(M679)
The Great Fire had scarcely ceased smouldering before the inhabitants of
the city set to work re-building their devastated houses. Information
having reached the ear of the king that building operations were about to
be carried out on the old foundations, he instructed Sir William Morice,
secretary of state, to write to the lord mayor to put a stop to them until
further orders, as his majesty had under consideration certain models and
plans for re-building the city "with more decency and conveniency than
formerly."(1336) Charles himself also wrote at the same time to the mayor
and aldermen desiring them to afford every assistance to Wenceslas Hollar
and Francis Sandford, whom he had appointed to make an exact survey of the
city as it stood after the fire.(1337) The civic authorities on their part
instructed Robert Hooke to devise a scheme for re-building the city, and
on the 21st September he presented to the Common Council "an exquisite
modell or draught" which found much favour with the court.(1338) Early in
the following month (4 Oct.) the Common Council was informed that for the
greater expedition in carrying out the work of re-building the city, the
king had appointed Wren and two others to make a survey, with the
assistance of such surveyors and workmen as the civic authorities should
nominate. The city’s choice fell upon Robert Hooke, described as "Reader
of the Mathematicks in Gresham Colledge," Peter Mills and Edward Jermyn or
Jarman. By way of preparation for the survey, the owners of houses that
had been destroyed were again ordered (9 Oct.) to clear their foundations
of rubbish, and to pile up the bricks and stones within fourteen days, so
that every man’s property might be "more exactly measured and
asserted."(1339)
(M680)
The impracticability of re-building the city except on old foundations
soon become manifest, and the handsome design which Wren prepared had to
be dismissed. There was difficulty enough as it was, and the four sworn
viewers of the city whose duty at ordinary times was to guard against
encroachments and other nuisances were unusually busy. Sometimes the old
foundations proved too weak to support a new building, sometimes the new
building threatened to encroach on the public thoroughfare. Such matters
required the constant attention of the viewers. Disputes would also arise
between the landlords and tenants of houses destroyed by the fire. In
order to settle all differences that arose, a special Court of Judicature
was established by Act of Parliament (31 Jan., 1667).(1340) The court sat
at Clifford’s Inn, and the decrees signed by the judges, as well as the
portraits of the judges themselves, are preserved at the Guildhall.(1341)
The city authorities were very urgent in getting this Act passed, and
pressed the judges to give the Bill all dispatch they could, "as a matter
of principal concernment and encouragement to the great worke of
re-building the citty." This their lordships promised to do.(1342)
(M681)
It was not deemed in any way derogatory in those days to give and receive
presents for services either past or prospective. We need not be surprised
therefore to find that whilst this and other Bills in which the City was
interested were before Parliament, the Court of Aldermen voted a sum of
£100 in gold as a gift to the Speaker of the House of Commons, "as a
loving remembrance from this court for his many kind offices performed to
the State of this citty."(1343)
(M682)
Whilst a Bill for re-building the city was being prepared for parliament
the civic authorities were busy considering how to find the money
necessary for re-building the Guildhall, the city’s gates, the prisons and
other public buildings. On the 6th November (1666) the Court of Aldermen
resolved to sit every Wednesday afternoon at the house of the new lord
mayor (Sir William Bolton) to consider this important question, and to
continue such weekly sittings until the matter was settled.(1344) It was
not long before the court determined to apply to parliament for an
imposition of twelve pence a chaldron on coals brought into the Port of
London, wherewith to meet the expense. The advice and assistance of the
solicitor-general and of Sir Job Charlton were to be solicited, and £10 in
"old gold" given to each of them, in addition to "such other charges and
rewards" as might be necessary for the furtherance of the business.(1345)
Later on the court resolved to approach the Lord Chancellor and to entreat
him to recommend the City’s proposals to his majesty and to the House of
Lords.(1346) By the end of November the Common Council had agreed to
certain "heads thought requisite to be inserted" into the Bill for
re-building the city,(1347) and on the 29th December the Bill was brought
in and read the first time.
For fear lest some of the clauses might offend the king a petition was
drawn up for presentation to his majesty, in which matters were explained,
and his majesty’s favourable interpretation and pardon asked for anything
omitted in the Bill or done amiss.(1348) A report had got abroad that the
City had caused a clause to be inserted in the Bill forbidding any one to
engage in building operations who refused to abjure the Covenant. This
made the Common Council very angry, and the mayor and sheriffs were
desired to investigate the matter.(1349) On the 5th February (1667) the
Bill passed the Commons, and two days later received the assent of the
Lords.(1350)
In the meantime the Court of Aldermen had drafted (22 Jan.) a petition to
the king for permission to introduce a Bill for an impost on coals, to
assist the City in re-building the conduits, aqueducts and other public
works, as it had "no common stock, nor revenue, nor any capacity to raise
within itself anything considerable towards so vast an expense."(1351) But
instead of a new Bill for this purpose, a clause was inserted in the Bill
for re-building the city (Stat. 19 Car. II, c. 3), authorising such an
impost as was desired.(1352)
(M683)
The Common Council directed (19 Feb.) the lord mayor, the recorder and the
sheriffs to attend the king and the Duke of York with the most humble
thanks of the court for the favour they had shown the City in passing the
Bill, and to learn his majesty’s pleasure as to the enlargement of the
streets of the city in pursuance of the recent Act.(1353)
(M684)
On the 12th March certain proposals for widening streets which had
received the approval of the Common Council were submitted to Charles at a
council held at Berkshire House, now Cleveland House, St. James’s. On the
following day they were returned to the Common Council with his majesty’s
recommendations and suggestions thereon. The same day (13 March), the City
nominated Peter Mills, Edward Jarman, Robert Hooke and John Oliver to be
surveyors and supervisors of the houses about to be re-built; the king’s
commissioners, Christopher Wren, Hugh May and "Mr." Prat being ordered by
his majesty to afford them their best advice and assistance whenever it
should be required.(1354)
In September the king suggested the appointment of Sir William Bolton, the
lord mayor, as surveyor-general for the re-building of the city. The
suggestion was referred to a committee, who reported to the Common Council
(25 Oct.) their opinion that there was "noe use or occasion for a
surveyor-generall," as the work could be well and sufficiently managed by
the surveyors already appointed.(1355)
(M685)
Pursuant to the Building Act the Common Council proceeded (21 March) to
parcel out the streets of the city, placing them under the several
categories of "high and principal streets," "streets or lanes of note,"
and "by-lanes."(1356) The scheme met with the approval of the king and
council.(1357) Towards the end of the following month (29 April) a
schedule was drawn up of streets and narrow passages which it was proposed
to enlarge.(1358) For the next few months the authorities were busy seeing
to the clearing and staking out of the various streets.(1359) In September
the Common Council resolved that the new street which it was proposed to
make from the Guildhall to Cheapside should be called King Street, whilst
its continuation from Cheapside to the river should be known as Queen
Street.(1360)
(M686)
A fresh distribution of markets and market places was proposed (21
Oct.).(1361) Three markets and no more were to be allotted for the sale of
flesh and other victuals brought into the city by country butchers and
farmers, viz., Leadenhall and the Greenyard for the east end of the city,
Honey Lane for the centre, and a market near Warwick Lane, which was to
take the place of Newgate Market, for the west end. Two places were to be
assigned for herb and fruit markets, viz., the site of the king’s wardrobe
(if the king would give his consent) and the ground whereon recently had
stood the church of St. Laurence Pulteney. The markets formerly held in
Aldersgate Street and Gracechurch Street were to be discontinued. A place
was to be found at or near Christ Church as a site for the meat market,
hitherto kept in Newgate market. These suggestions were with slight
alteration accepted in the following February (1668), when provision was
also made for a fish market on the site of the ancient stocks and the
Woolchurch and churchyard.(1362) On the 23rd Oct. (1667) the king went in
state into the city to lay "the first stone of the first pillar of the new
building of the Exchange."(1363)
(M687)
The impost of twelve pence a chaldron on coals brought into the port of
London was soon found inadequate to meet the expense of re-building the
Guildhall, the prisons and other public edifices of the city, and in 1670
it was raised by statute (22 Car. II, c. 11) to two shillings a chaldron.
Great irregularities, however, were allowed to take place in collecting
and accounting for the duty thus imposed, and between 1667 and 1673 the
City was obliged to borrow no less than £83,000.(1364) In March, 1667, the
Court of Aldermen resolved that all fines paid by persons to be discharged
from the office of alderman between that day and Midsummer next should be
devoted to the restoration of the Guildhall and the Justice Hall, Old
Bailey.(1365) Not only money but material also was required to enable the
City to carry out its building operations. To this end a Bill was
introduced into parliament to facilitate the City’s manufacture of lime,
brick and tile.(1366) A sub-tenant of the City holding five acres of land
in the parish of St. Giles in the Fields obtained permission from the
Court of Aldermen to "digg and cast upp the said ground for the making of
bricke any covenant or clause in the lease of the said ground to the
contrary notwithstanding."(1367) Application was made to Charles for
liberty to fetch Portland stone for the City’s use, but this was refused
as the stone was required for works at Whitehall.(1368)
(M688)
In the meanwhile negotiations for a peace had been opened at Breda. The
Londoners more especially desired peace(1369) in order to devote their
energies to re-building their city. In anticipation of a cessation of
hostilities Charles set about discharging his navy, leaving the Thames and
Medway open to attack. The Dutch took advantage of his precipitancy and at
once sailed up the Medway, burnt three men-of-war, among them being the
"Loyal London," and carried off a fourth.(1370) This took place in June
(1667). The city never presented so dejected an appearance as on the
arrival of the news of this disgrace. The cry of treason was raised and
endeavours made to fasten the blame upon any one and every one. The Dutch
fleet was every hour expected up the Thames,(1371) and vessels were sunk
in the bed of the channel at Barking, Woolwich and Blackwall to stop its
progress. But so great was the confusion that one of the king’s store
ships for victualling the navy is said to have been sunk among the rest,
as well as vessels that had been fitted out as fire-ships at great
expense. The Common Council interposed on behalf of interested owners of
merchandise on board the ship "Diana," lying in the Thames, to prevent if
possible the sinking of that vessel.(1372)
(M689)
The Common Council ordered (13 June) every able-bodied man in the city
forthwith to enlist, and resolved to petition the king that the
auxiliaries then to be raised might remain as a guard to the city.(1373)
The same day the city’s militia was reviewed by Charles himself on Tower
Hill. He addressed them in a speech assuring them that he would personally
share their danger. But here, too, was confusion and lack of organization.
"The city is troubled at their being put upon duty," wrote Pepys (14
June), "summoned one hour and discharged two hours after: and then again
summoned two hours after that; to their great charge as well as trouble."
(M690)
Above all there was a lack of money to pay the seamen. Had the Dutch fleet
sailed up the Thames immediately after its success at Chatham, instead of
wasting its time at Portsmouth and Plymouth and other places on the south
coast, matters would have gone hard with the capital. As it was the delay
gave time for recovery from the recent scare and for measures to be taken
against its approach, with the result that after getting up the river as
far as Tilbury it was compelled to retire.(1374)
(M691)
On the morning of the 20th June the Dutch fleet was believed to be sailing
homewards, but by midday news arrived of its appearance off Harwich, which
was threatened with an immediate attack.(1375) The next day (21 June) the
mayor and aldermen obeyed a summons to attend upon the king in council,
when, a proposal having been made to fortify Sheerness and other places on
the river, they agreed to raise the sum of £10,000 for the purpose.(1376)
That the government should be driven to borrow so small a sum excited the
contempt of Pepys, who thought it "a very poor thing that we should be
induced to borrow by such mean sums." That the City could afford no more
is not surprising when we consider what had been the state of trade during
the last three years. As it was the money was paid by small instalments.
The coffers of the city merchant or goldsmith keeping "running cashes"
were well nigh empty, and the credit of some of the best men was
shaken.(1377)
(M692)
There was another difficulty besides the want of money. There was a
deficiency of workmen to carry out the works at Sheerness. Application was
accordingly made to the wardens of the several companies of masons and
bricklayers to furnish able men so that the fortifications might be
completed before the cold weather came on.(1378)
(M693)
At last negotiations for a peace were concluded and the Treaty of Breda
was signed (31 July). The peace was proclaimed at Temple Bar in the
presence of the lord mayor on St. Bartholomew’s Day (24 Aug.).
The bells were set ringing in honour of the event, but there were no
bonfires at night "partly"—writes Pepys—"from the dearness of firing, but
principally from the little content most people have in the peace." Yet
the terms of the treaty were not wholly ruinous to the country. England,
at least, gained New York, hitherto known as New Amsterdam.
(M694)
The lull in the storm afforded the municipal authorities an opportunity of
taking stock of their own Chamber. To this end a committee was appointed
on the 12th February, 1668. For nine months that committee was employed
examining the state of the City’s finances, and then had not finished
their task. Nevertheless, on the 23rd November they made a report to the
Common Council of the result of their labours so far as they had
gone.(1379) The state of the Chamber, they said, was so low that it would
require the utmost care and industry to restore it and save it from utter
decay and ruin, "for what by misemployment of the treasure in the late
troubles and other ill managements," as well as by extraordinary expenses
occasioned by the Plague and Fire, the City’s debt had still increased
notwithstanding its income having been largely augmented by fines of
aldermen and chamber and bridge-house leases, which within the last
fifteen years had exceeded £200,000. It was clear that when these
extraordinary accessories to the City’s income ceased—and they had already
begun to decline—the City’s debt would increase and would indeed become
desperate unless some remedy were found. The committee, therefore, made
certain suggestions with the view of cutting down expenses. The City
Chronologer,(1380) in the first place, could be dispensed with altogether.
The salary of the City Waits, which had lately been increased, should be
reduced to its former amount. Some saving might be made in allowance of
stationery in the various offices, in expenses attending Courts of
Conservancy, in allowance of boots to City labourers and artificers. The
personal expenses of the City’s Remembrancer for diet, coach hire, boat
hire, etc., should be no longer allowed; and the Chamber should not be
called upon to make any disbursement for military purposes beyond the sum
of £4,666 13_s._ 4_d._, for which the City was yearly liable by Act of
Parliament. Lastly, neither the court of Aldermen nor the court of Common
Council ought to have power to draw upon the Chamber for a sum exceeding
£500, except it were in connection with the re-building of the Guildhall
and other specified objects. These and other recommendations of the
committee, being carefully considered by the court, were for the most part
accepted with certain amendments.
(M695)
On the other hand there was due to the city’s Chamber no less a sum than
£77,409 6_s._ 6_d._ for principal and interest on former loans to the
king. This sum Alderman Backwell undertook himself to pay to the City,
accepting a transfer of the Treasury Bills in the hands of the City
Chamberlain. The Common Council was only too ready to accept the
offer.(1381) Edward Backwell, alderman of Bishopsgate Ward, was one of
those city princes whose wealth brought them into close relation with the
Crown. A goldsmith by trade, he, like others of his class, took to keeping
"running cashes" and transacting generally the business of a banker at his
house known as the "Unicorn" in Lombard Street. Pepys mentions him
frequently in his Diary. In the days of the Commonwealth he was paymaster
of the garrison at Dunkirk, and continued to act as financial agent in all
matters connected with that town until it was sold to the French king. His
house in Lombard Street having perished in the Great Fire, he was, by the
king’s special command, accommodated with lodgings in Gresham College, in
order that his business relations with the king might not be interrupted
pending the re-building of his premises.(1382)
(M696)
In March, 1669, a riot occurred in the Temple on the occasion of the mayor
and aldermen going to dine with the reader of the Inner Temple. The
question whether the Temple is situate within the city and liberties or
not was then a debateable one, whatever it may be at the present day. The
lord mayor of that time (William Turner) evidently thought that it lay
within his jurisdiction, and insisted upon being preceded by the city’s
sword-bearer carrying the sword up. To this the students strongly
objected. The story, as told by Pepys, is to the effect that on Wednesday,
3rd March, "my lord mayor being invited this day to dinner at the readers
at the Temple, and endeavouring to carry his sword up, the students did
pull it down, and forced him to go and stay all the day in a private
counsellor’s chamber until the reader himself could get the young
gentlemen to dinner; and then my lord mayor did retreat out of the Temple
by stealth with his sword up. This do make great heat among the students,
and my lord mayor did send to the king, and also I hear that Sir Richard
Browne did cause the drums to beat for the trained bands; but all is over,
only I hear that the students do resolve to try the charter of the city."
From a draft report(1383) of the incident which was probably made for the
purpose of being laid before the Council Board,(1384) we learn that as
soon as the civic procession entered the Temple cloisters it was met by a
man named Hodges and others coming down the back stairs of the Inner
Temple Hall; that Hodges threatened the lord mayor if he would not take
down his sword, declaring that the Temple was excepted out of the city’s
charter, that the sword was not the king’s sword, but the lord mayor’s,
and that "they were as good men as he, and no respect was to be given him
there." A struggle then took place for the possession of the sword, in
which the sword-bearer was slightly hurt and some of the pearls from the
scabbard were lost. The students made a snatch at the "cap of maintenance"
worn by the sword-bearer. The marshal’s men who were in attendance
suffered some rough treatment, and narrowly escaped being put under the
pump. The mayor and aldermen in the meanwhile sought refuge in the
chambers of Mr. Auditor Phillips, and awaited the return of Sir John
Nicholas, who with the recorder and the sheriffs had been despatched to
Whitehall to report the matter to the king. As soon as they returned the
mayor and aldermen essayed to make their way out of the Temple, but were
again opposed by the students, with Hodges at their head. The scene was
one of wild excitement and confusion; blows were showered upon the
aldermen, and one of the sheriffs was seized by the collar in the frantic
attempts of the students to pull down the sword. The mayor and aldermen
were called "cuckolds," and their officers "dogs, rogues, rascals and
other very bad names." Some of the students are said to have had weapons
concealed under their gowns, and to have threatened to draw them. The
sheriffs, the recorder and Sir John Nicholas having again been sent to the
king, it was intimated to the mayor by some of the benchers, and by Mr.
Goodfellow, the Reader, at whose invitation the civic fathers were in the
Temple, that he might now leave without any interruption (the "young
gentlemen," according to Pepys, had been persuaded to go to dinner),
which, after some display of opposition, he was allowed to do. Such is the
City’s own version of the affair, which concludes with the remark "that
the proceedings aforesaid were greatly affrontive and dishonourable to the
government of the city," a remark with which most people will be disposed
to agree. Nor is it surprising to find that two years later the mayor and
aldermen declined a similar invitation from Sir Francis North to attend
his "feast" at the Temple, more especially as another disturbance was
threatened if the sword should be borne up before his lordship.(1385)
(M697)
In July, 1670—at a time when the City could ill afford to part with
money—the king sent to borrow £60,000.(1386) He had recently entered into
a secret treaty with France (1 June), whereby he had pledged himself to
assist the French king in subjugating Holland, in return for pecuniary
support. The City agreed to advance the money, but in order to raise the
sum required it became necessary to draw upon the coal dues.(1387) Much
opposition was raised to the loan by the inhabitants,(1388) so that in
November it became necessary for the city Chamberlain to borrow at
interest more than £1,000 to complete the loan.(1389) In addition to the
loan by the City Charles obtained considerable supplies from parliament
when it met in the autumn. The House had been kept in complete ignorance
of the arrangement that had been made with France, and voted the money on
the understanding that it would be used in assisting the Dutch against
Louis and not Louis against the Dutch.
(M698)
In order to keep up the illusion Charles treated the Prince of Orange
(afterwards William III of England), who was on a visit to this country at
the time, with the highest consideration and insisted on the lord mayor
giving "hand and place" to his foreign guest (contrary to city custom) at
an entertainment given by the City in the prince’s honour.(1390)
(M699)
As soon as parliament had voted supplies it was prorogued (11 Dec.),
Charles and his "cabal" being determined to have no restraint put upon
them in carrying out the terms of the shameful treaty with France. No long
time elapsed before they had to face the difficulty of an empty exchequer.
It was useless to declare war without funds. Charles was at his wits’ end
for money and promised high office to any one who should point out a
successful way of raising it. Clifford and Ashley, two members of the
cabal, put their heads together and hit upon the bold plan of declaring a
_moratorium_, or suspension of payments out of the royal exchequer. For
many years past it had been the custom for the goldsmiths of London and
others who had been in the habit of keeping the money of private
individuals, either on deposit or running account, to lend it to the king,
who could afford to pay them a higher rate of interest than they paid to
their private customers. The money was paid into the exchequer, the
bankers taking assignments of the public revenue for payment of principal
and interest, as it came in. Most of this money had already been spent by
Charles in paying off the fleet that brought him over, and in carrying on
the late war with the Dutch;(1391) but the bankers and capitalists who had
provided the money were content to abide by the king’s frequent assurance
that he would continue to make good all assignments until their whole debt
should be wiped out. We may judge therefore of their surprise and
disappointment when they learnt, as they did on the 2nd January, 1672,
that the king proposed to suspend all payments out of the public revenue
for one whole year!
(M700)
It is true that he promised to add the interest then due to the capital
and to allow six per cent. interest on the whole as some compensation to
his creditors for the delay; but this, even if carried into practice,
proved unavailing to ward off disaster. The inevitable crash came. Many of
the London bankers, and among them Alderman Backwell, who held revenue
assignments exceeding a quarter of a million sterling, were made utterly
bankrupt. A few of them who had interest at court got wind of the
threatened danger and managed to withdraw their money from the exchequer
in time, whilst Shaftesbury, one of the prime movers in closing the
exchequer, foreseeing the inevitable result, took all of his own money out
of his banker’s hands and warned his friends to do the same.
(M701)
The exchequer having been in this way made richer by £1,300,000, Charles
was prepared to declare war. An attempt to intercept a fleet of Dutch
merchantmen before any declaration of war had been made—a piratical act
admitting of no possible justification—brought matters to a climax and war
was declared (17 March, 1672) by England and France. The 27th March was
appointed by royal proclamation to be kept as a solemn fast for the
purpose of begging the Almighty’s blessing on his majesty’s forces, the
same prayers being used as had been specially ordained for the late
war.(1392)
(M702)
The war, which was chiefly remarkable for the noble stand made by the
Dutch under the young William, Prince of Orange, Charles’s own nephew and
afterwards King of England, soon drained the king’s resources, and once
more he had to face a parliament. The parliament, which met on the 4th
February, 1673, showed itself willing to vote a subsidy of £70,000 a month
for a period of eighteen months, but only on its own terms. These were (1)
the repeal of the Declaration of Indulgence which Charles, who was
beginning to show signs of favouring the Roman Church, had by a stretch of
prerogative recently caused to be issued, and (2) the passing of a Test
Act which should bind all public officers to take the oaths of supremacy
and allegiance, receive the sacrament, and abjure the doctrine of
transubstantiation. By this means parliament hoped to maintain the
supremacy of the Church.
(M703)
The assessments which the City was now called upon to pay were far beyond
its powers, seeing that many merchants and traders who had left the city
at the time of the Plague and Fire refused to return, preferring to live
in the suburbs, and thus a large number of the houses that had recently
been re-built were left unoccupied. Every exertion was made to get some
remission of the burden, but although the king signified his intention of
making some abatement, little appears to have been done.(1393)
(M704)
In March of this year (1673) an individual named Philip De Cardonel came
forward with a scheme for raising money by way of annuities to be granted
by the city to every subscriber of £20 or more.(1394) The matter was in
the first instance brought before the Court of Aldermen, who, upon
consideration, declared that the proposal appeared to them "very faire and
reasonable, and in all likelihood of very great advantage to the city,"
and forthwith resolved themselves into a committee of the whole court to
treat with Cardonel and take such further proceedings as might be thought
requisite.(1395) In the following month (11 April) the same proposals were
submitted to the Common Council, where they met with similar favour. The
court also appointed a committee to take them into further consideration,
promising in the meantime that no advantage should be taken or benefit
derived from the scheme without the special leave and consent of the
proposer.(1396) Although the committee reported favourably on the
scheme(1397) it was allowed to drop.
(M705)
By February of the next year (1674) trade had become so bad that a number
of the inhabitants of the city petitioned the Common Council (13 Feb.) to
seek some relief from parliament. An address was accordingly drawn up,
setting forth the miserable state to which the city had been reduced by
the ravages of the plague and the fire, the increase of new buildings in
the suburbs, which not only injured the trade of the city, but afforded a
retreat for disorderly persons, and excessive taxation (the city being
called upon to pay the same amount of taxes as in its most prosperous
days), and praying the Commons to apply some timely remedy. The address
was to have been laid before the house on Monday, the 23rd February,(1398)
but no mention of it appears in the Commons Journal. On the 24th the House
was prorogued.
(M706)
In September (1674) the old question again cropt up as to the power of the
Court of Aldermen to veto matters ordained by the Common Council. The
question had arisen, it will be remembered, in January, 1649,(1399) when
Reynardson, the mayor, got up and left the Common Council, followed by the
aldermen, and the court, instead of breaking up according to custom,
proceeded to pass measures in their absence. Its action on this occasion
was reported to parliament, and the house signified its approval of the
court’s proceedings and passed an ordinance which practically deprived the
Court of Aldermen of all control over the Common Council. Since that time
the matter had remained dormant, until jealousy between the two bodies was
again excited by the Common Council passing an Act (17 Sept., 1674) for
compelling the aldermen to reside within the city under the penalty of a
fine of £500.(1400) Against the passing of any such Act the Recorder, on
behalf of the Court of Aldermen, formally reported their protest to the
Common Council, and the Commons as formerly protested against that protest
(13 Nov.).(1401)
It was not that the mayor and aldermen were not fully conscious of the
mischief arising from their own non-residence in the city, for they
themselves passed an order for every alderman to return with his family
into the city before the following Easter on pain of heavy penalty,(1402)
but they objected to the court of Common Council presuming to dictate to
them.
(M707)
In the meantime the Court of Aldermen had appointed a committee (24 Sept.)
to examine the question of the right of veto, and this committee had
reported (20 Oct.) in favour of the court.(1403) "We find," said the
committee, "that the court of Common Council hath always consisted, and
still it doth, of three distinct degrees of persons, viz., of the lord
mayor in the first place as the chefe magistrate, and secondly of the
aldermen as subordinate magistrates, and thirdly of the commons, or of a
select number of the commons representing all the commoners of the said
city as now is, and for a long time before hath been used." In this
respect the committee proceeded to say, "the Common Councill of the city
doth much resemble the constitution of the Common Council of the kingdom,
and we further find that the order of proceeding in the making of lawes
for the good government of the citty doth imitate the paterne sett them by
the High Court of Parliament, in making lawes for the government of the
nation, in regard that noe ordinance made in the Common Councell of this
city can be a binding law to any without the joint consent and concurrence
of the Lord Mayor, Court of Aldermen and commoners in Common Councell
assembled, they having a joynt power and equal authority in making of
lawes. So that the mayor and aldermen cannot impose upon the commoners,
nor _e converso_; each degree having a power to dissent or assent as to
them seems best."
The committee next pointed out how Bills for the better government of the
city had formerly originated for the most part with the mayor and
aldermen, and had been by them transmitted to the Common Council, where,
after being read in two several courts (and not twice in one court) and
assented to, they became complete acts and binding laws. Such had been the
usual and salient practice. Nevertheless, the committee had found that
sometimes the Common Council had petitioned the Court of Aldermen for
redress of certain grievances and the latter had complied with such
petitions, "and so sometimes Acts of Common Council have been made at the
desire of the lord mayor and aldermen signifyed to the commons by the
Recorder." The conclusion that the committee arrived at was that "the lord
mayor and aldermen have negative votes as the commoners also have, and
contrary to this order of proceeding in making Acts of Common Council wee
cannot find any presedent."
On the 13th November a joint Committee of Aldermen and Commoners was
appointed by the Common Council to search the city’s Records as to "the
respective privileges of the lord mayor and aldermen and of the commons in
Common Council assembled, and of the most ancient and decent method in
making laws within this citty," and to report thereon.(1404) Four days
later (17 Nov.) the Court of Aldermen instructed their committee to make
further search on the question.(1405)
(M708) (M709)
Matters were brought to a crisis on the 12th March, 1675, when the mayor
and aldermen, dissatisfied with the proceedings of the court of Common
Council, got up and left the court. The Common Sergeant—the notorious
George Jeffreys—refusing to follow the example set by the Common Sergeant
in 1649, remained behind, and went so far as to put a question to the
court of which the mayor and aldermen had previously disapproved. For this
he was shortly afterwards called to account. His defence was that he only
obeyed the wishes of the majority; but this being deemed unsatisfactory,
the Court of Aldermen ordered him to be suspended from office.(1406)
(M710) (M711)
He afterwards (23 March) offered an apology to the Court of Aldermen for
his conduct, confessing "that the question by him put at the last Common
Council after the lord mayor was out of the chair was altogether
irregular," and asked pardon. His apology, so far as it went, was accepted
in good part by the court, but upon some explanation being asked of him as
to his not refusing to put a question when commanded to refuse, and his
offering to put another question at the request of some members of the
council, he desired to be allowed time before he made answer.(1407)
Meanwhile the dispute between the Aldermen and Common Council had been
brought to the notice of the king,(1408) who, with his brother the Duke of
York, had recently received the freedom of the City.(1409)
(M712) (M713)
A week later (30 March) the Recorder, John Howell, reported to the Court
of Aldermen(1410) that he and the Common Sergeant had by command appeared
before his majesty the previous day touching the unhappy difference
existing between the Aldermen and the Common Council; that the Common
Sergeant being asked to whom it devolved to put the question on a debate
in council, had in the Recorder’s hearing replied to the effect "that the
question had always been used to be put by the lord mayor or by his
lordship’s appointment and not otherwise, so far as he had observed," and
he had never known the matter disputed; that he had then likewise declared
to his majesty that he was "sorry for his deportment at the last Common
Council, saying that what he did was a sudden act and rashly done without
any intention to make any disturbance, and that he would freely
acknowledge the same wheresoever his majesty should command him"; that
therefore his majesty had commanded the Recorder to acquaint the court
that the best expedient he could suggest, as the case stood, for a
settlement of the difficulty, was that the old order of things should be
re-established, that (among other things) the suspension of the Common
Sergeant should be removed, and that the books and records of the city
should be searched by six such aldermen as the lord mayor should appoint,
and six such commoners as the Common Council should appoint, in order to
satisfy themselves of the respective privileges of the lord mayor and
aldermen and commons in Common Council assembled, and to settle the same
in a quiet and peaceable manner if they could. Failing this his majesty
would appoint a judge to arbitrate in the matter.
(M714)
The court followed the king’s suggestion so far as related to the Common
Sergeant, and having listened to his expressions of regret for his late
conduct, and his assurances that he would always endeavour to "promote the
honour and government of the city," it removed his suspension.
(M715)
As regards the real issue between the two Courts of Aldermen and Common
Council, matters remained much as they were before. Although the Court of
Aldermen gave orders (12 April) that the proceedings relative to the
dispute between the two courts should be faithfully recorded, the minutes
of the Common Council at this period are particularly lacking in
information as well on this as on other matters in which the City was
concerned.(1411)
(M716)
One result of the _contretemps_ which had occurred in the court of Common
Council of the 12th March was that the Court of Aldermen resolved to
retain certain counsel to advise them as occasion should arise on the
question of their rights and privileges, and to create a fund by
subscription among themselves to meet the necessary expenses.(1412)
(M717)
In April the Town Clerk and the four clerks of the outer court (_i.e._
mayor’s court) were instructed to search the books and records of the city
on the question whether or not it was the province of the lord mayor (1)
to direct and put the question in the Common Council, (2) to name
committees, and (3) to nominate persons to be put in election to any
office.(1413) This last point especially affected the right claimed by the
mayor to nominate (if not to elect) one of the sheriffs by virtue of his
prerogative—a claim which had already been more than once canvassed and
which was destined shortly to bring the City and the Crown into violent
opposition.
(M718)
On the 7th September, 1675, the Court of Aldermen directed that the
opinion of counsel should be taken on the power of the mayor and aldermen
to put their veto on matters passed by the Common Council.(1414) After the
lapse of fifteen months the opinions of Sir William Jones, the
attorney-general, Sir Francis Winnington, solicitor-general, Sir John
Maynard and Sir Francis Pemberton, sergeants-at-law, and of "Mr. William
Steele" (_not_ a former Recorder of that name as some have supposed(1415))
were presented to the court (5 Dec., 1676);(1416) and with the exception
of the last mentioned, all the lawyers declared in favour of the mayor and
aldermen. There the matter was allowed to rest for a year or more until in
February, 1678, the opinions of Sir William Dolben, not long since
appointed the city’s Recorder, and of Jeffreys, the Common Sergeant, who
was destined in a few months to succeed Dolben on the latter’s promotion
to the bench, were taken and found to coincide with the opinions already
delivered with the exception of that of William Steele.(1417)
(M719) (M720) (M721) (M722)
In the meantime Charles had concluded a separate treaty with the Dutch (19
Feb., 1674), who continued to struggle manfully against the French king,
with such assistance as they derived from the emperor and the German
states. The Commons were fearful of entrusting the king with either money
or troops lest he should employ them against the Dutch, or against their
own liberties. The successes of Louis at length provoked a general cry for
war against France, and the Commons went so far as to pass a bill (8
March, 1678) imposing a poll tax as part of the supply.(1418) Charles lost
no time in applying to the City for the sum of £100,000 on the security of
this tax, and the court of Common Council signified its readiness to
advance the money (9 April).(1419) Finding that parliament hesitated to
furnish the supplies it had voted, and without which he assured the
members he would have to lay up the fleet and disband some of the newly
raised forces, Charles applied to the City for another £50,000. This, too,
was granted (14 May);(1420) and Charles, in order to show his displeasure
with the Commons, resorted to his usual tactics and prorogued parliament,
but only for ten days.(1421) A few days after the Commons had again met
they resolved (27 May) that if the king would declare war against France
they would give him their hearty support, otherwise they would at once
proceed to take into consideration the speedy disbandment of the
army.(1422) The king refusing to declare war, parliament proceeded (4
June) to carry out its threat and voted the sum of £200,000 for the
disbandment of all the forces that had been raised since the 29th
September, 1677.(1423) The disbandment did not take place, however, but in
its stead a force was despatched to Holland. Scarcely had it arrived
before the peace of Nimeguen was signed.
(M723)
Just when the war was brought so unexpectedly to an end Charles signified
his desire for another loan by the City to the extent of £200,000. The
matter was brought to the notice of the Common Council on the last day of
July, and on the 1st August the lord mayor issued his precept to the
aldermen of the several wards to invite subscriptions.(1424) For what
purpose the money was required we are not told. It was generally feared
that the king meditated a suppression of the liberties of his subjects by
the introduction of foreign troops. This fear was enhanced by the
knowledge that if Charles died the crown would fall to his brother, an
uncompromising Catholic. The public mind became so unhinged that every
breath or rumour created the greatest trepidation. Within a fortnight
after the City had signified its assent to the last loan the nation was
suddenly surprised by some words let drop by Dr. Tonge, the weak and
credulous rector of St. Michael’s, Wood Street, and the tool of the
infamous Titus Oates. A Popish plot was, he said, on foot and the king’s
life in danger, in proof of which he produced documentary evidence. Oates,
the prime mover in starting the idea of a plot, was ready in the most
shameless way with depositions to corroborate all that Tonge had said.
These depositions he made before a Middlesex magistrate, Sir Edmondesbury
Godfrey. The next morning Godfrey’s corpse was found lying in a ditch near
Primrose Hill. All London was wild with excitement and jumped to the
conclusion that the Middlesex Justice had met a violent death for
listening to Oates’s evidence, although there is reason for believing him
to have fallen by his own hands. The cry against Papists continued
unabated for years.(1425) The city presented the appearance of a state of
siege with its gates kept closed, its streets protected with posts and
chains, and an armed watch kept by night and day.(1426) In October, when
according to custom the king was to be invited to the lord mayor’s
banquet, the Recorder was instructed to congratulate his majesty upon his
recent escape and to make arrangements for a deputation to wait upon him
in person.(1427)
(M724)
When parliament met on the 21st of this month it passed a new Test Act
rigidly excluding all Catholics from both Houses. Five Catholic peers were
committed to the Tower, and Coleman, the secretary of the Duchess of York,
was tried and executed for having in his possession papers betraying a
design for forcing the Roman Catholic religion on the nation. It next
proceeded to impeach Danby for having been concerned in certain money
transactions between Charles and the king of France. Knowing the danger
likely to arise from such an investigation, Charles dissolved (24 Jan.,
1679) the parliament, which had now sat for more than seventeen years.
(M725)
When the elections for the new parliament were over it was found that the
opposition to the king was greater than ever. Of the city members who had
sat in the last parliament only one—Alderman Love—was returned, the
remaining seats being taken by Alderman Sir Robert Clayton, Sir Thomas
Player, the city chamberlain, and Thomas Pilkington, afterwards elected
alderman of the ward of Farringdon Without. This second parliament—the
first of a series of short parliaments—in Charles’s reign met on the 6th
March, 1679, but was suddenly dissolved on the 27th May in order to stop
the progress of an Exclusion Bill depriving the Duke of York of his right
of succession to the crown.(1428) It left its mark, however, on the
statute book by passing the Habeas Corpus Act. It also voted a sum
exceeding £200,000 for disbandment of the forces raised since Michaelmas,
1677.(1429) Just a week before parliament dissolved the Court of Aldermen
was asked (20 May) to forward an address thanking both Houses for their
care in securing the personal safety of the king and maintaining the
Protestant religion. The address was referred back in order to include the
king in the vote of thanks, and was then submitted (23 May) to the Common
Council for approval. That body made a further amendment by adding the
words: "The Protestant religion according to the doctrine and discipline
of the Church of England as it is now established by law."(1430)
(M726)
In August the king was confined to his bed with a fever so violent that it
was deemed advisable to send for his brother the Duke of York. He
recovered however; and on the 11th September a deputation of city aldermen
waited on him to learn when the court might come in person to congratulate
him on his convalescence.(1431) On the 17th the mayor issued his precept
for bells to be set ringing and bonfires to be lighted in the city in
honour of his majesty’s return from Windsor to Whitehall after his late
indisposition.(1432) The Duke of York did not return to England until
February, 1680, when a special Court of Aldermen sat to make arrangements
for presenting their congratulations to him and the duchess.(1433)
(M727)
The elections for a fresh parliament which had taken place in the meantime
having gone against the court party, parliament no sooner met (17 Oct.)
than it was prorogued; and in consequence of repeated prorogations never
sat again for a whole twelvemonth (21 Oct., 1680).(1434) Nor would it in
all probability have been allowed to meet even then, had it not been for a
constant succession of petitions addressed to the king insisting upon a
session being held. So annoyed was Charles with this demonstration of
popular feeling in favour of parliament that he issued a proclamation (12
Dec., 1679) prohibiting such "tumultuous petitions."(1435)
(M728)
This led to the presentation of a number of counter-addresses to the king,
expressing the greatest confidence in his majesty’s wisdom, the most
dutiful submission to his prerogative, and _abhorrence_ of those who had
dared to encroach upon it by petitions. The two parties thus became
distinguished as _Petitioners_ and _Abhorrers_; names which were
subsequently replaced by Whigs and Tories.
(M729)
The citizens were _Petitioners_. On the 29th July (1680) the Livery
assembled in Common Hall for the election of sheriffs took the opportunity
of desiring Sir Robert Clayton, the lord mayor, to beseech his majesty on
their behalf, that for the preservation of his royal person and government
and the Protestant religion he would graciously please to order that
parliament, his great council, might assemble and sit to take measures
against the machinations of Rome.(1436) Clayton showed himself very
willing to comply with the wishes of Common Hall, but pointed out at the
same time that he had reason to believe that parliament was to meet in
November. "If that be so," said he, "I hope your great concern for that
matter might have been spared, being anticipated by his majesties gracious
intention. However, I shall not be wanting with all humility to lay the
whole matter before him." In spite of Jeffreys, the Recorder, having ruled
that such a petition bordered on treason, and in spite of a warning
received from the lord chancellor, Clayton insisted on presenting a
petition, and for doing so was rewarded with the grateful thanks of the
Common Council on his quitting the mayoralty.(1437) Jeffreys on the other
hand was compelled to resign the recordership.(1438)
(M730) (M731)
When parliament was at last allowed to meet the City lost no time in
presenting a dutiful address(1439) to Charles acknowledging his majesty’s
favour and their own satisfaction. They besought him to lend a ready ear
to the humble advice tendered by his great council for the safety of his
royal person and the preservation of the true Protestant religion, and
promised to be ready at all times to promote his majesty’s ease and
prosperity, and to stand by him against all dangers and hazards
whatsoever. Had Charles accepted this address in the spirit with which it
was made matters might have gone better with him, and the Stuart family
might never have been driven from the throne; but he was in no mood to
accept advice either from parliament or the city, and the only answer he
vouchsafed to the citizens was to tell them to mind their own business. He
knew what he had to do, without their advice.(1440)
(M732)
As soon as the House met it commenced an attack upon Papists. The
Exclusion Bill was again passed, but was thrown out by the Lords. Thus
baulked the Commons revived the impeachment of the Catholic lords. During
the trial of Stafford on a charge of a design to murder the king, more
than ordinary precautions had to be taken by the mayor to maintain order
and prevent too great a crowd assembling at Westminster.(1441) Being
condemned to death, the king was ready to spare Stafford the grosser
indignities attached to a felon’s execution, but the royal act of clemency
was not allowed to pass unchallenged by the sheriffs of London on the
ground that if the king could dispense with some part of the execution why
not of all?(1442) The House had passed a vote of thanks to the City for
its "manifest loyalty to the king" and its care and vigilance for the
preservation of his majesty’s person and of the Protestant religion, and
had got as far as the second reading of a Bill for repealing the
Corporation Act of 1661 when it found itself suddenly prorogued from the
10th January to the 20th.(1443)
(M733)
During the interval a petition was drawn up by the Common Council (13
Jan.) and presented to the king, in which the petitioners expressed their
surprise at the late prorogation "whereby the prosecution of the public
justice of the kingdom ... have received an interruption," and after
referring to the action taken by parliament for the defence of his
majesty’s person and the preservation of the Protestant religion, prayed
that the House might be allowed to resume its session on the day to which
parliament had been prorogued as being "the only means to quiet the minds
and extinguish the fears of your Protestant subjects."(1444) This
petition, and more especially that part of it which spoke of the
interruption of justice, was highly resented by Charles, and was one of
the causes which led to the issue of the writ of _Quo Warranto_ against
the city in the following year. In the meanwhile it served only to make
the king more determined than ever to dissolve the parliament, which he
did by proclamation on the 18th January. A new parliament was summoned for
the 21st March; it was not however to sit in London, but in the royalist
city of Oxford.(1445)
(M734)
The City sent up to Oxford the same members that had represented them in
the last two parliaments. The election took place at a Common Hall held on
Friday the 4th February, but no record of the proceedings is to be found
in the city’s archives.(1446) From other sources, however,(1447) we learn
that after an opening speech by one of the secondaries, or under-sheriffs,
Henry Cornish, one of the sheriffs, addressed the meeting and explained
how the mayor (Sir Patience Ward) had been asked to allow himself to be
put in nomination but had declined. One or two aldermen were nominated for
form’s sake, but the choice of the citizens was unanimously in favour of
the old members—Sir Robert Clayton, Alderman Pilkington, Sir Thomas
Player, the city chamberlain, and William Love. The election over, the
Common Hall presented an address to the members, acknowledging their past
services and promising to support them in their determination to grant no
money supply until they had effectually secured the city against Popery
and arbitrary power. To this address Sir Robert Clayton made a brief
reply, promising, on behalf of himself and colleagues, to continue their
endeavours to attain the ends desired. The fact that the new parliament
was to sit at Oxford, a stronghold of the Tory party, caused no little
alarm, and this alarm was increased when it became known that Charles was
bringing his own guards with him. The city’s representatives were brought
on their way by a large number of followers with ribbons in their hats
bearing the words "No Popery! No Slavery!" whilst Shaftesbury and his
supporters made no disguise that they were well equipt with arms.(1448)
(M735)
Charles soon perceived that he had little to gain from the new parliament,
which insisted on having its own way, and refused even the king’s
humiliating proposal to place the government of the country after his
demise in the hands of a regent, leaving the bare title of king to his
brother, the Duke of York. It caused an impeachment to be laid against an
Irishman named Fitzharris whom Charles had recently removed from Newgate
to the Tower in order to prevent the civic authorities taking the
prisoner’s depositions,(1449) and it otherwise proved so uncompromising
that at the end of a week (28 March) it was sent about its business.
Charles afterwards (8 April) published a "declaration" of his reasons for
taking that course.(1450)
(M736)
On the 13th May the Common Council passed a vote of thanks to the city
members for their faithful services in the last three parliaments, and
more especially in the late parliament at Oxford. It also agreed by a
narrow majority of fourteen to present an address to the king praying him
to cause a parliament to meet and continue to sit until due provision be
made for the security of his majesty’s person and his people.(1451) The
first attempt (13 May) to present this address failed, the deputation
being told to meet the king at Hampton Court another day (19 May). When it
was presented the deputation were told to go home and mind their own
business. Other addresses—one from the lieutenancy of London and another
from the borough of Southwark—presented the same day, in which thanks were
tendered to his majesty for dissolving the last two parliaments, met with
a very different reception. Undismayed at the rebuff thus administered to
the City, the Grand Jury at the Old Bailey passed a vote of thanks (20
May) to the mayor for the part he had taken in presenting the address, and
ordered a similar address to that of the City to be presented to Charles
on their own account.(1452)