(M737)
The country seemed to be on the verge of another civil war. A re-action,
however, in favour of the king set in. The nation began to view the
situation more dispassionately and to entertain serious doubts whether
parliament had acted rightly in pushing matters to such an extremity. The
religious question after all might not be so important or so fraught with
danger as they had been led to believe by professional informers.
Addresses of the type of those presented by the lieutenancy of London and
the borough of Southwark, among them being one signed by over twenty
thousand apprentices of the city,(1453) began to flow in; and proceedings
were commenced against Protestants on no better evidence than had
previously been used against Catholics.
(M738)
Among the first against whom proceedings were taken was a Londoner named
Stephen College, a joiner by trade, who from his zeal in the cause of
religion came to be known as the "Protestant joiner." An attempt to get a
true bill returned against him at the Old Bailey, where the juries were
empanelled by the sheriffs of London and Middlesex, having failed, he was
removed to Oxford and tried there on a charge of high treason. After much
hard swearing a verdict was at length obtained.(1454)
(M739)
Having secured the conviction of College the council flew at higher game
in the person of the Earl of Shaftesbury. He was arrested at his house in
Aldersgate Street on the 2nd July, but it was not until November that a
bill of high treason was preferred against him at the Old Bailey. The
nomination of juries practically rested with the sheriffs, and the court
party had recently endeavoured to force the election of candidates of
their own political complexion. In this they had failed, although in
December last the king had endeavoured to change the character of city
juries by ordering the mayor (Sir Patience Ward) to issue his precept to
the Aldermen to see that none were returned by their wards for service on
juries "of inferior degree than a subsidy man."(1455) The sheriffs for the
year, Thomas Pilkington and Samuel Shute, who were zealous Whigs, took
care to empanel a grand jury which would be inclined to ignore the bill
against the earl, and under these circumstances the bill was thrown out
(24 Nov.).(1456)
(M740)
The failure of the court party to obtain a conviction of Shaftesbury owing
to the political bias of the sheriffs for the time being, determined them
to resort to more drastic measures to obtain the election of candidates
with Tory proclivities. In order to understand the method pursued it will
be necessary to review briefly the manner in which the election of
sheriffs had from time to time been carried out.
(M741)
From the earliest times of which we have any city record until the
commencement of the 14th century it had been the custom for the sheriffs
of London and Middlesex to be elected by the mayor, aldermen and "the good
men of the city" or "commonalty." But a custom sprang up in 1301 of
summoning twelve men only from each ward to take part with the mayor and
aldermen in such elections,(1457) a custom which found little favour with
the bulk of the inhabitants of the city, who insisted upon being present
and taking part in the proceedings. An attempt was made by the civic
authorities in 1313 to put a stop to the noise and confusion resulting
from the presence of such vast numbers at the Guildhall by an order
providing that thenceforth only the best men from each ward should be
summoned to take part in the elections, and two years later (4 July, 1315)
this order was enforced by royal proclamation.(1458) Nevertheless the
practice of summoning representatives from the wards was soon dropt, and
for more than thirty years the sheriffs continued to be elected by the
mayor, aldermen and the "whole commonalty." Another attempt (made under
Brembre in 1384) to restrict the number of the commonalty to "so many and
such of them as should seem needful for the time" (_tantz et tieux come
lour semble busoignable pur le temps_)(1459) was not more successful.
(M742)
In 1347 we meet for the first time with a new method of procedure. In that
year one of the sheriffs was elected by the mayor and the other by the
commonalty;(1460) and this prerogative of the mayor for the time being to
elect one of the sheriffs continued to be exercised with few (if any)
exceptions down to 1638. Neither in 1639 nor in the following year was the
prerogative exercised. In 1641 the mayor attempted to exercise it, but
through some negligence on his part was declared by the House of Commons
to have forfeited his right, and the election of both sheriffs devolved,
_pro hac vice_, upon the commonalty.(1461)
(M743)
From 1642 to 1651 the mayor for the time being exercised his prerogative
in electing as well as nominating one of the sheriffs, but the commonalty
always challenged his right to elect, although they paid the mayor the
compliment of electing his nominee to serve with the sheriff of their own
choice. From 1652 to 1660 (or 1661(1462)?) the mayor did not attempt to
exercise a right either of electing or nominating one of the sheriffs, but
in 1662, when the mayor would have elected as well as nominated Thomas
Bludworth as sheriff, the commonalty claimed their rights. Bludworth was
eventually returned together with Sir William Turner.(1463)
(M744)
In the following year (1663) the prerogative exercised by the mayor passed
unchallenged, and so continued until 1674, when, objection being
raised,(1464) the Common Council appointed a committee "to consider of the
matters in difference and now long debated in this court between ye right
honorable ye lord maior and commons of this citty concerneing the eleccon
of one of ye sheriffes and to finde out some expedient for ye reconciling
ye same."(1465)
(M745)
We now read for the first time in the City’s Records of a custom in
connection with the election of sheriffs (although that custom is said to
have arisen in the reign of Elizabeth),(1466) namely, the nomination or
election of a sheriff by the mayor drinking to an individual at a public
banquet. It appears that the lord mayor had recently drunk to William
Roberts, citizen and vintner, thereby intimating that it was his
lordship’s wish that Roberts should be one of the sheriffs for the year
ensuing. The commons objected to the mayor thus exercising his
prerogative, whilst the aldermen were no less determined to support
him.(1467) The committee to whom the matter was referred suggested a
compromise, namely, that Roberts should be bound over to take upon himself
the office if within the next two or three years he should be either drunk
to by the mayor or elected by the commons to be sheriff; and that,
further, an Act of Common Council should be forthwith made for settling
the shrievalty and all matters connected with it.(1468)
(M746)
No Act of Common Council appears to have been passed pursuant to the
committee’s recommendation, but in the following year (1675) and down to
1679 the mayor exercised his full prerogative of electing one of the
sheriffs without opposition, although the person so elected did not always
undertake the office.
(M747)
On Midsummer-day, 1680, the mayor elected George Hockenhall, citizen and
grocer, to be one of the sheriffs, but Hockenhall refused to serve and was
discharged on his entering into a bond for the payment of £400. The
commons thereupon stept in and elected Slingsby Bethell, leatherseller,
and Henry Cornish, haberdasher.(1469) At this juncture political influence
was brought to bear upon the elections. Bethell was particularly an object
of aversion to the court party. He is reported to have declared himself
ready to have acted as executioner of the late king if no one else could
be found for the job,(1470) and to have made himself obnoxious in other
ways. With Cornish little fault could at present be found. Objection was
raised to both these gentlemen acting as sheriffs, on the ground that they
had not taken the oath or received the sacrament as prescribed by law, and
another election demanded. Before this second election took place (14
July) they had qualified themselves according to the Corporation
Act.(1471) The mayor did not claim his prerogative on this occasion.
Bethell and Cornish were put up again for office, and against them two
others, Ralph Box, grocer, and Humphrey Nicholson, merchant taylor, who,
although nominated like Bethell and Cornish by the commonalty, were in
reality candidates put forward by the court party.(1472) Bethell and
Cornish having been again declared elected, a poll was demanded, which
lasted several days. At its close it was found that Cornish was at the
head with 2,483 votes, Bethell next with 2,276, whilst Box and Nicholson
followed with 1,428 and 1,230 votes respectively.(1473)
(M748)
The two first named were declared (29 July) duly elected. Bethell has been
described as a "sullen and wilful man," a republican at heart and one that
"turned from the ordinary way of a sheriff’s living into the extreme of
sordidness." Cornish on the other hand was "a plain, warm, honest man and
lived very nobly all his year."(1474) It was doubtless Bethell’s proposal
that the customary dinner to the aldermen on the day the new sheriffs were
sworn in should be omitted. If so, Cornish had to give way to the
parsimonious whim of his fellow sheriff. "What an obstinate man he was!"
remarked Cornish of him, when brought to trial five years later.(1475) The
aldermen refused to accompany the sheriffs to the Guildhall unless they
were invited to dinner.(1476)
(M749)
In the following year (1681) two other sheriffs of the same political
character, viz., Pilkington and Shute, were elected over the heads of the
same court candidates that had stood the previous year, the defeat of the
latter being still more pronounced.(1477)
(M750)
The king did not attempt to conceal his displeasure at the City’s
proceedings, and when the recorder and the sheriffs came to invite him to
dinner on lord mayor’s day,(1478) made the following answer:—"Mr.
Recorder, an invitation from my lord mayor and the city is very acceptable
to me, and to show that it is so, notwithstanding that it is brought by
messengers that are so unwelcome to me as these two sheriffs are, yet I
accept it."(1479)
(M751)
The outgoing sheriffs were presented (27 June) with an address(1480) from
the citizens assembled in Common Hall thanking them for their faithful
discharge of their office of trust and complimenting them more especially
upon their successful efforts to maintain and assert the undoubted rights
and privileges of the citizens and their "continual provision of faithful
and able juries." The address concluded with thanks to them for their
despatch in carrying out the recent "unnecessary" poll in connection with
the election of new sheriffs, and not delaying the matter by troublesome
adjournments.
(M752)
Opportunity was also taken of thanking the lord mayor (Sir Patience Ward)
and the members of the Common Council for presenting the recent address to
his majesty praying him to confide in parliament,(1481) and desired his
lordship to assure his majesty that the address reflected the true feeling
and desires of all his loyal subjects there assembled in Common Hall,
notwithstanding rumours to the contrary. They also desired to join in the
vote of thanks which the Common Council had passed to the city members
sitting in the last parliament for their faithful services.
(M753)
It required some courage for the mayor to again face the king and his
chancellor and to run the risk of another rebuff. Nevertheless, on
Thursday, the 7th July, the mayor went to Hampton Court, attended by Sir
Robert Clayton, Sir John Shorter and others, as well as by the sheriffs
Bethell and Cornish (the new sheriffs not coming into office until
September), to present to the king in council another address from the
Common Hall. It was received with no more favour than the last. The
chancellor affected to believe that it was but the address of a faction in
the city, and not the unanimous vote of the citizens at large. "The king
takes notice there are no aldermen," he said, whilst Alderman Clayton and
Alderman Shorter were at his elbow! In fine they were again told to mind
their own business.(1482)
(M754)
Although the court party had twice signally failed to obtain the
appointment of sheriffs who should be amenable to its control, they were
fortunate in having an adherent in the mayor elected on Michaelmas-day to
succeed Sir Patience Ward. The senior alderman who had not already passed
the chair happened to be Sir John Moore. It does not often occur that in
the choice of a mayor the Common Hall passes over the senior alderman who
is both capable and willing to take upon himself the office; but there was
some chance of it doing so in this case, inasmuch as Sir John Moore had
rendered himself unpopular with a large section of citizens by presenting
an address of thanks to the king for the declaration which his majesty had
published in defence of his having dissolved parliament.(1483) Two
aldermen, Sir John Shorter and Thomas Gold, were nominated with Moore for
the office. A poll was demanded, with the result that Moore was elected by
a majority of nearly 300 votes over his opponents.(1484) On his being
presented (7 Oct.) to the lord chancellor for the king’s approbation, he
was told that his majesty experienced much satisfaction at the choice of
so loyal and worthy a magistrate.(1485) Three days before (4 Oct.) the
Court of Aldermen nominated a committee to take informations concerning
the scandalous remarks that had been made against him in Common Hall on
the day of his election.(1486)
(M755)
Not content with this success, the king’s advisers determined upon
bringing the City to book for its recent attitude in the election of
sheriffs. The anomaly by which the citizens of London enjoyed the right of
electing their own sheriffs, as they had done with short intermissions for
the past 500 years, whilst in nearly every county of the kingdom the
sheriffs were nominated by the king, must be abolished. A writ in the
nature of a _Quo Warranto_ was accordingly issued to the sheriffs in
January, 1682, calling upon them to summon the mayor and commonalty and
citizens of the city to appear in his majesty’s court of King’s Bench to
answer by what warrant they claimed divers liberties, franchises and
privileges of which the writ declared they were impeached.(1487)
(M756)
Notification of service of the writ was formally made to the Common
Council on the 18th January. The council showed no signs of dismay; they
scarcely realized, perhaps, at the outset the true significance of the
writ or the consequence it was likely to entail. They had no cause to
think that the mayor, commonalty and citizens had usurped any liberties,
franchises or privileges without due warrant or had abused any to which
they had lawful title. One thing was plain. It was their duty to maintain
the rights of the City. They therefore appointed a committee to consult
with counsel learned in the law, and prepare a defence such as they might
be advised to make, and ordered the Chamberlain to disburse such sums of
money as might be required for the purpose.(1488)
(M757)
More than a twelvemonth was taken up in preparing the long and technical
pleadings(1489) preliminary to trial, and in the meantime another severe
struggle took place in assertion of the right claimed by the citizens to
elect both their sheriffs. The citizens ranged themselves in separate
factions, the Whig party under sheriff Pilkington, the Tories under the
mayor. Each leader entertained his supporters at dinner.(1490) There was
to have been a banquet held on the 21st April at Haberdashers’ Hall, at
which the Duke of Monmouth, Lord Shaftesbury and others of the Whig party
were to have been present, but the proposal getting wind, the mayor was
strictly enjoined by the Privy Council to prevent it as being a seditious
meeting and tending to create factions among the king’s subjects.(1491)
(M758)
The Duke of York, who had for some time past resided in Scotland, had not
increased in favour with the citizens of London. It is true that the mayor
and aldermen of the city paid their respects to his highness (10 April,
1682) at St. James’s Palace, on his return from the north, after paying a
similar visit to the king, who had recently returned to Whitehall from
Newmarket;(1492) but a proposal to offer an address to the duke praying
him to reside in London found but little response in the Court of
Aldermen, and was allowed to drop.(1493) It was not so long ago that his
picture hanging in the Guildhall was found to have been mutilated, an
offer of £500 for the discovery of the perpetrator of the outrage being
without effect.(1494) Just when Pilkington was about to lay down his
office of sheriff the duke entered an action against him for slander,
claiming damages to the extent of £50,000. For a time he managed to escape
service of the writ,(1495) but if he was not served before, his presence
in the Common Hall on Midsummer-day for the election of new sheriffs
afforded ample opportunity to serve him then.
(M759)
This election is one of the most remarkable elections in the City’s
annals. The royalist mayor, Sir John Moore, having previously drunk to
Dudley North at a banquet at the Bridge House (18 May), thereby intimating
that he nominated North as one of the sheriffs for the year ensuing,
according to custom, had issued his precept to the several companies (19
June) to meet in Common Hall for the purpose of _confirming_ his
nomination and electing another sheriff to serve with his nominee.(1496)
This form of precept was objected to, and when the Common Cryer called
upon the livery assembled in Common Hall to appear for the "confirmation"
of North, he was met with cries of "No confirmation! No confirmation!" and
the rest of his proclamation was drowned in uproar. "Thereupon," runs the
City’s Record,(1497) "Thomas Papillon, esq., mercer, John Du Bois, weaver,
and Ralph Box, grocer, citizens of London (together with the said Dudley
North, so as aforesaid elected by the lord mayor), were nominated by the
commonalty, that two of them by the said commonalty might be chosen into
the office of sheriffs of the city of London and county of Middlesex." The
Common Sergeant having declared Papillon and Du Bois duly elected, a poll
was demanded. This was granted and proceeded with until seven o’clock in
the evening, when the meeting was adjourned by the mayor until the 27th.
The outgoing sheriffs (Pilkington and Shute), however, disregarded the
mayor’s order for adjournment and continued the poll for some time longer,
but at last adjourned the meeting to the day fixed by the mayor.
(M760)
A fresh question thus arose, namely, whether the right of adjourning a
Common Hall was vested in the mayor for the time being or in the sheriffs.
Sir John Moore reported the conduct of Pilkington and Shute to the king’s
council, with the result that before the 27th day of June arrived they
were both committed to the Tower. They were afterwards admitted to
bail.(1498)
(M761) (M762) (M763)
In the meantime the Common Hall had been adjourned by the mayor from the
27th June to the 5th July. On the latter day the sheriffs duly appeared on
the husting, but the mayor being absent through indisposition, the
Recorder declared his lordship’s order that a further adjournment should
take place until the 7th July. The sheriffs again interposed and asked the
Common Hall if it was their wish that an adjournment should take place,
and the answer being in the negative they proceeded to finish the poll,
with the result that Papillon and Du Bois were again declared elected by a
large majority. Orders having been given to the Town Clerk to place their
proceedings on record, the Common Hall broke up.(1499)
(M764)
On the 7th the mayor and aldermen appeared in the Guildhall prepared to
proceed with the poll, ignoring all that had taken place two days before.
The Hall was very crowded, and soon debate arose as to whom belonged the
right of adjournment. The opinion of counsel was taken by both parties
then and there,(1500) but with little practical result, and the lord mayor
further adjourned the Hall until that day week (14 July).
(M765)
In the meanwhile several aldermen and citizens waited on his majesty in
council, and gave him an account of the late proceedings, with the result
that an order was sent to the mayor to hold a new election, the last being
declared irregular.(1501)
(M766)
The City’s own account of what took place at the Common Hall on the 14th
is thus recorded. After the order for a new election had been read,
"relation was ... _de novo_ made that Dudley North, esq., citizen and
mercer of London, was elected by the mayor by his prerogative, according
to the custom, into the office of one of the sheriffs of the city of
London and county of Middlesex for the year ensuing, that another might be
associated to him by the commonalty. And upon this, after declaration made
that the said Dudley North was confirmed and Thomas Papillon, esq.,
citizen and mercer of London, was chosen sheriffs, certain of the commons
demanded that it might be decided by the voices of the commons between the
said Dudley North and Thomas Papillon and John Du Bois, weaver, and Ralph
Box, grocer (named also by the commonalty), that the two of those four who
should have the most voices might be the sheriffs elected for the city of
London and county of Middlesex for the year ensuing. Whereupon the
sheriffs and other officers of the city in the accustomed manner went into
the upper chamber, where declaration of the premisses was made by the
common sergeant to the mayor and aldermen there sitting; which said mayor
and aldermen, the relation aforesaid well weighing, did declare the said
Dudley North to be rightly and duly elected and confirmed according to the
law and custom of the said city, and immediately came down upon the place
where the Court of Hustings is usually held, and there, in their presence
and by their command, the said Dudley North was solemnly called to come
forth and give his consent to take upon him the said office.(1502) And the
said lord mayor did then direct that the poll should be taken only for the
said Thomas Papillon, John Du Bois and Ralph Box, by certain persons
thereunto particularly appointed by the said lord mayor, that one of those
three who had the most voices might be associated to the said Dudley
North. And afterwards the said mayor and aldermen departed out of the
hall. And the poll for the said three persons last named was immediately
begun, and continued until the evening of that day. And then the said
congregation was, by order of the lord mayor, adjourned until the next
day, being Saturday, the 15th of July aforesaid, at 9 o’clock in the
afternoon [_sic._]. At which day the said poll being continued was in the
afternoon of that day finished. And thereupon relation was made by the
common sergeant to the mayor and aldermen that upon the poll taken by the
severall persons appointed by the said lord mayor as aforesaid, there were
60 voices for Mr. Papillon, 60 voices for Mr. Du Bois, and 1,244 voices
for Mr. Box. By which it appeared that the said Ralph Box had the most
voices, and so was elected into the office of one of the sheriffs of the
city of London and county of Middlesex for the year ensuing. And the same
in the afternoon was so declared by the common sergeant to the commons
then and there assembled, which said election of the said Ralph Box was by
the aforesaid mayor, aldermen and commonalty ratified and confirmed. And
thereupon, according to the form and effect of the Act of Common Council
in that case made and provided, publication thereof by proclamation being
then made in the place where the Hustings Court is usually held in the
presence of the said lord mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, the said Ralph Box
was then and there solemnly called, etc."
Very different is the account of the proceedings as given us in a tract of
the day.(1503) From the latter we learn that a separate poll was opened
the same day by the sheriffs, in which all four candidates were submitted
to the choice of the citizens, and the result of which was declared by
Sheriff Pilkington on the 15th, prior to the mayor’s declaration.
According to this poll, Papillon and Du Bois were again returned at the
head with 2,487 and 2,481 votes respectively. There were only 107 in
favour of confirming North’s election, whilst 2,414 gave their votes
against it. Box found himself with only 173 supporters. It was after the
declaration of this result that the mayor ordered the common sergeant to
declare the result of the other poll, but the declaration of the large
number of votes alleged to have been given in favour of Box caused so much
uproar that he could proceed no further. The mayor and aldermen thereupon
left the hall, and Papillon and Du Bois were declared by the sheriffs duly
elected.
(M767)
It was expected that Box would attend before the next Court of Aldermen to
be held on the 18th July to give bond for holding office as North had
already done, but he failed to appear. A petition, therefore, was
presented to the court praying that as Papillon and Du Bois had been
elected sheriffs the court should call them forth according to custom. The
mayor being advised to postpone giving an answer, another petition to the
same effect was presented at the next court (20 July), whilst yet a third
prayed that a _caveat_ might be entered against North and Box being
admitted and sworn sheriffs. The mayor was again advised to take time to
consider his answer.(1504)
(M768)
A week later (27 July) the mayor made the following reply to the
petitioners, by advice of the court:—"Gentlemen, this court hath
considered of your petition, and will take care that such persons shall
take the office of sheriffs upon them as are duly elected according to law
and the ancient customs of this city; and in this and all other things
this court will endeavour to maintain the rights and privileges of the
chair and of the whole city; and wherein you think that we do otherwise
the law must judge between us."(1505) This was little to the liking of the
petitioners, who complained that it was no answer to their petition; but
they were summarily dismissed.(1506)
(M769)
Thus the matter was allowed to rest until the 5th September, when the
Court of Aldermen were again prayed that Papillon and Du Bois might be
called upon to enter into bond according to custom. The only answer
returned was that Box, who in the opinion of the court had been duly
elected one of the sheriffs, had been discharged from service on payment
of a fine, and that another election would shortly take place. Thereupon
murmurs arose. There had been too many Common Halls already over this
affair, cried some, and their choice of sheriffs had been made. The mayor
bade them begone in the king’s name, or they would be looked upon as
tumultuous.(1507)
(M770)
The court sat again on the 12th September, when, we are told, a petition
similar to those before presented being again brought forward, a debate
arose which occasioned some sharp words, and the mayor ordered the sword
to be taken up and so dissolved the court; but nothing of this is recorded
in the minutes of the court.(1508) Two days later (14 Sept.), several
petitions were presented to the court, one being from the free-holders of
Middlesex.(1509) To these the same reply was made as had been given to the
petitioners of the 27th July. The petitioners were further told that it
was the mayor’s intention to call a Common Hall on Tuesday, the 19th
September, to elect one to serve in the place of Box.(1510)
(M771) (M772)
When that day arrived and the common sergeant, acting on instructions from
the mayor, put forward the name of Peter Rich, there arose repeatedly the
cry of "No Rich!" and such a din followed, the citizens declaring loudly
that they would stand by their old choice, that nothing else could be
heard. At length the sheriffs were given to understand that a poll was
demanded. The mayor hearing of the proposed poll thereupon came on to the
hustings and declared Rich to be duly elected. The whole business was
carried on in dumb show, it being impossible to hear anything that was
said. Having done this, the mayor dissolved the Common Hall and went home.
The sheriff proceeded nevertheless to open the poll in the afternoon, with
the result that 2,082 votes were found in favour of standing by their old
choice, whilst only thirty-five were for Rich. Hearing that the mayor was
returning, the sheriffs made a hurried declaration of the result of the
poll, proclaiming Papillon and Du Bois to have been again elected, and
dismissed the assembly. The mayor on his arrival caused the gates of the
Guildhall to be closed. Such is the account of what took place on the 19th
September, as given by the diarist of the day.(1511) The City’s Journal
merely records in the briefest manner possible the election of Rich.(1512)
(M773)
The next day (20 Sept.) the lord mayor and a deputation of aldermen waited
on the king at Whitehall, and informed him of what had taken place. A
council was thereupon summoned for that afternoon, which the sheriffs were
ordered to attend. Upon their appearance they were told that they had
behaved in a riotous manner, and must answer for their conduct before the
King’s Bench. They were accordingly made to enter into their own
recognisances severally for £1,000, besides finding other security.(1513)
(M774)
On the 26th, when Rich was called before the Court of Aldermen to enter
into bond to take office, a paper was handed to the court desiring that
Papillon and Du Bois might be called to the shrievalty, but it was to no
purpose. The same answer was returned as on previous occasions.(1514)
(M775)
Two days later (28 Sept.) Rich and North were sworn into office amid a
great concourse of citizens at the Guildhall, the entrance to which was
strongly guarded by a company of trained bands in case of disturbance.
When the oath was about to be administered to them a protest was made by
Papillon and Du Bois, who attempted to get possession of the book; but
upon the lord mayor commanding them in the king’s name to depart and keep
the peace, they left the hall and with them went several of the aldermen
who were their supporters. The new sheriffs entertained the mayor and
aldermen, according to custom, at Grocers’ Hall, Rich being a member of
that company.(1515) Rich subsequently applied for and was allowed the sum
of £100 out of the fine of £400 paid into the Chamber by Box.(1516) The
election which had been so long and so hotly contested thus ended in a
complete victory for the court party.
(M776)
It was the custom in those days, as it is now, for members of the livery
company or companies to which a newly-elected sheriff belonged to
accompany him to the Guildhall on the occasion of his entering upon his
office. Dudley North, being a member of the Mercers’ Company, had desired
the officers of the company and several of the livery to pay him this
compliment, but after considering the matter the court of the company
passed a resolution to the effect that neither officers nor members should
attend him on pain of being expelled from the company, but that they
should accompany Papillon to the hall and present him to be sworn as one
of the sheriffs.(1517)
(M777)
Cornish attended the ceremony at the Guildhall, and afterwards (2 Oct.)
swore an information before Sir William Turner,(1518) a brother alderman,
of the treatment he had received at the hands of the soldiers present. The
information was to the effect that when he and several other aldermen
entered the hall about nine o’clock in the morning they found a guard of
soldiers placed at the hall door, and another drawn up before the
hustings, "who were presently commanded by their officer to stand to their
armes." After a short stay in the Council Chamber they returned into the
hall to meet the lord mayor, and for a quarter of an hour walked up and
down the hall "betweene the clock-house and the doore wch leads up to the
Hustings Court on the north side of the hall." Hitherto they had met with
no opposition from the soldiers, but now they were accosted by
Lieutenant-Colonel Quiney, the officer in command, who desired "they would
give him noe disturbance." To this they replied that "they would give him
none and expected alsoe not to bee themselves disturbed by anie in that
place." Quiney thereupon left, but soon after returned and told them he
had orders from the lieutenancy to clear the hall. He was asked to produce
the order, and if it were found to include aldermen of the city Cornish
and his friends would obey. The order was not forthcoming; it was with the
major, said Quiney, who soon afterwards formed up his men and, again
addressing Cornish and the other aldermen, peremptorily required them to
withdraw or he would expel them by force. Cornish again demanded to see
the order, but the officer forthwith laid hands on him and thrust him out,
declaring that he would abide by the order of the lieutenancy, who were
his masters. So ends Cornish’s information. Proceedings were subsequently
taken against Quiney for keeping persons that were liverymen out of the
Guildhall and offering abuse to others.(1519)
(M778)
The next day being Michaelmas-day a Common Hall met to elect a mayor for
the ensuing year in the place of Sir John Moore.(1520) Four aldermen were
nominated as candidates, viz., Sir William Pritchard, the senior alderman
below the chair, Sir Henry Tulse, Sir Thomas Gold and Henry Cornish. The
common sergeant having declared that the choice of the citizens lay
between Pritchard and Gold, a poll was demanded and allowed, the result of
which was declared (4 Oct.) to be as follows:—Gold 2,289, Cornish 2,259,
Pritchard 2,233 and Tulse 236.(1521)
This result seems to have satisfied no one, and a scrutiny was asked for
in order that the poll books might be compared with the lists of liverymen
of the several companies. It was discovered that certain members of the
livery of the Merchant Taylors’ and other companies had recorded their
votes although they had not taken the liveryman’s oath prescribed by such
companies. The question of the legality of such votes being submitted to
the Court of Aldermen, that body decided (24 Oct.) against the
voters.(1522) The election was watched with anxious interest. Pritchard,
himself a Merchant Taylor, was known to be of the same political mind as
the out-going mayor, and it was the common belief at the time that if the
majority of votes should prove to be in favour of Gold or Cornish, who
were of the Whig party, the king would interpose and continue Sir John
Moore in office for another year.(1523) His majesty had recently been
amusing himself at Newmarket, but he had been kept posted up in city news,
and immediately after his return to Whitehall was waited on by the mayor
and aldermen (22 Oct.) and informed of the state of affairs. The result of
the scrutiny, according to the paper submitted to the Court of Aldermen,
was still in favour of Gold and Cornish, but according to the return made
by the mayor(1524) (25 Oct.) Pritchard was placed at the head of the poll
with 2,138 votes, as against 2,124 for Gold, 2,093 for Cornish and 236 for
Tulse. The first two named were therefore presented to the Court of
Aldermen for them to choose one to be mayor according to custom, and their
choice falling upon Pritchard he was declared elected, and on the
following feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.) was admitted and sworn.
(M779)
A motion was afterwards made (24 Nov.) for a _mandamus_ directing the
mayor and aldermen to swear Gold or Cornish as duly elected mayor of
London, but nothing came of it.(1525)
(M780)
The time was thought opportune by the Duke of York for prosecuting his
action for slander against Pilkington commenced in June last. The words
complained of, and for which the duke claimed damages to the extent of
£50,000, were declared on the oath of two aldermen—Sir Henry Tulse and Sir
William Hooker—to have been spoken by him at a Court of Aldermen at a time
when that body was about to visit the duke to congratulate him upon his
return from Scotland, and were to the effect that the duke had burnt the
city and was then coming to cut their throats. That the words, if spoken—a
question open to much doubt—were scandalous to a degree cannot be denied,
but the claim for damages was none the less vindictive. Instead of laying
his action in London the duke caused his action to be tried by a jury of
the county of Hertford (24 Nov.). Pilkington made very little defence (he
probably thought it useless), and the jury awarded the duke the full
amount of damages claimed. The ex-sheriff was of course ruined; he
surrendered himself into custody(1526) and gave up his aldermanry, in
which he was succeeded by Dudley North, the sheriff.(1527)
(M781)
Still he was not allowed to rest. In the following February (16 Feb.,
1683) he and his late colleague in the shrievalty, Samuel Shute, together
with Lord Grey of Wark, Alderman Cornish, Sir Thomas Player, the city
chamberlain (who had recently been called to account for moneys received),
Slingsby Bethell, and others were brought to trial for the disturbance
that had taken place last Midsummer-day. The trial was opened at the
Guildhall on the 16th February, but the jury being challenged on the
ground that the array contained no peer (a peer of the realm being about
to be tried), the challenge was allowed, and the trial put off until the
next term. On the 8th May, after a long trial, all the accused were found
guilty, and were eventually (26 June) fined in various sums, amounting in
all to £4,100.(1528)
(M782)
Pilkington’s fall also dragged down Sir Patience Ward, who was proceeded
against for perjury, he having stated on oath at the trial of the late
sheriff that the debate in the Court of Aldermen concerning the Duke of
York was over before Pilkington had arrived, and that there was no mention
made of cutting throats while he was there. After much contradictory
evidence the jury found the defendant guilty, and he, like Shaftesbury
before him, sought refuge in Holland.(1529)
(M783)
In the meantime, having experienced so much difficulty in bending the City
to his will, and having so far succeeded in his object as to have a
royalist mayor in the chair, as well as royalist sheriffs, Charles took
steps to obtain an equally subservient Common Council. To this end he had
issued a command (18 Dec.) to the mayor to enforce on the electors at the
coming feast of St. Thomas (21 Dec.) the obligation of electing only such
men to be members of the new council as had conformed with the provisions
of the Corporation Act. The king’s letter was by the mayor’s precept read
at each wardmote on the day of election.(1530) It was hoped that by this
means a Common Council might be returned which might be induced to make a
voluntary surrender of the City’s charter instead of forcing matters to an
issue at law.(1531)
(M784)
The design failed and the king resolved at length to proceed with the _Quo
Warranto_. After the lapse of more than a twelvemonth the trial came on
for hearing (7 Feb., 1683). The solicitor-general, who opened the case,
propounded to the court four questions: (1) Whether any corporation could
be forfeited? (2) Whether the city of London differed from other
corporations as to point of forfeiture? (3) Whether any act of the mayor,
aldermen and Common Council in Common Council assembled be so much the act
of the Corporation as could make a forfeiture? and (4) Whether the acts by
them done in making a certain by-law and receiving money by it,(1532) or
in making the petition of the 13th January, 1681, and causing it to be
published, be such acts as, if done by the Corporation, would make a
forfeiture of the Corporation? After a lengthy argument counsel for the
Crown concluded by asking judgment for the king, and that the defendants
might be ousted of their franchise as a Corporation.
(M785)
The City’s Recorder, Sir George Treby, rose in reply. His argument in
favour of the City(1533) tended to show that the corporation of London
_quâ_ corporation could not forfeit its existence either by voluntary
surrender or by abuse of its powers, much less could its existence be
imperilled by the action of those representatives of the city to whom its
government had been confided. The corporation of the City was a governing
body elected for specific purposes; if it proceeded _ultra vires_ to
establish market tolls or to offer a petition to the king which was
seditious, an indictment lay against every particular member of that body,
but no execution could be taken against the mayor, commonalty and citizens
of London, a body politic that is invisible, one that can neither see nor
be seen.
Counsel on the other side had laid stress on the fact that the liberties
and franchises of the City had been often seized or "taken into the king’s
hands," adducing instances with which the reader of the earlier pages of
this work will be already familiar; and if they could be so seized, they
could also be forfeited. The Recorder argued that this conclusion was a
wrong one. The effect of the seizure of the City’s liberties in former
days had only been to place the government of the city in the hands of a
_custos_ or warden. The Corporation continued as before; it might sue and
be sued as before; it was neither suspended nor destroyed. How could the
king seize a Corporation? Could he himself constitute the mayor,
commonalty and citizens of a city, or make anyone else such? No, a
Corporation was not, to use a legal phrase, "manurable"; it could not be
seized; nor had anyone (he believed) ever imagined such a thing as a
dissolution of a corporation by a judgment in law until that day. At the
conclusion of his speech the further hearing of the case was adjourned
until April.
(M786)
On the resumption of the hearing (27 April)(1534) Sir Robert Sawyer, the
attorney-general, at whose suggestion and by whose authority the writ
against the City had been issued, took up the argument, commencing his
speech with an attempt to allay the apprehension excited by the prospect
of forfeiture of the City’s charter. "It was not the king’s intention," he
said, "to demolish at once all their liberties and to lay waste and open
the city of London, and to reduce it to the condition of a country
village," as some had maliciously reported, but to amend the government of
the City "by running off those excesses and exorbitances of power which
some men (contrary to their duty and the known laws of the land) have
assumed to themselves under colour of their corporate capacity, to the
reviling of their prince, the oppression of their fellow subjects and to
the infinite disquiet of their fellow citizens."(1535) History had shown
that the City had never been better governed than when it was in the
king’s hands. Its ancient customs had not been destroyed, but only
restrained in subordination to the general government of the kingdom, and
therefore the danger now threatened would not prove so fatal to the City
as had been suggested.
(M787)
After the conclusion of the arguments on both sides, nearly three months
were allowed to pass before judgment was given, in the hope that the
citizens of London might follow the example set by Norwich, Evesham and
other boroughs, and freely surrender their charter. "I do believe nobody
here wishes this case should come to judgment," was the remark made by
Chief Justice Saunders at the conclusion of the hearing; but at length the
patience of the Crown or of the judges was exhausted, and judgment was
pronounced (12 June) by Justice Jones in the absence of the Lord Chief
Justice, who was now on the point of death. Briefly, the judgment
pronounced was to the effect (1) that a corporation aggregate might be
seized; (2) that exacting and taking money by a "pretended" by-law was
extortion and a forfeiture of franchise; (3) that the petition was
scandalous and libellous, and the making and publishing it a forfeiture;
(4) that an Act of Common Council is an Act of the Corporation; (5) that
the matter set forth in the record did not excuse or avoid those
forfeitures set forth in the replication, and (6) that the information was
well founded. The result of these findings was that the franchise of the
Corporation was ordered to be seized into the king’s hands, but this
judgment was not to be entered until the king’s pleasure should be known.
As to the right claimed by the citizens to have and constitute sheriffs (a
right which they had recently shown no disposition to forego) and the
claim of the mayor and aldermen to be Justices of the Peace and to hold
Sessions, the attorney-general was content to enter a _nolle prosequi_.
(M788)
A few days before delivery of judgment the Common Council agreed to
expunge from the records of the court all minutes of proceedings during
the late civil war that in any way reflected upon the late king.(1536) The
list of the various minutes thus ordered to be annulled was a very long
one, occupying more than ten pages of the city’s Journal, and embraced a
period of eighteen years (1641-1659). The municipal authorities may have
thought that by this egregious act of self-stultification they might
mitigate the judgment that was impending over them. If so they were sadly
mistaken.
(M789)
Finding that further resistance was useless the Common Council
unanimously(1537) agreed (14 June) to present a humble petition to his
majesty asking pardon for their late offences, and declaring their
readiness to submit to anything that he might command or direct.
Accordingly, on Monday the 18th June, the lord mayor proceeded to Windsor,
accompanied by a deputation of aldermen and members of the Common Council,
to lay this petition before the king in council, and his majesty’s reply,
given by the mouth of the lord keeper, was reported to the Common Council
on the following Wednesday.(1538)
(M790)
The king, he said, had been very loth to take action against the City, but
had been driven to do so by the recent elections. Their petition would
have been more gracious if presented earlier; nevertheless, his majesty
would not reject it on that account. He would, however, show the City as
much favour as could be reasonably expected. It was not his intention to
prejudice them either in their properties or customs, and he had
instructed Mr. Attorney not to enter judgment lest such a proceeding might
entail serious consequences. The alterations he required were few and
easy. They were these, viz., that no mayor, sheriff, recorder, common
sergeant, town clerk or coroner of the city of London or any steward of
the borough of Southwark should be appointed without his majesty’s
approval under his sign manual; that if his majesty should express
disapproval of the choice of a mayor made by the citizens a new election
should take place within a week, and if his majesty should disapprove of
the second choice he shall, if he so please, himself nominate a mayor for
the year ensuing; that if his majesty should in like manner disapprove of
the persons chosen to be sheriffs, or either of them, he shall, if he
please, proceed to appoint sheriffs by his commission, but subject to this
restriction the election of these officers might take according to the
ancient usuage of the city; that the lord mayor and Court of Aldermen
might with leave of his majesty displace any alderman, recorder, common
sergeant, town clerk, coroner of the city or steward of Southwark; that
where an election of an alderman had been set aside by the Court of
Aldermen another election should be held, and that the Justices of the
Peace should be by his majesty’s commission. These terms accepted by the
citizens, his majesty would consent to confirm their charter in a manner
consistent with them. But if they were not speedily complied with his
majesty had given orders to enter up judgment by the Saturday following,
and any consequences that might follow would be at the door of the
citizens themselves.
(M791)
A "long and serious" debate, we are told, followed the reading of this
answer in the Common Council, after which a poll was taken on the
question: whether the court should submit to the king’s terms or not, with
the result that 104 votes were recorded in favour of accepting them as
against 85 votes to the contrary. Whereupon it was "unanimously" ordered
that his majesty should be informed of the court’s submission, and that
the Midsummer-day elections should be put off until the 18th July.(1539)
(M792)
Whilst these proceedings against the city were going on, a writ had been
obtained by Papillon and Du Bois for the arrest of Pritchard, the mayor,
Dudley North, the sheriff, and several aldermen, for having made a false
return to a _mandamus_ directed to them in November last.(1540) The writ
was directed to Broom, the city’s coroner, who executed it by lodging the
parties in his own house (24 April). No sooner was this done than one of
the city sergeants proceeded to arrest the coroner, who was taken to the
compter, where he had to pass the night, whilst the mayor and his
fellow-prisoners made their way home. A cry that the Whigs had seized the
mayor and carried him off caused great consternation, and the trained
bands were immediately ordered out for the security of the city. The
citizens themselves were much divided in their opinions on the matter,
"some condemning it and others approving it, according to the different
tempers of persons."(1541)
(M793)
A committee was appointed (26 April) by the Court of Aldermen to consider
what was fit to be done by way of vindicating the honour of the mayor and
the government of the city, as well as for punishing the authors of the
indignity;(1542) whilst the Common Council caused it to be placed on
record (22 May) that neither they nor the citizens at large had any
participation in or knowledge of the action against the mayor, which
Papillon and Du Bois alleged had been brought in the name of the citizens
of London.(1543) Broom’s conduct, as well as the terms on which he held
his appointment, were made the subject of an investigation by a
committee.(1544)
(M794)
After Pritchard’s year of office expired he brought an action on the case
against Papillon for false imprisonment, and eventually (6 Nov., 1684)
obtained a verdict and damages to the respectable amount of £10,000. This
verdict, whilst it caused amazement to many, met with the avowed approval
of Jeffreys, recently promoted to be Lord Chief Justice, who complimented
the jury upon their good sense. "Gentlemen," he remarked at the close of
the trial, "you seem to be persons that have some sense upon you, and
consideration for the government, and I think have given a good verdict
and are to be greatly commended for it."(1545) Papillon thereupon
absconded.
(M795)
Within a few days of delivery of judgment against the City, discovery was
made of a plot against the lives of the king and the Duke of York.(1546)
This was the famous Rye House Plot, which brought the heads of Lord
Russell and Algernon Sydney to the block. Among the minor conspirators
were two men who had been employed by Broom, the city coroner, in the
recent arrest of the lord mayor. Broom himself was suspected of being
implicated in the conspiracy, and was on that ground ordered into custody
for the purpose of being examined by a justice of the peace. In the
meantime he was to be suspended from his office of coroner, as well as
from his duties as a member of the Common Council.(1547) Concurrently
with the Rye House Plot there was, so it was said, a design to raise an
insurrection in the city, in which Alderman Cornish was believed to be
implicated.(1548) The municipal authorities, however, as a body, were
indignant at the threatened attack on the king and his brother, and lost
no time in voting an address (2 July) of congratulation upon their escape,
assuring the king at the same time of their readiness to hazard their
lives and fortunes in defence of his person and the maintenance of the
government in Church and State.(1549)
(M796)
On Thursday, the 27th September, the mayor laid before the Common Council
drafts of a surrender of the City’s franchise to his majesty, and of a
re-grant from his majesty which the Attorney-general had prepared for
their acceptance. After long debate the opinion of the Attorney-general,
the Solicitor-general, and the Recorder was taken upon the following
questions, viz., (1) Whether the surrender was agreeable to the submission
of the Common Council already made and necessary for the regulations
required by his majesty; (2) whether by this surrender the office of
mayoralty was surrendered; (3) if so, whether the customs and
prescriptions belonging to that office were not thereby surrendered and
lost; (4) whether in case judgment should be entered up (as the king had
threatened) the consequences would not be worse than a surrender; and (5)
how far did the re-grant confirm and restore the city to the liberties,
etc., therein mentioned. On the following Tuesday (2 Oct.) the opinions of
the several counsel were ready.(1550) Two of them, viz., that of the
Attorney-general and that of the Solicitor-general were decidedly in
favour of the City surrendering its liberties in preference to allowing
judgment to be entered up. The Recorder took a diametrically opposite view
of the matter, one of the reasons urged by him against a surrender being
that such action would be against their oaths, and that if they freely
surrendered their liberties there would be no redress left open to them.
If, on the other hand, they suffered judgment to be entered up, they could
take proceedings against it by writ of error. These opinions gave rise to
much debate, and many hard things were spoken against the Recorder. At
last the matter was put to the vote, when 103 were found against sealing
the deed of surrender as against 85 who were in favour of it; and so this
momentous question was settled, and the council broke up at eleven o’clock
at night.(1551)
(M797)
Judgment was forthwith (4 Oct.) entered against the City. The mayor and
the new sheriffs were summoned to attend the king. Pritchard received a
commission to continue in office during pleasure, and similar commissions
were handed to the new sheriffs. The Recorder was dismissed and his place
given to Sir Thomas Jenner.(1552) Eight aldermen were turned out and their
places filled by nominees of the king.(1553) On the 25th October the Court
of Aldermen was informed of his majesty’s commission having been issued
for Sir Henry Tulse to be mayor for the ensuing year, and on the 29th he
was sworn with the usual accompaniment of civic procession and
banquet.(1554)
(M798)
Having thus reduced the Corporation of the city to submission, Charles
proceeded to take similar action against the livery companies, with the
object of getting into his own hands the power of appointing and
dismissing their governing body. Seeing that opposition was useless, they
submitted with the best grace they could, surrendering their former
charters and receiving new charters in their place. The first master,
wardens and assistants were usually named in these new charters, which
provided (_inter alia_) that they should be removable at the king’s
pleasure by Order in Council, that they should take the oaths of
allegiance and supremacy and make the declaration prescribed by the
Corporation Act, that none should be elected members who were not of the
Church of England, and that in all things concerning the government of the
city they should be subject to the mayor and aldermen.
(M799)
Notwithstanding the treatment that the citizens had received at the king’s
hands they heard of his sudden illness (2 Feb., 1685) with unfeigned
sorrow, and the Court of Aldermen (5 Feb.) instructed the sheriffs to
attend at Whitehall every morning and Sir William Turner and Sir James
Edwards every evening during his majesty’s illness.(1555) Their
attendance, however, was not long required, for next day (6 Feb.) the king
died.