(M939)
On the day that William died the Lords Spiritual and Temporal met together
and, "with the assistance" of the Privy Council, a number of other
"principall gentlemen of quality" and the lord mayor, aldermen and
citizens of London, proceeded to draw up a document proclaiming the
Princess Anne successor to the crown. The day happened to be Sunday;
nevertheless on that same afternoon public proclamation of the queen’s
accession was made at Temple Bar and the Royal Exchange in the presence of
the mayor and Court of Aldermen, whilst the sheriffs were despatched to
learn when her majesty would be pleased to receive the aldermen.(1879)
(M940) (M941)
Two days later (10 March) the Common Council voted an address condoling
with the queen on the death of the late king and congratulating her upon
her accession.(1880) The Court of Aldermen resolved to put themselves into
"close" mourning, each alderman providing himself with a mourning gown at
his own expense, whilst the Chamberlain was instructed to provide similar
gowns for the chief officers of the Corporation at the City’s expense, as
had formerly been done on the demise of Charles II.(1881) They further
resolved, with her majesty’s permission, to cause her portrait to be
painted and to be set up in the Guildhall and a statue of her to be set up
at the Royal Exchange. It was found on enquiry that the statues of kings
and queens already in the Royal Exchange had been set up at the expense of
the companies, except those of William and Mary, which (as we have seen)
were erected by order of the Common Council. On the other hand, the
pictures of Charles II, James II and of William and Mary had all been paid
for by the Chamber. Artists were invited to send in sketches or designs
for her majesty’s picture; and this having been done, the work was
entrusted to Closterman.(1882)
(M942)
At the coronation, which took place on the 23rd April, the mayor, aldermen
and twelve representatives of the principal livery companies were present,
care having been taken by the City Remembrancer that their proper places
were assigned them both in the Abbey and at the subsequent banquet in
Westminster Hall. The civic dignitaries started from the city as early as
seven o’clock in the morning in order to be at Westminster Hall by eight
a.m. The mayor was provided at the City’s expense with the customary gown
of crimson velvet for the occasion, the sword-bearer being only a little
less resplendent in a gown of damask.(1883)
(M943)
Before the Revolution it had been the custom for parliament to cease to
exist immediately on the demise of the crown. It was held that inasmuch as
the king was the head of the parliament, and as the members of a living
body could not continue to exist without a head, so a parliament could not
continue without a king, but must with the death of the king, _ipso
facto_, itself expire. The inconveniences arising from this had at length
become so apparent that an Act had recently been passed permitting a
parliament in existence at the demise of the crown to be continued for a
period of six months after such demise.(1884) By virtue of this Act the
parliament, which had met for the first time on the 30th December, 1701,
was allowed to sit, notwithstanding the king’s death, until dissolved in
July, 1702.
(M944)
The "good" Queen Anne, warmly attached as she was to the Church of
England, was naturally inclined towards the Tories in preference to the
Whigs, and lost no time in dismissing Somers, Halifax and other Whig
ministers of the late king and filling their places with Tories. Her
action in this respect influenced the coming elections more especially in
the city of London, where a new commission of lieutenancy appointed by the
queen had already turned out six colonels of Whiggish proclivities and had
put in their place others of a different political character.(1885)
(M945)
Only one of the old Whig members managed to retain his seat, viz., Gilbert
Heathcote, who had recently been elected alderman of Walbrook ward in the
place of Sir John Moore, deceased, and who may have inherited some of the
Tory principles of his predecessor together with the aldermanic gown.
There is nothing like office for chastening a man’s political opinions.
However this may have been, his three colleagues elected to serve with him
in the coming parliament were also aldermen of the city and staunch
Tories. These were Sir William Pritchard, Sir John Fleet and Sir Francis
Child. A scrutiny had been demanded by Clayton, Ashurst and Abney, the
defeated candidates, but it failed to disturb the result of the
poll.(1886) Clayton was successful in finding a seat for Bletchingley, co.
Surrey.(1887)
(M946)
When Michaelmas-day came round and Sir Samuel Dashwood—a tried Tory who
had sat for the city in the only parliament convened under James II, as
well as in the first parliament under William and Mary—was elected to the
mayoralty chair, the choice of the citizens was highly commended by the
lord keeper,(1888) and the queen accepted an invitation to dinner on lord
mayor’s day. It was proposed to invite both Houses of Parliament to the
city on that occasion, but it was found that the accommodation at the
Guildhall was insufficient for the purpose.(1889) The cost of the
entertainment to her majesty was not thrown on the Chamber, but was
discharged by the aldermen, each of them agreeing to subscribe the sum of
£25 for the purpose. The entertainment, however, was given on so lavish a
scale that these contributions had to be doubled, in addition to which the
outgoing as well as the incoming mayor contributed £300 respectively and
each of the sheriffs £150. The whole cost of the entertainment amounted to
£2,000.(1890) The queen acknowledged the hospitality thus offered by
conferring the honour of knighthood upon Francis Dashwood, brother of the
lord mayor, Richard Hoare, the goldsmith of Fleet Street, Gilbert
Heathcote, the city member, and upon "Mr. Eaton," the linendraper, of
Cheapside, from whose house she had witnessed the pageant.(1891)
(M947)
Scarce a fortnight elapsed before the queen again visited the city (12
Nov.), the occasion being a public thanksgiving service in St. Paul’s for
the successes of Marlborough, Ormond and Rooke. In July Marlborough had
opened the campaign against France and Spain, war having been declared
against those countries on the 4th May,(1892) and although he had been
unable to bring the enemy to a general engagement he had succeeded in
reducing several important towns and in cutting off the communications of
the French with the Lower Rhine. At sea the English and Dutch combined
fleets under the command of Sir George Rooke, with a large number of
troops on board under the command of the Duke of Ormond, had succeeded in
capturing a rich booty in Vigo Bay.(1893) Both Houses of Parliament
attended the service. The order of the procession and the distribution of
seats within the cathedral are given in detail in a report laid before the
Court of Aldermen (15 Dec.).(1894) The queen, who was attired in purple,
and wore her collar and George, was met at Temple Bar by the mayor,
aldermen and sheriffs on horseback. The city sword, having been presented
to her majesty and restored to the mayor, was carried by him next before
her majesty’s coach to the cathedral. The streets from St. James’ to
Temple Bar were lined by the Westminster militia, and from Temple Bar to
Ludgate by two regiments of the city trained bands. The balconies and
windows were hung with carpets and tapestry. On arriving at St. Paul’s her
majesty was met at the door by the Peers and escorted to the choir of the
cathedral by the Duke of Somerset and the lord chamberlain, the sword of
state being borne before her by the Duke of Ormond. The spectacle which
presented itself inside St. Paul’s on this occasion has scarcely ever been
equalled. Opposite the altar, on a throne of state, sat the queen. The
Peers were accommodated with seats in the body of the choir, whilst the
Commons sat in the stalls and upper galleries on either side. In the two
lower galleries next the throne sat the foreign ministers and ladies "of
quality." There were two other galleries near the altar, one on the north
side and the other on the south side of the church. The latter was
occupied by the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, whilst the former was
occupied (as usual) by their ladies. The sermon was preached by the Bishop
of Exeter. The night was given up to bonfires and illuminations.(1895)
(M948)
Two years later the city’s minster—now rapidly approaching completion—was
again the scene of a similar gathering, the occasion being a thanksgiving
service for a signal victory gained by Marlborough over the French and
Bavarian forces at Blenheim, near Hochstadt in Germany (2 Aug.,
o.s.).(1896) The 7th September was set apart as a day of public
thanksgiving.(1897) The City in the meanwhile voted (30 Aug.) an address
to her majesty(1898) congratulating her on the success that had attended
her arms and complimenting her on her judgment in selecting Marlborough
for the command, whose courage and conduct had "settled the tottering
empire, relieved Savoy, chastised the Elector of Bavaria, and curbed the
ambition of the French king." They prayed that her majesty might long live
a terror to her enemies, a defence to her injured neighbours and a delight
to her subjects. The next day (31 Aug.) the mayor issued his precept to
the several livery companies to prepare their rails, stands, banners and
other usual "ornaments of triumph" with the view of taking up such
position in the street as should be assigned to them.(1899) Several of the
companies, viz., the Girdlers, the Scriveners and the Glovers, refused to
obey the precept, and were thereupon summoned before the Court of Aldermen
to answer for their conduct, whilst others like the Dyers, the Cooks and
the Poulterers were excused.(1900) A little difficulty arose touching the
seats assigned by the lord chamberlain in St. Paul’s to the civic
dignitaries, who claimed the right to occupy the seats and places where
they usually sat, the more so on this occasion because, parliament not
being then in session, the members of neither House were to be in
attendance. How matters were eventually arranged does not appear, but the
Court of Aldermen up to the last moment were emphatic in their resolution
that the lord mayor should insist on keeping his place in the cathedral,
and a week later (14 Sept.) appointed a committee to search for precedents
as to the place occupied by the mayor and aldermen in processions and
their seats in St. Paul’s on occasions of any king or queen coming there
to hear a sermon.(1901) In other respects everything passed off well.
(M949)
On the morning of the 14th December Marlborough arrived in London,
bringing in his train Marshal Tallard and other general officers whom he
had made captive at Blenheim. On the 20th an invitation was sent for his
grace to dine with the Court of Aldermen and the sheriffs at Goldsmiths’
Hall, the residence of Sir Owen Buckingham, the lord mayor, on any day he
might name. The invitation having been graciously accepted for the 6th
January, the duke was further requested to bring with him what company he
pleased, for his grace would find none others there besides the lord
mayor, aldermen and sheriffs to entertain him. Each alderman and sheriff
was called upon to subscribe the sum of £25 towards defraying the cost of
the entertainment.(1902)
On the day appointed the duke was conveyed to the city in one of her
majesty’s own coaches, accompanied by the Duke of Somerset, the foreign
ministers and a large number of the nobility and general officers of the
army. At Temple Bar he was met by the city marshal, by whom he was
conducted to Goldsmiths’ Hall. There a "noble treat" was set out for the
guests, "the queen’s musick playing all the while, and everything
performed in great splendor."(1903) The Common Council acknowledged the
great public spirit thus displayed by the Court of Aldermen and the
sheriffs by passing an unanimous vote of thanks to them.(1904)
(M950)
In the meantime, whilst Marlborough had been so successfully carrying on
the work which the late king had set himself to do, the city of London had
been busy setting its house in order. The poor were with them in greater
numbers than ever. The statute (13 and 14 Chas. II, c. 12) passed in 1662
for the better relief of the poor of the kingdom, authorising the erection
of workhouses, necessitated the expenditure of a great deal of money, and
a sum amounting to nearly £5,000 had to be periodically raised for the
purpose by assessment of the several parishes of the city.(1905) Besides
this there was a yearly sum of £8,000 due by the City to the orphans and
its other creditors, a sum which exceeded the City’s yearly revenue. The
consequence was that the City had become greatly in debt. To remedy this
state of affairs various methods were resorted to. An attempt was made at
the commencement of the present reign to get the queen’s sanction for
compelling every governor, deputy governor, or committeeman of both the
East India companies to take up the freedom of the City. The question was
referred to the attorney-general, whose opinion on the matter was duly
reported to the Common Council.(1906)
On the 1st July, 1703, another committee was appointed to examine the
state of the Chamber, and to consider of ways and means for its supply and
for the support of the government of the city. On the 18th August this
committee recommended to the Common Council that an exact survey of all
the City’s estate should be made in each ward by the alderman and his
deputy, and that such surveys should be sent to the town clerk so that
they might be entered in a book. The court approved of the recommendation,
and ordered that it should be carried out "with all expedition
imaginable."(1907) The City’s markets,(1908) the City’s beams(1909) and
everything else that could be let on lease were let at improved rentals,
and everything that could be sold was sold. On the 4th November (1703) the
lord mayor (Sir John Parsons) informed the Common Council that towards the
payment of the City’s debts his lordship and the two sheriffs had agreed
to lay before the court certain papers showing (1) what the several places
under the Corporation would sell for, (2) what the lord mayor himself and
the sheriffs were willing to take for their share of each place, and (3)
what part of the purchase-money might be devoted to the liquidation of the
City’s debts.(1910)
The schedule is an interesting one as showing the value attached to
various offices under the City. Thus a water-bailiff’s place would sell
for £2,200, a sword-bearer’s for £2,500, and that of a clerk of the
Chamber for as much as £2,600 (the highest of all), whilst a City
solicitor could purchase his place for £1,500, and a City remembrancer
could do the same for £1,200. The scheme proposed by the mayor and
sheriffs on this occasion affected no less than one hundred and
sixty-three places of employment, and was simplicity itself, being nothing
more than that they themselves and their successors should forego
one-third of the value of any place that became vacant during their year
of office, and that this third should be devoted to payment of the City’s
liabilities. The total value of these purchaseable places amounted to
£107,860, one-third of which, viz., £35,953 6_s._ 8_d._, would, if this
proposal were carried out (and _if every place fell vacant within the
year_), be available for the discharge of the City’s debts. In a second
schedule were set out certain other places filled chiefly by artificers,
who, by their extravagant charges, had contributed (it was said) in no
small degree to the City’s indebtedness. These were to be excluded from
the scheme, much to their disappointment. When any one of them died,
surrendered his place or was dismissed from it for just cause, his place
was not to be filled up, and the payment of 10_s._ a week, more or less,
which such artificer had been in the habit of receiving from the City,
"work or not work," was to cease.
The proposals thus laid before the Common Council met with the approval of
the court, and the committee was instructed to embody them in a Bill. A
Bill was accordingly drawn up and read the first time on the 4th February,
1704. It passed on the 24th,(1911) and the thanks of the Common Council
were returned to the mayor and sheriffs for their generous offers.
(M951)
In March, 1705, Marlborough sailed for Holland to resume the campaign. By
July he had succeeded in forcing the French lines which stretched across
the country from Namur to Antwerp. For this success another thanksgiving
service was held at St. Paul’s, and attended by the queen in person (23
Aug.).(1912) Had the general been allowed a free hand by his Dutch allies
a decisive battle might have been fought. The Dutch officers refused,
however, to co-operate in an attack, and Marlborough had to give way with
the best grace he could.
(M952)
During Marlborough’s absence the parliament of 1702, which would soon have
terminated by efflux of time under the provisions of the Triennial Act,
had been dissolved (5 April) and a new one summoned. Once more the
political pendulum swung back and a Whig parliament was returned. The
Tories rather injured than aided their cause by raising the cry that the
Church was in danger, whilst the Whig party was daily increasing in favour
not only with the queen, who highly resented such a cry, but also with
Marlborough and Godolphin. In the city both parties put up four
candidates, but when the poll was declared it was found that all four
Whigs had been returned by an overwhelming majority.(1913) One of the
results of an understanding arrived at between Marlborough and the Tory
leaders with the Whig Junto was a modification of an article in the Act of
Settlement, which, after the accession of the House of Hanover, would have
otherwise debarred ministers and other placemen from the House of Commons.
A compromise was effected whereby only those who enjoyed a pension or
office created after the 25th October, 1705, were to be disqualified from
sitting in the House, whilst all other offices were declared compatible
with a seat if the holder presented himself to his constituents for
re-election at the time of his appointment.(1914) This arrangement is
still in force, although the necessity of it has long since disappeared.
(M953)
After a brief stay in England, where he had arrived at the opening of the
new year (1706), Marlborough again crossed over to Holland before the
spring. A few weeks only elapsed before he gained fresh laurels by another
signal defeat of the French at the little village of Ramillies (12 May,
o.s.).(1915) On the 24th May the Common Council voted an address to the
queen congratulating her majesty on the victory.(1916) The 27th June was
set apart as a day of public thanksgiving, for which the City made the
usual preparations.(1917) But seeing that these gala days followed so
closely on one another the Court of Aldermen resolved that the new crimson
velvet gown with which the lord mayor was furnished on these occasions at
the City’s expense should no longer be appropriated by him, but should be
carefully laid up by the hall keeper for future use.(1918) At the humble
request of the lord mayor (Sir Thomas Rawlinson) her majesty graciously
consented to bestow the trophies and colours recently taken in Flanders
upon the City to the intent that they might be hung up in the Guildhall.
It was not, however, until the 19th December, when the Duke of Marlborough
was sumptuously entertained at Vintners’ Hall, that twenty-six standards
and sixty-three colours, taken at Ramillies, were brought into the city in
great state, there to be displayed on the walls of the Guildhall.(1919)
(M954)
These successes were not achieved without great expenditure of blood and
money. At the close of the previous year (1705) the lord mayor had
received an order under the royal sign manual requiring him and the Court
of Aldermen to forthwith impress 1,000 men—such as had no visible means of
subsistence—for service by land or sea,(1920) whilst in the following
March (1706) it was found necessary to open a subscription at Mercers’
Chapel for furnishing Prince Eugene with £250,000 to assist him in
carrying on the campaign in Italy. Notwithstanding the depressed state of
the Corporation finances, the city abounded in wealth, and by the close of
the first day no less than £160,000 of the whole loan had been
underwritten, Sir Gilbert Heathcote, Sir William Scawen, Sir James Bateman
and Sir Henry Furnese making themselves each responsible for the sum of
£4,000.(1921) With the pecuniary assistance thus afforded him, and with
the reinforcements which Marlborough despatched to him from Holland, the
prince was enabled to raise the siege of Turin (7 Sept., 1706).
(M955)
It was not long before the crimson velvet gown was again brought into
requisition. So great success had attended the allied armies in 1706 that
the queen ordered another day of public thanksgiving to be kept on the
last day of the year, when she paid another solemn visit to St. Paul’s,
accompanied by both Houses of Parliament. Strange to say the records of
the Court of Aldermen are absolutely silent as to the preparations made
for the occasion, but from another source we know them to have been on the
same scale as formerly, and we may depend upon it that the crimson velvet
gown was there.(1922)
(M956)
The city was at this time in great danger from the passage of large
quantities of gunpowder through the streets on its way to the Tower. One
can realise the immense risk which the merchant and trader ran in pursuing
his regular vocation when one reads that on the 10th July (1706) a cart
with iron-bound wheels and laden with twenty-five barrels of gunpowder had
been overturned on Fish Street Hill and the gunpowder scattered. Nor was
this the only accident that had occurred; the wonder is that the entire
city had not been blown up long since, seeing that gunpowder was a
commodity dealt in by grocers! The Common Council took the matter up and
made a representation to the queen.(1923) Next year a Bill was introduced
into the House of Commons by Sir Gilbert Heathcote and Samuel Shepheard,
two of the city members, for preventing the dangers arising from bringing
or laying up quantities of gunpowder within the city and liberties, but
before the Lords and Commons could come to an agreement parliament was
prorogued (24 April, 1707).(1924) The municipal authorities were not
content to let matters rest here, but prepared a petition to parliament
for leave to bring in another Bill. The petition was ordered to lie on the
table (24 Feb., 1708),(1925) and in the meantime the citizens had to be
satisfied with an undertaking already given by powder-makers not to carry
any gunpowder to any wharf or stairs within half a mile of London
Bridge.(1926)
(M957)
The Articles of Union between England and Scotland having, after prolonged
discussion, been ratified by both the English and Scottish parliaments and
received the formal assent of the Crown, a day of public thanksgiving (1
May, 1707) was ordered to be observed for the happy conclusion of the
treaty between the two kingdoms. A proclamation had previously been issued
(29 April) constituting the existing Houses of Lords and Commons the first
parliament of Great Britain for and on the part of England, whilst sixteen
peers and forty-five commoners were to be elected to represent Scotland in
the same parliament. The first meeting was to take place at Westminster on
the 23rd October.(1927) Meanwhile addresses of congratulation to the queen
arrived from various parts of the kingdom; but in consequence of the
Article of Union declaring the Presbyterian form to be the true Protestant
religion, no such address came from the University of Oxford. It was
otherwise with the city of London, where Presbyterianism had always been
in favour. On the 9th May the Common Council voted an address to her
majesty congratulating her upon the happy union of the two kingdoms, a
blessing which Heaven (they declared) had reserved for her to accomplish,
who was the true and sincere lover of piety, unity and concord.(1928)
(M958)
The Londoners entertained sincere affection for Queen Anne, and lost no
opportunity of showing their loyalty. Such an opportunity presented itself
in the spring of the following year (1708), when Scotland was threatened
by a French invasion in favour of the Pretender. The citizens hastened to
assure her that the French preparations inspired them—her majesty’s most
dutiful and loyal subjects—with no terror. The repeated tenders of their
lives and fortunes were (she was asked to believe) not empty words, but
they would be ready when occasion offered to demonstrate to the world
their unfeigned loyalty in support of her majesty and the maintenance of
the Protestant succession against the Pretender and all other enemies at
home and abroad.(1929)
(M959)
Not satisfied with mere assurances of support, parliament proceeded to
pass a Bill "for the better security of her majesty’s person," by virtue
of which the oath of abjuration was to be administered to all suspected
persons, and those who refused it were to be at once treated as convict
recusants. The Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, and the House of Commons
engaged to make good any extra expense her majesty might be put to by
reason of this threatened invasion.(1930) On Tuesday, the 30th March, a
letter from the Privy Council was read before the Court of Aldermen in
which the magistrates of the city were commanded to meet as soon as
possible for the purpose of tendering the oath, according to the
provisions of the recent Act. The court thereupon gave orders for precepts
to be immediately issued to the deputies and common councilmen of the
several wards requiring them to return a list in writing under their hands
to the town clerk of all disaffected or dangerous persons found in their
wards. The returns were to be made before the end of the week.(1931) This
could have been no easy matter considering the number of particulars that
were to be set out in the return according to the terms of the precept.
The deputy and common councilmen of each ward were called upon to
distinguish (1) all Papists or reputed Papists, (2) all such as preached
in or frequented Jacobite meetings, (3) all non-jurors, _i.e._, such as
had refused to take the oaths appointed to be taken in place of the oaths
of supremacy and allegiance, (4) all such as were found guilty of casting
aspersions upon her majesty and the government, (5) all persons suspected
of holding correspondence with her majesty’s enemies abroad, and lastly
(6) all spreaders of false and seditious reports. The christian names and
surnames of each and all of these, together with their place of abode,
were to be returned in less than a week in order that they might be
summoned and have the oath tendered to them.(1932)
(M960)
On the 1st April parliament was prorogued; a fortnight later it was
dissolved and writs for a new parliament were sent out on the 26th,
returnable on the following 8th July.(1933) Although the Whigs again
obtained a majority in the country, and although they succeeded before the
end of the year in ousting all Tories from the ministry, they were losing
ground in the city of London. In November last Withers, the lord mayor,
had obtained Clayton’s seat (on the latter’s decease) in the Tory interest
as already mentioned.(1934) He was again returned after a close contest
with Sir Samuel Stanier, and with him another Tory in the person of John
Ward, who subsequently became an alderman and sat in the first parliament
of George I. The other two seats were retained by the Whigs, Ashurst and
Heathcote.(1935)
(M961)
Before the elections were over news arrived of another victory gained by
Marlborough. The French had been utterly defeated at Oudenarde (30 June,
o.s.).(1936) The fact that the Common Council allowed some weeks to slip
by before voting a congratulatory address to the queen(1937) may possibly
be accounted for by the growing strength of the Tory party in the city,
with whom the war was never in favour. The victory was followed before the
close of the year by the capture of Lille, one of the strongest fortresses
in Flanders, and the recovery of Bruges and Ghent, which had fallen into
the hands of the French general, Vendôme.(1938)
(M962)
The general joy which succeeded the victory of Oudenarde was damped by the
somewhat sudden death of Prince George of Denmark, the queen’s husband.
For some time past the prince had been suffering from asthma, but it was
not until Monday, the 25th October, that graver symptoms appeared.(1939)
On that day he was attacked with dropsy and hæmorrhage, and the Court of
Aldermen thought so seriously of the attack that three days later (28
Oct.) they instructed the City Remembrancer to repair daily to Kensington
to enquire after the prince’s health.(1940) That same afternoon, however,
the prince died, and the City’s address, presented to the queen a month
later, whilst congratulating her on her victories abroad, condoled with
her majesty on the loss she had sustained at home.(1941) The sad event
happening so close upon lord mayor’s day, when Sir Charles Duncombe was to
be sworn into office, the customary pageant on such occasions was
foregone, the mayor-elect contenting himself with driving to Westminster
Hall attended only by some of his brother aldermen.(1942)
(M963)
After a futile attempt to arrange terms for a cessation of hostilities
both parties again took the field. Tournay having been reduced by the
allies under Marlborough and Eugene, they next proceeded to threaten Mons.
In order to protect this stronghold Villars, the French marshal,
entrenched himself at Malplaquet. From this post, however, the allies
succeeded in driving him after a "very bloody battle," in which the
victors lost more men than the defeated (31 Aug., o.s.).(1943) The
citizens of London, in an address to the queen, expressed their delight at
the prospect of the French king being soon compelled to accept
terms.(1944) Tuesday, the 22nd November, was ordered to be observed as a
day of public thanksgiving for the victory of "Blaregnies," by which name
the battle of Malplaquet was sometimes known.(1945)
(M964)
Before another campaign was opened the ascendancy of the Whigs had passed
away. They had rendered themselves the more obnoxious to the citizens by
the passing of an Act for the naturalization of foreign Protestants,(1946)
the result of which had been to overcrowd the city with needy foreigners
at a time when there was a great scarcity of provisions. A cry was raised
that the price of corn and bread was being enhanced by the action of
forestallers, and the lord mayor was instructed by letter from Sunderland
(3 Oct., 1709) to put the law in force against all engrossers,
forestallers and regraters of corn. The mayor in reply assured the
secretary of state that there were no such engrossers in the city, but
that the present dearness was caused by the exportation of large
quantities of corn and grain to foreign countries. The city authorities
had, moreover, been informed that wheat was selling in the north of
England at 40_s._ a quarter and less. They therefore suggested that
government should furnish a sufficient convoy for the purpose of bringing
it to London.(1947) The representation as to the evils arising from
exportation of corn had the desired effect, for a Bill was shortly
afterwards passed limiting such importation,(1948) whilst another Bill was
passed for regulating the assize of bread.(1949)
(M965) (M966)
The bitter feeling against the Whigs engendered by their overbearing and
dictatorial conduct whenever in power was increased by a sermon preached
at St. Paul’s on the 5th November before the lord mayor and aldermen by
Dr. Sacheverell, a high church Tory. Taking for his text the words of the
Apostle, "In perils among false brethren" (2 Cor., xi, 26), the preacher
advocated in its entirety the doctrine of non-resistance, condemned every
sort of toleration, and attacked with much bitterness the Dissenters. Sir
Samuel Garrard, who had but recently entered on his duties as lord mayor
(having been elected in place of Sir Jeffery Jeffreys, who had been
excused from office on the ground of ill-health),(1950) was himself also a
high Tory, and as such was greatly pleased with the sentiments put forth
by Sacheverell. He congratulated the preacher on his sermon, and is said
to have expressed a hope that it would be printed. If so, it would appear
to betoken some doubt in his mind as to his brother aldermen consenting to
print such a polemical discourse. As a rule all sermons preached on state
occasions before the mayor and aldermen were ordered by the court to be
printed as a matter of course, the sum of forty shillings being voted
towards the expense. Two sermons recently preached before them, one at St.
Paul’s and the other in the church of St. Lawrence Jewry, were so ordered
(8 Nov.) to be printed by the court; but when on the same day the question
was put to them that Dr. Sacheverell should be desired to print his sermon
it was negatived.(1951) Sacheverell took no notice of this rebuff, but
printed the sermon on his own responsibility and at his own expense, with
a prefatory dedication to the mayor.(1952) The sermon was immensely
popular with the high church party, and a large number of copies were
circulated, much to the disgust of the Whigs.
(M967)
At length the ministry resolved to take proceedings against the author. On
the 13th December a complaint was made to the House of Commons of this
sermon, as well as of another sermon of similar character which had been
preached by Sacheverell before the judges at the last summer assizes at
Derby. After some debate the House resolved that both these sermons were
"malicious, scandalous and seditious libels highly reflecting upon her
majesty and her government, the late happy revolution, and the Protestant
succession as by law established," and ordered that Dr. Henry Sacheverell
and Henry Clements, his publisher, should attend at the Bar of the House
the next day.
(M968)
Accordingly the next day (14 Dec.) the doctor and the bookseller appeared.
Sacheverell owned that he was the author of the two discourses, and gave
an account of what had taken place between himself and the lord mayor; but
whilst expressing his regret at having incurred the displeasure of the
House, he showed no contrition for the doctrines he had promulgated. The
lord mayor, who was present in the House in his capacity as member for
Agmondesham, was thereupon asked if he had given any orders for causing
the sermon preached at St. Paul’s to be printed, but he denied having done
so.(1953) The doctor being called upon to retire, the House resolved to
impeach him of high crimes and misdemeanours and in the meantime committed
him to the custody of the sergeant-at-arms. Application was made a few
days later for bail to be allowed, but this the House refused.(1954) It
was, however, subsequently granted by the Lords, but at a very high
amount, viz., Sacheverell himself in £6,000 and two sureties in £3,000
respectively. One of these sureties was no other than the Vice-Chancellor
of Oxford University, of which Sacheverell was a member.(1955)
(M969)
It was originally intended that the trial should take place at the Bar of
the House of Lords, but as the Commons insisted upon being present as a
committee of the whole House, the Lords appointed Westminster Hall to be
the place of trial and instructed Sir Christopher Wren to make the
necessary preparations as speedily as possible.(1956) The trial commenced
on the 27th February and continued for three weeks. Day after day as
Sacheverell passed from his lodgings in the Temple to Westminster Hall and
home again his coach was besieged by crowds striving to kiss his hand and
shouting "Sacheverell and the Church for ever!" So again when the queen,
impelled by curiosity, attended the trial, as she did on more than one
occasion, shouts were raised as she passed on her way of "God bless your
majesty and the Church! we hope your majesty is for Dr. Sacheverell!" Had
the mob confined itself to this kind of demonstration little harm had been
done. Unfortunately it allowed itself to be carried away by excitement and
took to attacking meeting-houses and damaging the property of
Dissenters.(1957) The arguments on both sides having at last been
concluded, the Lords, by a narrow majority, pronounced Sacheverell guilty.
They did not venture, however, to proceed against him with any greater
severity than to order his sermons to be burnt at the Exchange by the
common hangman, in the presence of the lord mayor and sheriffs, and to
prohibit him from preaching for the next three years.(1958) Such a
sentence was virtually a victory for the Tories and a defeat of the Whigs.
Lord mayor Garrard contrived to escape the humiliation of presiding over
the burning of a sermon of which he in his heart approved, and this part
of the sentence was carried out in his absence under the supervision of
the sheriffs.(1959) The verdict was welcomed in the city with
illuminations and bonfires, accompanied with some little tumult and
disorder. The queen complained to the Court of Aldermen by letter, and
thereupon the court appointed a committee to investigate the recent riots
(27 March, 1710). The result was that the ringleaders were arrested and
bound over to the sessions.(1960) The streets were flooded with republican
pamphlets which the House ordered to be burnt by the common hangman.(1961)
Addresses were sent in from all parts of the country, some in favour of
the existing parliament, but the majority advocated a speedy
dissolution.(1962) The Common Council voted an address (but only by a
small majority) in which her majesty was assured of the City’s hatred of
all "anti-monarchical principles," its continued loyalty to her person and
government, its zeal for the Church of England, its tender regard for
liberty of conscience and its resolution to maintain the Protestant
succession. The address concluded by saying that in obedience to her
majesty’s commands the civic authorities would do their utmost care to
prevent and suppress riotous assemblies.(1963) The address, together with
one from the lieutenancy of London, was presented to the queen on the 13th
April.(1964)
(M970)
The queen seized the opportunity afforded her by this outburst of Tory
enthusiasm to get rid of the Whig ministry. For some time past she had
been anxious to free herself from Marlborough and the domineering
influence of his wife. During the trial of Sacheverell Marlborough had
been on the continent. In view of the approaching struggle between Whigs
and Tories, both parties preferred to be relieved of his presence. To this
end Sir Gilbert Heathcote, one of the Whig members for the city, had moved
an address to her majesty (16 Feb.) praying she would order the duke to
Holland, "where his presence will be equally necessary to assist at the
negotiations of peace and to hasten the preparations for an early
campaign."(1965) The address, having received the unanimous assent of both
Houses, was graciously received by the queen, and Marlborough had set out.
In his absence the queen proceeded cautiously to effect her object. One by
one the Whigs were removed from office and their places filled up by
Tories. Sunderland was the first to go, the seals being transferred to
Lord Dartmouth. It was feared in commercial circles that his dismissal
betokened a general change of ministry and that a panic would follow. The
queen, however, assured Sir Gilbert Heathcote, at that time governor of
the Bank of England, that she had no immediate intention of making further
changes, but that if any were made she would take care that they should
not be prejudicial to the bank or to the common cause.(1966)
Notwithstanding the assurances thus given, less than two months elapsed
before Godolphin was made to follow Sunderland. After this many of the
Whig ministers resigned, whilst others waited to be turned out.
(M971) (M972)
A few weeks after the dismissal of Godolphin the queen insisted on
dissolving parliament, and writs were issued (27 Sept.) for a new House to
meet in November.(1967) Harley, who was the queen’s chief adviser, having
failed in an attempt to form a coalition of Tories and moderate Whigs,
placed all his hopes in the result of a general election. Every effort was
made to get a Tory majority returned, and with success. Bishop Burnet,
whose Whiggish proclivities are apparent in every page of his history,
took no pains to disguise his opinions as to the way the elections were
generally carried out, and more particularly in the city of London. "While
the poll was taken in London," he writes,(1968) "a new commission for the
lieutenancy of the city was sent in, by which a great change was made;
Tories were put in and Whigs were left out; in a word, the practice and
violence now used in elections went far beyond anything that I have ever
known in England." If freedom of election was to count for anything, the
worthy bishop entertained grave doubts as to the new parliament being a
representative parliament at all. Only one of the old members was returned
by the city, viz., Sir William Withers. With him were elected another
alderman of the city, viz., Sir Richard Hoare, who had been defeated in
the Tory interest at the last election, Sir George Newland and John
Cass,(1969) who afterwards became an alderman, and who, at his decease,
left money for the foundation of a school in the parish of St. Botoph,
Aldgate.
(M973)
The new House of Commons being strongly Tory, Harley and St. John found
themselves compelled to form a purely Tory ministry. On the 27th the queen
delivered a speech in person, reflecting, as was supposed, the policy of
the new ministry. To carry on the war with the utmost vigour was, she
declared, the surest way of procuring a safe and honourable peace for
England and her allies, and in February of the following year (1711)
Marlborough was despatched for the avowed purpose of carrying this policy
into execution, the Commons being called upon to furnish supplies. Yet in
the midst of all this Harley commenced opening secret negotiations for a
peace with France, regardless of the interests of England’s allies. By
September (1711) these negotiations had so far progressed that
preliminaries for a peace were actually signed, but for fear lest the
favourable terms obtained for England should provoke the jealousy of the
Dutch a garbled edition of the treaty was specially prepared for the
edification of our allies. Such was the political morality of the age!
(M974)
The High Church party being in power, the queen took the opportunity of
enlisting their support for a project she had much at heart. For some time
past the want of new churches in the fast increasing suburbs of London had
engaged the attention of convocation, by whom the matter had been
represented to the queen. Her majesty now commended "so good and pious a
work" to the attention of the Commons, a commendation which received
additional force from the presentation of petitions from ministers of
various parishes in and around London for assistance in carrying out
repairs. The Commons showed considerable zeal in the matter, declaring, in
their reply to her majesty’s address, that neither the long expensive war
in which they were engaged nor the pressure of heavy debts should hinder
them from granting whatever was necessary.(1970) A Bill was accordingly
brought in (18 May) for the purpose of building fifty new churches,
computing 4,750 souls to each church, as well as for providing annual sums
of money to be expended on the completion of Westminster Abbey and
Greenwich Hospital. The cost was to be defrayed by a further duty on coal.
By the 28th May the Bill passed the Commons.(1971)
(M975)
In June (1711) parliament was prorogued and did not meet again before
December. A compromise was then effected which reflected little credit
upon either of the political parties, but secured the passing of the
Occasional Conformity Bill, a Bill on which the queen and the high Tories
had set their hearts, but which had already been defeated twice by the
Lords. The object of the Bill was to inflict penalties upon those
Dissenters who, having qualified themselves to sit as common councilmen or
as officers in corporations or elsewhere by receiving the Sacrament,
afterwards betook themselves to places of worship where the Book of Common
Prayer was not used, and where neither the queen nor the Princess Sophia
were prayed for.(1972)
(M976)
In September (1711) party spirit ran high in the city, the occasion being
the election of an alderman for the ward of Broad Street in the place of
Sir Joseph Woolfe, deceased. No less than four candidates were nominated
by each side, two out of each four being already aldermen. The Tory or
Church party were represented by Sir William Withers and William Lewen,
aldermen, Sir George Newland and Sir Robert Dunkley, commoners. The Whigs
or Dissenters advocated Sir John Houblon and Sir Samuel Stanier, aldermen,
Sir John Scott and Gerrard Conyers, commoners. The wardmote was held at
Drapers’ Hall, and was presided over by Sir Gilbert Heathcote, the mayor,
a strong Whig. It appears from a newspaper of the day(1973) that although
the mayor caused the Act of Common Council, setting forth the
qualifications of persons who had a right to vote on the occasion, to be
read at the wardmote, he refused to make proclamation that those who were
not qualified should depart from the hall. The result was that a large
number of foreigners and other unqualified persons voted. The lord mayor
having declared the show of hands to be in favour of the four Whig
candidates, a poll was demanded, which reversed the mayor’s decision. A
scrutiny was next asked for and allowed, but the mayor steadily refused to
express any opinion as to who of the voters were qualified and who were
disqualified without first consulting counsel. The result of the scrutiny
was declared (27 Oct.) by the mayor to be in favour of all four Whig
candidates, and on the following day he made a report to that effect to
the Court of Aldermen, who thereupon elected Gerrard Conyers alderman of
the ward. The mayor’s decision, however, was challenged, and a motion was
made in the Queen’s Bench for setting it aside as being manifestly wrong
and not in accordance with the number of lawful votes. After Heathcote’s
year of office had expired the assistance of the Common Council was
invoked in support of the rights of electors against such arbitrary
proceedings as had recently taken place. The court agreed to the necessary
legal expenses being defrayed by the Chamber.(1974)
The practice of nominating as many as four candidates for a vacant
aldermanry had prevailed since the commencement of the 15th century,(1975)
but the inconvenience arising from this practice became so manifest during
this last election that the Common Council passed an Act before the result
of the election had been declared, abolishing the custom and enacting that
henceforth only two candidates should be put in nomination, one an
alderman and the other a commoner.(1976) Even this number was found too
many, and within three years was reduced to one commoner,(1977) thus
reverting to the primitive custom of the city before it was enacted,
_temp._ Richard II, that two (commoners) _at least_ should be nominated
for every vacant aldermanry.(1978)
In July, 1712, another dispute arose over the election of an alderman. Sir
John Fleet, alderman of the ward of Langbourn, had recently died, and it
was necessary to appoint a successor. Four candidates were put up for the
post, of whom two were to be selected for nomination to the Court of
Aldermen according to the provisions of the recent Act. The wardmote was
opened on the 9th July at Pewterers’ Hall. Sir Robert Beachcroft, the lord
mayor, was himself one of the candidates, the other three being Sir
William Withers, alderman, Sir Samuel Clarke and Peter Delmé, commoners.
The show of hands being declared to be in favour of Withers and Clarke,
two Tories, a poll was demanded on behalf of his lordship and Delmé. The
result, however, was the same, and a scrutiny followed. To the great
surprise of a large body of the electors, the mayor eventually declared
(22 Aug.) the majority of votes to be in favour of himself and Delmé, but
like his predecessor he steadily refused to give any explanation as to how
he had arrived at that conclusion. Again there appeared to be no remedy
but to apply to the Queen’s Bench. The Common Council was again appealed
to (6 Sept.), but whilst the matter was in course of debate the lord mayor
was suddenly taken ill, and the court had to break up before coming to any
resolution on the matter. On the 12th November, however, the council
agreed to assist the petitioners as before, but refused any assistance to
Delmé, who had already been admitted alderman, and was about to be put on
his defence.(1979)
(M977)
In 1713 the relations between the Courts of Aldermen and Common Council
became still more strained. The latter complained of the city’s business
being hindered from insufficient Courts of Aldermen, and of a newly
elected alderman not having been sworn in on a certain day by reason of
there not being a _quorum_ of aldermen present. On the 15th May a joint
committee of aldermen and commoners was appointed to enquire into the
matter. Six weeks elapsed before the committee was ready with its report.
At length, on the 30th June, the committee certified(1980) that having
examined the minute books of the Court of Aldermen it had found that
between the 24th March and the 15th May last six courts had been summoned
to meet, but for want of a _quorum_ only one full court had been held. On
the other occasions only seven, eight, nine, ten or twelve aldermen
appeared, inclusive of the mayor. The committee also found that the courts
were in the habit of meeting between twelve and one o’clock, and reported
its opinion that such a late hour for meeting was prejudicial to the
citizens and others who had business there.
Touching the other matter which had been referred to them, the committee
found that on the 7th May the lord mayor had reported to the Court of
Aldermen the nomination and election of Sir William Withers, alderman, and
Joseph Lawrence to succeed Sir Owen Buckingham in the aldermanry of the
ward of Bishopsgate; that Withers declining to remove, had moved that
Lawrence should be called in and sworn, according to the provisions of the
Act of 1711 for regulating the elections of aldermen; that thereupon a
petition was offered and part of the Act was read; that after some debate
Lawrence was sent for and came into court; that upon the Common Sergeant
being called in to give his opinion seven of the aldermen withdrew from
the court, but one of them presently returned, and after hearing the
Common Sergeant deliver his opinion—viz., that notwithstanding any
petition the court was bound by the Act to admit and swear in
Lawrence—again withdrew, notwithstanding the lord mayor’s expressed desire
that he should remain; that by this means a full court was not kept (only
eleven aldermen being left with the mayor), and so Lawrence, although
present, could not be sworn.(1981) The committee’s report was ordered to
be entered on the Journal and likewise to be forthwith printed and a copy
sent to every member of the Common Council.
(M978)
In the meantime the queen had been persuaded to dismiss Marlborough on his
return to England (Nov., 1711) from all his offices, and to place the Duke
of Ormond, a strong Tory, in command of the English forces in the
Netherlands. Negotiations with France were simultaneously pushed on, in
spite of a personal visit which Eugene himself paid to London (Jan., 1712)
in the hope of obtaining a continuance of English support for carrying on
the war. The presence of the illustrious prince was heartily welcomed by
the Whigs, by whom he was hospitably entertained. On the 15th January a
motion was made in the Court of Aldermen and carried to the effect that
the court was prepared to join with as many leading citizens (not
exceeding sixty in number) as should be willing in providing an
entertainment by private subscription for his highness, provided they
first obtained her majesty’s permission. Two aldermen were thereupon
nominated to wait upon Lord Dartmouth, principal secretary of state, in
order to learn her majesty’s pleasure. There was nothing unusual in this
proceeding. Nevertheless the idea of the prince being publicly entertained
in the city was so distasteful to the queen and her government that she
found fault with the citizens for daring to approach her with a mere
verbal message (she was suffering from gout at the time),(1982) and
declined to return an answer to any message which was not brought to her
"with the same respect as has always been paid by the city of London to
her predecessors."(1983) That there might be no mistake about the matter
the queen’s answer was sent to the City in writing by Lord Dartmouth. The
Court of Aldermen at once appointed a committee to search the City’s
Records for the purpose of ascertaining how and in what manner messages
had been delivered from the court to her majesty and her predecessors,
whether they had usually been in writing or only verbal. On the 5th
February the committee reported that they found that such messages had
been delivered in a variety of ways: sometimes by the lord mayor alone,
sometimes by two or three aldermen, and at other times by the recorder and
sheriffs only. One instance had been found of a message having been sent
by a single sheriff. Not once did they find that a message had been
delivered in writing.(1984) It need scarcely be said that under the
circumstances all idea of the entertainment was dropt.
In spite of the prince’s high character the greatest calumnies were
whispered against him behind his back. He was said to be conspiring with
Marlborough and the Whigs to raise an insurrection in the streets, fire
the city and seize the person of the queen. A general panic prevailed.
Even the roysterings of a few drunken revellers calling themselves
"Mohocks"(1985)—the successors of the "Roreres" and "Riffleres" of a past
age—were looked upon as signs and tokens of some deep laid plot, so that
more than ordinary precautions had to be taken, both in the city and
elsewhere, to prevent riot.(1986) Finding at length that his presence in
England did not promote his object the prince, after a stay of some weeks,
returned to the Hague.
(M979)
By the 6th June negotiations with France had so far advanced that the
queen went down to the House of Lords to fulfil, as she said, her promise
of communicating to her parliament the terms of peace before it was
absolutely concluded. What pleased the citizens most in her elaborate
speech was the announcement of the steps taken to secure the Protestant
succession to the House of Hanover and for protecting British commerce.
For these measures they returned to her majesty their hearty thanks, and
expressed their sincere hopes that she might speedily finish the good work
which had advanced so far notwithstanding "the artful contrivances and
envious efforts of a factious and malicious party."(1987) In August a
proclamation was made of a suspension of hostilities,(1988) and on the
31st March, 1713, the Peace of Utrecht was signed.
A fortnight later (14 April, 1713) the Common Council voted a
congratulatory address to her majesty on the conclusion of the peace with
France, but no copy of the address was to be shown to anyone until it had
been actually presented.(1989) On the 5th May the lord mayor and Court of
Aldermen attended at Temple Bar to assist at the proclamation, whilst
Tuesday the 6th July was observed as a day of public thanksgiving at St.
Paul’s. The queen did not attend the service owing probably to
indisposition, and the livery companies were on that account excused
attendance. The mayor and aldermen displayed no little anxiety to have
their proper seats reserved for them in the cathedral.(1990)
(M980)
Shortly before the conclusion of the peace the term of Sacheverell’s
suspension expired. His popularity became greater than ever. The queen
presented him with the living of St. Andrew’s, Holborn, whilst the House
of Commons, which had formerly condemned him, now invited him to preach
before them.(1991)
(M981)
The days of Queen Anne were now fast drawing to a close. For some time
past her health had been failing, and at the close of the year (1713) she
was confined to her bed at Windsor. Upon notice of her indisposition being
conveyed to the Court of Aldermen they at once instructed the sheriffs and
the city remembrancer to proceed to Windsor and enquire after her
majesty’s health.(1992) The fact that in the event of the queen’s death
the legal heir, the Electress Sophia, and her son, the Elector of Hanover,
were favourable to the Whig party, drove the Tories to make overtures to
the Pretender, the queen’s brother, who was still living in France,
although by the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht Louis had promised to
abandon his cause. On the 1st February (1714) the queen wrote to the lord
mayor(1993) (Sir Samuel Stanier) informing him that she was recovering her
health and hoped soon to return to her "usual residence." She further
informed his lordship of her determination to open her parliament on the
16th, according to the notice given by proclamation, and desired him to
communicate the same to the Court of Aldermen and to her other loving
subjects of the city. Again the sheriffs and remembrancer were instructed
to go to Windsor and tender the court’s acknowledgments of her majesty’s
favour and to assure her that they would discountenance to the utmost of
their power and put a stop to "those malicious rumours which had been so
industriously spread by evil disposed persons to the prejudice of credit
and the imminent hazard of public peace and tranquility."(1994) Saturday
the 6th was the queen’s birthday, and extra precautions were taken in the
city to prevent tumult or disorder.(1995) A week later her majesty had so
far recovered her health as to meditate returning to town, and the Common
Council prepared (12 Feb.) to greet her with a congratulatory
address.(1996)
(M982)
On the 21st June (1714) a royal proclamation was issued offering a reward
of £5,000 for the apprehension of the Pretender in case he should effect a
landing.(1997) The proclamation afforded the City an opportunity of
further testifying its loyalty to the queen and its determination to
uphold the Protestant succession as by law established, and at the same
time to thank her majesty for passing an Act entitled "An Act to prevent
the growth of Schism"—an Act aimed against the Whigs, and which forbade
anyone keeping a school without licence from the bishop.(1998)
(M983)
On the morning of Friday the 30th July the queen was seized with her last
illness. Notification was immediately despatched to the lord mayor, who
reported the news to a special Court of Aldermen that afternoon. The
Secretary of State, who had written to the mayor, had desired his lordship
to take immediate steps to preserve quiet in the city. The court, on being
informed of the turn of affairs, despatched the sheriffs, the common cryer
and the water bailiff to Kensington to enquire after the queen’s health
and to assure her majesty that every possible care would be taken to
preserve the peace of the city in any event.(1999) Two days later (1 Aug.)
Anne was dead.
END OF VOL. II.
FOOTNOTES
M1 The accession of James, 24 March, 1603.
1 Journal 26, fo. 73.
M2 Correspondence between the king and the City.
2 Letter to the mayor, etc., of London, 28 March.—Journal 26, fo. 75b.
3 Letter dated 29th March.—Journal 26, fo. 76. The Court of Aldermen
allowed Fletcher forty marks towards the expenses of his
journey.—Repertory 26, pt. i, fo. 119b.
4 Letter dated Newcastle, 11th April, 1603.—Journal 26, fo. 80. See
Appendix.
M3 James leaves Edinburgh for London, 5 April.
5 Journal 26, fos. 78b, 82, 82b, 88.
6 Journal 26, fo. 81b.
7 Repertory 26, pt. i, fo. 131b.
M4 The citizens ride forth to meet him, 7 May.
8 It is computed that more than 230 knights were created by James on
his passage from Edinburgh to the Tower. The lord mayor (Lee) was
knighted at Greenwich on the 22nd May. At the king’s coronation,
which took place in July, all the aldermen of the city who were not
already knights were knighted at Whitehall.—Nichols, "Progresses of
King James I," i, 113n, 120, 234.
M5 The plague of 1603.
9 Howes’s Chron., p. 827; Journal 26, fos. 74, 114b, 116b; Repertory
26, pt. i, fo. 171.
10 Journal 26, fo. 98.
11 Repertory 26, pt. ii, fo. 361.
12 Journal 26, fos. 103b, 122b, 124b, 125b, 127; Repertory 26, pt. i,
fo. 149b. In May of the following year the king himself lost two
beagles, which had strayed and probably been killed.—Journal 26, fo.
211b. In 1611 the queen also lost her dog, and a liberal reward was
offered for its recovery. The animal was described as being "lowe
and thicke, of a meene coulor, and his taile turninge up to the
middle of his backe."—Journal 28. fo. 284.
13 Journal 28, fos. 116, 126, 126b.
14 Journal 28, fos. 145, 145b. The Merchant Taylors contributed the
largest quantity (936 qrs.): they were followed by the Grocers (874
qrs.), the Mercers (820 qrs.), the Goldsmiths (809 qrs.), next to
which came the Drapers (768 qrs.) and the Haberdashers (724 qrs.).
M6 The king’s public passage through the city, 15 Mar., 1604.
15 The amount at which each company was assessed will be found printed
from the City’s Records in Nichols’ "Progresses of King James I," i,
400, 401.
16 Journal 26, fos. 163, 164, 178, 179b.
17 Journal 26, fo. 178b.
18 Journal 26, fos. 186, 188; Repertory 26, pt. ii, fo. 311.
19 Nichols, "Progresses of King James I," i, 360, 361.
M7 Catholic plots against the king, June, 1603.
20 Journal 26, fos. 111, 117b, 118b.
21 Id., fo. 174.
M8 The first parliament of James, Mar., 1604.
22 Return to writ of parliament, 31 Jan.—Journal 26, fo. 171.
23 For particulars of his life, see Remembrancia (Analytical Index), p.
2n.
24 Id. p. 23n.
25 Id., p. 176n.
M9 Proposed union of England and Scotland.
26 Peace with Spain, for which negotiations had been entered into as
soon as James came to the throne, was concluded in the summer of
this year (18 Aug.), but was not acceptable to the nation at large,
and much less to the citizens of London. "I can assure your
mightiness," wrote the State’s Ambassador, Caron, "that no
promulgation was ever received in London with more coolness—yes,
with more sadness.... The people were admonished to make bonfires,
but you may be very sure not a bonfire was to be seen."—Motley,
"United Netherlands," iv, 223, 224. For payments made by the city
chamberlain to heralds on the occasion of proclamation of the peace,
see Repertory 26, pt. ii, fo. 436.
27 James assumed the title of King of Great Britain by proclamation
dated 20 Oct., 1604.—Journal 26, fo. 271.
28 King’s writ of proclamation of the union to the mayor and sheriffs
of London, dated 22 Oct., 1604.—_Id._, _Ibid._
M10 Attempt to put down purveyance.
29 The first charter of Edward III, granted to the citizens of London
(6 March, 1327) with the assent of parliament, expressly forbade the
king’s purveyors taking goods contrary to the will and pleasure of
the citizens, except for cash; and no prisage of wines was
thenceforth to be taken under any consideration.—_Cf._ Stat. 4, Edw.
III, c. 3; 5, Edw. III, c. 2; 25, Edw. III, c. 1; 36, Edw. III, c.
2.
30 Journal 27, fo. 36.
31 Remembrancia, ii, 262 (Analytical Index, p. 409).
M11 The House of Commons and Free Trade.
32 Journal House of Commons, 21 May, 1604, i, 218.
33 The fact that the custom dues of London amounted to £110,000 a year,
whereas those of the rest of the kingdom amounted to only £17,000,
was adduced in support of their case.
34 Journal House of Commons, i, 218.
M12 The Speaker and Commons entertained at Merchant Taylors’ Hall, 3
July, 1604.
35 Journal House of Commons, 3 July, i. 251, 252.
M13 Prince Henry becomes a Merchant Taylor, 17 July, 1607.
36 The Merchant Taylors displayed no little jealousy at the
Clothworkers having forestalled them; and as the mayor for the time
being—Sir John Watts—happened to be a Clothworker, it was thought
that he would do his best to prevent Prince Henry also from joining
the Merchant Taylors. They accordingly declined to invite the mayor
and aldermen to the banquet.—Clode’s "Memorials of the Merchant
Taylors’ Company," pp. 147-160.
M14 A City loan of £15,000, Aug., 1604.
37 Journal 26, fos. 241b, 243b; _Cf._ Letter Book BB, fos. 288, 289b.
38 Letter Book BB, fo. 259b.
M15 The gunpowder plot, 1604-1605.
39 The king to the lords commissioners [for the plot], 6 Nov.—Cal.
State Papers Dom. (1603-1610), p. 241. The "gentler tortoures" were
to be applied first, "_et sic per gradus ad ima tenditur_."
40 Journal 27, fos. 3b, 7.
41 Id., fos. 2b, 5b, 6.
42 Journal 27, fo. 4.
43 Journal 27, fo. 5; _Cf._ fos. 14b, 15, 19.
44 Id., fo. 8b.
45 Howes’s Chron., p. 881.
46 Journal 27, fo. 19.
47 Journal 27, fo. 17.
48 Howes’s Chron., p. 882.
M16 Rumour of the king being assassinated 22 March, 1606.
49 Journal 27, fo. 30b.
50 Journal 27, fo. 48b.
M17 Visit of the king of Denmark to England, July, 1606.
51 Id., fo. 73.
52 Id., fos. 73b, 75.
53 Repertory 27, fo. 252b.
54 Journal 27, fo. 75b.
M18 The city’s water supply.
55 Proclamation, 7 July, 22 Eliz. (1580).—Journal 21, fo. 54.
56 Remembrancia (Index), _s.v._ "Buildings."
57 Stat. 35 Henry VIII, c. 10.
58 Stat. 13 Eliz., c. 18.
59 Journal 21, fo. 251; Journal 22, fos. 47, 53b. The Common Sergeant
of the city, Bernard Randolph, also rendered him pecuniary
assistance.—Remembrancia (Index), p. 553.
60 Repertory 22, fos. 270, 281, 376b.
61 Repertory 22, fos. 270, 281, 376b.
62 Journal 23, fos. 209, 210.
M19 Hugh Middleton and the New River Company, 1609-1613.
63 The bill was introduced into parliament on the 30 Jan., 1606, and
passed the Commons on the 30 May.—Journal House of Commons, i, 261,
310. By Stat. 4 Jas. I, c. 12, the former Act was so far amended as
to allow the City to convey water underground.
64 Journal 27, fos. 54, 77, 89b, 144b, 396; Journal 28, fos. 16b, 81.
65 Journal 27, fo. 89; Repertory 27, fos. 312, 269b.
66 Journal 27, fo. 377b. Another agreement was subsequently drawn up
bearing date the 28 March, 1611, and this being executed by
Middleton the former agreement was ordered to be
cancelled.—Repertory 30, fo. 100.
M20 Opposition to Middleton’s work.
67 The lord mayor to the lords of the council, 10 July,
1609.—Remembrancia, ii, 347 (Index, pp. 554-555).
68 See Paper containing "objections against the river," with
answers.—Cal. State Papers Dom., vol. lxxviii, No. 106.
69 Journal House of Commons, i, 442, 445.
70 "Mr. Beaulieu to Mr. Trumbull, resident at Brussells," 9 May,
1610.—Winwood’s Memorials, iii, 160.
71 Repertory 29, fo. 231.
M21 Pecuniary assistance granted to Middleton by James, May, 1612.
72 Journal 28, fo. 176b.
73 These "king’s shares," as they were called to distinguish them from
"adventurers’ shares," were sold by Charles I in 1636 for an annuity
of £500, entered on the company’s books and paid yearly as the
"king’s clog." Both classes of shares have become so valuable that
they have been subjected to frequent sub-division. At a sale by
auction, which took place in London, 15 Nov., 1893, an undivided
adventurers’ share fetched £94,900.
M22 The New River opened, 29 Sept., 1613.
74 Alderman of Queenhithe and Coleman Street Wards; Sheriff 1603. From
1624 to 1626 was one of the representatives of the city in
parliament. His brother Robert had sat for the same constituency in
the parliament of 1614.—Repertory 26, pt. i, fo. 146b; Repertory 31,
pt. ii, fo. 282b; Parliamentary Return 1879 (Appendix), p. xxxix.
M23 Compulsory use of the New River water, 1616.
75 Remembrancia (Index), p. 557.
76 Id., p. 558.
77 Id., p. 559.
78 The first dividend was paid in 1633.—Smiles, "Lives of the
Engineers," pp. 130, 131.
M24 A City loan of £3,000 to Middleton, Sept., 1614.
79 Repertory 31, pt. ii, fo. 396.
M25 Middleton created a baronet, Oct., 1622.
80 In 1611 "James offered the title of baronet to all who would pay the
exchequer £1,080 in three annual payments, being the sum required
for the pay of a hundred foot-soldiers for three years."—Gardiner,
"Hist. of Eng. (1613-1616)," i, 560.
81 Cal. State Papers Dom. (1619-1623), p. 455.
82 Remembrancia, iii, 114, viii, 3 (Index, pp. 462-465).
M26 The City votes Middleton a gold chain, Nov., 1623.
83 "Court and Times of James I," ii, 433.
84 Repertory 38, fo. 12; Letter Book II, fo. 51.
85 Letter Book II, fo. 51b.
M27 Death of Middleton, 10 Dec, 1631.
86 Repertory 47, fos. 45b, 58, 89b, 105b, 300b.
M28 Grant of £1,000 to Lady Middleton, 1634.
87 Journal 36, fos. 37, 292, 292b.
88 Repertory 49, fo. 195b.
M29 The New River Company petition the City for an immediate grant of
all that had been conveyed to Middleton. 10 June, 1726.
89 Journal 57, fos. 143b, 144.
M30 The plantation of Ulster.
90 Report of Commissioners, 20 Dec., 1608; Second Report, Jan.,
1609.—Cal. State Papers Ireland (1608-1610), pp. 117, 139.
91 "Orders and Conditions of the Ulster Plantation."—Cal. State Papers
Ireland (1608-1610), p. 139. Chichester to the Privy Council, 10
Mar., 1609.—_Id._, p. 157.
92 See the City’s Petition to the House of Commons, in Jan.,
1641.—Journal 39, fo. 164.
93 Cal. State Papers Ireland (1608-1610), pp. 207-210.
M31 Motives and reasons to encourage the City to take part in the
plantation, 28 May, 1609.
M32 The matter laid before a special Court of Aldermen, 1 July, 1609.
M33 Referred to the livery companies.
94 Repertory 29, fo. 52b.
95 Journal 27, fo. 386b. The following were the companies to whom, in
addition to the twelve principal companies, the precept was
sent:—Dyers, Leathersellers, Pewterers, Cutlers, Whitebakers, Tallow
Chandlers, Armourers, Girdlers, Saddlers, Barber-Surgeons, Plumbers,
Innholders, Coopers, Joiners, Weavers, Woodmongers, Scriveners,
Stationers and Embroiderers.
96 Repertory 29, fo. 60b. The answer of the companies is not entered, a
blank space being left.
97 Repertory 29, fo. 61b.
M34 A conference with the lords of the council.
98 Journal 27, fo. 387b.
M35 Commissioners appointed by the City to view the plantation, 1 Aug.,
1609.
99 Journal 27, fo. 398. John "Mun," or "Muns," mercer, was afterwards
substituted for Hugh Hamersley.
M36 The system of deception practised on them.
100 Two letters from the lords of the council to Sir Arthur Chichester,
3 Aug., 1609.—Philadelphia Papers (Transcripts, Public Record
Office), vol. i, pp. 498-501.
101 Sir John Davys to Salisbury, 28 Aug., 1609.—Cal. State Papers
Ireland (1608-1610), pp. 280-281.
102 Sir Arthur Chichester to Salisbury, 18 Sept., 1609.—Cal. State
Papers Ireland (1608-1610), pp. 285-287.
M37 Report of commissioners, 28 Nov., 1609.
103 Repertory 29, fos. 137b, 138. The Chamberlain having paid over to
them. £415 9_s._, the court subsequently ordered the bridge-masters
to repay the chamberlain that amount.—_Id._, fo. 149b.
104 These directions unfortunately appear to have been neglected in both
cases, for the report does not appear either in the Journal or
Remembrancia.
105 Journal 28, fo. 16.
M38 The City’s proposal to undertake the plantation and to raise the sum
of £15,000 for the purpose, 15 Dec., 1609.
106 Id., fos. 19-20b.
M39 The City’s offer to raise £15,000 rejected as insufficient.
107 Id., fo. 24.
M40 The sum of £20,000 levied on livery companies according to corn
assessment.
108 Another sum of £5,000 was levied in the following March, another in
August, and the remainder in March, 1611. The Merchant Taylors,
being assessed at 936 quarters of corn, were called upon to
contribute £1,872 towards the £20,000 by instalments of £468; the
Grocers (the next highest in the corn assessment) £1,748, the
Mercers £1,640, and so on in a descending scale to the Bowyers, the
Fletchers, the Woolmen and the Musicians, each of whom subscribed
respectively £10.—Journal 28, fos. 24, 32, 32b.
109 Journal 28, fos. 53, 53b.
110 Id., fos. 103, 113-114b.
M41 The "Articles" of the plantation signed, 28 Jan., 1610.
111 Cal. State Papers Ireland (1608-1610), pp. 136, 137, 359-362. An
abstract of the articles is printed in "a concise view ... of the
Irish Society" (pp. 9-13); where, however, the date of signing the
agreement is given as Jan., 1609, this date being in accordance with
the Old Style.
M42 The formation of the "Irish Society."
112 Journal 28, fos. 46-49b.
113 Lords of the council to Sir Arthur Chichester, 4 Feb., 1610.—Cal.
State Papers Ireland (1608-1610), p. 378.
M43 The City forced to surrender 2,000 acres of their Irish estate,
July, 1610.
114 Journal 28, fos. 90, 115.
M44 Difficulties experienced in raising the £20,000 for the plantation.
115 Repertory 29, fos. 219b, 235b, 250b, 253b, 254.
116 Remembrancia (Index), p. 172.
117 Chichester to Salisbury, 27 June, 1610.—Cal. State Papers Ireland
(1608-1610), p. 473.
M45 The companies to take up allotment of Irish estate, Jan., 1611.
118 Journal 28, fos. 159b, 163.
119 Id., fo. 176.
M46 A further sum of £10,000 to be raised for the plantation, July,
1611.
120 Journal 28, fos. 239b, 240.
121 Id., fo. 323.
M47 The Irish Society incorporated, 29 March, 1613.
122 Minutes of the Grocers’ Company, 24 July, 1612.
M48 Another £10,000 demanded of the companies, 30 April, 1613.
123 Journal 28, fo. 344b.
124 Journal 29, fo. 49.
M49 The Londoners charged with remissness in carrying out the work of
the plantation.
125 Cal. State Papers Ireland (1611-1614), p. 310.
126 Cal. State Papers Ireland (1611-1614), pp. 228-229, 270.
M50 Two special commissioners sent to Ireland, June, 1613.
127 Journal 29, fo. 74b, 75.
M51 Their report submitted to the Common Council, 8 Nov., 1613.
128 The report was dated Dublin, 15 Oct.—Journal 29, fos. 116b-118.
M52 Allotment of the Irish estate among the companies, 17 Dec., 1613.
129 Journal 29, fos. 178b-186.
130 Skinners’ Company and the Irish Society (House of Lords, p. 12).
131 17 Dec, 1613.—Journal 29, fo. 186. The money was to be forthcoming
before 1 Feb., 1614.
132 11 Jan., 1615.—Journal 29, fo. 299. £5,000 was to be raised by the
end of the month, and the residue (£2,500) before the 1st day of
May.
133 Skinners’ Company and the Irish Society (Appendix to case before
House of Lords, p. 13).
M53 The right of the companies to sell their Irish estate questioned.
M54 The select Parliamentary Committee of 1890.
134 Report of Select Committee on Irish Society and the London Companies
(Irish estates), 4 May, 1891, p. iii.
135 One of the articles (No. 10) of the plantation expressly stated that
after five years the undertakers should be at liberty to alien to
all persons except the "mere Irish" and such persons as refused to
take the oath prescribed for the undertakers.—Skinners’ Company and
the Irish Society (Appendix to case before House of Lords, p. 147).
M55 The plantation of Virginia, 1609.
M56 Application to the City for assistance.
136 The letter is not entered on the City’s Records, but it will be
found printed in the late Mr. Clode’s "Memorials of the Merchant
Taylors’ Company" and in Mr. Brown’s "Genesis of the United States,"
i, 252. The letter does not bear any date, but must have been
written before the 16th March, 1609, as on that day the mayor issued
his precept to the several companies, enclosing a copy of the
letter, and asking them to "make some adventure" in so good and
honourable an undertaking.—Journal 27, fo. 346b.
M57 Contributions by the livery companies.
137 Brown’s "Genesis of the United States," ii, 857, _seq._
138 See bill of adventure granted to the Merchant Taylors’ Company, 4
May, 1609 (printed from the company’s archives).—Brown, i, 308.
M58 The company’s new charter, 23 May, 1609.
139 Brown, i, 208-237; ii, 890.
M59 Outbreak of yellow fever among the colonists.
140 Brown, i, 329.
M60 The company again re-constructed, 12 March, 1612.
141 Letter from the clerk of the company to Mr. Brown, 18 April,
1885.—"Genesis of the United States," i, 442.
142 Brown, i, 465-469.
143 Id., ii, 540-553.
M61 A public lottery in aid of the company.
144 Art. xvi.
145 Baker’s Chron., p. 413; Howes’s Chron. (ed. 1615), p. 913.
146 Vid. sup., vol. i, p. 507.
147 Extract from Grocers’ records.—Brown, ii, 591.
148 Extract from Vestry Minutes.—_Id._, ii, 571-572.
149 Extract from Churchwardens’ book.—_Id._, ii, 572.
150 Howes’s Chron. (ed. 1615), p. 913.
M62 The public lottery of 1614.
151 Neither this letter nor anything else connected with this lottery
appears to be entered on the City’s Records. The letter will be
found printed (whence taken we are not told) in Brown’s "Genesis of
the United States," ii, 685. The letter is not entered in the Minute
Book of the Merchant Taylors’ Company, as was the former letter.
152 For the mayor’s letter on this occasion, see Brown, ii, 688.
153 Clode, "Early Hist. of the Merchant Taylors’ Company," p. 325.
154 Brown, ii, 686-688.
M63 The Virginia Company and the House of Commons.
155 Journal House of Commons, i, 487-489; Chamberlain to Carleton, 19
May, 1614.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1611-1618), p. 234.
M64 Vagrant children sent to Virginia, 1618-1619.
156 Journal 30, fos. 374b, 396.
157 Chamberlain, writing to Carleton under date the 14th Oct., mentions
the fact of the City shipping to Virginia 100 boys and girls who
were starving in the streets.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1611-1618), p.
584.
158 Journal 31, fo. 122 (125).
M65 Disagreement between the City and the Virginia Company.
159 Remembrancia, v, 56 (Analytical Index, p. 362).
160 The company appears to have applied through Sir Edwin Sandys, its
new treasurer, for a warrant to "enforce" the transportation of the
hundred children to be sent to Virginia at the City’s expense, 28
Jan., 1620.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1611-1618), p. 118.
M66 Loafers about the court transported to Virginia. 1619.
161 Remembrancia, v, 8 (Analytical Index, p. 361).
162 Remembrancia, v, 9.
M67 Copland’s sermon at Bow Church, 18 April, 1622.
163 The sermon is reproduced in "Memoir of Rev. Patrick Copland," by
Edward D. Neill (New York, 1871), chap. iii.
164 This prophecy was literally fulfilled by the gift of half a million
of money for the relief of the poor of London by the late George
Peabody, himself a descendant of an emigrant to North Virginia.
165 Journal 32, fo. 66.
M68 The king’s financial condition, 1610.
166 Upon the occasion of Prince Henry coming of age and receiving
knighthood in 1609 James demanded an "aid" of the City, and thus ran
the risk of offending the citizens for a paltry sum of
£1,200.—Journal 27, fo. 357; Journal 29, fo. 304.
167 Proclamation for dissolution, dated 31 Dec., 1610.—Journal 28, fo.
156.
M69 A City Loan of £100,000, April, 1610.
168 Repertory 29, fos. 207-209b, 220, 225.
169 John More to Ralph Winwood, 15 Dec., 1610.—Winwood’s Memorials, iii,
239.
170 Repertory 30, fo. 108b.
171 Remembrancia, iii, 58 (Index, p. 189).
172 "Account of the amount paid for principal and interest on a loan of
£100,000 by the citizens of London to his late majesty (James I).
The money was lent in Easter Term, 1611 (1610?), and was repaid in
April, 1613, £22,500 being paid for interest."—Cal. State Papers
Dom. (1625-1626), p. 203.
M70 Concessions made to the city by James, 1608-1610.
173 Charter dated 24 Sept., 6 James I (preserved at the Guildhall, Box
20).
174 A full description of the water-fight, fireworks, etc., which took
place on the occasion is printed by Nichols,—"Progresses of James
I." ii, 315-323.
175 Journal 28, fo. 96.
M71 The king’s "privy seals," 1611.
176 "The privy seals begin now to come abroad thick and threefold. On
Sunday was seven-night; most of the strangers were greeted with them
in form of letters as they came out of church; a course, in my
opinion, not so well taken, to be done in view and sight of all the
world, which might have been better performed in delivering them to
every man privately at home."—Chamberlain to Carleton, 18 Dec.,
1611.—"Court and Times of James I," i, 153.
M72 The marriage of the Elector Palatine with the Princess Elizabeth, 14
Feb., 1613.
177 Journal 28, fos. 336b, 345; Repertory 30, fo. 397b.
178 Nichols, "Progresses of James I," ii, 466.
179 Chamberlain to Carleton, 4 Nov., 1612.—"Court and Times of James I,"
i, 202; _Cf._ Cal. State Papers Dom. (1611-1618), p. 145.
180 Journal 28, fo. 345b.
181 Repertory 31, pt. i, fo. 1.
182 On the 8th Nov., the day following the prince’s death, the lords of
the council directed the mayor to put down all plays, shows,
bear-baitings, etc., as being unsuited to the times and a scandal to
good government at any time.—Remembrancia, iii, 64 (Index, p. 410).
183 Chamberlain to Carleton, 19 Nov., 1612.—"Court and Times of James
I," i, 207.
M73 A further search for Recusants, Feb., 1613.
184 Remembrancia, iii, 66, 67 (Index, pp. 131, 132); Journal 29, fo. 3.
185 Remembrancia, iii, 74 (Index, p. 132).
M74 The king and court entertained in Merchant Taylors’ Hall, 4 Jan.,
1614.
186 "The lord mayor was sent for by the king to entertain the new
married couple, with their friends and followers; but he making an
excuse that his house was too little to receive them, it was not
accepted, but word sent back that he might command the biggest hall
in the town."—Chamberlain to Carleton, 5 Jan.—"Court and Times of
James I," i, 288.
187 Repertory 31, pt. ii, fos. 235, 239b. The minutes of the Court of
Aldermen relative to the proposed entertainment are printed in
Nichols, "Progresses of James I," ii, 731.
188 £671 4_s._ 3_d._ was the exact sum disbursed by the chamberlain on
account of the entertainment.—Repertory 31, pt. ii, fo. 243b.
189 Repertory 31, pt. ii, fo. 235.
190 Nichols, "Progresses of James I," vol. ii, p. 726.
M75 The "addled parliament," 1614.
191 "Our aldermen have new privy seals for £200 apiece before their old
money be paid."—Chamberlain to Carleton, 10 June, 1613.—"Court and
Times of James I," i, 244; _Cf._ Cal. State Papers Dom. (1611-1618),
p. 186.
192 "This Meeting or Assembly is to be held a blank parliament, or
rather a parley, not leaving so much as the name of a session, but
(as the words went) ’_Parliamentum inchoatum_.’"—Chamberlain to
Carleton, 9 Jan.—"Court and Times," i, 322.
M76 A City loan of £100,000 declined, July, 1614.
193 Chamberlain to Carleton, 30 June, 1614.—"Court and Times," i, 328;
Cal. State Papers Dom. (1611-1618), p. 239; Remembrancia, iii, 152
(Index, p. 190).
194 The same to the same. 7 July, 1614.—Cal. State Papers Dom.,
(1611-1618), p. 242; City’s Records, Letter Book EE, fo. 244.
M77 Sheriffs’ fines.
195 Repertory 31, pt. ii, fos. 348b, 362, 362b, 369b, 422; Repertory 32,
fos. 104b-139b, _passim_; Letter Book EE, fo. 240b.
M78 Peter Proby, sheriff and ex-barber.
196 "On Tuesday last he [Sir Arthur Ingram] was chosen sheriff of
London, but hath procured the king’s letters to be discharged. They
have chosen two or three more, both before and since, and none of
them hold. Some say it is because they will not be matched with
Peter Proby, who, from being some time secretary Walsingham’s
barber, was lately chosen alderman, and contrary to expectations
took it upon him; which troubles them all, for he is a shrewd
nimble-witted fellow."—Chamberlain to Alice Carleton, 30 June,
1614.—"Court and Times of James I." i, 330; Cal. State Papers Dom.
(1611-1618), p. 240.
197 Journal 30, fo. 60.
M79 The city’s trained bands, 1614-1618.
198 Journal 29, fo. 237b.
199 Journal 29, fos. 239b _seq._
200 Id., fols. 242b-244.
M80 The trained band divided into four regiments, 1616.
201 Journal 29, fos. 329, 349b.
202 Letter dated 17 March, 1616.—Journal 30, fo. 47b; Letter Book FF,
fo. 147b.
M81 Letter from the lords of the council, 24 April, 1616.
203 24 April. The letter was read to the Common Council the 24th
May.—Journal 30, fo. 60.
M82 A muster in Finsbury Fields, 6 Aug., 1616.
204 Journal 30, fos. 74b, 89.
M83 Commission of lieutenancy granted to the City, 30 April, 1617.
205 Commission, dated 30 April, 1617.—Journal 30, fo. 233.
M84 The commission withdrawn, May, 1618.
206 Journal 30, fos. 374b, 375.
207 Id., fo. 376.
M85 The old Company of Merchant Adventurers suppressed, 21 Feb., 1615.
12 Aug., 1617.
208 By proclamation, dated 23 July, 1614.—Cal. State Papers Dom.
(1611-1618), p. 247.
209 By proclamation, dated 12 Aug., 1617.—Cal. State Papers Dom.
(1611-1618), p. 481.
M86 The City consents to a loan of £30,000, July, 1615.
210 13 July, 1615.—Nichols, "Progresses," iii, 95; Cal. State Papers
Dom. (1611-1618), p. 294.
M87 The king entertained at Alderman Cockaine’s house. 8 June, 1616.
211 Chamberlain to Carleton, 8 June, 1616; the same to the same, 22
June.—"Court and Times," i, 411, 412.
M88 Knights of the Bath at Drapers’ Hall, Nov., 1616.
212 Chamberlain to Carleton, 14 Nov., 1616.—"Court and Times," i, 437.
M89 Request for a loan of £100,000, 1617.
213 Letter dated 20th January, 1617.—Journal 30, fo. 159; Letter Book
FF, fo. 250; Remembrancia, viii, 44-90 (Index, p. 198).
214 Cal. State Papers Dom. (1611-1618), p. 428. He contrived, however,
to raise the sum of £60,000 on them in another quarter.—_Id._, p.
447.
M90 Difficulty experienced in raising the money.
215 Chamberlain to Carleton, 15th March.—Cal. State Papers Dom.
(1611-1618), p. 446.
216 Remembrancia, iv, 79 (Index, pp. 190-191).
217 Remembrancia, iv, 81-84 (Index p. 191).
218 Letter dated 28th May. 1617.—Remembrancia, iv, 75 (Index, p. 190).
On the previous 23rd April the Earl of Suffolk, writing to Sir
Thomas Lake, had remarked that the city did not yield quite £80,000,
but that the council would try and obtain the full £100,000.—Cal.
State Papers Dom. (1611-1618), p. 461.
M91 Reception of James on his return from Scotland, Sept., 1617.
219 Journal 30, fo. 228b.
220 Repertory 33, fo. 166b.
221 Nichols, "Progresses," iii, 437. Freeman afterwards became alderman
of Bishopsgate Ward, sheriff in 1623, mayor in 1633.
M92 Letter from lords of council touching king’s inability to repay
loan, 17 March, 1618.
222 Remembrancia, iv, 103.
M93 Death of the queen, March, 1619.
223 Nichols, "Progresses," iii, 534-535.
224 Chamberlain to Carleton, 17th April.—Cal. State Papers Dom.
(1619-1623), p. 37.
225 Sir Gerard Herbert to Carleton, 31st May.—Cal. State Papers Dom.
(1619-1623), p. 49. "A note of the division of the cloth receyved
from the Kings Maties wardrobe for the mourneing garments of the
Lord Maior Aldermen and their followers, at the funerall of the late
Queene Anne, wife to or Soveraigne Lord King James."—Journal 31, fo.
69. The length of cloth amounted to 648-1/2 yards.
M94 Sebastian Hervey and his daughter.
226 Rev. Thomas Lorking to Sir Thomas Puckering, 24 May, 1619.—"Court
and Times," ii, 166-167.
227 Chamberlain to Carleton, 15 July, 1619.—"Court and Times," ii, 182.
228 The same to the same, 31 May.—Nichols, "Progresses," iii. 549.
M95 The commencement of the Thirty Years’ War, 1618.
M96 The Elector applies to the City for assistance, Nov., 1619.
229 Remembrancia. v, 39 (Index, p. 411).
230 Id. v, 58.
231 Id. v, 60.
232 This was mere pretence on the part of James, for Lord Doncaster, who
had been sent abroad in April (1619) to concert measures for a
peaceful settlement, had returned at the opening of the year (1620),
and James had for some weeks been busy investigating the Elector’s
title.—Nichols, "Progresses," iii, 584; Gardiner, "Hist. of England
(1617-1623)," i, 308.
M97 Formal application for a city loan of £100,000, 28 Feb., 1620.
M98 The City agrees to advance the money.
233 Remembrancia, v, 62 (Index, p. 412, where the sum required has been
inadvertently printed as "£10,000").
234 Nethersole to Carleton, 20 Feb.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1619-1623),
p. 124.
235 Gardiner. "Hist. of England (1617-1623)," i, 316. Chamberlain to
Carleton, 20 Mar., 1620.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1619-1623), p. 131.
236 Nethersole to Carleton. 21 Mar.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1619-1623),
p. 132.
237 Remembrancia, v, 65 (Index, p. 412).
238 It has been said that application was in the first instance made to
the companies, but they declined to advance money on so slight a
security as a verbal recommendation from the king.—Gardiner, "Hist.
of England (1617-1623)," i, 316. There is no indication of this,
however, in the City’s Records.
239 Journal 31, fo. 167.
M99 State visit to St. Paul’s, 26 March, 1620.
240 Journal 31, fos. 157-158, 164, 164b; Repertory 34, fos. 377, 379;
Nichols, "Progresses," iv, 593-602.
241 Nethersole to Carleton, 21 March.—Cal. State Papers Dom.
(1619-1623), p. 132.
242 Repertory 34, fo. 389.
M100 James determined to assist the Elector.
243 Writ dated 6 Nov.—Journal 31, fo. 253.
244 Cal. State Papers Dom. (1619-1623), p. 185.
M101 Application to the City for assistance.
245 Remembrancia, v, 89 (Index. pp. 412-413).
246 Sir Clement Edmonds to the lord mayor, 3 Dec., 1620, reminding him
that the lords of the council were awaiting the City’s
reply.—Remembrancia, v, 92 (Index, p. 413).
247 Journal 31, fo. 262b.
248 Repertory 35, fos. 59, 59b.
249 Remembrancia, v, 102, 118 (Index, pp. 413, 414).
250 Repertory 35, fo. 57b. On the 22nd Dec. Chamberlain wrote to
Carleton to the effect that the City thought it hard that, though
their loan of £100,000 was still retained without interest, and a
contribution given to Bohemia, another large loan should be asked;
that the City compromised it by giving £10,000, and would sell plate
and dispense with feasts until it was paid.—Cal. State Papers Dom.
(1619-1623), p. 201.
251 Lords of the council to the mayor, etc., 4 Dec., 1620.—Remembrancia,
v, 94 (Index, p. 413).
252 Petition of Apothecaries’ Company to the king, Oct.,
1621.—Remembrancia, v, 118 (Index, p. 414).
M102 The parliament of 1621.
253 Journal 31, fo. 264.
M103 The citizens and the Spanish ambassador.
254 The Spanish ambassador for the time being often fell foul of the
Londoners. In 1612 his hat with a valuable jewel in it was snatched
off his head amid the jeers of by-standers.—"Court and Times," i,
191, 192. In 1618 an attack was made on his house because one of his
suite had ridden over a child and nearly killed it. A commission sat
at the Guildhall to punish the offenders, but the mayor treated
those who had offered the insult to the ambassador with such
leniency that the king waxed wroth.—_Id._, ii, 81-82, 85, 86.
255 Meddus to Mead, 6 April. [Dr. James Meddus was rector of St.
Gabriel’s, Fenchurch Street.] Mead to Stuteville, 9 April.—"Court
and Times," ii, 245-249. Chamberlain to Carleton, 7 April.—Cal.
State Papers Dom. (1619-1623), p. 244.
256 Repertory 35, fos. 141b, 142.
257 Journal 31, fo. 303.
258 Repertory 35, fo. 142b.
259 Repertory 35, fos. 142b, 143.
M104 Insult offered to the Elector and his wife.
260 "Court and Times," ii, 256; Gardiner, ii, 14.
M105 The City asked to advance £20,000 on security of subsidy, March,
1621.
261 Remembrancia, v, 103 (Index, p. 413).
262 Marginal note to the lord treasurer’s letter.
M106 Joy in the city at the return of Charles from Spain, Oct., 1623.
263 Mead to Stuteville, 29 March, 1623. The writer of this letter
appears to have lost the point of the jest, and ascribes the
circumstance to the pure simplicity of the clergyman, who mistook
the nature of the order.—"Court and Times," ii, 381.
264 Chamberlain to Carleton, 5 April, 1623; Mead to Stuteville, 5 April,
1623.—"Court and Times," ii, 383-385.
265 Journal 32, fo. 222.
266 Chamberlain to Carleton, 11 Oct., 1623.—"Court and Times," ii, 422.
M107 The parliament of 1624.
M108 The French alliance.
M109 Efforts made to raise money in the city, July, 1624.
267 "Court and Times," ii, 463-464.
268 Remembrancia, vi, 125 (Index, pp. 195-196).
M110 Mansfeld in London, Sept., 1624.
M111 Stat. 21, Jas. I, c. 2 (1624), relative to concealed lands.
269 An Act for the general quiet of the subjects against all pretences
of concealment whatsoever.—Stat. 21, James I, c. 2.
270 Remembrancia, iv, 126 (Index, p. 115).
271 Cal. State Papers Dom. (1619-1623), pp. 4-5.
272 Cal. State Papers Dom. (1619-1623), p. 89; Remembrancia, v, 81
(Index, p. 116).
273 Remembrancia, v, 82 (Index, p. 116).
274 The chief objections raised were that the new charter exempted the
citizens from serving at musters outside the city, but it granted
the City forfeitures for treason and estreated recognisances, the
custody of Bethlem and a number of houses intended for the relief of
the poor, etc.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1619-1623), p. 192.
275 Repertory 34, fo. 593; Letter Book GG, fo. 282; Cal. State Papers
Dom. (1619-1623), pp. 177, 189, 192.
276 Journal House of Commons, i, 672, 752, 757.
M112 The City to press 2,000 men for service in the Palatinate, Oct.,
1624.
277 Remembrancia, vi, 67.
278 Remembrancia, vi, 68; Journal 32, fo. 330.
279 Remembrancia, vi, 69.
280 Journal 33, fo. 7.
M113 Mansfeld’s expedition.
281 Chamberlain to Carleton, 9 Oct., 1624.—"Court and Times," ii, 476.
282 The same to the same, 8 Jan., 1625.—"Court and Times," ii, 490; Cal.
State Papers Dom. (1623-1625), p. 441.
283 "There is a warrant for a new press here of 2,000 men, the moiety of
the city and liberties, the other in the out-suburbs" (Letter to
Rev. Joseph Mead, 28 Jan.).—"Court and Times," ii, 492. Letter from
the lords of the council to the mayor, 19 Jan.—Remembrancia, viii,
69 (Index, p. 255).
284 Journal 33, fo. 23b.
M114 A city loan of £60,000 to King Charles, 1625.
285 Journal 33, fo. 85b.
286 Id., fo. 105.
287 Repertory 39, fo. 226b.
288 Journal 37, fos. 367-390b.
289 Repertory 39, fo. 243b.
290 Remembrancia, vi, 78 (Index, p. 194).
M115 Arrival of Henrietta Maria in London, June, 1625.
291 Journal 33, fo. 6.
292 Journal 33, fo. 129; Meddus to Mead, 17 June, 1625.—"Court and Times
of Charles I," i, 29.
M116 The expedition to Cadiz, 1625.
293 Remembrancia (Index, p. 255); Chamberlain to Carleton, 14 May.—Cal.
State Papers Dom. (1624-1626).
294 Remembrancia, viii, 74 (Index, p. 255).
295 Remembrancia, vi, 108 (Index, pp. 251-252).
296 Journal 33, fo. 98b.
M117 The plague of 1625.
297 Journal 33, fo. 130b.
298 Dr. Donne to Sir Thomas Roe, 25 Nov., 1625.—Cal. State Papers Dom.
(1625-1626), p. 158.
299 Mead to Stuteville, 10 Sept., 1625.—"Court and Times," i, 46.
M118 The City called upon to furnish five ships for the defense of the
river, Jan. 1626.
300 Journal 33, fo. 168b.
301 Repertory 40, fo. 38.
302 Journal 33, fos. 159, 162b.
303 Lords of the council to the mayor, 23 Jan., 1626.—Remembrancia, vi,
93 (Index, p. 248). The letter referred to a committee of three
aldermen with instructions to obtain relief from so great a
burden.—Repertory 40, fo. 78b.
304 The mayor and aldermen to the lords of the council, 13 Feb.,
1626.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1625-1626), p. 254; _Cf._
Remembrancia, vi, 95 (Index, pp. 248-9, where the date of the letter
is given as "_circa_ 1625").
M119 The parliament of 1626.
305 Journal 33, fo. 164. "Here be daily proclamations come forth; one
strict enough against papists and recusants, if it may be duly
executed; but it is thought to look forward to the parliament, which
is to begin the 6th of February."—Chamberlain to Carleton, 19 Jan.,
1626.—"Court and Times," i, 72.
306 Mead to Stuteville, 18 Feb.—"Court and Times," i, 81.
307 "Court and Times," i, 111-113.
M120 A demand for a city loan of £100,000 not complied with, Jan., 1626.
308 Remembrancia, vi, 89 (Index, p. 195); Repertory 40, fos. 266b, 272.
309 Repertory 40, fo. 278b. "London has lent the king £25,000 _sic_,
scarce enough to buy a dozen points," wrote a contemporary. Cruse to
Lady Carnsew (July?).—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1625-1626), p. 392.
310 Lords of the council to mayor and aldermen, 6 July.—Remembrancia,
vi, 90 (Index, p. 195).
M121 A demand for 4,000 men and 20 ships, July-Aug., 1626
311 Journal 33, fos. 267b _seq._; Cal. State Papers Dom. (1625-1626), p.
376.
312 Journal 33, fos. 279b _seq._; Remembrancia, vi, 98 (Index, p. 249).
313 Mead to Stuteville, 24 July, 1626.—"Court and Times," i, 130.
314 Journal 33, fo. 280. Letter to Mead, 11 Aug.—"Court and Times," i,
136, 137.
315 Repertory 40, fo. 338b; Journal 33, fo. 280b, 282.
M122 The sum of £18,000 to be raised for fitting out the vessels.
316 Repertory 40, fos. 299b, 300b, 303b.
317 "Court and Times," i, 148, 149, 150, 153, 154; Repertory 40, fos.
400b, 407b; Journal 34, fos. 3b, 16b, 41, 56. As much as £6,000 was
paid out of the chamber in respect of the fleet of twenty ships in
the months of January and February, 1627.—Repertory 41, fos. 90b,
92, 104b, 133b.
M123 Unpopularity of the Duke of Buckingham.
318 Journal 33, fos. 304, 319; Journal 34, fo. 27; Remembrancia, vi, 96,
97 (Index, p. 249). Pory to Mead, 17 Aug., 1626.—"Court and Times,"
i, 141.
M124 The Forced Loan, 1626.
319 Letter to Mead, 6 Oct., 1626.—"Court and Times," i, 154. It was not
until June, 1627, that pressure was brought to bear upon the
citizens themselves to contribute. Beaulieu to Puckering, 20
June.—"Court and Times," i, 244.
320 Journal 33, fo. 318b.
M125 The loan declared illegal.
M126 Ten of the city’s ships to be victualled for a descent on Spain,
Nov., 1626.
321 Journal 34, 19b.
322 Id., fo. 20b.
323 Id., fo. 21.
324 Pennington to Buckingham, 28 Dec, 1626.—Cal. State Papers Dom.
(1625-1626), p. 507.
M127 The City and the Forced Loan, 1627.
325 Remembrancia, vi, 105 (Index, p. 195).
326 Letter to Mead, 30 June, 1627.—"Court and Times," i, 249.
327 Beaulieu to Puckering, 7 Nov.; Letter to Mead, 16 Nov.—"Court and
Times," i, 283, 285.
M128 The expedition to Rochelle, 1627.
328 Remembrancia, vi, 101, 102, 103 (Index, p. 250); Journal 34, fos.
88, 90b; Repertory 41, fos. 189b, 219b; Cal. State Papers Dom.
(1627-1628), p. 238; Letter to Mead, 30 March, 1627.—"Court and
Times," i, 209.
329 Journal 34, fo. 143b; Repertory 41, fo. 311b.
330 Journal 34, fo. 162b.
331 Gardiner, "Hist. of England (1624-1628)," ii, 163.
M129 The Royal Contract, 1627-1628.
332 In April, 1627, when the king’s proposal was first made known to the
Common Council, the amount due to the citizens from Charles exceeded
£200,000.—Journal 34, fo. 80b.
333 Journal 34, fos. 197b-201b.
334 Journal 34, fo. 196.
335 Remembrancia. vi, 144 (Index, p. 196); Cal. State Papers Dom.
(1627-1628), p. 554.
336 This occurred to the master and wardens of the several companies of
Plumbers, Sadlers, Founders, Joiners and Glaziers.—Repertory 42,
fos. 58b, 60, 60b.
337 John Chamberlain, a member of the Drapers’ Company and alderman of
Billingsgate, was fined £300, or double the amount he was originally
called upon to contribute.—Repertory 42, fo. 55b; _Cf._ Mead to
Stuteville, 19 Jan., 1628.—"Court and Times," i, 314.
338 Mead to Stuteville, 12 Jan., 1628.—"Court and Times," i, 311.
M130 £20,000 advanced by the aldermen, Feb., 1628.
339 Repertory 42, fos. 100b-101, 104.
M131 Buckingham and Dr. Lamb.
340 Mead to Stuteville, 21 June.—"Court and Times," i, 364, 365.
341 The same to the same, 29 June.—_Id._, 367, 368.
342 Remembrancia, vi, 150 (Index, p. 455); Letter printed by Rushworth
(Hist. Coll., i, 618).
343 Repertory 42, fo. 213b.
344 Remembrancia, vi, 151 (Index, p. 455).
345 Journal 36, fos. 37, 50, 51, 173-175.
346 The placards are said to have run thus:—"Who rules the kingdom? The
king. Who rules the king? The duke. Who rules the duke? The
devil"—ending with threats of personal violence against the
duke.—Mead to Stuteville, 29 June.—"Court and Times," i, 368.
347 Repertory 42, fo. 217b.
M132 Preparations for another expedition to Rochelle, 1628.
M133 The Duke of Buckingham assassinated 23 Aug., 1628.
348 Remembrancia, vi, 153 (Index, p. 197).
349 Journal 34, fos. 279-280b.
M134 Tonnange and Poundage, 1628.
M135 Dissolution of parliament 10 March, 1629.
350 Proclamation, dated 2 March.—Journal 35, fo. 44b.
M136 Sickness and famine, 1629-1631.
351 Journal 35, fos. 74, 112, 138, 270b.
352 Cal. State Papers Dom. (1629-1631), p. 387.
M137 The birth of Prince Charles, afterwards Charles II, 29 May, 1630.
353 Remembrancia, vii, 40 (Index, p. 419).
354 Journal 35, fo. 205.
355 The precise cost of the cup is given as £1,046 14_s._ 7_d._, and
that of the velvet case as £6 13_s._ 4_d._ There were fees besides,
paid by the City, comprising £20 to the queen’s midwife, £20 to the
prince’s nurse, and a like sum to the prince’s _rockers_!—Repertory
44, fos. 366-366b.
356 Repertory 47, fo. 1.
M138 Loss of the queen’s plate and jewels, 1631.
357 Journal 35, fo. 349.
358 Chamberlain to Carleton, 14 June, 1623.—"Court and Times of James
I," ii, 404.
359 Order of the Council, 12 Nov., 1634.—Cal. State Papers Dom.
(1634-1635), p. 288.
M139 City gifts to king and queen, May-June, 1633.
360 Repertory 47, fo. 226.
361 Id., fos. 273b, 287, 302b.
M140 Christening of the Duke of York, Nov., 1633.
362 Repertory 48, fo. 24.
363 Journal 36, fo. 185b.
M141 Demand for ship money, Oct., 1634.
M142 Search to be made for precedents, Nov., 1634.
364 Repertory 49, fo. 18.
365 Id., fo. 5b.
M143 Petition of Common Council against demand for ships, 2 Dec., 1634.
366 Journal 37, fos. 19-20; Rushworth, ii, 266.
M144 The City forced to submit.
367 Journal 37, fo. 21.
368 Id., fo. 18.
369 The king to the mayor, 19 Oct.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1634-1635),
p. 241; Repertory 48, fo. 464.
370 Remembrancia, vii, 132 (Index, p. 467). According to Dr. Gardiner
("Hist. of England, 1628-1637," ii, 89), the mayor and the city
lawyers were "reprimanded" and "intimidated" by the council, and a
"stormy meeting" of the citizens took place, but nothing of this
appears in the City’s Records.
371 Repertory 49, fos. 50b _seq._
372 Repertory 49, fos. 97b, 106b. The names of these ships were _The
Samson_, _The Freeman_, _The Royal Exchange_, _The William and
Thomas_, and _The Pleiades_.
M145 A fresh writ for ship money, 4 Aug., 1635.
373 Cal. State Papers Dom. (1634-1635), p. 531; _Cf._ Repertory 50, fo.
30.
374 Repertory 49, fo. 289.
375 Minutes by Nicholas, 29 Nov., 1635; Cal. State Papers Dom. (1635),
p. 509.
M146 Richard Chambers and ship money, 1636.
376 The mayor, etc., to the lords of the council, 13 July, 1638.—Cal.
State Papers Dom. (1637-1638), p. 563. Rossingham to Conway, 16
June, 1640.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1640), p. 307. Gardiner, "Hist.
of England (1637-1649)," i, 69.
M147 The City’s forfeiture of its Irish estate, 1635-1638.
377 In September (1635) the city presented a petition to the king at
Hampton Court against the exaction of the fine.—Remembrancia, vii,
155 (Index, pp. 63-64).
378 Journal 37, fo. 202; Remembrancia, vii, 181 (Index, p. 64).
379 Journal 37, fos. 257-258.
380 Id., fos. 288 _seq._, 296b, 307b, 345.
381 Journal 38, fos. 199b, 204; Repertory, 53, fo. 104.
M148 Other grievances of the City.
382 Remembrancia, vii, 171 (Index, p. 421); Journal 37, fo. 121.
M149 Corporation of tradesmen, etc., created, 1636.
383 Remembrancia, vii, 178, 191 (Index, pp. 227-229); Journal 37, fo.
291; Journal 38, fo. 21b; Repertory 50, fos. 191b, 205b.
M150 A third writ for ship money, Oct., 1636.
384 It was laid down that when the good and safety of the kingdom in
general were concerned, and the whole kingdom in danger, the king
might by writ command all his subjects to furnish such ships as he
should think fit.—Remembrancia, vii, 189 (Index, p. 468).
385 Journal 38, fo. 17; Repertory 52, fos. 19b, 83b.
386 Journal 38, fo. 174.
387 Repertory 53, fo. 81.
388 Journal 38, fo. 224b.
M151 Charter of Charles to the City, 18 Oct., 1638.
389 Journal 38, fo. 104.
390 The money was raised (or at least £8,000 of it) by the companies
according to their corn assessment.—_Id._, fo. 163.
M152 Disorders in Scotland, 1639.
391 Remembrancia, viii, 216 (Index, p. 256); Journal 38, fos. 208b-209b,
215.
392 Id., fos. 229, 297.
M153 Demand for a loan of £100,000, June, 1639.
393 The king to the mayor and aldermen, 4 June, 1639.—Cal. State Papers
Dom. (1639), p. 276.
394 Gardiner, "Hist. of England (1637-1649)," i, 239, 240. No mention of
this application for a loan appears in the City’s Records.
M154 The trained bands called out.
395 The king’s warrant, dated 18 Feb., 1639.—Journal 38, fo. 217;
Remembrancia, viii, 220 (Index, p. 538).
396 Journal 38, fo. 224.
397 Order in Council for the reformation of defects and abuses in the
trained bands, 13 Feb., 1639.—Remembrancia, viii, 221 (Index, p.
538).
398 Order in Council. His appointment by the king had been far from
popular in the city, and considerable difficulty was experienced in
finding his pay.—Remembrancia, viii, 210, 213, 222; Journal 38, fos.
212, 284; Journal 39, fo. 12b. Secretary Windebank to the mayor and
aldermen, 10 March, 1636.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1635-1636), p.
286.
M155 The City’s free gift of £10,000, 31 July, 1639.
399 Journal 38, fo. 303.
400 Id., fos. 301-302b.
M156 The "short parliament," 1640.
M157 Attempt to force a city loan of £100,000, April-May, 1640.
401 Henry Montague, Earl of Manchester, who had been the City’s Recorder
from 1603-1616.
402 Rossingham to Conway, 14th April, 1640.—Cal. State Papers Dom.
(1640), pp. 31-32.
M158 Four aldermen committed to prison, 1640.
403 Rushworth, State Trials, 586.
404 Rossingham to Conway, 12 May, 1640.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1640),
p. 155.
M159 Impeachment of Sir Thomas Gardiner, Recorder, 1642.
405 Howell, State Trials, iv, 167-170.
M160 Riot at Lambeth, 11 May, 1640.
406 Remembrancia, viii, 229 (Index, p. 458); Journal 29, fos. 84b, 85.
M161 The aldermen released, 15 May, 1640.
M162 Collection of ship money in the city enforced, June, 1640.
407 The mayor had issued precepts to the aldermen for its collection on
28 Nov., 1639, and 3 Jan., 1640.—Journal 39, fos. 13, 24.
408 Rossingham to Viscount Conway, 16 June.—Cal. State Papers Dom.
(1640), pp. 306, 307.
M163 Demand for a city force of 4,000 men for service in the North, 11
June, 1640.
409 Journal 39, fo. 97.
410 Id., fo. 82b.
M164 Application to the Common Council for a loan of £200,000 renewed, 23
July, 1640.
411 "Hist. of England (1637-1649)," i, 396.
412 No minutes of a court having been held on that day are recorded in
the City’s Journal.
M165 Application to the livery companies for £120,000, Aug., 1640.
413 Rossingham to Conway, 4 Aug., 1640.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1640),
p. 554.
M166 A last effort to obtain a city loan of £200,000, Sept., 1640.
414 Charter (preserved at the Guildhall, Boxes 21 and 30).
415 Cal. State Papers Dom. (1640-1641), p. 94.
416 Journal 39, fos. 137, 137b; Remembrancia, viii, 233; Cal. State
Papers Dom. (1640-1641), p. 101.
417 State Papers Dom., vol. cccclxix, No. 22 (Calendar, 1640-1641), pp.
133-134.
418 The king to the mayor, etc., 8 Oct.—Remembrancia, viii, 232 (Index,
p. 256).
419 Notes by Sec. Windebank, 7 and 9 Oct.—Cal. State Papers Dom.
(1640-1641), pp. 146, 151.
M167 Edmund Wright elected mayor _loco_ Garway, 29 Sept., 1640.
420 Journal 39, fo. 138b.
421 Windebank to the king, 6 Oct., 1640.—Clarendon State Papers, ii,
128. See also Notes by Windebank, 30 Sept.—Cal. State Papers Dom.
(1640-1641), p. 115.
M168 The loan reduced to £50,000.
422 Vane to Windebank, 13 Oct.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1640-1641), p.
167.
423 Windebank to the king, 14 Oct.—Clarendon State Papers, ii, 129-131.
Notes by Windebank.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1640-1641), p. 170.
M169 The Treaty of Ripon, 21 Oct., 1640.
M170 Meeting of the Long Parliament, 3 Nov., 1640.
M171 Speaker Lenthall.
424 Between 1631, the year of Finch’s death, and 1635, when Gardiner was
elected Recorder, there had been three other Recorders, viz., Edward
Littleton, Robert Mason and Henry Calthorp, not one of whom sat in
parliament for the city.
M172 The City and the Earl of Strafford.
425 On the 3rd November the mayor issued his precept for steps to be
taken to prevent further mischief.—Journal 39, fo. 143.
M173 Necessity of raising money, Nov., 1640.
426 Gardiner, "Hist. of England (1637-1649)," ii, 22, 23.
427 Journal House of Commons, 2 Dec., ii, 43; Repertory 55, fo. 21.
428 7 Jan., 1641.—Journal 39, fo. 162.
M174 Alleged Popish plot, Nov., 1640.
429 "Proclamation ordering Popish recusants to repair to their homes,
and not to come to court or within ten miles of London without
special licence, 11 Nov., 1640.—Journal 39, fo. 147.
M175 Impeachment of Archbishop Laud, Dec., 1640.
430 "Hist. of the Rebellion" (ed. 1839), pp. 85, 86.
431 Journal House of Commons, ii, 49.
M176 The Scottish commissioners in the city.
432 Clarendon, "Hist. of the Rebellion," p. 81.
M177 City loan of £60,000, Jan., 1641.
M178 Reprieve of Goodman, 22 Jan., 1641.
M179 Excitement in the city.
433 Journal House of Commons, ii, 71.
434 Journal 39, fo. 167.
435 "These sessions a priest was condemned at Newgate whom the king
reprieved, whereupon the city absolutely refused to send in their
moneys. The issue of it will be that in a day or two the man will be
hanged and we shall have our money." Uvedale to Bradley, 25 Jan.,
1641.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1637-1649), p. 432.
436 Journal 39, fo. 167b.
M180 Letters from Lenthall to the City touching the loan of £60,000, 6
and 19 Feb., 1641.
437 Journal 39, fo. 167.
438 Id., fo. 180.
439 "I think now we shall proceed clearly and speedily for moneys."
Uvedale to Bradley, 16 Feb., 1641.—Cal. State Papers Dom.
(1640-1641), p. 462.
440 Journal House of Commons, ii, 88.
441 Repertory 55, fo. 86.
M181 Trial and execution of Strafford, March-May, 1641.
442 Journal 39, fo. 185b.
443 Journal House of Commons, ii, 118, 125.
444 Rushworth, iv, 233, 234.
M182 The City stops the loan until justice is executed on Strafford, May,
1641.
445 Uvedale to Bradley, 3 May.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1640-1641), p.
569. The day after Strafford’s execution the Court of Aldermen
intimated their readiness to pay over £80,000, part of £120,000
promised by the City, to Sir William Uvedale and the Earl of
Warwick.—Repertory 55, fo. 136.
M183 The "Protestation" accepted by the City, May, 1641.
446 Journal House of Commons, ii, 132.
447 Repertory 55, fo. 133.
448 Journal 39, fo. 203b; Journal 40, fo. 2b.
M184 Establishment of a poll tax for disbanding the armies, July, 1641.
449 "A proclamacon for the speedy payment of the moneys assessed by
parlyament for disbanding the armies," 6 July, 1641.—Journal 39, fo.
213.
450 Journal 39, fo. 216.
M185 The "friendly assistance," July, 1641.
451 Journal House of Commons, ii, 78.
452 Journal 39, fo. 218. "The Scots are now put to a push, for the city
within these two days, besides the poll money, have advanced £40,000
to send them away, and to disband both armies" (Wiseman to
Pennington, 29 July, 1641). "This day London pays £40,000" (Bere to
the same, 29 July).—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1641-1643), p. 62.
453 Wiseman to Sir John Pennington, 29 July.—Cal. State Papers Dom.
(1641-1643), p. 62; Journal House of Commons, ii, 229.
454 "The poll money comes in cheerfully and so fast in Guildhall that
they want tellers to receive it" Smith to Pennington, 6 Aug.—Cal.
State Papers Dom. (1641-1643), p. 76.
M186 The queen mother in England.
455 Journal House of Commons, ii, 231.
456 Repertory 52, fo. 293; Journal 38, fos. 164, 164b.
457 Repertory 53, fo. 3b; Journal 38, fo. 173.
M187 The king sets out for Scotland, 10 Aug., 1641.
458 Journal House of Commons, ii, 246.
M188 Adjournment of the Houses, 8 Sept.
M189 A day of public thanksgiving, 7 Sept.
459 Journal 39, fos. 202, 229.
460 Journal 39, fo. 221b; Journal House of Commons, ii, 276.
M190 Judgment of Star Chamber _re_ the City’s Irish estate reversed, 26
Aug., 1641.
461 Journal 39, fos. 164-166b.
462 26 Aug.—Journal 40, fo. 6b; Journal House of Commons, ii, 272.
M191 Disbanded soldiers in the city, Sept.-Oct., 1641.
463 Journal 39, fo. 236.
464 Journal 39, fos. 237b, 238. Return of the mayor to the council
touching the steps he had taken for ridding the city of loose and
disorderly persons, sending home disbanded soldiers, and shutting up
infected houses. 20 Oct.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1641-1643), p. 141.
M192 The Irish rebellion of 1641.
M193 The City asked for a loan of £50,000, 2 Nov., 1641.
465 Journal 39, 240.
466 Before the end of December nearly the whole amount had been paid to
the order of the Commons.—Journal 39, fo. 262; Repertory 55, fos.
223, 230b, 231b, 333, 351, 351b.
M194 The City declares against the Catholic lords and the bishops, 12
Nov., 1641.
467 Journal House of Commons, ii, 314. As regards protections, the
Common Council had drafted a petition to the House in the preceding
May.—Journal 40, fo. 3.
M195 Charles entertained in the city, 25 Nov., 1641.
468 "Hist. of England (1637-1649)," ii, 316.
469 Repertory 55, fo. 227.
470 Journal 39, fo. 243b.
471 Journal 40, fo. 8. "Preparations for the king’s reception. He is to
dine at Guildhall and be escorted thence by the city companies to
Whitehall. I am glad we are thus dutiful; it makes the sectaries
look about them, and the consideration of his majesty having the
love of the able citizens will certainly conduce much to settle his
affairs" Wiseman to Sir John Pennington, 18 Nov.—Cal. State Papers
Dom. (1641-1643), p. 168.
M196 The Recorder’s speech, 25 Nov.
472 Journal 39, fo. 245b.
473 "This day the city is busy receiving his majesty; all is very
stately and well, but that I am told the present which was spoken of
is wanting" Bere to John Pennington, 25 Nov.—Cal. State Papers Dom.
(1641-1643), p. 178. Again, "They say a great present is to be
presented to the king after dinner" Slingsby to the same, 25
Nov.—_Ibid._, p. 180.
M197 The king’s reply.
474 Gardiner, "Hist. of England (1637-1649)," ii, 329.
475 "Recommendations submitted to Nicholas suggesting the substance of a
speech to be delivered by the king on his public reception in the
city of London on his return from Scotland."—Cal. State Papers Dom.
(1641-1643), p. 177.
476 Journal 40, fos. 9, 9b.
M198 Honours for the Mayor, Sheriffs and five aldermen.
477 The Recorder signified the fact to the Common Council on the 30
Nov.—Journal 40, fo. 9.
478 Maitland (i, 345, 346) gives their names:—Cordell (Queenhithe),
Soame (Cheap), Gayer (Aldgate), Gerrard (Candlewick), and Wollaston
(Farringdon Without). Both the sheriffs happened to be aldermen,
viz., George Garrett of Castle Baynard and George Clarke of Bridge
Ward.
M199 Measures prepared for restoration of Irish estate, 30 Nov., 1641.
M200 A London mob at Westminster, Nov., 1641.
479 Journal 39, fo. 253b.
M201 The character of the mob.
480 Wiseman to Pennington, 9 Dec.—Cal. State Papers Dom. (1641-1643), p.
192.
M202 Petition to the House, 11 Dec., 1641.
481 Slingsby to Pennington, 16 Dec., 1641.—Cal. State Papers Dom.
(1641-1643), p. 202.
482 Maitland, i, 349-350.
483 Journal House of Commons, ii, 350.
M203 The new Common Council, 21 Oct., 1641.
484 The returns of elections to the Common Council are not entered on
the City’s Records. Considerable irregularities appear to have been
practised at this election.—Journal 40, fos. 21-22b.
M204 Fresh riot at Westminster, 27 Dec., 1641.
M205 The trained bands called out, 28 Dec.
485 Bere to Pennington, 30 Dec., 1641.—Cal. State Papers Dom.
(1641-1643), p. 216.