuing year.

Compulsory use of the New River water, 1616.

Even then the whole enterprise might have failed had not pressure been brought to bear to make the inhabitants of the city use the New River water to the exclusion of other supplies. In 1616, three years after the New River had been opened, the lords of the council wrote (23 Dec.) to the mayor and aldermen informing them that it was the king's wish that, inasmuch as few persons used the new supply, the city authorities should see that all such houses as could conveniently use it should be made to use it, for it was not to be supposed, said they, that two Acts of Parliament and an Act of Common Council affecting the health and safety of the city should be passed to no other purpose than to injure those who undertook so useful a work on the part of the city.[75] So again, in the following year (1617), when the brewers of London wished to erect waterworks on their own account at Dowgate, they were stopped by order of the Privy Council, and told to take their water from the New River, which had been made at great expense, "was of great consequence to his majesty's service, and deserved all due encouragement."[76] Even the civic authorities themselves were forbidden (11 April, 1634) to improve the supply from Tyburn, on which they had already expended much money, for fear of injuring the interests of the shareholders of the New River Company,[77] who had but recently received their first dividend.[78]

A City loan of £3,000 to Middleton, Sept., 1614.

Soon after the completion of the New River, Middleton applied to the City for a loan. The whole of his own capital had been sunk in his vast undertaking, and he required an advance of £3,000. The loan was granted (8 Sept., 1614) for three years at six per cent., security being given by his brother Thomas, the lord mayor, Robert, another brother, and Robert Bateman.[79]

Middleton created a baronet, Oct., 1622.

In 1622 (19 Oct.) James conferred on Middleton a baronetcy—a new hereditary title recently established for supplying the king with money to put down the Irish rebellion.[80] Middleton, however, appears to have been too poor to pay the sum of £1,000 or so for which the new title was purchasable; at any rate the money was not exacted.[81] A baronet in the city of London (by the way) enjoyed the special privilege of exemption from serving as sheriff. "It was unfit," wrote James to the lord mayor (11 Nov., 1613), "that a gentleman called to the quality of a baronet should be afterwards called to be sheriff," and he declared that he would have "no such precedent."[82]

The City votes Middleton a gold chain, Nov., 1623.

A year after Middleton had been created a baronet the Court of Aldermen voted him (13 Nov., 1623) a gold chain of the value of 200 marks in recognition of his services in supplying the city with water, and thereby preventing the spread of disastrous fires. Only the night before (12 Nov.) "a very[pg 026] terrible and fearful fire" had broken out, destroying many houses, and among them that of Sir William Cockaine, in Broad Street, and causing damage to the extent of £40,000 and more;[83] and the Court of Aldermen, in recording their vote, testified to the great danger which would have threatened the city had not a plentiful supply of water, thanks to Middleton, been at hand.[84] The chain was set with diamonds and had the City's arms by way of pendant. Middleton himself being a goldsmith of repute was allowed to supervise the making of it.[85]

Death of Middleton, 10 Dec, 1631.

All this time the City's loan to Middleton remained outstanding, and indeed it remained unrepaid at the time of his death in December, 1631, a circumstance which shows that the greatest engineer of the age died worse off than many believe. After considerable hesitation the Court of Aldermen instructed the City Solicitor to recover the money by suing on Middleton's bond.[86]

Grant of £1,000 to Lady Middleton, 1634.

If other evidence were wanting to show that Middleton died in reduced circumstances there is the fact that his widow was compelled, soon after her husband's death, to seek satisfaction from the City for losses sustained by his estate by means of "many breaches made in the pipes of water and otherwise upon occasion of divers great fires." After considering the matter for close upon two years the Common Council at length agreed (2 Oct., 1634) to raise a sum of £1,000 for her by assessment on the[pg 027] wards, but hesitated whether to pay the money to Lady Middleton for her own use or as executrix only of the will of her late husband, "to be distributed according to the custome of this Citty whereof he dyed a Freeman." The court added this condition to the gift, viz.: that the City should be allowed to set up cocks in connection with the New River pipes in each ward, to be used in cases of fire, in place of cutting the pipes, as had been the custom on such occasions.[87] In 1635 Middleton's loan remained still owing to the City, and the £1,000 promised to his widow was not yet collected. On the 12th May Lady Middleton petitioned the Court of Aldermen to allow the £1,000 to be accepted in part payment of her late husband's debt and she would endeavour forthwith to discharge the remainder. To this the court acceded.[88]

The New River Company petition the City for an immediate grant of all that had been conveyed to Middleton. 10 June, 1726.

In 1726 the New River Company petitioned the Common Council for a direct conveyance to be made to the company of all the statutory rights and privileges the City had originally made over to Middleton. The reason given for this request was that the company found themselves obliged at the time to prosecute a number of trespassers, and that it had been advised by counsel that in order to get a verdict in the company's favour it would have to prove its title, "through all times and through all the mean conveyances," from the passing of the original Act of Parliament to the present time. The company represented that such a proceeding would involve enormous difficulty, but this difficulty could be got over if the City would consent to give an[pg 028] immediate grant to the company of all that they had formerly conveyed to Middleton, and upon the same terms. The matter, urged the company, was one that affected the interests of the City, for unless the offenders were punished the water of the New River would continue to be intercepted before it reached the city. The petition was referred to the City Lands Committee for consideration.[89]

The plantation of Ulster.

Just at the time when the City was meditating a transfer of their powers under the New River Acts to Middleton, a scheme was being set on foot for colonising a vast tract of land in the north of Ireland, which, after the flight of the earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnel in 1607, was declared to be confiscated to the Crown. In October, 1608, commissioners had been appointed to draw up a plan for the proposed colonisation, or, as it was called, the "Plantation of Ulster," and by the following January (1609) their reports were sent in.[90] The next step was the formulating of orders and conditions to be observed by the undertakers of the plantation, and by the end of January these were ready, although they do not appear to have been published before the following March.[91] The object of promulgating these orders and conditions was to attract persons to take a share in the work of the plantation, not so much with the view of benefiting themselves as of doing service to the Crown and[pg 029] commonwealth. Whatever attraction the scheme as put forth in this Collection of Orders and Conditions—often referred to in subsequent proceedings as the "printed book"—may have had for others, it had none for the Londoner.[92] The city merchant and trader required to be assured of some substantial benefit to be gained by himself before he would embark in any such undertaking, and in order to give him this assurance he was asked to consider a long list of "motives and reasons to induce the City of London to undertake plantation in the north of Ireland."[93]

Motives and reasons to encourage the City to take part in the plantation, 28 May, 1609.

In this document, bearing date the 28th May, 1609, the king offered to make over to the city of London the city of Derry and another place near the castle of Coleraine with adjacent territory, and with exceptional advantages as to custom dues and admiralty jurisdiction. As an inducement to accept the king's offer the citizens were assured that the country was well watered and suitable for breeding cattle; it grew hemp and flax better than elsewhere; it was well stocked with game and had excellent sea and river fisheries, and it contained such abundance of provisions as not only to supply the plantation, but also assist towards the relief of the London poor. Besides these advantages the city, which was so overcrowded "that one tradesman was scarcely able to live by another," would have an opportunity of getting rid of some of its surplus population, and at the same time render itself less liable to infectious diseases. If the citizens wanted a precedent for what[pg 030] they were now called upon to undertake, they were invited to look at what Bristol had done for Dublin in the reign of Henry II. The plantation of Dublin by Bristol, which reflected "eternal commendation" on the latter city, had done much towards civilising and securing that part of Ireland, and it was greatly to be hoped that the precedent so set would now be followed by London, more especially as the advantages to be gained were far greater.

The matter laid before a special Court of Aldermen, 1 July, 1609.

A goodly prospect indeed; but still the enterprise failed to commend itself to the Londoner. A month went by and nothing was done. At length, on Saturday, the 1st July, the matter was brought direct to the attention of a special Court of Aldermen and "divers selected comoners" of the city by the lords of the council. Again the citizens were assured that by taking a part in the work of the plantation they would not only be doing a work acceptable unto God but one which would be at once honourable and profitable to themselves.

Referred to the livery companies.

The project was received with favour to the extent that it was resolved to invite the livery companies to consider the matter, and to appoint committees to make suggestions to the court in writing by the following Wednesday (5 July),[94] and precepts to the companies were issued accordingly. The reply sent by the companies appears to have been considered unsatisfactory, for on the following Saturday (8 July) the mayor issued another precept rebuking them for the attitude taken up by their representatives, who had not, in his opinion, paid[pg 031] sufficient attention to the matter nor fully realised the motives and reasons which had been propounded. He bade them reconsider the matter and send their representatives to the Guildhall on Friday, 14th July, with "such reasons and demands as are fit to be remembered, required or considered of in the undertaking of so great and honourable an action" set down in writing.[95] Accordingly, on the 14th, the committees of the various companies appeared before the Court of Aldermen with their answer in writing, and a deputation was nominated to carry their answer to the lords and to hear anything more that they might have to say on the matter.[96]

The lords of the council being angry with the companies for sending in their answer before a conference had been held with them, the Recorder was instructed to inform them that the companies had acted under a mistake, and intended nothing undutiful in what they had done, and a deputation was again nominated to confer with their lordships.[97] This was on Tuesday, the 18th July.

A conference with the lords of the council.

Before the end of the week "a full and large conference" took place, and the lords of the council so satisfied the representatives of the companies of the profitable nature of the undertaking that they were encouraged to become adventurers. It was an[pg 032] understood thing between the parties that the citizens should send their own representatives over to Ireland to view the property, and if the undertaking proved to be otherwise than had been represented, and unprofitable, they were to be at liberty to withdraw from it altogether. The result of the conference was signified to the masters and wardens of the several companies on Monday, the 24th July, by precept of the mayor, who enjoined them to call together their companies on the following Wednesday, and after explaining the whole matter to them, to learn from each individual member what amount he was prepared to contribute towards the furtherance of so "famous a project," and to cause the same to be entered in a book "to the intent his majesty may be informed of the readiness of this city in a matter of such great consequence." A note was to be made of any who refused to contribute, and those who failed to attend the summons were to be fined. No time was to be lost, for the lords of the council expected a return of the amount to be contributed by the companies by Friday (28 July).[98]

Commissioners appointed by the City to view the plantation, 1 Aug., 1609.

On Sunday, the 30th July, a deputation of aldermen and commoners again waited on the lords of the council, and received permission to elect four wise, grave and discreet citizens to cross over to Ireland and view the proposed plantation. On Tuesday (1 Aug.) the Common Council nominated John Broad, goldsmith, Hugh Hamersley, haberdasher, Robert Treswell, painter-stainer, and John Rowley, draper, to be the City's commissioners for the purpose.[99]

The system of deception practised on them.

The lords of the council anticipated the arrival of the City's agents in Ireland by directing Sir Thomas Philips to accompany them in their travels, and by sending instructions to Sir Arthur Chichester, the deputy, to see that they were well supplied with necessaries and were assisted in every way. The latter was more particularly instructed to use great care in the selection of discreet persons to conduct and accompany them, men who from their experience and understanding might be able, "both by discourse and reason, to controule whatsoever any man shall reporte either out of ignorance or malice, and to give the undertakors satisfaccon when they shalbe mistaken or not well informed of any particular."[100] The conductors were to take care to lead the Londoners by the best roads, and to lodge them on their journeys where they might, if possible, receive English entertainment in Englishmen's houses. The lords of the council at the same time forwarded to Sir Arthur Chichester a copy of the "Project," and desired him to see that those who conducted the City's agents were "well prepared before-hand to confirme and strengthen every part thereof by demonstracon as they may plainly apprehend and conceive the commodities to be of good use and profit." On the other hand, matters of distaste, such as fear of the Irish, of the soldiers, of cess and such like must not be so much as named. These could be set right afterwards and were only matters of discipline and order. Lastly, if the Londoners should happen to express a wish[pg 034] respecting anything, "whether it be the fishing, the admirallty, or any other particuler wch may serve for a motyve to enduce them," the same was to be conceded at once, and no private interests, whether of Sir Arthur Chichester himself or any other individual, were to be allowed to stand in the way.

These instructions were carried out to the letter, and the City's representatives, as soon as they set foot in Ireland, were treated right royally. Sir John Davys, one of the king's commissioners engaged in surveying the country, wrote home on the 28th August[101]: "The Londoners are now come, and exceeding welcome to us. Wee all use our best rhetorick to persuade them to go on wth their plantation, wch will assure the whole island to the crowne of England forever. They like and praise the cuntrey very much, specially the Banne and the river of Loghfoyle." He goes on to say that one of the City's agents had fallen sick, and would have returned, but the lord-deputy and the rest had used every means to comfort and retain him, "lest this accident shold discourage his fellow cittizens." In other respects, too, they saw the country at its best, for they arrived at a time when the Irish were flocking in and making their submission in far better fashion than they had done for years. So pleased were they with what they saw that they assured Sir Arthur Chichester that the City would certainly undertake the plantation upon the report they were about to make. The deputy on his part assured them that if the Londoners did not undertake the[pg 035] work they would be enemies to themselves. He suggested that they should send home to the lord mayor some samples of the commodities of the country. The suggestion was adopted, and he obtained for them some raw hides, tallow, salmon, herrings, eels, pipe-staves, beef and the like at a cheap rate. He also procured them some iron ore and promised to furnish them with samples of lead and copper.[102]

Report of commissioners, 28 Nov., 1609.

By November the City's agents had returned to London. On the 28th they appeared before the Court of Aldermen and presented their report, together with an answer made by Sir Arthur Chichester to certain questions they had put to him on doubtful points, and also a map or "plott" of the country they had viewed. The court in the first place authorised the Chamberlain to re-imburse them the sum of £100 which they had found it necessary to borrow to supplement the allowance of £300 originally allowed for their expenses by the court;[103] and in the next gave orders for all the documents to be enrolled by the Remembrancer "in a faier booke, wherein the letters and other things comytted to his charge and care are recorded and entred," and also in the Journal by the Clerk of the Orphans.[104] The viewers' report came before the court of Common Council on the 2nd December,[pg 036] when it was openly read and referred to a committee specially appointed.[105]

The City's proposal to undertake the plantation and to raise the sum of £15,000 for the purpose, 15 Dec., 1609.

On Friday, the 15th, the committee were ready with their report. They had met five times, and had held long debate and consultation on the various matters incident to "so great a business," and on each and all of these they had something to say. As to the financial part of the undertaking they were of opinion that the Common Council should pass an Act for raising a sum of £15,000, and no more, upon the members of the wealthier livery companies, by poll, the inferior companies being spared. The report having been approved by the court a deputation was appointed to wait upon the Privy Council with the City's answer on the following Sunday (17 December).[106]

The City's offer to raise £15,000 rejected as insufficient.

When the lords of the council came to consider the City's proposals they found much to their liking, but the clause which restricted the amount of money to be furnished by the City to £15,000, and no more, was "much distasted" by them, seeing that that sum would scarcely suffice to buy up private interests, let alone the work of plantation. The City's offer in this respect was therefore rejected, and the Common Council had therefore to increase its offer to £20,000.[107]

The sum of £20,000 levied on livery companies according to corn assessment.

Early in the following year (8 Jan., 1610) a committee was appointed, including the four commissioners who had viewed the plantation, to confer with commissioners appointed by the Privy Council as to the best means of carrying out the work. In the meantime the sum of £5,000, or one-fourth part of the £20,000 required, was to be immediately levied[pg 037] on the principal companies according to their corn assessment.[108] Some of the companies complained of the unfairness of assessing them according to the existing corn rate, inasmuch as a great change had taken place since that rate had been made: "Divers companies are decayed and others growne to bee of greater liability, so as particuler men of some companies are now exceedinglie overcharged and others greatelye favoured." It was too late to make any alteration in the payment of the first two instalments, as the plantation was to commence in the summer,[109] but a new assessment for corn was made in July with the view of making the rate more equitable.[110]

The "Articles" of the plantation signed, 28 Jan., 1610.

On the 28th January (1610) the committee appointed by the court of Common Council came to terms with the Privy Council, and a special agreement was signed by both parties embodying all the essential conditions of the plantation in twenty-seven articles. A period of seven years was allowed the City to make such other reasonable demands as time might show to be needful.[111]

The formation of the "Irish Society."

The articles were read at the Common Council held two days later (30 Jan.), when it was decided[pg 038] to form a company in the city of London for the purpose of carrying out the plantation, the company to consist of a governor, a deputy-governor and twenty-four assistants, of whom the Recorder of the city was to be one. The governor and five of the assistants were to be aldermen of the city, the rest commoners.[112] On the 4th February the lords of the council informed Sir Arthur Chichester that the "noble and worthy work of the plantation in Ulster undertaken by the city" was concluded, and the articles signed. The city had chosen a governor and a council of assistants for the more orderly disposition of their affairs. They had also elected John Rowley to be their agent, and he and others would shortly set out for Ireland. The lords commended him to the deputy's care, and he was instructed to see that they were furnished with a sufficient number of labourers for felling timber, digging stone and burning lime. Sir Arthur's services in forwarding a work which the king had so much at heart would not go, they assured him, unrewarded.[113]

The City forced to surrender 2,000 acres of their Irish estate, July, 1610.

The articles of the plantation had not long been signed before the government broke faith with the City, and the latter were asked to forego no less than 2,000 acres of land agreed to be assigned to them. This iniquitous proposal on the part of the king's commissioners was laid before a special court of Common Council (7 June, 1610) by Alderman Cockaine, the governor of the Irish Society. After long deliberation the court decided to stand upon their rights, and[pg 039] rejected the proposal. Six weeks later (22 July) they saw fit to change their minds, and they agreed to surrender the 2,000 acres whilst refusing to accede to other demands.[114]

Difficulties experienced in raising the £20,000 for the plantation.

It was no easy task the City had undertaken. Great difficulty was experienced in getting the companies to pay up their quota of the £20,000 to be raised for the purpose of the plantation. The wardens of the Mercers, the Clothworkers and other companies were committed to prison by order of the Court of Aldermen for refusing or failing to pay the sums at which their respective companies had been assessed.[115] The masters or wardens of the companies were not so much to blame as the individual members of the companies who refused to pay. Thus, a sum of £200 due from Sir John Spencer, the rich Clothworker, remained unpaid at his death. It was eventually paid by his son-in-law, Lord Compton, after much solicitation.[116] Even when the money was got in there was a difficulty in forwarding it to its destination, so infested was the Irish coast with pirates who lay in wait for the money sent by the City for the works at Coleraine.[117]

The companies to take up allotment of Irish estate, Jan., 1611.

Early in the following year (31 Jan., 1611) the livery companies were called upon to certify to the Irish Society, within one week, whether or no they were willing to accept an allotment of the Irish estate proportionate to the money by them advanced, and to[pg 040] cultivate and plant the same at their own cost and charges, according to the "printed book" of the plantation, or leave the letting and disposing thereof to the governor and committees. They were warned that, in any case, they would still have to contribute towards the charge of building houses and fortifications and freeing of tithes.[118] In response to the mayor's precept eight of the principal companies of the city, viz., the Mercers, Grocers, Drapers, Fishmongers, Goldsmiths, Salters, Ironmongers and Vintners, and ten of the inferior companies, viz., the Dyers, Pewterers, Founders, Whitebakers, Broderers, Armourers, Tilers and Bricklayers, Blacksmiths, Weavers and Woodmongers, signified their willingness to accept a proportionate part of the land (27 Feb.). The remainder of the companies preferred to leave the lands alone, but they were allowed to come in afterwards if they saw reason to change their mind.[119]

A further sum of £10,000 to be raised for the plantation, July, 1611.

By July (1611) nearly the whole of the £20,000 had been expended. The Common Council thereupon resolved that a further sum of £10,000 should be levied on the companies at the same rate as the last two payments. A day was appointed for the companies to send in a written notice whether they agreed to contribute to this fresh sum or were ready to forfeit the money they had already subscribed and lose all their right in the plantation.[120]. £5,000 was to be ready by the 10th August. The remainder was not demanded until July, 1612.[121]

The Irish Society incorporated, 29 March, 1613.

Hitherto the agreement between the lords of the council and the citizens of London had been carried[pg 041] out by one side only. The City had found the money wherewith to carry out the work of the plantation, but as yet not an acre of land had been assigned. It is not surprising, therefore, that when the Grocers' Company were called upon to contribute their quota to the £5,000 demanded in July, 1612, they desired the lord mayor not to press the matter until the assurance of the lands and other hereditaments for which money had been formerly disbursed should have been obtained from his majesty.[122] At length, on the 29th March, 1613, the Irish Society received its charter of incorporation.

Another £10,000 demanded of the companies, 30 April, 1613.

Notwithstanding the great difficulty experienced in getting in the last £5,000—as much as £3,667 10s. being still outstanding in October, 1612[123]—the Common Council found itself under the unpleasant necessity of asking the companies for another £10,000 within a few weeks of the incorporation of the Irish Society. Not only had the whole of the £30,000 formerly subscribed been expended, but the Irish Society had borrowed £3,000 from the Chamber of London.[124] The money was to be raised by the end of May.

The Londoners charged with remissness in carrying out the work of the plantation.

James had already begun to show impatience—even before the granting of the charter of incorporation to the Irish Society—at the little progress made in the work of the plantation. At the close of the last year (21 Dec., 1612) he had himself written to Sir Arthur Chichester directing him to send home an account of what the Londoners had done; for, notwithstanding their pretence of great expenditure, there was, so he[pg 042] was informed, little outward show for it.[125] Fault was found with them, not only for failing to build houses according to the articles of agreement, but for their humane treatment of the "mere Irish," instead of driving them forth to perish in the narrow districts set apart for them.[126]

Two special commissioners sent to Ireland, June, 1613.

On Midsummer-day (1613) Sir Henry Montague, the Recorder, and Sir William Cockaine, the governor of the Irish Society, signified to the Common Council that it was the king's wish that the walls and fortifications of Derry should be at once taken in hand. The court agreed to lose no time in carrying out the king's wishes, and further resolved to despatch "some great and worthy magistrate," as well as "some commoner of special countenance and credit," to take an exact notice, view and account of the whole work of the plantation, and of all works done and to be done, and, in a word, to do all that they deemed necessary for the good of the plantation. The choice of the court fell upon Alderman George Smithes and Matthias Springham, a Merchant Taylor.[127]

Their report submitted to the Common Council, 8 Nov., 1613.

These two proceeded to Ireland, and, having viewed the plantation, sent home from Dublin a detailed report of all they had seen and done.[128] The report was submitted to the Common Council on the 8th November (1613). Among other things they had taken great pains to make an equal division of the land as far as was possible into twelve parts, with the view of distributing it among the livery companies as proposed,[pg 043] and a "plott" of the division was laid before the court. But they were of opinion that the city of Londonderry and its land of 4,000 acres, and the town of Coleraine with its 3,000 acres, its ferries and fisheries, could not be conveniently divided, but the rents and profits of them might be divided among the several companies. As to the fortification of Derry, the commissioners had consulted ten military experts on the matter and plans had been drafted; but it was necessary to gather material before the wall could be commenced, and this the commissioners recommended should be taken in hand at once.

Allotment of the Irish estate among the companies, 17 Dec., 1613.

On the 17th December lots were publicly drawn to decide the particular lands which each of the twelve principal companies, combined with several of the inferior companies in such a way as to make their total contributions to amount, as far as might be, to one-twelth of the whole sum (£40,000) contributed, should hold.[129] The companies at once took possession of their property so far as they could do so; but livery of seisin was not and could not be made to them until James had granted (30 Sep., 1615), both to the Irish Society and to the companies, a licence in mortmain. This licence was expressly granted "to the end that they might be the better encouraged and enabled to proceed and finish the same plantation, and in future times reap some gains and benefits of their great travails and expenses bestowed therein."[130] It may be inferred from this that James had little expectation that the undertakers[pg 044] would reap much gain or profit from their enterprise notwithstanding former professions. For some years to come there was no gain, little or great. No sooner had the allotment of land to the companies taken place than they were called upon to raise a further sum of £5,000,[131] and at the end of another twelve months a further sum of £7,500, making in all a sum total of £52,500 which they had subscribed towards the plantation.[132] It was not until 1623 that the profits of the plantation began to exceed the costs and the Irish Society was in a position to pay a dividend.[133]

The right of the companies to sell their Irish estate questioned.

The select Parliamentary Committee of 1890.

In years gone by, when some of the companies sold their Irish estate, there was no question as to their power of alienation or their absolute right to the proceeds of the sale, but of late years a cry has been raised that the companies held their estates in a fiduciary capacity, and that they could not legally alienate their Irish property without accounting for the proceeds of the sale as public trustees. It had got abroad that those companies who had not already parted with their Irish estates—as the Haberdashers had done as far back as the year 1675, and the Merchant Taylors, the Goldsmiths and the Vintners, between the years 1728 and 1737—were meditating a sale. In response to the cry thus raised a select Parliamentary Committee was appointed to enquire "as to the Terms of the Charters or other Instruments[pg 045] by which their Estates in Ireland were granted to the Irish Society and to the London companies, and as to the Trusts and Obligations (if any) attaching to the Ownership of such Estates." Any trust or obligation in connection with the tenure of these estates would naturally be comprised within the four corners of the charters and instruments mentioned in the order of reference just cited, but these the committee practically ignored, on the ground that the task of pronouncing with decisive authority upon their legal construction could only be performed by a judicial tribunal.[134] We have it, however, on the authority of so sound a lawyer as the late Sir George Jessel, that the companies are ordinary owners of their Irish estates in fee simple, subject only to the reservations expressly contained in the conveyance to them.[135]

[pg 046]

CHAPTER XX.

The plantation of Virginia, 1609.

Contemporaneously with the plantation of Ulster, another and more distant enterprise of somewhat similar character was being carried out in America; and to this, as to every great public undertaking, the citizens of London must need be called to lend their assistance. A company formed in 1606, and composed, in part at least, of London merchants, the object of which was the colonisation of Virginia, had proved a failure after a hopeless struggle for three years. It was therefore determined to reconstruct the company on a different basis and to make an entirely fresh start.

Application to the City for assistance.

In the spring of 1609 the company wrote to Sir Humphrey Weld,[136] then mayor of London, for assistance in financing the undertaking, urging him at the same time to diminish the risk of pestilence and famine in the city by removing the surplus population to Virginia. For the sake of convenience they purposed to issue no bills of adventure for less than £12 10s., but if his lordship were to make any "ceasement" (assessment) or raise subscriptions from[pg 047] the best disposed and most able of the companies, the council and company of the plantation would be willing to give bills of adventure to the masters and wardens for the general use and behoof of each company, or in the case of subscription by the wards to the alderman and deputy of each ward for the benefit of the ward. Should the emigrants "demaund what may be theire present mayntenaunce, what maye be theire future hopes?" they might be told that the company was for the present prepared to offer them "meate, drinke and clothing, with an howse, orchard and garden for the meanest family, and a possession of lands to them and their posterity." Any alderman of the city subscribing £50 would be reckoned as an original member of the council of the company, and take equal share of the profits with the rest; their deputies, too, would be admitted to the same privileges on payment of half that sum.

Contributions by the livery companies.

In response to a precept no less than fifty-six companies agreed to take ventures in the plantation. The Grocers subscribed the sum of £487 10s., or more than double the amount subscribed by any other company. The Mercers, the Goldsmiths and the Merchant Taylors contributed respectively the next highest amount, viz., £200; whilst the Drapers and Fishmongers subscribed severally £150, the Stationers £125, the Clothworkers £100, and the Salters £50. In addition to these contributions made by the companies in their corporate capacity other sums were ventured by individual members.[137] Bills of adventure were thereupon given to the several[pg 048] companies for the money subscribed, entitling them to have rateably "theire full parte of all such lands, tenements and hereditaments" as should from time to time be recovered, planted and inhabited, as also "of all such mines and minerals of gould, silver and other metals or treasure, pearles, precious stones, or any kind of wares or marchaundizes, comodities or profitts whatsoever," as should be obtained or gotten in the voyage.[138]

The company's new charter, 23 May, 1609.

With the assistance thus afforded by the citizens of London the Virginia Company had no difficulty in obtaining another charter from the Crown (23 May, 1609). Among the adventurers to whom the charter was granted, and who embraced representatives of every rank, profession and occupation, we find Humphrey Weld, the mayor, whose name immediately follows those of the peers of the realm who shared in the undertaking, and Nicholas Ferrar, skinner, who died in 1620, and gave by will "£300 to the college in Virginia, to be paid when there shall be ten of the infidels' children placed in it, and in the meantime twenty-four pounds by the yeare to be disbursed unto three discreete and godly men in the colonie, which shall honestly bring up three of the infidels' children in Christian religion and some good course to live by."[139]

Outbreak of yellow fever among the colonists.

In the meantime (15 May) seven vessels with emigrants on board had set sail from Woolwich. After frequent delays on the south coast of England they crossed the Atlantic and reached their destination[pg 049] on the 11th August. Yellow fever had unfortunately broken out on board ship during the long voyage, and this, together with the plague, which is generally believed to have been conveyed to Virginia by the fleet, committed great havoc among the early emigrants.[140]

The company again re-constructed, 12 March, 1612.

It was not long before more money was wanted, and again application was made to the livery companies. The Mercers declined to make any further advance;[141] but with the assistance of the other companies the sum of £5,000 was raised, which was afterwards increased to £18,000.[142] Nevertheless, in spite of every exertion, the company was in the autumn of 1611 on the very verge of ruin, and something had to be done to prevent its utter collapse. It was accordingly again re-constructed, its domains were made to comprise the Bermudas, or Somers Islands, and a third charter granted (12 March, 1612), in which a number of citizens are named as having become adventurers since the last letters patent.[143]

A public lottery in aid of the company.

A special feature of the charter was the authorisation of one or more lottery or lotteries to be held for the benefit of the company,[144] by virtue of which a lottery was soon afterwards opened in London. The chief prize fell to one Thomas Sharplys, or Sharplisse, a tailor of London, who won "four thousand crowns in fair plate."[145] The lucky winner used the same motto on this occasion as was used by the Merchant[pg 050] Taylors' Company in their venture in the lottery of 1569.[146] The City's records are unaccountably silent on the matter of this lottery, but we learn from other sources that the Grocers' Company adventured the sum of £62 10s. of their common goods and drew a prize of £13 10s. An offer being made to them to accept the prize subject to a rebate of £10, or in lieu thereof "a faire rounde salt with a cover of silver all gilt," weighing over 44 ozs. at 6s. 7d. per oz., amounting to the sum of £14 19s. 1d., the company resolved to accept the salt, "both in respect it would not be so much losse to the company ... and alsoe in regard this company wants salts." The balance of £1 9s. was ordered to be paid out of the common goods of the company.[147] Not only the companies but several of the city parishes had ventures in a small way in the lottery. Thus the vestry of St. Mary Colechurch agreed (7 June) to adventure the sum of £6 of the church stock, whereby the church was the gainer of "twoe spones, price twenty shillinge."[148] The parish of St. Mary Woolchurch adventured a less sum, taking only fifty lots at a shilling apiece, in return for which it got a prize of ten shillings.[149] That the lottery was not taken up in the way it was hoped it would be is shown by the fact that just before the drawing—which took place in a house at the west end of St. Paul's, and lasted from the 29th June till the 20th July—no less than 60,000 blanks were taken out, in[pg 051] order to increase the number of chances in favour of the adventurers.[150]

The public lottery of 1614.

Two years later (1614) another lottery for the same purpose was set on foot. On the 1st April the lords of the council addressed a circular letter to the city companies,[151] enclosing a copy of a pamphlet by Sir Thomas Smith, entitled "A declaration of the present estate of the English in Virginia, with the final resolucon of the Great Lotterye intended for their supply," and exhorting them to do their best to make the lottery a success. The object is there described as a "worthy and Christian enterprise, full of honour and profitt to His Majestie and the whole realme." A copy of this letter was forwarded to the several companies through Sir Thomas Middleton, the mayor,[152] who, as we have already said, was himself a member of the Council of the Virginia Company in 1609. The lotteries, however, found but little favour with the companies, who were actively engaged at the time in managing their recently acquired Irish estates, and had but little money to spare. The Merchant Taylors' Company contented themselves with voting only £50 out of their common stock for the lottery, leaving it to individual members to venture further sums on their own account as each might think fit.[153] The Grocers' Company, of which Middleton was a member, voted nothing out of their[pg 052] common stock, but each member was exhorted "for the general advancement of Christianity and good of the commonwealth," to write with his own hands how much he was willing to venture. This was accordingly done (15 April), the lord mayor himself setting the example; but as to the result the company's records fail to give any information.[154]

The Virginia Company and the House of Commons.

The prospects of the Virginia Company were seriously imperilled by an ill-advised speech made in the House of Commons by the lord mayor inveighing against the importation of tobacco. The Company was already in disgrace with the House, through the indiscretion of Counsel employed to prosecute a petition on its behalf, and all the members of the Company who held seats in the House were desired to withdraw until it should be decided what action should be taken in the matter. Eventually peace was restored by the offending Counsel coming to the Bar of the House and making a humble submission.[155]

Vagrant children sent to Virginia, 1618-1619.

In 1618 a scheme was set on foot for taking up vagrant boys and girls that lay begging in the streets of the city, having neither home nor friends, and transporting them to Virginia to be there industriously employed. The scheme came before the Court of Common Council on the 31st July in the form of a petition from a number of citizens. A committee was at once appointed to consider the matter, and on the 24th September they brought in their report.[156] The Virginia Company had agreed to take 100 boys[pg 053] and girls between the ages of eight and sixteen, and to educate and bring them up at the company's charge. The company were prepared, moreover, to give each boy and girl fifty acres of land, to each boy as soon as he was twenty-four years of age, and to each girl at the age of twenty-one or her marriage, whichever should first happen. The charge of fitting out and transporting that number was estimated at £500, which sum the court agreed should be levied on the inhabitants of the city rateably according as each was assessed towards the last poor rate. The young emigrants were soon afterwards shipped to their new home,[157] and so successfully did the undertaking turn out that in little over a year another application was made to the Common Council (18 Dec., 1619) for another batch of 100 children for shipment to the colony in the following spring.[158] It was desired that the new emigrants should be twelve years old and upwards, with an allowance of £3 apiece for their transportation and 40s. apiece for their apparel, "as was formerly graunted." The boys would be put out as apprentices until the age of twenty-one, and the girls likewise until the same age or marriage, after which they would be placed as tenants on the public lands, and be furnished with houses, stock of corn and cattle to begin with, and afterwards enjoy the moiety of all increase and profit. The Common Council being desirous of forwarding "soe worthy and pious a worke" as the plantation, accepted[pg 054] the company's proposal, and directed that a sum of £500 necessary for the purpose should be levied as on the previous occasion.

Disagreement between the City and the Virginia Company.

Some hitch, however, appears to have occurred in connection with the shipment of this second consignment of children. The City and the Virginia Company had fallen out for some reason or other. In a letter written about this time to the lord mayor[159] the company express regret that differences should have arisen between the city and themselves. They assure his lordship that there was no real foundation for these differences, seeing that they had now ratified all, and more than all than had been previously offered and accepted. Everything had been done that was necessary for the shipment of the children. The City had collected the requisite funds and the children had been provided, whilst the company on its part had provided a fair ship, and the Privy Council had "at the city's desire" granted its warrant.[160] The company therefore trusted that the lord mayor and aldermen would proceed to the speedy ending of differences.

Loafers about the court transported to Virginia. 1619.

The number of emigrants to Virginia was swelled by the transportation of a number of idle fellows who made it their business to follow the king and his court wherever they might happen to be. Early in 1619, when the king was at Newmarket, he took occasion to write to Sir Thomas Smith complaining of the annoyance and desired that they might be[pg 055] sent to Virginia at the next opportunity.[161] Immediately on the receipt of this letter Sir Thomas Smith wrote to Sir Sebastian Hervey, the mayor, forwarding at the same time the king's letter, and asking that the batch of idle court loafers which had already been despatched from Newmarket to London, as well as those to follow, might be lodged for a time in Bridewell, and there set to work until such time as there should be a vessel starting for the colony.[162]

Copland's sermon at Bow Church, 18 April, 1622.

The Virginia colony—the first of the free colonies of England—soon became firmly established, and the City of London can claim to have had no small share in the work of its establishment. To the enterprising spirit shown by the citizens in their efforts to forward the interests of the colony no better testimony is wanted than a thanksgiving sermon[163] preached (18 April, 1622) in the church of St. Mary-le-Bow by Patrick Copland, chaplain to the Virginia Company, in commemoration of the safe arrival of a fleet of nine ships at the close of the previous year. The City of London, the preacher said, had on two occasions sent over 100 persons to Virginia, and the present lord mayor and his brethren the aldermen intended to pursue the same course as previous mayors. "Your cittie," he continued, "aboundeth in people (and long may it doe so); the plantation in Virginia is capable enough to receive them. O, take course to ease your cittie, and to provide well for your people, by[pg 056] sending them over thither, that both they of that colony there and they of your owne cittie here may live to bless your prudent and provident government over them.... Right Worshipfull, I beseech you ponder (as I know you doe) the forlorne estate of many of the best members of your citty, and helpe them, O helpe them out of their misery; what you bestow uppon them in their transportation to Virginia they will repay it at present with their prayers, and when they are able with their purses."[164]

A few months after this sermon had been delivered tidings reached England of a calamity more disastrous than any that had yet befallen the colony. A treacherous attack had been made upon the white men by the Indians, which was only just saved by timely notice from becoming a general massacre. As it was, nearly 350 of the settlers were killed. The Common Council lost no time in testifying its sympathy with the colony in the great loss it had sustained, and voted (19 July) a third sum of £500 towards the transportation of 100 fresh colonists.[165]

The king's financial condition, 1610.

Ever since his accession to the throne of England the financial condition of James had been going from bad to worse. Besides resorting to antiquated feudal exactions,[166] he took to levying impositions on articles of commerce. But even these failed to make up the deficiency created in his exchequer by his wanton[pg 057] extravagance, and in 1610 he was obliged to apply to parliament. An attempt to make a composition with the king for feudal dues and to restrict his claim to levy impositions failed, and parliament was hastily dissolved.[167]

A City Loan of £100,000, April, 1610.

In the meanwhile James had applied to the City (April, 1610) for a loan of £100,000. He professed to prefer borrowing the money from the citizens to raising it by privy seals from his subjects generally, and he promised interest at the rate of ten per cent. and security on the customs. The aldermen consented to raise the money "out of aboundance of love ... but not of aboundance of riches or meanes." They and the Recorder divided themselves into nine several companies or divisions, each bound to furnish one-ninth of the whole loan. The king gave his own bond in £150,000 besides bonds of the farmer of the customs as security, and the aldermen set to work to raise the money in as "secret and discreet manner" as they could.[168] The loan did not go far towards discharging the king's liabilities, or those of the late queen, whose debts James had undertaken to repay. Before the end of the year (1610) certain wealthy merchants of the city were summoned to Whitehall to discuss the state of affairs. The king again wanted money, but inasmuch as he confessed himself unable to do more than pay the interest on former loans, leaving the principal to be discharged at some future time, they refused to make any further advances, consenting only not to press for the repayment of outstanding[pg 058] debts.[169] Pursuant to this agreement the citizens, in April, 1611, when the repayment of the loan of £100,000 became due, granted the king another year's respite.[170] A similar concession was made in 1612;[171] and in 1613 the loan was paid off.[172]

Concessions made to the city by James, 1608-1610.

The king had a right to look for consideration from the city, for in 1608 he had not only confirmed the liberties and franchises of the citizens by charter, but he had extended the civic jurisdiction, and had created all aldermen who had "passed the chair" Justices of Oyer and Terminer within the city and its liberties. He had, moreover, allowed them to tax non-freemen and strangers and to cause them to contribute in like manner as themselves to all talliages, aids and grants to the king.[173] Two years later—soon after his son Henry had been created Prince of Wales and the city had done him honour by an aquatic display on the river between Richmond and London[174] he confirmed (16 June, 1610) the privileges granted to them in 1383 by Richard II with the sanction of parliament.[175]

The king's "privy seals," 1611.

Before the close of 1611 his pecuniary difficulties increased to such an extent that he was driven to[pg 059] scatter broadcast "privy seals" or promissory notes for the purpose of raising money. These were not unfrequently placed in the hands of persons as they came out of church on Sunday evenings, a proceeding that caused no little scandal.[176]

The marriage of the Elector Palatine with the Princess Elizabeth, 14 Feb., 1613.

The marriage of his daughter, the Princess Elizabeth, with Frederick, the Elector Palatine, which was soon to follow, not only involved James in further pecuniary difficulties, but eventually plunged him into a continental war. Although the marriage articles were signed in May, 1612, the Elector did not arrive in England until October, just at the time when Sir John Swinnerton was about to enter on his duties as mayor for the ensuing year. Special precautions were taken to keep order and guard against accident on lord mayor's day[177] as soon as it was known that the Elector would attend, and a pageant, entitled Troja nova triumphans, was written expressly for the occasion by Thomas Dekker.[178] The Elector afterwards attended the banquet, and paid a special compliment to the lady mayoress and her suite.[179] The number of nobles invited was so great that there was scarcely room for the customary representatives from the principal livery companies, and none at all for members of the lesser companies. The latter were[pg 060] asked to take their exclusion in no ill part, as it was a sheer matter of necessity.[180] Before leaving the Elector was presented on behalf of the city with a bason and ewer weighing 234-3/4 ozs., and a "dansk pott chast and cheseld" weighing 513-5/8 ozs., and engraved with the city's arms and the words civitas London, the whole costing £262 15s. 10d.[181] There was but one thing to mar the general gaiety, and that was the illness of the Prince of Wales, whose death a week later shed a gloom over the whole of England,[182] and caused the marriage of his sister, by whom he was especially beloved, to be postponed for a time.[183] The ceremony eventually took place on the 14th February, 1613, amid great pomp and splendour, and in the following April the youthful bride and bridegroom left England for Holland.

A further search for Recusants, Feb., 1613.

It was currently reported that many Papists and Recusants had taken the opportunity afforded by the recent court festivities to secrete themselves in London, and Swinnerton, who had already displayed considerable activity in searching for them as soon as he became lord mayor,[184] was urged to redouble his efforts in that direction by a letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury a few days before the marriage of the princess took place.[185]

The king and court entertained in Merchant Taylors' Hall, 4 Jan., 1614.

The close of the year witnessed a marriage of a very different character, viz., the union of the king's favourite, Carr, Earl of Somerset, with Frances Howard, the divorced wife of the Earl of Essex. Murderess and adulteress as she was, she was received at court with every honour; but when the king proposed to sup one night in the city, and to bring his whole court with him (including, of course, the newly-married couple), the lord mayor, Sir Thomas Middleton, demurred, excusing himself on the ground that his house was too small.[186] This excuse was of no avail, and the supper took place in Merchant Taylors' Hall, the earl and countess being specially invited as well as the entire court. The supper was followed by a masque devised for the occasion by a namesake of the mayor, Thomas Middleton, the dramatic poet.[187] The entertainment cost the City nearly £700,[188] besides the sum of £50 which the Court of Aldermen directed to be laid out in a present of plate to Somerset.[189] In acknowledgment of the gift the earl presented the mayor and sheriffs with pairs of handsome gloves.[190]

The "addled parliament," 1614.

Financial difficulties, which a fresh issue of "privy seals" to the aldermen for loans of £200[pg 062] apiece had done little to alleviate,[191] and which had been aggravated by recent court festivities, at length drove James to run the risk of summoning another parliament. He had learnt from the wire-pullers of the day—or "undertakers" as they were then called—that he could depend upon a majority being returned which would be willing to grant supplies in return for certain concessions. In this he was deceived. No sooner did constituents discover that pressure was being brought to bear in favour of court candidates than they used their best efforts to frustrate such a manifest design to pack parliament. The session was opened on the 5th of April by a speech from the king, in which he set forth his financial difficulties, which the extraordinary charge in connection with his daughter's marriage had helped to increase. He would not bargain for their money, he said, but would leave it entirely to their love what supplies should be granted. In token of his own affection towards his subjects he was ready to make certain concessions, and he entirely disavowed any complicity with the "strange kind of beasts called undertakers." The new parliament, however, stood out like the last and refused to grant supplies until public grievances had been considered. The result was that on the 7th June James dissolved what he had fondly hoped would have proved to be a "parliament of love," but which from its inability to pass a single[pg 063] measure came to be nick-named, "the addled parliament."[192]

A City loan of £100,000 declined, July, 1614.

At his wit's end for money, James had recourse to benevolences. The bishops offered him the value of the best piece of plate in their possession to help him out of his difficulties, and their example induced many of the nobles to open their purses. Application was again made to the City for a loan of £100,000.[193] This they declined, but made the king a free gift of £10,000, one moiety being paid by the City's Chamber and the other being furnished by the livery companies.[194]

Sheriffs' fines.

It was now that the City began to resort to the practice of recruiting their Chamber by nominating and electing as sheriffs those who were likely to prefer paying a fine to serving—a practice which more especially prevailed during the troublous times of the Stuarts. Nearly a dozen individuals were elected one after another to the office at Midsummer of this year, and one and all declined. Some, like Sir Arthur Ingram, had sufficient influence at court to obtain their discharge without fine, others paid fines varying in amount, which served to fill the City's exchequer.[195]

Peter Proby, sheriff and ex-barber.

Another reason, however, is given for so many refusals to serve as sheriff just at this time, and that[pg 064] was that men declined to serve sheriff with Peter Proby, who had once been a barber.[196]

The shrewd ex-barber soon overcame any feeling of antipathy that may have been entertained towards him on entering upon municipal life. In 1616 he was sent with Mathias Springham to manage the city's Irish estate.[197] In 1622 he was elected mayor and in the following year was knighted.

The city's trained bands, 1614-1618.

Hitherto it had not been the custom when orders were given for a general muster and survey of the armed forces of the realm to include the city's forces. The city had been for the most part exempt from such orders, except when the necessities of the times demanded that it should be otherwise. In 1614 the lords of the council thought fit to include the city in their order for a general muster, and they wrote (16 Sept.) to the mayor requiring him to cause "a generall view" to be taken of the city's forces, and an enrolment made "of such trayned members as in her late majesty's time were put into companies by the name of the trayned bands." Vacancies among the officers and soldiers were to be filled up, armour and weapons repaired, and the force to be completely equipped and regularly exercised.[198] The letter having been submitted to the Common Council (21 Sept.), it was agreed to raise at once a force of 6,000 men.[pg 065] A tax of a fifteenth was voted to meet the necessary expenses, and a committee was appointed to carry out the resolution of the court.[199] On the following day (22 Sept.) the mayor issued his precept to the alderman of every ward stating the number of men required from his ward, and particulars of the kind and quantity of armour his ward was to provide. Appended to the precept was a schedule of the prices at which certain manufacturers in the city were prepared to sell the necessary weapons.[200] Jerome Heydon, described as an "iremonger at the lower end of Cheapeside," was ready to sell corslets, comprising "brest, backe, gorgett, taces and headpeece," at 15s.; pikes with steel heads at 2s. 6d.; swords, being Turkey blades, at 7s.; "bastard" muskets at 14s.; great muskets, with rests, at 16s.; a headpiece, lined and stringed, at 2s. 6d., and a bandaleer for 1s. 6d. Henry White and Don Sany Southwell were prepared to do corslets 6d. cheaper, and the same with swords, but their swords are described as only "Irish hilts and belts to them." Their bastard muskets, "with mouldes," could be had for 13s., or 1s. cheaper than those of Jerome Heydon. The Armourers' Company were ready to supply corslets at 15s., but for the same "with pouldrons" they asked 4s. more. The Cutlers' Company would furnish "a very good turky blade and good open hilts" for 6s., thus under-selling the private firms.

The trained band divided into four regiments, 1616.

On the 5th May, 1615, the Common Council ordered another fifteenth to be levied on the inhabitants of the city "towards the defrayinge of all maner of charges to be disbursed in and about the[pg 066] trayninge and musteringe of men";[201] and in the following year the trained bands were divided into four regiments, under the command of Sir Thomas Lowe, Sir Thomas Middleton, Sir John Watts, and Sir John Swinnerton, and quartered in different parts of the city for the purpose of putting down riots. For these measures the mayor, Sir John Jolles, and the aldermen received the thanks of the lords of the council.[202]

Letter from the lords of the council, 24 April, 1616.

Yet, notwithstanding the manifest pains taken by civic authorities to carry out the wishes of the lords of the council, the latter within a few weeks again wrote to the mayor,[203] rating him soundly for not having made a return of men and arms with which the city was provided, as previously directed. Their lordships had been informed that the city was altogether unprovided with arms and could not furnish the full number of trained men with weapons at one and the same time, and that there was scarce sufficient match and powder in the whole city to serve for one day's training. They expressed astonishment that the civic authorities, in whom was vested the government of the king's Chamber, should have proved so negligent in a matter so important, and directed them to set up forthwith a magazine of arms for supplying not only the inhabitants of the city, but also those of adjacent counties, with military weapons, and to supply themselves with a store of gunpowder of not less than 100 lasts, by the aid[pg 067] of the city companies, as had been usual in like cases. A certificate was also to be returned without delay to their lordships according to previous orders. The matter was referred by the Common Council to the "committees for martial causes" in the city, with instructions to report thereon to the Court of Aldermen.

A muster in Finsbury Fields, 6 Aug., 1616.

After the receipt of this letter considerable activity was shown in the military preparations of the city. A muster and review were ordered to be held on the 6th August in Finsbury Fields, and steps were taken to fill up the muster-roll of every captain to its full strength of 300 men.[204]

Commission of lieutenancy granted to the City, 30 April, 1617.

By the spring of the next year (1617) the city authorities had succeeded so far in recovering the confidence and goodwill of the government as to have a royal commission of lieutenancy for the city of London granted to the mayor, Sir John Leman, eight of the aldermen and Antony Benn, the Recorder.[205] The commission was to continue during the king's pleasure, or until notice of its determination should have been given by the Privy Council under their hands and seals.

The commission withdrawn, May, 1618.

Matters remained on this footing for a year, when the lords of the council gave notice (17 May, 1618) of the commission having been withdrawn, and at the same time directed the Court of Aldermen to furnish them with a certificate of the number of men enrolled in the trained bands (such as had long since been ordered but had never yet been[pg 068] sent), and to see that all previous orders relative to the magazine of arms and the storage of powder were duly executed. Special directions were given to replace the "calliver" (now become unserviceable) by the musket, and to provide bullets in addition to powder and match.[206] The letter of the lords was read at a Common Council held on the 31st July, when committees were appointed to see to the muster and training of 6,000 men, and to examine what sums of money remained over from the two last fifteenths levied for similar purposes.[207]

The old Company of Merchant Adventurers suppressed, 21 Feb., 1615. 12 Aug., 1617.

That James, like his predecessor on the throne, had the increase of the material prosperity of his subjects very much at heart there is little doubt. The measures, however, which he took for increasing that prosperity were not always sound. Among these must be reckoned the withdrawal of all licences for the exportation of undyed and undressed cloth,[208] the suppression of the old company of Merchant Adventurers and the formation of a new company. For these measures the king was not so much to blame as William Cockaine, the city alderman who gave him advice on the matter. That the advice was bad became soon manifest. The Dutch, who had been the principal buyers of English undyed cloth, retaliated by setting up looms for themselves, and threatened to destroy the English cloth trade altogether. The new company, with Cockaine at its head, proved a complete failure, and the old company was restored.[209]

The City consents to a loan of £30,000, July, 1615.

The aldermen of the city continued to be pressed for a loan of £100,000, and after many refusals they at length consented to advance £30,000; but "what is that"—wrote Chamberlain to Carleton—"among so many who gape and starve after it?"[210]

The king entertained at Alderman Cockaine's house. 8 June, 1616.

During the brief career of the new company Cockaine had enjoyed the honour of entertaining the king at his own house in Broad Street. The cost of the entertainment, which took place on the 8th June, 1616—including a bason of gold and £1,000 presented to James and another gift of £500 to Prince Charles—amounted to more than £3,000, and this (we are told) was discharged by the company, whilst his majesty reserved his thanks for Cockaine alone, and at parting conferred upon him the honour of knighthood with the civic sword.[211]

Knights of the Bath at Drapers' Hall, Nov., 1616.

A few months later (Nov., 1616) the city was the scene of another festive gathering, the occasion being a supper given at Drapers' Hall to the recently created Knights of the Bath. That the wives of city burgesses were looked upon as fair game for the courtier to fly at may be seen in the works of the dramatists of the day; nor was the merchant's or tradesman's daughter averse to the attention of the court gallant when kept within reasonable bounds, but on this occasion the exuberant spirits of the knights, after the long ordeal they had recently gone through, appear to have overcome them, for, we are told, they were so rude and unmannerly and carried themselves[pg 070] so insolently divers ways, but specially in "putting citizens' wives to the squeak," that the sheriff interfered, whereupon they left the hall in high dudgeon without waiting for the supper prepared for them.[212]

Request for a loan of £100,000, 1617.

Previous to his departure on a progress to Scotland in the spring of 1617, the king addressed a letter to the mayor and Common Council of the City asking for a loan of £100,000.[213] The necessary occasions of his affairs, he said, required just then "the present use of good somes of money," by way of a loan, and he could think of no better way of supplying himself than by resorting, as his forefathers had done, "to the love" of his city, and borrowing the money upon the credit of its common bonds. He reminded them that whenever he had borrowed money the lenders had always received "royall paiement," and he doubted not that they would now act as their own registers and records would show that their predecessors had acted on similar occasions. On the 22nd January this application was read to the Common Council, when, after mature deliberation, it was unanimously agreed—"without either word or hand to the contrary"—that one or more bonds should be made in the name of the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of London, under their common seal, for the repayment of principal, together with interest, to those who were willing to contribute towards the loan, upon such counter security as was mentioned in the king's letter. The security there mentioned was to be under the great seal and of such a character as the city had[pg 071] been accustomed formerly to receive from the king's predecessors. It appears that James had a few days before endeavoured to get the citizens to advance the sum of £100,000 on the security of the crown jewels, but this proposal had met with little favour.[214]

Difficulty experienced in raising the money.

In March the mayor, John Leman, received the honour of knighthood and was publicly thanked by the king for the forwardness displayed by the citizens in the loan, although the money had not at the time been raised.[215] Great difficulty was experienced in raising the money. One London merchant, John Eldred, whose name frequently occurs in the State Papers in connection with advances to the king, endeavoured to get the amount of his assessment reduced by £400,[216] whilst another, William Cater, kept out of the way to avoid contributing to the loan.[217] In May there was still a deficiency of £20,000, which called forth a reprimand from the lords of the council. The city authorities had been observed to omit or else to sparingly handle many of the best citizens who were "nicetest" to be dealt with, and especially intended for the purpose, and to lay the burden of contribution upon persons of weak and mean estate, or such as otherwise by their quality and place were not so fit to be called upon for any such occasion.[218]

Reception of James on his return from Scotland, Sept., 1617.

On his return from Scotland in September the king was met by the mayor and aldermen and a deputation from the livery companies at Knightsbridge and escorted to Whitehall with the same pomp and solemnity as had been accustomed to be displayed in attending Queen Elizabeth on her return from a progress.[219] The mayor presented James with a purse of 500 gold pieces,[220] and the king conferred the honour of knighthood upon Antony Benn, the Recorder, and Ralph Freeman.[221]

Letter from lords of council touching king's inability to repay loan, 17 March, 1618.

In the following March (17th) the mayor and aldermen were informed by letter from the lords of the council of the king's inability to repay the last loan according to promise, and were asked to allow a twelvemonth's grace.[222]

Death of the queen, March, 1619.

The king's financial position had become by this time reduced to so low a state that when his consort died in March of the following year (1619) there was some probability that her funeral would have to be delayed for want of money to buy "the blacks."[223] As it was the funeral did not take place until the 13th May, but this may have been owing to the king himself having been ill.[224] The mayor, Sebastian Hervey, and the aldermen received (after some delay) the customary allowance of mourning cloth,[225] but for[pg 073] some reason or other they were not invited to attend the funeral.

Sebastian Hervey and his daughter.

James had recently been worrying the mayor into consenting to a match between his daughter, a girl barely fourteen years of age, and Christopher Villiers, son of the Countess of Buckingham. The match was "so much against the old man's stomach," wrote a contemporary,[226] "as the conceit thereof hath brought him very near his grave already." He had publicly declared that he would rather that he and his daughter were both dead than that he should give his consent. The king pressed matters so far as one day to send for the mayor, his wife and daughter, from dinner at Merchant Taylors' Hall, in order to urge upon them the marriage.[227] It was perhaps owing to the strained relations existing at the time between the king and the mayor that the civic authorities were not invited to the funeral of the queen. If that be the case James soon saw that he had made a mistake, and in order "to please them" caused a memorial service to be held on Trinity Sunday at Paul's Cross, which was attended by the aldermen and other officers of the city, but not by Hervey, the mayor, who—"wilful and dogged" as he may have been—had become seriously ill from the king's importunity and was unable to be present.[228]

The commencement of the Thirty Years' War, 1618.

In the meantime a revolution had taken place on the continent, the effects of which were felt in[pg 074] London and the kingdom. In 1618 the Protestant nobility of Bohemia deposed their king, the Emperor Matthias, and in the following year they deposed his successor, Ferdinand, after unceremoniously flinging his deputies out of the window, and offered the crown to Frederick, the Elector Palatine, who had married James's daughter, the Princess Elizabeth. The Elector asked his father-in-law's advice before accepting the proffered crown, but James shilly-shallied so long that Frederick could wait no longer, and he signified his acceptance (26 Aug., 1619). James was urged to lend assistance to his son-in-law against the deposed Ferdinand, who had become by election the Emperor Ferdinand II, but to every appeal he turned a deaf ear.

The Elector applies to the City for assistance, Nov., 1619.

Failing in this quarter the Elector turned to the city of London. On the 26th November, 1619, he wrote from Nuremburg to the lord mayor, saying he was about to send the Baron Dohna to explain how matters stood in Bohemia, and desiring his lordship to lend a favourable ear to what the baron would tell him.[229] This letter the mayor forwarded to James, intimating that either himself or the Recorder would wait upon him when convenient.[230] Time went on, and the king made no sign until in February of the next year (1620) secretary Calvert wrote to the mayor[231] on the king's behalf to the effect that, his majesty having understood that a request had been made to the City for a loan, he could take no steps in the matter until he was fully satisfied of the justice of the cause; that at present he knew nothing and[pg 075] was "a mere straunger to the business."[232] In the meantime, if the mayor desired to say anything more to his majesty, he might meet the king at Theobalds, or later on in London.

Formal application for a city loan of £100,000, 28 Feb., 1620.

The City agrees to advance the money.

A fortnight passed, and then Baron Dohna wrote (28 Feb.) to the mayor making a formal application for a loan of £100,000 for the defence of the Palatinate, and expressing a hope for a speedy and favourable reply.[233] The king was asked to back up the baron's request, but declined.[234] A month later the city authorities again consulted the king as to his wishes. The reply given was characteristic of the caution displayed by James throughout: "I will neither command you nor entreat you," was the answer they got, "but if you do anything for my son-in-law I shall take it kindly."[235] The citizens were not in the least averse to advancing money for the cause of Bohemia, if only they could get some assurance from the king or council that they would not afterwards be blamed for it.[236] Having got as much as ever they were likely to get by way of this assurance, they signified their assent to Dohna's request, and received in return a letter of thanks (25 Mar.) from Frederick himself.[237]

Precept was issued (29 March) by the mayor, not, as was usually the custom in similar cases, to the livery companies, but to the aldermen of each ward.[238] Moreover, subscriptions to the loan were to be purely voluntary. Each alderman was especially directed not to "compell any wch are unwilling, nor refuse to accept the smaller summes of such as out of their loves doe offer the same."[239]

State visit to St. Paul's, 26 March, 1620.

On Sunday, the 26th March (1620), the king paid a State visit to St. Paul's, attended by the mayor and aldermen and the members of the civic companies in their best liveries.[240] The object of the visit, which had given rise to much surmise—the Catholics believing that it was to hear a sermon in favour of the proposed Spanish match, whilst the Protestants hoped it was for the purpose of exhorting the people to contribute to the fund that was being raised for the king of Bohemia—was to hasten the subscriptions for rebuilding the cathedral church,[241] which for sixty years had been in a more or less ruinous state, in spite of all efforts to restore it. On this occasion the king was presented with a sum of 1,000 marks and Prince Charles with half that amount.[242]

James determined to assist the Elector.

Towards the close of the year (1620) news reached England that a Spanish army had entered[pg 077] Bohemia and driven Frederick out of the country after a crushing defeat, and at last James was roused to action. A parliament was summoned to meet in January (1621)[243] in order to vote supplies for war. In the meantime he endeavoured to raise what he could by way of a voluntary gift from the nobility and wealthier class of his subjects, to whom circulars from the council were sent urging them to assist.[244]

Application to the City for assistance.

The council also applied (31 Oct.) to the city of London,[245] but more than a month elapsed before a reply was sent,[246] and it was not until the 14th December that the mayor issued his precept to the livery companies to raise among themselves the several sums of money they had been accustomed to pay on former occasions,[247] such sums being in accordance with a corn assessment made in the mayoralty of Sir Thomas Middleton (1613-14). Several of the companies, and notably the Merchant Taylors (the largest contributors), objected to this mode of imposing assessment upon them according to the corn rate as working an injustice. The Court of Aldermen therefore agreed to again revise the corn rate.[248] A dispute also arose as to the amounts to be paid by the Apothecaries and the Grocers respectively, the former having recently severed themselves from the latter and become incorporated as a separate company.[249] After[pg 078] all said and done the companies could not be prevailed upon to contribute more than £5,000, which sum was raised to 10,000 marks, or £6,666 13s. 4d., by contribution from the City's Chamber.[250] We have it on record that the lords of the council never intended that any call should be made on the companies at this juncture, but that only the mayor and aldermen and those who had fined either for sheriff or alderman should contribute towards the defence of the Palatinate as they themselves had done.[251] Nor would the companies have been called upon on this occasion (any more than they appear to have been called upon on the last) had the collection of money from the various parishes risen to the proportion required. It was only when a deficiency was discovered that the mayor and aldermen had resort to the expedient of raising £5,000 from the companies, each company paying rateably according to their usual rates for other assessments.[252]

The parliament of 1621.

When parliament at length met (after several prorogations) on the 30th January (1621) James opened the session with a long speech, in which a request for supplies held a prominent place. The Commons, however, without showing any disposition to be captious, were in no hurry to grant war supplies until they were assured that there was to be a war.[pg 079] The king had therefore to be content with a grant of no more than two subsidies, or about £160,000. He had recently issued a proclamation (24 Dec., 1620) forbidding his subjects to speak on affairs of State.[253] If the nation in general was to be thus bridled the Commons showed their determination, whilst criticising the king's administration, to vindicate at least their own right to liberty of speech.

The citizens and the Spanish ambassador.

There was also a class of Londoner not easily silenced. A royal proclamation had no terrors for the London apprentice; and when they recognised an old enemy in the person of the Spanish ambassador[254] in the street, they were accustomed to give tongue and, if thwarted, to resort to blows. It happened one day that as Gondomar was being carried down Fenchurch Street, an apprentice standing idly with one or two of his fellows at his master's door cried out, "There goeth the devil in a dung-cart." This remark raised a laugh which so stung one of the ambassador's servants that he turned sharply on the offender. "Sir," said he, "you shall see Bridewell ere long for your mirth." "What," cried one of his fellows, "shall we go to Bridewell for such a dog as thou?" and forthwith brought him to the ground with a box on the ear. The ambassador laid a complaint before the mayor, who somewhat reluctantly sentenced the offending apprentices to be whipt[pg 080] at the cart's tail. That any of their number should be flogged for insulting a Spaniard, even though he were the Spanish king's ambassador, was intolerable to the minds of the apprentices of London, who were known for their staunchness to one another. The report spread like wildfire, and soon a body of nearly 300 apprentices had assembled at Temple Bar, where they rescued their comrades and beat the city marshals. Again Gondomar complained to the mayor, who, sympathising at heart with the delinquents, testily replied that it was not to the Spanish ambassador that he had to give an account of the government of the city. The matter having reached the king's ears at Theobalds, he suddenly appeared at the Guildhall and threatened to place a garrison in the city and to deprive the citizens of their charter if matters were not mended. His anger was with difficulty appeased by the Recorder, and he at last contented himself with privately admonishing the aldermen to see the young fellows punished. The end of the affair was tragical enough. The original sentence was carried out, with the result that one of the apprentices unhappily died.[255]

Such is the account of the disturbance as found in contemporary letters. From the City's records[256] we learn a few additional particulars. On Wednesday, the 4th April, a special Court of Aldermen sat, at which a letter from the lords of the council was read signifying the king's pleasure that David Sampson,[pg 081] an apprentice to a tailor, should be very sharply whipt through the city from Aldgate to Fleet Street by the common executioner for an insult offered the Spanish ambassador on the preceding Monday (2 April). A good guard was also to be appointed for the purpose, and instructions were given to the Recorder and some of the aldermen to discover if possible the rest of the offenders. The result of their efforts in this direction was the apprehension of Robert Michell, an apprentice to a haberdasher, and Richard Taylor, an apprentice to a bricklayer, the former of whom was accused of threatening to throw a loaf at the "choppes" of the ambassador's servant, and the latter with having actually discharged a brickbat with effect at one of his suite. Sampson's whipping, which ought to have taken place in the forenoon of Wednesday, was thereupon postponed until the afternoon, when all three offenders were punished together, in the presence of a good guard. On the following morning (5 April) another special Court of Aldermen sat at the mayor's own house, when it was ordered that Daniel Ray, a drayman, who had been convicted of holding up his hand at the Spanish ambassador as he passed through Gracechurch Street, grinning at him and calling him "Spanish dogge" just before Michell and Taylor committed their excesses, should also be whipt between eight and nine o'clock the next morning. In order to prevent a repetition of the disturbance which had occurred the previous day, the mayor issued his precept[257](5 April) for a substantial double watch to be kept for twenty-four hours from nine[pg 082] o'clock in the evening of the 5th April. The inhabitants were further ordered to stand at their doors, halberd in hand, and ready for any emergency, whilst they were to see that their apprentices, children and servants behaved well towards all ambassadors and strangers as well as his majesty's subjects.

By this time news of the confusion and rescue attending the earlier punishment had reached the king's ears. Ray's whipping was put off. The Recorder informed the Court of Aldermen, specially summoned to the mayor's house on Friday afternoon (6 April), that the king purposed coming that day to the Guildhall in person between two and three o'clock, when the mayor and aldermen were commanded to attend, and until then the execution of Ray's punishment was not to be carried out. At the appointed hour James arrived with divers lords of the council. He is recorded[258] as having made an excellent oration to the mayor and aldermen, "much reprovinge their misgovernment, and the ill carriage of the rude sorte of people, and the affront lately offered to justice in that rescue." He commanded them at their peril to see that no manner of affront occurred in the punishment of Daniel Ray, but that he should after his whipping be quietly conveyed to prison until his majesty's pleasure should be further known. Three days later (9 April) Ray, Sampson and Taylor (Michell appears to have been the one who succumbed to ill treatment) appeared before a special Court of Aldermen and, acknowledging their offences, asked pardon of God and the king. Thereupon the Recorder signified to them the king's remission of[pg 083] further punishment, and they were discharged out of prison.[259]

Insult offered to the Elector and his wife.

Whilst the Commons were chafing under the restriction which forbade them mentioning even the name of the Palatinate, an elderly individual named Floyd was imprisoned in the Fleet for displaying joy at the news of the battle of Prague. "Goodman Palsgrave and Goodwife Palsgrave," he had been heard to say, "were now turned out of doors." All sorts of punishment was suggested by members of the House, which after all had no jurisdiction in the matter whatever; and after a kind of three-cornered duel between the king, the Lords and Commons, Floyd was made to expiate his crime by riding from Fleet Bridge to the Standard in Cheapside, his face towards the horse's tail, and having a paper in his hat with the words, "For using ignominious and malicious words against the Prince and Princess Palatine, the king's only daughter and children." After standing there for two hours he was branded on his forehead with the letter K and conveyed to the Fleet.[260]

The City asked to advance £20,000 on security of subsidy, March, 1621.

The Commons having voted supplies, albeit small and inadequate for the king's wants, James lost no time in asking the citizens for an advance on the amount of subsidy due from them. On the 27th March (1621) the lord treasurer wrote very urgently on the matter. "I pray you," he added by way of postscript, "make noe stickinge hereatt; you shall bee sure to bee paid att the tyme named."[261] If the[pg 084] citizens could not advance the whole sum at short notice, they were asked to give credit for the rest to the merchant whom Baron Dohna should appoint for transferring the money to the Palatinate by bills of exchange. It was all to no purpose. The mayor and aldermen were tired of the repeated calls upon their purse, and returned answer by word of mouth of the Common Sergeant and the Remembrancer that the City hoped rather to receive part of the money already lent than to "runne in further."[262]

Joy in the city at the return of Charles from Spain, Oct., 1623.

The failure of negotiations for a Spanish match, and the return of Prince Charles after his romantic expedition in 1623 without bringing the Infanta with him, was a source of great satisfaction both to the City and the nation. The following story of the day serves to illustrate the feeling prevalent at the time relative to the Spanish match. The bishop of London had given orders to the clergy, pursuant to instructions he had himself received from James, not to "prejudicate the prince's journey by their prayers," but only to pray to God to bring him safely home again and no more. A clergyman, who must have been a bit of a wag (for it is difficult to explain his conduct otherwise), is said to have literally carried out his bishop's orders, and to have prayed publicly "That God would return our noble prince home again to us and no more."[263] When it became known that the prince had arrived safely at Madrid, bonfires were[pg 085] lighted and bells rung; but the Londoners were but half-hearted in expressing their joy, and would probably have made no display had they not received orders from the lords of the council.[264] It was otherwise when the prince returned—and without the Infanta. As soon as news reached the mayor that Charles had arrived at Guildford he issued his precept (6 Oct.) for bells to be rung and bonfires to be lighted,[265] and right gladly were his orders carried out. "I have not heard of more demonstrations of public joy than were here and everywhere, from the highest to the lowest," wrote Chamberlain from London;[266] "such spreading of tables in the streets with all manner of provisions, setting out whole hogsheads of wine and butts of sack, but specially such numbers of bonfires, both here and all along as he [the prince] went, the marks whereof we found by the way two days afterwards, is almost incredible."

The parliament of 1624.

The king's foreign policy having proved a total failure, there was no other course open for him but to summon a parliament. A parliament was accordingly summoned to meet in February of the next year (1624). The king and Commons soon found themselves in opposition, the former advocating a war in Germany for the defence of the Palatinate, the latter a war against Spain. At length a compromise was effected, the Commons agreeing to vote supplies on the understanding that James broke off all negotiations with Spain.

The French alliance.

Negotiations with Spain were thereupon broken off, but not before James had found another ally in France. Before parliament was prorogued (29 May) James had sounded Louis XIII as to a marriage between Charles and Henrietta Maria, the French king's sister. In April Count Mansfeld, a German adventurer who had offered his services to France, arrived in England and was hospitably entertained. The object of his visit was to see the extent of the preparations that were being made for war.

Efforts made to raise money in the city, July, 1624.

Strenuous efforts to raise money in the city were made. Chamberlain, writing to Carleton from London (1 July), tells his friend, "Here is great expedition used to raise money, and make ready payment; insomuch that since Monday sevennight, the council have sat thrice at Guildhall about the subsidies." The lord keeper, in his endeavours to persuade the citizens to loosen their purse-strings, went so far as to declare that anyone disguising his wealth was committing the sin against the Holy Ghost, and was as Ananias and Saphira! So great was the general decay, both in the city and the country, that there was some talk of putting in force the penal laws against recusants, notwithstanding the negotiations that were going on for a French marriage, in order to make up the expected deficit.[267] The civic authorities were again pressing the king for the repayment of the loan (£100,000) made in 1617. Time had wrought alterations in the condition of the lenders; some were dead and their widows and orphans were crying out for repayment; some were decayed and imprisoned, and others likely to undergo the[pg 087] same calamity if steps were not taken for their speedy relief. They complained that the city's seal, which had by his majesty's command been given as security to the tenders, suffered as never it had done before, and several suits had been commenced against the Chamber of London in the courts at Westminster, to which they knew not how to give satisfactory answer. They therefore prayed him to give order for such payment to be made to them as might give relief to the distressed and comfort to them all. The result was that the king directed (July, 1624) his two principal secretaries and the chancellor of the exchequer to devise means for satisfying the debt.[268]

Mansfeld in London, Sept., 1624.

In September Mansfield was again in England asking for men and money for the recovery of the Palatinate, in which he had been assured of the co-operation of France. This assurance, however, was only a verbal one, and nothing would induce Louis to reduce it to writing. James on his part was willing to make every concession, provided that the matrimonial alliance on which he had set his heart could be brought to a happy conclusion. But as these concessions involved broken pledges, he feared to face the Commons, and thus the parliament, which should have re-assembled this autumn, was further prorogued and never met again until James was no more.

Stat. 21, Jas. I, c. 2 (1624), relative to concealed lands.

It was to James's last parliament that the City was indebted for a statute,[269] which at length insured it quiet enjoyment of its lands free from that inquisitorial system which had prevailed since 1547, under[pg 088] pretext that it had concealed lands charged with superstitious uses which had not been redeemed. In 1618 a commission had been appointed to enquire as to the waste grounds of the city, on pretence of concealment; but upon representation being made by the mayor and aldermen that the City had long enjoyed the lands in question by ancient grant, proceedings had been stayed.[270] Early in the following year (1619), however, the livery companies were called upon to make a composition to the attorney-general of £6,000 for arrears of superstitious charges claimed by the king.[271] On learning that this money was to be paid to John Murray, of the king's bed-chamber (whether to his own use or that of the king is not quite clear),[272] the mayor and aldermen petitioned the king for a grant of letters patent, securing both for the City and the companies quiet enjoyment of their possessions, lest in that "searching age" other defects might haply be found in their title, to be followed by further inconveniences. To this the king readily assented, and instructed the attorney-general to draw up letters patent embracing such matters as the City desired.[273] The letters patent were no sooner drawn up by Sir Henry Yelverton, the attorney-general, than he was charged with having introduced certain clauses[274] "corruptly and without warrant." The new[pg 089] charter was ordered to be brought up. The whole matter formed a subject of investigation for three days in the Star Chamber; Yelverton was dismissed from office, and the City compelled to draw up a formal document disclaiming and cancelling the letters patent.[275] At length, on the 23rd February, 1624, a bill was brought in for the "general quiet of the subjects against all pretences of concealment whatsoever," and read the first time; and on the 7th April the bill was passed.[276]

The City to press 2,000 men for service in the Palatinate, Oct., 1624.

The question how to supply Mansfield with men as well as money necessary for his undertaking in the absence of parliament was answered by making application to the Council of War. On the 29th October orders were issued for pressing 12,000 men for the service, and on the same day James himself wrote to the mayor for 2,000 men to be pressed in the city to assist in the recovery of the Palatinate.[277] Two days afterwards (31 Oct.) followed a letter from the lords of the council[278] directing the mayor to see that the men were of able bodies and years, but not taken out of the trained bands, which were to be left entire. They were to be ready by the end of November to march to Dover under such officers as the Privy Council might select. As the amount of conduct money, which was usually a half-penny per mile, would vary owing to the difference of localities where the men lived, it was thought best to allow them their ordinary pay of eightpence per day from[pg 090] the time they were handed over to the officers. The mayor was further directed to demand of the collectors of the subsidy sufficient money for the charge of coats, conduct, armour, etc. On the last day of November the lords of the council wrote again informing the lord mayor of the names of the officers appointed to conduct the men to Dover by the 24th December. He was to see that the men were delivered to the officers by roll indented, to be subscribed by himself or his deputy-lieutenants on the one part and the captains or officers on the other part.[279] The service was very unpopular; many deserted, and it was with difficulty that the rest could be got to the sea-coast. The city contingent was ordered to assemble at Leadenhall on the night of the 18th December or by the next morning at the latest, in order to set out on their march by Monday, the 20th. The full complement of men was to be made up and the bail of deserters estreated.[280]

Mansfeld's expedition.

There was little to hope for from raw levies such as these were, transported into a hostile country under the leadership of a foreigner. "God speed them well whatsoever they do or wheresoever they go," wrote an eye-witness;[281] "but it is beyond my experience or reading to have such a body of English committed and commanded by a stranger, to say no more." On their way to Dover the men carried out a system of pillage as if already in an enemy's country; and as soon as they found their pay was not forthcoming they mutinied.[282] The[pg 091] promises of the French king proved fallacious and Mansfeld was forbidden to land his forces in France. This prohibition, however, was little to him, for he had already determined to act in direct opposition to the wishes of James and to carry his army to Flushing. Before he set sail from Dover, which he did on the 31st January (1625), it became necessary to recruit his rapidly diminishing forces by the issue of new press warrants. The City was called upon to furnish 1,000 men in addition to those already supplied.[283] The mayor's precept on this occasion directed the alderman of each ward to seize in their beds or otherwise all able-bodied men, and especially "all tapsters, ostlers, chamberlains, vagrants, idle and suspected persons," and to convey them to Leadenhall or Bridewell. Those who had previously been pressed and had absconded were to be particularly sought for, whilst those who had in their charge two small children were to be spared.[284] At Flushing, where Mansfeld landed his forces (1 Feb.), the men were soon decimated by want of food, the inclemency of the season, and sickness, so that, at the time of James's death (27 March), out of a force of 12,000 men there were barely left 3,000 capable of carrying arms.

[pg 092]

CHAPTER XXI.

A city loan of £60,000 to King Charles, 1625.

The commencement of the reign of Charles I, like his father's, was marked by a recurrence of the plague, which greatly affected the trade of the city. Matters were made worse by an application from the Lord High Treasurer for a loan of £60,000 to the king within a few weeks of Charles ascending the throne. He promised that the money, which was wanted for fitting out the fleet which the late king was busy preparing at the time of his death, should be repaid in six months. Interest would be allowed at the rate of eight per cent., and Charles would give mortgage security for repayment of this as well as of the sum of £100,000 borrowed by James.[285] After mature deliberation the Common Council agreed (16 April) to accede to the Lord Treasurer's request, and appointed two representatives of each ward to consult with the mayor and aldermen as to the mode of raising the amount, as well as to consider the nature of the security offered. On the 20th May the Common Council received the committee's report on the matter.[286] It recommended that the money should be borrowed and taken up by twenty aldermen and one hundred commoners nominated for the purpose; that five commoners should be allotted to each alderman, and that they should stand bound for[pg 093] the sum of £3,000. Any alderman or commoner refusing to be so joined was to be forced to lend £1,000 on his own account. The assurance of the king's lands was to be made in the names of such aldermen and commoners as the Court of Aldermen should appoint. A week later (27 May) the Court of Aldermen, in anticipation of the money being raised, ordered an advance to be made to the king out of the City's Chamber of the sum of £14,000.[287] On the 2nd June the king's mortgage was executed;[288] and there being no longer any necessity for keeping the bonds entered into by various aldermen for the payment of interest due to contributors to the loan of £100,000, they were ordered to be cancelled.[289] In November the lords of the council wrote to the City for an extension of time for the repayment of the £60,000.[290]

Arrival of Henrietta Maria in London, June, 1625.

On the 1st May Charles was married by proxy at Paris to Henrietta Maria. When the news of the marriage treaty between England and France reached London in the previous November the citizens showed their joy by bonfires and fireworks.[291] They forgot for a while the danger likely to arise from the heir to the throne allying himself in marriage with a Catholic princess. On her arrival in the Thames in June the citizens gave her a hearty welcome, whilst the fleet, which was about to set sail—few knew whither—fired such a salute as the queen had never heard before.[292]

The expedition to Cadiz, 1625.

In the meantime (1 May) Charles had issued his warrant to the lord mayor for levying 1,000 men—"part of 10,000 to be raised by our dear father's gracious purpose, according to the advice of both his Houses of Parliament, in contemplation of the distress and necessity of our dear brother and sister."[293] He thought that if he could only gain a victory it would serve to draw a veil over his delinquencies. The City was to be assisted by the county of Middlesex in raising the men,[294] and an allowance was made for "coat and conduct money" for the soldiers at the rate of eightpence apiece per day for their journey to Plymouth, the place where they were to embark (£400), and four shillings a coat (£200), the pay of a captain being four shillings a day.[295] The mayor's precept to the aldermen to raise the men enjoined them to search all inns, taverns, alehouses, "tabling-houses" and tobacco-houses, and to press, especially, all "tapsters, ostlers, chamberlains, vagrants, idle and suspected persons."[296] By August the condition of the troops at Plymouth was pitiable. No money was forthcoming for wages, and the soldiers were forced to forage for themselves in the neighbouring country. At last the fleet set sail (8 Oct., 1625). Its destination proved to be Cadiz, whither it was despatched in the hope of securing West Indian treasure on its way home. The expedition, however, turned out to be as complete a failure as that under Mansfeld in the previous year.

The plague of 1625.

The citizen soldiers returned to find their city almost deserted owing to the ravages of the plague. In July the sickness had been so great as to necessitate the adjournment of parliament to Oxford.[297] The colder weather, as winter approached, appears to have made but little difference. Dr. Donne, the Dean of St. Paul's, estimated that in November there died a thousand a day in the city of London and within the circuit of a mile. "The citizens fled away as out of a house on fire," he writes,[298] they "stuffed their pockets with their best ware and threw themselves into the highways, and were not received so much as into barns, and perished so, some of them with more money about them than would have bought the village where they died." Donne himself removed to Chelsea, but the infection even there became so great that "it was no good manners to go to any other place," and Donne therefore did not go to court. As early as September the want and misery in the city was described as being the greatest that ever any man living knew: "No trading at all, the rich all gone, house-keepers and apprentices of manual trades begging in the streets, and that in such a lamentable manner as will make the strongest heart to yearn."[299]

The City called upon to furnish five ships for the defense of the river, Jan. 1626.

The new year brought relief, and Sunday, the 29th Jan. (1626) was appointed a solemn day of thanksgiving to Almighty God for his mercy in "stayinge his hand."[300] The civic authorities, however,[pg 096] were scarcely rid of one trouble before they found others springing up. Towards the close of the last year a committee had been appointed by the Court of Aldermen to devise measures for relieving the City from the burden of supplying military arms and "other like services" such as they had recently been called upon to perform.[301] The committee had not been long appointed before the City was called upon to look to its stock of gunpowder, prepare the trained bands,[302] and furnish the king with five ships towards protecting the river. This last demand was made on the ground that they had furnished vessels for the same purpose in the reign of Elizabeth.[303] The Court of Aldermen objected. Times were changed since Elizabeth's day, the lords of the council were informed in reply; the galleys then furnished by the City were only wanted for a short time and when the country was threatened with an invasion; but even then considerable difficulty was experienced before the Common Council passed an Act for supplying the vessels. At the present time, when the City was in a far worse condition than then, there was little or no hope of a similar Act being passed.[304]

The parliament of 1626.

The disastrous expedition to Cadiz increased the necessity of summoning a new parliament, and on the 16th December the lord keeper was directed to issue the necessary writs. The enforcement of the recusancy[pg 097] laws, wrung from Charles by the last parliament, had in the meantime been carried out, and fresh proclamations were issued as the day for the meeting of parliament (6 Feb.) approached.[305] As soon as the Commons assembled they chose Sir Heneage Finch, the city's Recorder, for their Speaker.[306] The new parliament was not a whit more inclined to subject its ancient privileges to the control of the Crown than its predecessor had been. Buckingham himself, the king's bosom friend and most trusted adviser, was impeached; and the Commons declined to vote supplies until they had presented their grievances to the king and received his majesty's answer. This was more than Charles could stand. He summoned them to Whitehall and commanded them to cancel the condition. He would give them "liberty of counsel, not of control." To the urgent entreaty of the Peers that he would grant a short respite he replied, "Not a minute," and on the 15th June the parliament of 1626 was dissolved.[307]

A demand for a city loan of £100,000 not complied with, Jan., 1626.

If the war was to go on it was necessary that money should be found with or without parliament. Application was made to the City by the lords of the council, at first verbally, afterwards by letter, for a loan of £100,000, and a deputation was ordered to wait upon the king at Greenwich on Sunday, the 25th June, with the City's answer.[308] The answer given was to[pg 098] the effect that the City was unable to advance the sum required, and it occasioned no little disappointment to the king, who referred the matter back to the mayor and aldermen once more. It was not that Charles had not offered sufficient security for the loan. The money could not be raised. At length it was agreed (30 June) at another special court that the aldermen themselves should advance the sum of £20,000 for one year on the security of the petty customs.[309] In such haste was this trifling sum required, in order to guard the coast against a rumoured attack from Spain, that the mayor and aldermen were requested by the lords of the council to part with the money before the exchequer tallies could be made out.[310]

A demand for 4,000 men and 20 ships, July-Aug., 1626

Not only was money wanted, but men and ships. A demand made on the 15th July by the lords of the council for the City to furnish 4,000 men for the defence of the Isle of Sheppey[311] was quickly followed (4 Aug.) by another for twenty of the best ships in the river, to be fitted out and victualled in order that the war might be carried into the enemy's country.[312] To the first demand "there was made a double demur, one because the letters came from some of the lords and not from the king; secondly, for that by charter they are for the defence of the[pg 099] city, and not to go further than the lord mayor goes, unless it be for guard of the king's person."[313] To the second the mayor was instructed to reply to the following effect, viz.—that (1) the City was ready to share with the rest of his majesty's subjects in a matter which touched the state and defence of the whole kingdom; (2) that inasmuch as the City had been called upon in 1588, when the enemy was upon the coast, to furnish only ten ships, and that each of the twenty ships now demanded would, from its larger burden, cost treble the amount of the former ships, the citizens humbly desired to be relieved of so great a charge, in respect of the city's decay in trade and commerce, and its impoverishment by the late visitation and otherwise; (3) that the ships could not be furnished and victualled in the time named; (4) that the city merchants would be the more willing to adventure their lives and means against the enemy if they were allowed letters of mark.[314]

The Lords expressed the greatest dissatisfaction at this answer, and insisted upon the ships being forthcoming. It was in vain that the City offered to provide ten ships and two pinnaces; nothing less than the full number of vessels would suffice, and the City had eventually to give way.[315]

The sum of £18,000 to be raised for fitting out the vessels.

In order to fit out the vessels the sum of £18,000 had to be raised.[316] Much indignation was caused by this further tax on the purses of the citizens. Many[pg 100] stoutly refused to pay; and the constables whose duty it was to distrain in such cases manifested great reluctance to proceed to extremities. When they did make an effort to carry out their instructions the people rescued one another. The result was that the Chamber of the city had to make up a large deficiency.[317]

Unpopularity of the Duke of Buckingham.

The Duke of Buckingham, the king's favourite, whose extravagant projects had ended in nothing but disaster, had rendered himself most unpopular, and one day in August his coach was stopped by a band of sailors, men who had served in the ill-fated expedition to Cadiz or in the ships which Buckingham had sent to assist the French king in suppressing the Huguenots of Rochelle—who clamoured for arrears of pay. The duke put them off with fair words, and so escaped with a whole skin; but for long afterwards the streets of the city, and even the confines of the royal palace, were infested with disaffected seamen, and special precautions had to be taken to prevent riot.[318]

The Forced Loan, 1626.

Having failed to raise the necessary supplies by a free gift or benevolence of the nation, Charles betook himself to a forced loan. The sum to be raised was fixed at five subsidies. Commissioners were appointed in September, 1626, to summon before them all men rated in the subsidy books. At first the scheme was confined to the five counties nearest London.[pg 101] Opposition was met by imprisonment. The City for awhile was left untouched. It was unwise to try the temper of the citizens too much. It was found that the nearer the City the greater was the opposition shown to the commissioners; and the inhabitants of the Strand and the Savoy offered a more determined resistance than those of the parish of St. Margaret, Westminster, or St. Martin-in-the-Fields.[319] On the 7th October a proclamation[320] appeared setting forth his majesty's "clear intention" in requiring the aid of his loving subjects by the loan. It was not to be made a precedent, and a parliament should be called as soon as convenient and as often as it should be necessary.

The loan declared illegal.

Just at a time when privy councillors were about to set out for the more distant counties to collect the subsidies the judges suddenly pronounced an unanimous opinion against the legality of the new loan. The report of their decision quickly spread, and increased the opposition of the country gentry, many of whom were content to suffer imprisonment rather than yield to the demands of the commissioners.

Ten of the city's ships to be victualled for a descent on Spain, Nov., 1626.

On the 10th November the committee appointed to take in hand the preparation of the citizens' fleet reported to the Common Council that the lords of the council had made a request that the City would provision ten out of the twenty ships for a further period of two or three months, in order that they might join two of his majesty's ships and fifteen[pg 102] Hollanders in a descent on the Spanish coast. The court, after due consideration, directed the committee to wait upon the lords and inform them that the City was prepared to spend £1,200 on further victualling, provided the ships were commanded by officers of the City's choosing, and were sent to sea alone "to be at their own liberties and directions without joining or being consorted with any others whatsoever." The City was, moreover, to be provided with letters of mark, and to be allowed to enjoy the benefit of all prizes.[321] The result of the interview was reported to the Common Council on the 14th November, when it was clearly pointed out what the lords of the council were ready to concede and what not.[322] After more haggling,[323] the ships were at length got ready and placed under the command of Captain John Pennington, a cousin of Alderman Isaac Pennington, of whom we shall hear more later on. Pennington had but a poor opinion of the fleet; the ships were badly manned and unfit for men-of-war; "with two of the king's ships he would undertake to beat the whole fleet about which so much noise had been raised."[324]

The City and the Forced Loan, 1627.

In 1627 war broke out between England and France, and payment of the forced loan was more strictly exacted. On the 14th June the lords of the council wrote to the mayor reminding him of the king's urgent need of money. The greatest part of the kingdom had well expressed their affection and had sent in their moneys to the Exchequer. Because London had been found so slack their lordships had[pg 103] been commanded to call upon the lord mayor to send in forthwith the moneys already collected towards the loan, and to call for all moneys promised.[325] Many of the citizens declined altogether to contribute, and fourteen were committed to prison.[326] Writs of habeas corpus were obtained on their behalf—but not before November—and Counsel, of whom the Recorder was one, were appointed for their defence. They were eventually set at liberty without trial.[327]

The expedition to Rochelle, 1627.

Whilst a small force, to which the City contributed a contingent of 300 men,[328] was sent to assist the King of Denmark, a fleet was despatched (27 June, 1627) to the Isle of Rhé, under the Duke of Buckingham, with the object of relieving Rochelle. The expedition failed in its purpose and Buckingham had soon to ask for reinforcements. In August the City was called upon by the king to furnish 100 men towards making up the losses sustained, for which the Chamberlain was authorised to disburse £50 in impress money.[329] In October Charles asked for 250 soldiers in addition to those already raised, and these were found without drawing upon the trained bands.[330] In spite of all efforts there was great delay in forwarding to Buckingham the reinforcements in which he stood in sore need, and in November he was forced to return home,[pg 104] baffled in his enterprise, and with a loss from war and disease of little less than 4,000 men.[331]

The Royal Contract, 1627-1628.

The time had now arrived for some arrangements to be made for discharging the king's debt to the City.[332] After protracted negotiations an agreement, known at the present day as the "royal contract," was drawn up and executed (3 Jan., 1628) whereby the citizens covenanted to advance the king a further sum of £120,000 by instalments of £60,000 at an interval of six months, whilst Charles, on the other hand, covenanted to convey to the City certain lands, tenements and hereditaments.[333] The City at once set to work to raise the money required among the livery companies. The Merchant Taylors were called upon to contribute £6,300, the highest sum. The Grocers came next with £6,000, after which follow the Haberdashers (£4,800), the Drapers (£4,608), the Goldsmiths (£4,380), the Mercers (£3,720), the Fishmongers and Clothworkers (each £3,390) and the Vintners (£3,120).[334] Certain members of the Vintners' Company having proved refractory, the master and wardens complained to the Court of Aldermen, who promptly committed the offenders to prison, thereby earning the approval of his majesty.[335] In cases where the master and wardens of a company had shown neglect in gathering the[pg 105] company's quota they were themselves committed to Newgate.[336]

The Court of Aldermen even committed one of their own body for refusing to contribute his quota.[337] With difficulty the first instalment of £60,000 was raised, several of the companies being forced to part with their plate.[338]

£20,000 advanced by the aldermen, Feb., 1628.

In such a hurry was Charles for the money that the aldermen had to advance him £20,000 out of the £60,000 on their own personal security. This was in February. Discharged seamen were again clamouring for pay, and the Exchequer was empty. The aldermen came to his assistance, but, inasmuch as the lands and tenements had not yet been conveyed to the City according to the terms of the late agreement, the Court of Aldermen passed a formal resolution that no further advances should be made until "one or more books of the lands to be assured by the contract be passed under the great seale of England."[339]

Buckingham and Dr. Lamb.

Notwithstanding the growing unpopularity of Buckingham, the king absolutely refused to abandon his favourite, against whom all kinds of rumours were astir. Nothing was too bad to be believed of him, and popular fury spared neither him nor his friends. Dr. Lamb, an astrologer and quack doctor, was set upon in the city as being one of the latter, and was[pg 106] nearly done to death one night whilst returning home from supper. None would receive into his house the almost lifeless body of the necromancer—the duke's devil, as he was called—who supplied him with love potions wherewith to corrupt women. He was at last removed to one of the compters, where he died the following day.[340] Charles was highly incensed on hearing of the occurrence, more especially as some of the murderers had been heard to say that if Lamb's "master"—the duke himself—had been there they would have handled him worse and so minced his flesh that every one should have had a bit of him. He forthwith summoned the mayor and sheriffs to court and threatened to take away their charter if the murderers were not quickly discovered.[341] The lords of the council also wrote to the mayor (15 June) reprimanding him for not taking steps to repress the riot and ordering him to seize the principal actors and abettors and commit them to prison.[342] These were not so easily to be discovered, but the Court of Aldermen (17 June) committed to Newgate two of the City Marshal's men for neglecting to give notice of the disturbance to the mayor or sheriffs, or even to the alderman or deputy of the ward, as in duty bound.[343] Others were taken on suspicion but were shortly afterwards set at liberty by order of the lords of the council (23 June).[344] The matter eventually ended by the City being fined £1,000.[345] In the meantime libellous[pg 107] placards[346] appeared stuck up in Coleman Street, and the Court of Aldermen committed a man to prison for no other reason than because he took one down to read and after reading it put it up again. That at least was the man's own story.[347]

Preparations for another expedition to Rochelle, 1628.

The Duke of Buckingham assassinated 23 Aug., 1628.