CHAPTER XXII.

[pg 132]CHAPTER XXII.Meeting of the Long Parliament, 3 Nov., 1640.Speaker Lenthall.Parliament—the Long Parliament—met as promised on the 3rd November, 1640. Charles had intended to nominate Sir Thomas Gardiner, the Recorder, a devoted adherent of the Crown, as Speaker of the Commons; but since the days of Heneage Finch the City had failed to return its Recorder to parliament.424Charles was therefore obliged to look elsewhere. His choice fell upon William Lenthall, who was the first to realise the position of a Speaker in times of political controversy, and who throughout his career acted up to his famous dictum, that "he had neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak, save as the House was pleased to direct him."The City and the Earl of Strafford.As soon as parliament met, Strafford, who was only too conscious of his impending fate, determined to take the bull by the horns, and to use every means to induce the king to anticipate the blow by boldly accusing the parliamentary leaders of treasonable designs. His efforts were futile. Rightly or wrongly, it was generally believed that he intended to establish a military despotism in England, and that London was to be brought into subjection. The way in which it was all to be effected was even described by Cradock, one[pg 133]of the city members, in a speech he made to the House. It is certain that the citizens regarded him as a deadly foe. They had not forgotten the advice he gave to Charles respecting the aldermen, nor his attempt to ruin their trade by depreciation of the coinage. For weeks past the city had been in a disordered state. On the 22nd October, the mob having forced its way into the Court of High Commission, some of the offenders were brought before the mayor and aldermen sitting on a commission of Oyer and Terminer; but the grand jury refused to find a true bill. These abortive proceedings were followed by a riot at St. Paul's.425Before the House had been in session a fortnight Strafford was ordered into custody.Necessity of raising money, Nov., 1640.The £50,000 which the City had advanced went but a little way towards meeting the king's necessities. The two armies in the north had to be paid, and there was not the wherewithal to pay them. The City was ready to lend a further sum of £25,000, on condition that the Londonderry estate was restored, the garrison in the Tower removed and the ordnance dismounted from its walls. Unless this were done, said Cradock, "such jealousies would possess the city, it would hinder supply."426Parliament agreed to the loan being repaid, as a first charge, out of the £100,000 ordered to be raised for the relief of the army and northern counties;427and the Common Council lost no time in preparing a petition[pg 134]to parliament for the restoration of the Irish lands.428Nor was it only in their corporate capacity that the citizens came forward to render pecuniary assistance to the government. On the 21st November Isaac Pennington, alderman of the ward of Bridge Without, and one of the city's representatives in parliament, announced to the House that his constituents had subscribed £21,000 to the loan.Alleged Popish plot, Nov., 1640.The general feeling of distrust that prevailed was heightened by an attack made upon a member of the House who, in his capacity of a justice of peace, had prepared a list of recusants, in pursuance of a recent proclamation.429So great was the alarm among the Commons that Pennington offered the House a guard of three hundred citizens, and at first there was a disposition to accept the alderman's offer, but in course of time better counsel prevailed and the idea was abandoned.Impeachment of Archbishop Laud, Dec., 1640.The tendency of the city towards Puritanism at this time was very marked. On the 28th November Prynne and Burton entered London, and their entry was made one long triumphal procession. This circumstance was specially noted by the royalist writer Clarendon as a remarkable "instance of the unruly and mutinous spirit of the City of London," which he is pleased to term "the sink of all the ill humour of the Kingdom."430A fortnight later (11 Dec.) a petition for church reform and the abolition of episcopacy "root and branch" was presented to[pg 135]parliament, signed by 15,000 Londoners.431The blow was aimed at Laud, who was looked upon as the cause of all the country's trouble. That day week (18 Dec.) the archbishop was impeached.The Scottish commissioners in the city.When the meetings held at Ripon between English and Scottish commissioners for the purpose of negotiating a treaty ceased (Oct. 1640), it was on the understanding that they were to be resumed in London. The Scottish commissioners accordingly came south, and were lodged in the city in a house adjacent to the church of St. Antholin, where they were visited by a large concourse of citizens and magnificently entertained.432It was with no little satisfaction that the success of the Scots had been watched by the majority of the inhabitants of the city, and now that the northern commissioners were in their midst the citizens took the opportunity of showing them substantial marks of favour.City loan of £60,000, Jan., 1641.Reprieve of Goodman, 22 Jan., 1641.Excitement in the city.On the 12th January, 1641, the Scottish demands were formally submitted to parliament, but they were not taken into consideration until the 22nd. After much debate it was agreed in general terms that a "friendly assistance" should be given, leaving the amount and the manner of collection for future consideration.433In the meantime the Speaker, Lenthall, had written (15 Jan.) to the mayor directing him to summon a Common Hall for the purpose of raising a loan of £60,000 required for the army, and the Common Council had agreed (18 Jan.) that the amount should be collected from the wards.434But[pg 136]before this could be accomplished an incident occurred which threatened to jeopardise the loan. This was the reprieve of John Goodman, a Roman Catholic priest, who had been condemned to death. The morning after parliament had agreed to raise money for the Scottish commissioners alderman Pennington rose in the House and declared that, in consequence of Goodman's reprieve and other suspicious circumstances, the City had resolved to lend nothing.435The Lords as well as the Commons followed the initiative of the alderman and made a joint demand for the execution of the condemned priest. As he had often done before, Charles again threw over the Catholics. He announced his intention not to allow the increase of Popery or superstition in the country; he would forthwith issue a proclamation commanding Jesuits and priests to leave the kingdom within a month, and he was willing to submit the case of Goodman to the decision of both Houses.436Fortunately for Goodman, the City and the Commons had higher game to fly at in Strafford, and the humbler priest was allowed to remain unmolested in prison.Letters from Lenthall to the City touching the loan of £60,000, 6 and 19 Feb., 1641.On the 6th February the Speaker addressed a second letter to the mayor to the effect that the money was required sooner than it could be collected by way of subsidies, as formerly suggested to his lordship, and that consequently the House had directed him to take steps for having £60,000 raised[pg 137]by subscription and paid into the Chamber of London, to be at the disposal of parliament.437The money not coming in so speedily as was desired, the Speaker wrote a third time (19 Feb.) to the mayor, directing him to summon a Common Hall and to lay before it the extreme urgency of affairs.438The chief cause of the delay in getting in the money was the dissatisfaction felt in the city at Strafford's trial being put off so long. The 17th February being at last fixed for his trial, there was some hope that the money would speedily now be forthcoming,439and the same day the Commons commissioned Sir William Uvedale to go to the lord mayor and get an order for receiving the money that had been collected up to £50,000.440Three days later the Court of Aldermen made out the necessary order for the Chamberlain to pay over the money.441Trial and execution of Strafford, March-May, 1641.Again there was delay in bringing Strafford to trial, and it was not until the 22nd March that he was arraigned in Westminster Hall, where alone room could be found for the crowds that were anxious to witness the proceedings. The mayor took steps to prevent a rush of people to Westminster and to suppress any riot that might arise. From five o'clock in the morning until nine at night a double watch was kept at the city's gates and landing stages on the river. The trained bands were held in readiness, whilst servants and apprentices were ordered to keep indoors.442At the end of three weeks a Bill of Attainder[pg 138]was brought in and read a first time (10 April), and on the 21st April it was read a third time and passed.443The Lords would willingly have let matters rest here, but the discovery of a design entertained by the queen of bringing the defeated English army from the north to Westminster to overawe the parliament, and likewise of an attempt made by Charles to get possession of the Tower that he might liberate Strafford by force, hurried the unfortunate earl's end. The citizens were determined not to rest until his head was off his shoulders, and 20,000 Londoners signed a petition addressed to both Houses (24 April) demanding his execution on the ground that he had advised the plundering of the city and putting it to fine and ransom.444The Peers deemed it advisable to give way. They passed the Bill of Attainder and on the 12th May Strafford was beheaded.The City stops the loan until justice is executed on Strafford, May, 1641.The Lords had another pressing reason for giving way, for until the citizens were assured that the full penalty of the law would be executed on Strafford they determined to stop payment of the loan. Writing to Matthew Bradley on the 3rd May, the treasurer of the army tells him "a strange story." "There is," he says, "money ready in the city, but none will be delivered until justice be done upon my lord of Strafford."445On that very day, the letter continues, there had been a crowd of 10,000 well-to-do persons at Westminster—"citizens of very good account, some[pg 139]worth £30,000, some £40,000" demanding justice against Strafford and threatening to send their servants the next day unless justice were speedily executed. "Truly these unsettled times do much trouble me."The "Protestation" accepted by the City, May, 1641.The discovery of the so-called "army plot" had in the meanwhile led to a preamble being drawn up to a document known as the "Protestation," or declaration in favour of the reformed religion, in which the danger from the army was for the first time clearly mentioned. The Protestation passed the Commons on the 3rd May,446and on the following day received the assent of the House of Lords. On the 11th May a printed copy of this document was introduced into the Court of Aldermen, when it received the willing assent not only of the aldermen present, but also of the Town Clerk and the City Remembrancer.447On the 29th it was accepted by the Common Council, and two days later the mayor issued his precept for a house-to-house visitation to be made in every ward for the purpose of getting all the inhabitants of the city to give in their adherence to it.448Establishment of a poll tax for disbanding the armies, July, 1641.Although the execution of Strafford somewhat allayed the nation's fears of having "two armies brought into the bowels of the kingdom," they were soon revived by a second army plot. The armies thus became a constant source of danger as well as expense, and it was determined to disband them. Charles could not withhold his assent, and a poll tax was established for the purpose of raising the[pg 140]necessary funds. This was in July (1641).449The masters and wardens of the livery companies were forthwith called upon to make a return in writing of the names of every person who had been and then was master and warden of each company; the names of all the livery, yeomanry and freemen of each company, noting in the margin of the return those who had ever been fined for alderman or sheriff, and the parish and ward in which each individual member of the company resided. Every alderman was likewise instructed to make a return of the names of his deputy and common councilmen of his ward; the names of every merchant-stranger that kept house there, every English merchant and factor, and every popish recusant; and finally the names of everyone in the ward above the age of sixteen years not otherwise rated.450The "friendly assistance," July, 1641.On the 3rd February the House had come to a resolution that the sum of £300,000 might justly be appointed as a "friendly assistance and relief" for the Scots. The manner in which it was to be raised was left for further consideration.451It was now arranged that £80,000 of that sum should be at once paid over to them, and that on August the 25th they should cross the Tweed. The City was called upon to find £40,000—or one-half of the amount immediately required—by Wednesday, the 28th July.452[pg 141]By order of the House of Commons (29 July) it was to be repaid with interest out of the poll money when levied.453So eager were the citizens to contribute towards the work of ridding the country of the Scottish forces before Charles should have an opportunity of using his powers of persuasion upon them that there was a difficulty in getting a sufficient number of tellers to receive it.454The queen mother in England.In addition to this heavy drain upon their resources, the citizens were called upon by the House of Commons (31 July) to forthwith pay the sum of £3,000 which they had undertaken to advance, upon the public faith of the House, towards "the furnishing of the queen-mother of France in her journey out of the kingdom."455Ever since October, 1638, Mary de Medicis had resided at St. James's Palace, and had caused no little discontent by her intermeddling in the affairs of the country and the favour she displayed towards Catholics. On her first arrival in London the citizens had accorded her a hearty welcome.456The acknowledgment that Charles subsequently made of his gratification at the City's action on this occasion was rendered somewhat ungracious by his requesting that a gift of the value of £1,000, "or thereabouts," should be made to the queen-mother in further demonstration of the City's love. After communicating with the Common Council the Court of[pg 142]Aldermen agreed to present her with a cup of the value of £800, "or thereabouts."457The king sets out for Scotland, 10 Aug., 1641.Charles had determined to set out for Scotland on Monday, the 9th August, in spite of every effort to get him to postpone his journey. So great indeed was the fear of danger likely to be incurred if he carried out his intention at this juncture that the House of Commons determined to sit on Sunday to contrive measures for avoiding the threatened risk—a proceeding which they publicly declared they would never have adopted, "but upon inevitable necessity, the peace and safety both of Church and State being so deeply concerned."458In answer to a fresh appeal Charles consented to put off his journey for one day, and on Tuesday (10 Aug.)—the day on which the treaty with the Scots was finished and the queen-mother left England—he set out for Scotland.Adjournment of the Houses, 8 Sept.A day of public thanksgiving, 7 Sept.On the 28th August, when all danger in the north appeared to have passed away and Charles had visited both armies without appealing to them for assistance, parliament decided to adjourn from the 8th September until the 20th October. The Commons were in need of rest after the excitement of the session, and the necessity for an adjournment was increased by another visitation of the plague,459which had already driven many members home without leave. The day preceding the adjournment was appointed to be kept as a day of thanksgiving for the peace; and, pursuant to an order of both Houses, the mayor issued his precept for shops to be closed and for the inhabitants of the[pg 143]city to attend divine service, after which bells were to be rung and bonfires lighted.460Judgment of Star Chamberrethe City's Irish estate reversed, 26 Aug., 1641.Before the Commons separated they delivered (26 Aug.) their judgment upon a petition461which the City had prepared for them in January touching its estate in Londonderry, of which it had been deprived in 1635 by sentence of the Court of Star Chamber. That petition set forth the unwillingness of the City to undertake the work of the Ulster plantation. It had only been undertaken at the late king's earnest desire, and subject to special articles, the City absolutely refusing to be bound by the general articles drawn up by his majesty for ordinary undertakers. The Irish Society and the companies had expended more than £130,000 (exclusive of money laid out by tenants) on their estate "in hope to have in the future enjoyed some benefitt of their great cost and charge." The city of Londonderry and the town of Coleraine had been rebuilt, and the castle of Culmore repaired and entrenched. Fifteen churches had been either built or repaired, besides a "very fair" church and free school which had been erected in Derry at a cost of more than £4,000. Roads had been made which had converted one of the most barbarous places in the kingdom into one of the most civilised. The society and the companies, the petition went on to say, had enjoyed this estate without interruption until Hilary Term a° 6 Charles I (1631), when the Attorney-General, Sir Robert Heath, exhibited an information against the mayor, commonalty and citizens of London and divers individuals, suggesting that they had[pg 144]possessed themselves of the said lands and taken the profits before any grant was made to them, and that they had a greater quantity of lands than was intended to be passed by the grant, and had by indirect means procured divers privileges to be inserted in the grant for which the Attorney General who passed the grant had no warrant. Evidence of witnesses had been taken on the matter, but before the cause came to a hearing this information was dropt and another exhibited in Hilary Term a° 8 Charles I (1633) against the petitioners and the Irish Society, in which new charges touching infringement of conditions of Letters Patent were inserted, and upon these pretences the Irish Society was adjudged by sentence of the Court of Star Chamber in Hilary Term a° 10 Charles I (1635) to pay a fine of £70,000 and to lose their estate on the ground that the said Letters Patent had been "unduly and surreptitiously obteyned to the prejudice and deceipt of his majestie." The companies refused to surrender their estates, and divers lands belonging to the City and to the Bridgehouse were seized to satisfy the fine, to the great prejudice of the City. Being otherwise unable to redeem themselves from the penalty of the Star Chamber sentence, the companies were forced to consent to relinquish their Irish estate and all arrears of rent, amounting to £20,000. Ascire faciaswas brought in and judgment allowed by default, whereupon the companies lost their estates, whilst the mayor and commonalty and citizens of London, although not parties to any patent or plantation—having done no more than lend their name for the better transaction of the business and for the purpose of raising money for the plantation,[pg 145]which otherwise could never have been effected—were fined £70,000. Seeing that the matter reflected so badly upon the justice of the late as well as the present king, the petitioners humbly prayed that a full investigation of the whole proceedings might be made and justice done.Such was the nature of the petition which the Common Council ordered in January (1641) to be submitted to parliament. The House had its hands too full to pay much attention to the City's grievance until recently; but now, within a fortnight of their adjournment for a well-earned rest, the Commons declared462the sentence in the Star Chamber to have been unlawful and unjust. They declared that, in the opinion of the House, the citizens of London had been solicited and pressed to undertake the plantation of Londonderry, that the king had not been deceived in the grant to the new corporation of the Irish Society, that no breach of covenant (if any there were) had been committed sufficient to cause a forfeiture of the lands, that the Star Chamber proceedings wereultra vires, and that the citizens of London and all those against whom judgment had been given in thescire faciasshould be discharged of that judgment and reinstated as they were before the sentence in the Star Chamber.Disbanded soldiers in the city, Sept.-Oct., 1641.Before the Houses again met, Richard Gurney, a man of the same royalist proclivity as Garway, and on that account, perhaps, described by Clarendon as "a man of wisdom and courage," had been elected mayor in succession to Edmund Wright.463The last[pg 146]days of Wright's mayoralty were days of sickness and tumult in the city. Numbers of disbanded soldiers from the north had made their way to London, where they carried on a system of rapine and outrage. The mayor issued precepts for search to be made in every ward for suspected persons and disbanded soldiers, as well as for keeping the streets well lighted at night by candle and lanthorn, whilst public proclamation was made by the king for soldiers to repair to their own homes.464The Irish rebellion of 1641.Shortly after the House of Commons had resumed its session attention was again drawn towards Ireland, where a rebellion had broken out. Seeing how successful Scotland had been in its resistance to England, the Irish had determined to strike a blow for the recovery of lands handed over to Protestant colonists, as well as for religious liberty. Charles himself had held out hopes of greater freedom to the Irish Catholics, who saw no reason why they should be worse treated than the rebellious Puritans of Scotland. The scene of massacre and cruelty which followed has been described by others, and remains to this day (in the words of Carlyle) "a huge blot, an indiscriminate blackness, one which the human memory cannot willingly charge itself with."The City asked for a loan of £50,000, 2 Nov., 1641.As soon as news of the outbreak reached parliament, application was forthwith made to the City for assistance. On the 3rd November lord mayor Gurney issued his precept465to the aldermen informing[pg 147]them that on the previous day divers lords and others of both Houses of Parliament had come to the Common Council and asked for a loan of £50,000 at eight per cent. Seeing that the matter was of so great importance, each alderman was desired to take steps in conjunction with his deputy and common councilmen of his ward to get liberal contributions made towards the loan.466The City declares against the Catholic lords and the bishops, 12 Nov., 1641.The attitude of the City now became more marked. Whilst consenting to find the money required, it asked parliament that the persons of the Catholic lords might be secured, and that the bishops, who were the cause of every good measure being defeated in the Upper House, might be deprived of their votes. It had a minor grievance in the custom that had arisen of members of both Houses granting their servants "protections" against creditors, a procedure extremely prejudicial to the city merchant and tradesman, and one which they would willingly see remedied.467Charles entertained in the city, 25 Nov., 1641.The City's declaration against the bishops, which Dr. Gardiner468characterises as being "the turning point in the struggle," augured badly for Charles. Nevertheless, he had friends in the city. The new mayor was a strong royalist, as also were the majority of the aldermen, and they took the opportunity of Charles paying his first visit to the city[pg 148](25 Nov.) since he ascended the throne to demonstrate their loyalty. On the 17th the Court of Aldermen appointed a committee to make the necessary arrangements,469whilst the mayor issued his precept the same day to the civic companies to prepare a certain number of their livery, well horsed and apparelled, to assist him in escorting the king and queen from the church of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, to the Guildhall on the morning of the eventful day, and thence, after the banquet, to Whitehall.470The Common Council agreed that the cost of the entertainment at the Guildhall should be defrayed by the Chamber.471The Recorder's speech, 25 Nov.On the king's approaching the northern suburbs of the city, whither the mayor and citizens had gone to meet him,472he was welcomed by the Recorder. There was some talk of presenting the king with a gift either of money or plate,473but the proposal fell through. "We tender to you," said Sir Thomas Gardiner, "no formal present; it would but lessen us; I am sure whatever it were it would be far short of our meaning."The king's reply.It was of the utmost importance to Charles to win over the city to his side if he could—"The loans[pg 149]of the London citizens alone had made it possible for the House of Commons to disband the armies; and without the loans of the London citizens the House would find it impossible to provide for a campaign in Ireland," and thus place itself in a position of military supremacy.474Accordingly, in a speech carefully prepared beforehand,475he expressed his gratification at finding that the better class of citizens were still loyal. "I see," said he, "that all those former tumults and disorders have only risen from the meaner sort of people, and that the affections of the better and main part of the city have ever been loyal and affectionate to my person and government." He proceeded to assure his hearers of his determination to maintain the true Protestant religion as established by Elizabeth and James, and he hoped with the assistance of parliament to re-establish the trade of the country. But what pleased the citizens perhaps more than anything was a promise he made to restore to them their Londonderry estate—at that moment in the hands of the rebels, but soon, he hoped, to be recovered. The Recorder was expressly commanded to wait upon his majesty and see that this promise was punctually performed.476Honours for the Mayor, Sheriffs and five aldermen.By way of further showing his favour Charles knighted both the Mayor and Recorder on the spot. He afterwards expressed his gratification at the[pg 150]reception that the City had accorded him,477and conferred knighthoods upon both of the sheriffs and five of the aldermen.478Measures prepared for restoration of Irish estate, 30 Nov., 1641.The Common Council took Charles at his word and lost no time in appointing a committee for the purpose of introducing a Bill in parliament for the recovery of the city's Irish estate. The Recorder had pointed out (20 Nov.) to the court that the "corporation" (i.e.the Irish society) had been dissolved, and it behoved them to consider in whose names the Irish estate should be vested, whether in the name of the mayor and commonalty of London or a "select company."A London mob at Westminster, Nov., 1641.The disaffected element in the city, which had voluntarily kept itself in the background, or had been suppressed by force on the day of the king's visit, again came to the surface as soon as the duties of hospitality had been executed. Once more a crowd gathered (29 Nov.) at Westminster, shouting "No bishops!" encouraged (it was said) by John Venn, a merchant taylor, who had succeeded Cradock, on the latter's decease, as one of the city's representatives in parliament. On the 10th December the mayor, acting under orders from the king, issued his precept to the aldermen to see that apprentices and servants were kept within doors and not allowed to go abroad to make tumult and hold unlawful meetings.479[pg 151]The character of the mob.A difference of opinion existed as to the representative character of those who had thus threatened parliament. "You much mistake," wrote Thomas Wiseman to Sir John Pennington ten days after the riot had taken place, "if you think those seditious meetings of sectaries and others ill affected, who have lately been at the parliament-house to cry for justice against the delinquent bishops, are the representative body of the city—they are not, but the representative body is the lord mayor, aldermen and Common Council, who gave the entertainment to the king and will stick to him and live and die in his service."480Petition to the House, 11 Dec., 1641.In order to dispel all doubts as to the respectability of the agitators they determined to present a formal petition to parliament for the removal of the bishops, and to do the thing in style. "Accoutred in the best manner they could," they rode to Westminster in coaches, "to prevent the aspersion that they were of the basest sort of people only which were that way affected."481They declared that the petition was signed by over 20,000 well-to-do citizens, including aldermen and members of the Common Council, and that many more signatures might have been obtained but for the obstruction of divers "ill-affected persons."482When the Commons came to inquire (20 Dec.) who these ill-affected persons were, it was found that the Mayor and the Recorder were the chief. The former was declared to have said that the petition had found[pg 152]favour only with ignorant or idle people, who did not realise the danger they were in, and that the petition "tended to mutiny." On hearing that part of the petition which stated that it was the wish of the "representative body" of the city to have the bishops removed, the Recorder lost all control over himself, and swore it was a lie. The petition, he said, tended to sedition, and to set men together by the ears. So far from tending to peace it was, he declared, "for blood and cutting of throats; and if it came to cutting of throats, thank yourselves; and your blood be upon your own heads."483The new Common Council, 21 Oct., 1641.The following day was the Feast of St. Thomas (21 Dec.), the day on which the members of the Common Council go out of office and present themselves to their constituents for re-election. The result of the elections turned out to be largely in favour of the Puritan opposition. The new Common Council, like the House of Commons, would support "King Pym" and his policy; whilst the more aristocratic Court of Aldermen would side with Charles and the House of Lords.484It cannot be doubted that the new council was more truly representative of the inhabitants of the city, and better able to give expression to their wishes than the last. There was only wanting a popular lord mayor. He was to come.Fresh riot at Westminster, 27 Dec., 1641.The trained bands called out, 28 Dec.The tardy and unsatisfactory reply Charles gave to the remonstrance—the "Grand Remonstrance of[pg 153]the state of the Church and Kingdom" presented to him at Hampton Court on the 1st December—and his appointment of Colonel Lunsford, a debauched ruffian, as lieutenant of the Tower, in place of Balfour, who was a favourite with the city, increased the exasperation against him, and the mayor was obliged to inform him (26 Dec.) that unless Lunsford was removed he could not answer for the peace of the city. This representation by Gurney had the desired effect, and Lunsford was removed that night.485Before his removal became generally known another riot broke out at Westminster (27 Dec.) between London apprentices and some officers of the late army, among whom was Lunsford himself. The officers drew their swords and drove the close-cropt apprentices, or "roundheads" as they were jeeringly called, out of Westminster, chasing them up King Street as far as Whitehall. Several of the rioters were hurt, but none killed. For some days the excitement was so great that everyone attending the court at Whitehall wore a sword; and 500 gentlemen of the Inns of Court offered their services to the king.486On the 28th December Charles directed the mayor to call out the trained bands, and to command their officers, "by shooting with bullets or otherwise," to slay and kill such as should persist in tumultuary and seditious ways and disorders.487The Peers were inclined to throw the blame of the disturbance upon the civic authorities, but Pym and[pg 154]the House of Commons refused "to discontent the citizens of London, our surest friends," at such a critical time.488Charles himself took the same view, and sent a letter to the City by the hand of Lord Newburgh, in which he expressed his continued confidence in the loyalty of the city, and ascribed the recent tumults and distempers to "the meane and unruly people of the suburbs." The Common Council in reply caused it to be signified to his majesty that neither that court nor any individual member of it was implicated in the late disorder, which they altogether disavowed and disclaimed.489Having committed this message to Lord Newburgh to carry to the king, the court proceeded to take measures for the better preserving the peace in the several wards of the city.A guard for parliament refused by the king, 3 Jan., 1642.The same day that these measures were being taken for public safety in the city the Commons directed halberds to be brought into the House for their own use in case of a sudden attack, and desired the king to appoint the Earl of Essex captain of the guard. After this they adjourned until the 3rd January, a committee being ordered to sit in the meanwhile at the Guildhall. Upon the re-assembling of the House Charles refused its request for a guard.490The Commons thereupon sent a message to the mayor for the trained bands to be put in readiness "for the safety of the king's person, the city and the commonwealth," and for good and strong watches to be set at all[pg 155]places convenient about the city. The following day Sir Thomas Soame, Alderman Pennington and Captain Venn were despatched to the city to inform the citizens of a new danger which was threatening the Commons.491The arrest of the five members demanded, 3 Jan., 1642.During the short recess Charles had at last made up his mind to a course long premeditated. He determined to seize the parliamentary leaders on a charge of treason, and articles of impeachment were drawn up against Lord Kimbolton, of the House of Peers, and Pym, Hampden, Holles, Hazlerigg and Strode, of the Commons. No sooner had the Commons met than the Sergeant-at-Arms appeared with orders to arrest the five members.492As such action affected the privileges of the House, a committee was appointed to send a reply to the king in due course. Baffled in this direction, the king despatched a message to the lord mayor forbidding him to call out the trained bands at the order of the Commons, but only to raise such a force as might be necessary to put down tumult and disorder.493Gurney was in bed at the time, but he promised to see to it in the morning.494Meeting of the Commons, 4 Jan.When the Commons met the next morning (4 Jan.) they sent up the articles of impeachment to the House of Lords as a scandalous paper. The king in the meantime was taking steps to secure the Tower and the city. He had heard that six pieces of ordnance had been removed from the artillery yard[pg 156]and placed near the Leadenhall, and he wrote to the mayor bidding him see that they were used only for the guard and preservation of the city if need be.495It was these measures that caused the Commons to send Soame, Pennington and Venn to the city to inform the citizens of the impending danger. On the afternoon of the same day Charles himself appeared in the House, to the door of which he had been accompanied by an armed retinue. Taking his stand before the Speaker's chair he professed sorrow for the necessity that had brought him there. Yesterday he had sent, he said, a Sergeant-at-Arms to apprehend certain persons accused of high treason. He had expected obedience and not an answer. Careful as he was and always would be of the privileges of the Commons, they were to know that there was no privilege in matters of treason. Failing himself to discover those whom he sought, he turned to Lenthall and asked him if they were in the House. "Do you see any of them?" The Speaker's reply was singularly apt. "May it please your majesty," said he, falling on his knee before Charles, "I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here." Casting one more glance round the House, and finding that the "birds had flown," the king withdrew amid cries of "Privilege! Privilege!" and the House immediately adjourned.The king at the Guildhall, 5 Jan., 1642.The king could not allow matters to rest here. The next morning, being Wednesday, the 5th January, he set out for the city with a small retinue, and[pg 157]presented himself at the Guildhall when a Court of Common Council was sitting. The city's archives are searched in vain for any record of what took place on that memorable occasion, but we have a vivid account of the scene handed down to us by an eye-witness, Captain Slingsby, who, happening to meet the royal party on its way to the city, turned back and followed it into the precincts of the Council Chamber.496Charles lost no time in coming to the point. He had come, he said, to demand those persons who had been already accused of high treason, and who were believed at that moment to be lurking within the city. He desired to bring them to a trial at law, and depended upon those present for their assistance. He was resolved to redress grievances and to preserve the privileges of parliament, but he must "question these traitors." After justifying the existence of a guard at Whitehall and saying a few friendly words to the aldermen, he invited himself to dinner with one of the sheriffs, choosing the sheriff who was less favourably disposed towards him, viz., sheriff Garrett. The king's speech was followed by an ominous pause. Then a cry, writes Slingsby, was raised in the council, "Parliament! Privileges of parliament!" and presently another, "God bless the king!" These continued for some time, but he professes to be unable to say which of the two was loudest. When silence was restored the king asked that a spokesman should make known to him their wishes. Thereupon a member of the council arose and said, "It is the vote[pg 158]of this court that your majesty hear the advice of your parliament." This statement was at once challenged by another, who cried out, "It is not the vote of this court: it is your own vote." The king replied by asking who it was that charged him with not taking the advice of his parliament, adding that he did take its advice and would continue to do so, but, said he, "I must distinguish between the parliament and some traitors in it," and these, he repeated, "he would bring to trial—to trial." "No privileges could protect a traitor from a trial." With this he turned to leave the Council Chamber. On reaching the outer hall he was again assailed with the cry that had been made to ring in his ears all the way from Whitehall to the city, "The privileges of parliament!" Undaunted he made his way through the mob to dine at Garrett's house, and later in the day, amid the same cries, he returned to Whitehall.The City's petition to the king, 5 Jan., 1642.Relieved of his presence, the Common Council, with great deliberation, agreed on the terms of a petition to be presented to his majesty.497After expressing their regret for the continuation of the rebellion in Ireland, the removal of the lieutenant of the Tower, in whom all had confidence, the steps taken to fortify Whitehall, and the recent disturbances at Westminster, they represented to the king the great increase of the fears of the citizens owing to his attempt to seize the five members, the effect of which was to prejudice the whole trade of the city and the kingdom. They therefore humbly desired him to take steps for the speedy relief of the[pg 159]Protestants in Ireland, to place the Tower in the hands of persons of trust, to remove discredited persons from Whitehall and Westminster, and not to proceed against Lord Kimbolton and the five members of the Commons otherwise than in accordance with the privileges of parliament.The Common Council vote £2,000 for the defence of the city.Having ordered this petition to be engrossed and afterwards to be presented to his majesty, the Common Council proceeded to vote a sum of £2,000 for the purpose of providing a stock of arms and ammunition for the defence of the city in "theis tymes of daungers and feares."Panic in the city, 6 Jan., 1642.Each alderman had already been directed to see that the trained bands, 6,000 strong, were fully equipt without the necessity of borrowing arms from the city halls or elsewhere; a double watch with halberds and muskets was ordered to be kept in each ward by night and day, chains and posts which were in any way defective were to be forthwith made good, and hooks, ladders, buckets, spades, shovels, pickaxes, augers and chisels were to be kept in readiness in case of fire.498Members of the Common Council were forbidden on the 6th January to leave their wards without express permission.499The same night an alarm was raised, and the mayor was asked to call out the trained bands. On his refusal the trained bands dispensed with his authority and turned out on their own account. The panic quickly spread, and every inhabitant, arming himself as best he could, hastened to join them. In course of time the alarm[pg 160]subsided, but the mayor was commanded by an Order in Council (8 Jan.) to investigate the cause of the alarm, and to secure the persons who had taken upon themselves to call out the trained bands.500This Order in Council was immediately met by a resolution of the Grand Committee of the Commons sitting at Grocers' Hall to the effect that the action of the citizens for the defence of parliament had been in accordance with their duty, and that anyone attempting to arrest them for so doing was a public enemy. More than this, the Committee declared that at a time when the king, kingdom and parliament were "in very eminent and apparent danger," it was the duty of the lord mayor, aldermen and Common Council, or the greater number of them, to make use of the trained bands or any other forces of the city for the preservation of the peace.501The king's reply to the City's petition. 8 Jan., 1642.On the same day (8 Jan.) the king's reply to the City's late petition was read before the Common Council.502He had hoped, he said, to have already satisfied most of the objections raised in the petition by his speech to the citizens on the previous Wednesday; nevertheless, he was willing to give a further answer to the several matters objected to, being persuaded that his so doing would be considered the greatest proof that he could offer of his good intention. His answer, however, in whatever terms it was couched, was considered far from satisfactory[pg 161]to the council, and preparations for resisting force by force began to be pushed on.Skippon to command the city's forces, 10 Jan.On Monday, the 10th January, a joint agreement for the future defence of parliament and the city was arrived at by the committee of parliament and a committee appointed by the Common Council.503The trained bands were ordered to their colours and placed under the command of Captain Philip Skippon, as sergeant-major-general of the forces of the city. Eight pieces of ordnance were to accompany the troops, and as many citizens as could supply themselves with horses were to serve on horseback. All this was done for the safety of the "king, parliament and kingdom." With the object of increasing the number of trained bands, the mayor was authorised by the Common Council (19 Jan.) to issue his precept for a return to be made by the alderman of each ward (1) of the number of men in his ward fit to find and bear arms, and (2) the number of men fit to bear arms but unable to find them.504The Common Council agreed to pay Skippon £300 a year for life, if he should so long continue in the city's service.505Guns and ammunition were stored up at the Leadenhall,506and a supply of corn laid in by the livery companies.507Charles quits London, 10 Jan., 1642.In the meanwhile Charles committed the fatal mistake of quitting London (10 Jan.), and parliament had thereupon returned to Westminster (11 Jan.). The appearance of the five members as they made their way by water from the city to Westminster was[pg 162]greeted with shouts of joy and firing of volleys. On entering the House they publicly acknowledged the kindness extended to them by the City, for which the sheriffs and the citizens received the thanks of the Commons, and a promise of indemnity for their action throughout the recent crisis.508The Tower held for the king.Everything now promised well for parliament except the refusal of Sir John Byron, lieutenant of the Tower, to submit to its orders. Once more the seamen or mariners of London, who play no unimportant part in the history of the city at political crises, came forward. They offered to take the Tower by assault. There was some talk of reducing the fortress by starvation, and Byron confessed to secretary Nicholas (22 Jan.)509that if the measures had been carried out he could not long have held the place, determined as he was to sell both the Tower and his life at as dear a rate as he could. No such strict investment, however, took place. Skippon attempted to win over a portion of the garrison in the absence of the lieutenant, but failed. The Tower, however, became less an object of fear to the citizens as its stock of munition of war became less every day by reason of shipments to Ireland.A loan of £100,000 demanded of the City for the Irish war, 22 Jan., 1642.It was to Ireland that Charles looked for assistance in his struggle with parliament. It behoved the latter, therefore, to use its utmost endeavours to reduce that country to subjection. A deputation from the House waited on the Common Council (22 Jan.) with a request[pg 163]for a loan of £100,000. Whilst this request was under consideration the mayor was directed by the council to write to all the livery companies interested in the Londonderry estate, and exhort them to contribute bread and corn for the relief of the plantation.510The City's reply, 24 Jan., 1642.Two days later (24 Jan.) the City resolved not to accede to the request. Answer was sent that they were unable to raise money for a foreign war by way of a tax, and it was hopeless to raise the money by voluntary contributions. The House was reminded that the City had already advanced a sum of £50,000 on the express understanding that troops should forthwith be despatched to Ireland, but none had gone. The citizens would refuse to lend more until assured that relief had been actually sent to Londonderry. The House was further reminded that the City was dissatisfied with the remissness shown in disarming Papists and pressing of soldiers, as well as in displacing the lieutenant of the Tower, and appointing one well approved by parliament. A similar representation was made to the House of Lords.511Money raised by promise of confiscated lands.On the 11th February a petition was presented to the House of Commons by "divers of his majesty's loyal subjects," offering to assist at their own charge in putting down the Irish rebellion, provided that they might have such satisfaction out of the rebels' estates as should be thought reasonable.512The suggestion was[pg 164]readily accepted, and a scheme for opening a public subscription passed through both Houses in a week. The mayor lost no time in setting a subscription on foot in the city.513The companies, to whom application had been made a month before for contributions of bread and corn, were now desirous to know if they could limit their relief to those sufferers on what was or had been their own estates in Ireland, and not have it distributed among all his majesty's distressed subjects in that country. The Common Council declined to undertake to answer this question, but recommended each company to appear before the parliamentary committee appointed for the purpose and make its own conditions.514The following day (3 March) the City was informed that an Act of Parliament was already in preparation for settling 2,500,000 acres of land according to the votes of both Houses, unto which his majesty had given his royal assent.515The companies were subsequently (19th March) invited to provide ordnance for the protection of Londonderry.516The militia ordinance, 31 Jan., 1642.Meanwhile the struggle that had been going on between the king and parliament as to who should have control over the fortresses and the trained bands or militia of the kingdom, resulted in the Commons drawing up an ordinance conferring power in each county upon persons, to be afterwards[pg 165]named, to raise an armed force for the suppression of rebellions and invasions (31 Jan.).517This "militia ordinance"—as it was called—caused no little dissatisfaction in the city as trespassing upon the authority of the lord mayor, and a petition against it was drawn up by a certain section of the inhabitants and presented to both Houses of Parliament. The same was printed and circulated together with the king's message to the Houses against the ordinance.518The Common Council uphold the ordinance, 17 March, 1642.The Common Council were determined, however, to stand by parliament. They passed a resolution disclaiming the petition against the militia ordinance, and ordered other petitions to be drawn up and presented to both Houses,519congratulating them on the steps they had taken "for the safety of his majesty, the parliament and the kingdom," which would meet with ready submission on the part of the petitioners, and thanking them for the honour they had done the City in allowing it to nominate those persons to whom its militia should be committed.520Gurney, the royalist mayor, did not preside at the court which sanctioned these petitions, being absent from illness, so it was said.Commissioners for the city's militia, 4 April.On the 4th April a militia commission appointed by parliament for the city was read before the Common Council, the commissioners being authorised to raise and train forces, appoint and remove officers, and do other things necessary for the suppressing of rebellions and resisting invasions.521It was suggested[pg 166]that six colonels and thirty-four captains should be set over the trained bands, which had been recently increased to forty companies, each 200 strong.522The pay of the officers was guaranteed by the Common Council.523A stock of gunpowder was laid up in the city ready for any emergency, and the livery companies were called upon to make a return of the arms stored in their several halls.524A muster in Finsbury Fields before both Houses of Parliament, 10 May, 1642.On the 10th May a grand review of all the trained bands of the city, with their new officer Skippon at their head, was held in Finsbury Fields in the presence of both Houses of Parliament, the members of which were hospitably entertained on the ground at the City's expense.525The City receives the thanks of both Houses, 16 May.So pleased was parliament—both Lords and Commons—at the zeal of the City in raising and training so large a force as 8,000 men, to serve as an example (it was hoped) to the rest of the kingdom, as also in contributing upwards of £40,000 (more than one-tenth part of the whole sum recently voted by parliament) for the defence of the kingdom, that a deputation from both houses waited on the Common Council (16 May) and returned their hearty thanks.526Skippon to ignore the king's order to go to York, 17 May.On the following day (17 May) the Houses resolved that Skippon should ignore an order from the king to attend his majesty at York, and directed the sheriffs to suppress any levy of men made without the major-general's authority.527[pg 167]Loan of £100,000 by the companies, June, 1642.It was no long time before application was again made to the city for more pecuniary assistance. The breach between king and parliament was rapidly widening. Charles was known to be collecting forces around him in spite of a formal prohibition by the Commons, who now more distinctly asserted their claim to sovereignty. On Thursday, the 2nd June, a deputation of Lords and Commons presented themselves before the livery of the several companies assembled in Common Hall, and desired a loan of £100,000 towards "the relief and preservation of the kingdom of Ireland" and "speedy supply of the great and urgent necessities of this kingdom." The money was voted "most freely and with great alacrity," and was to be raised by the companies according to their corn assessment, as on previous occasions. On the 4th June the Commons passed an ordinance for security of the loan, and the thanks of both Houses and of the whole kingdom were returned to the city for its ready compliance.528Two days later (6 June) Gurney, much against his own inclination we may be sure, was forced to issue his precept to the companies to raise their several contributions.529The Grocers' Company raised their quota of £9,000 by voluntary subscription without demur. The Merchant Taylors, on the other hand, who were assessed at £10,000, whilst expressing themselves ready to do their part in furnishing the loan, took occasion to formally place on record their resolution "that the Common Hall (consisting of the liveries of this city) assembled in the Guildhall, London, hath[pg 168]no power, right or authority to bind or impose upon this company any loan of money whatsoever."530Parliamentary order for bringing in of money, plate, etc., 10 June.The king's protest, 14 June.On the 10th the Commons issued "propositions" for the bringing in of money, plate, arms and horses for "the defence of the king and both houses of parliament." Those living in and around London within a radius of eighty miles were allowed a fortnight; and so great was the enthusiasm displayed for the parliamentary cause that (in the words of Clarendon)531"it is hardly credible what a vast proportion of plate was brought in to their treasurers within ten days, there being hardly men enough to receive it or room to lay it in." It was in vain that Charles protested and threatened the citizens with the loss of their charter if they carried out the behests of the Commons.532His protest was only met with a further levy of £50,000 on all strangers and aliens residing within the city.533Pennington elected mayorlocoGurney, discharged, 16 Aug., 1642.Charles sets up his standard at Nottingham, 22 Aug., 1642.Gurney's position as mayor had become more and more an anomalous one every day. In July he was impeached by the Commons for having published the king's commission of array in the city. On the 12th August the Lords sentenced him to be imprisoned during the pleasure of the House, and to be deprived of his mayoralty,534and at the same time ordered Sir Nicholas Raynton to summon a Common Hall for the election of a new mayor. A Common Hall was accordingly summoned for the 16th, when Isaac[pg 169]Pennington and John Wollaston being nominated by the livery, the former was selected by the Court of Aldermen as Gurney's successor.535Upon application being made to Gurney for theinsignia—the sword, cap, mace and collar of esses—"he pretended they were at his house in London, locked up, and he could not come at them"; and he stoutly refused to deliver up the city's sword to any one but the king.536With a rigid Puritan like Pennington in the mayoralty chair, and Gurney and Sir Thomas Gardiner already impeached, the city was made secure for parliament before Charles set up his standard at Nottingham (22 Aug.) in token that the Civil War had commenced.

[pg 132]CHAPTER XXII.Meeting of the Long Parliament, 3 Nov., 1640.Speaker Lenthall.Parliament—the Long Parliament—met as promised on the 3rd November, 1640. Charles had intended to nominate Sir Thomas Gardiner, the Recorder, a devoted adherent of the Crown, as Speaker of the Commons; but since the days of Heneage Finch the City had failed to return its Recorder to parliament.424Charles was therefore obliged to look elsewhere. His choice fell upon William Lenthall, who was the first to realise the position of a Speaker in times of political controversy, and who throughout his career acted up to his famous dictum, that "he had neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak, save as the House was pleased to direct him."The City and the Earl of Strafford.As soon as parliament met, Strafford, who was only too conscious of his impending fate, determined to take the bull by the horns, and to use every means to induce the king to anticipate the blow by boldly accusing the parliamentary leaders of treasonable designs. His efforts were futile. Rightly or wrongly, it was generally believed that he intended to establish a military despotism in England, and that London was to be brought into subjection. The way in which it was all to be effected was even described by Cradock, one[pg 133]of the city members, in a speech he made to the House. It is certain that the citizens regarded him as a deadly foe. They had not forgotten the advice he gave to Charles respecting the aldermen, nor his attempt to ruin their trade by depreciation of the coinage. For weeks past the city had been in a disordered state. On the 22nd October, the mob having forced its way into the Court of High Commission, some of the offenders were brought before the mayor and aldermen sitting on a commission of Oyer and Terminer; but the grand jury refused to find a true bill. These abortive proceedings were followed by a riot at St. Paul's.425Before the House had been in session a fortnight Strafford was ordered into custody.Necessity of raising money, Nov., 1640.The £50,000 which the City had advanced went but a little way towards meeting the king's necessities. The two armies in the north had to be paid, and there was not the wherewithal to pay them. The City was ready to lend a further sum of £25,000, on condition that the Londonderry estate was restored, the garrison in the Tower removed and the ordnance dismounted from its walls. Unless this were done, said Cradock, "such jealousies would possess the city, it would hinder supply."426Parliament agreed to the loan being repaid, as a first charge, out of the £100,000 ordered to be raised for the relief of the army and northern counties;427and the Common Council lost no time in preparing a petition[pg 134]to parliament for the restoration of the Irish lands.428Nor was it only in their corporate capacity that the citizens came forward to render pecuniary assistance to the government. On the 21st November Isaac Pennington, alderman of the ward of Bridge Without, and one of the city's representatives in parliament, announced to the House that his constituents had subscribed £21,000 to the loan.Alleged Popish plot, Nov., 1640.The general feeling of distrust that prevailed was heightened by an attack made upon a member of the House who, in his capacity of a justice of peace, had prepared a list of recusants, in pursuance of a recent proclamation.429So great was the alarm among the Commons that Pennington offered the House a guard of three hundred citizens, and at first there was a disposition to accept the alderman's offer, but in course of time better counsel prevailed and the idea was abandoned.Impeachment of Archbishop Laud, Dec., 1640.The tendency of the city towards Puritanism at this time was very marked. On the 28th November Prynne and Burton entered London, and their entry was made one long triumphal procession. This circumstance was specially noted by the royalist writer Clarendon as a remarkable "instance of the unruly and mutinous spirit of the City of London," which he is pleased to term "the sink of all the ill humour of the Kingdom."430A fortnight later (11 Dec.) a petition for church reform and the abolition of episcopacy "root and branch" was presented to[pg 135]parliament, signed by 15,000 Londoners.431The blow was aimed at Laud, who was looked upon as the cause of all the country's trouble. That day week (18 Dec.) the archbishop was impeached.The Scottish commissioners in the city.When the meetings held at Ripon between English and Scottish commissioners for the purpose of negotiating a treaty ceased (Oct. 1640), it was on the understanding that they were to be resumed in London. The Scottish commissioners accordingly came south, and were lodged in the city in a house adjacent to the church of St. Antholin, where they were visited by a large concourse of citizens and magnificently entertained.432It was with no little satisfaction that the success of the Scots had been watched by the majority of the inhabitants of the city, and now that the northern commissioners were in their midst the citizens took the opportunity of showing them substantial marks of favour.City loan of £60,000, Jan., 1641.Reprieve of Goodman, 22 Jan., 1641.Excitement in the city.On the 12th January, 1641, the Scottish demands were formally submitted to parliament, but they were not taken into consideration until the 22nd. After much debate it was agreed in general terms that a "friendly assistance" should be given, leaving the amount and the manner of collection for future consideration.433In the meantime the Speaker, Lenthall, had written (15 Jan.) to the mayor directing him to summon a Common Hall for the purpose of raising a loan of £60,000 required for the army, and the Common Council had agreed (18 Jan.) that the amount should be collected from the wards.434But[pg 136]before this could be accomplished an incident occurred which threatened to jeopardise the loan. This was the reprieve of John Goodman, a Roman Catholic priest, who had been condemned to death. The morning after parliament had agreed to raise money for the Scottish commissioners alderman Pennington rose in the House and declared that, in consequence of Goodman's reprieve and other suspicious circumstances, the City had resolved to lend nothing.435The Lords as well as the Commons followed the initiative of the alderman and made a joint demand for the execution of the condemned priest. As he had often done before, Charles again threw over the Catholics. He announced his intention not to allow the increase of Popery or superstition in the country; he would forthwith issue a proclamation commanding Jesuits and priests to leave the kingdom within a month, and he was willing to submit the case of Goodman to the decision of both Houses.436Fortunately for Goodman, the City and the Commons had higher game to fly at in Strafford, and the humbler priest was allowed to remain unmolested in prison.Letters from Lenthall to the City touching the loan of £60,000, 6 and 19 Feb., 1641.On the 6th February the Speaker addressed a second letter to the mayor to the effect that the money was required sooner than it could be collected by way of subsidies, as formerly suggested to his lordship, and that consequently the House had directed him to take steps for having £60,000 raised[pg 137]by subscription and paid into the Chamber of London, to be at the disposal of parliament.437The money not coming in so speedily as was desired, the Speaker wrote a third time (19 Feb.) to the mayor, directing him to summon a Common Hall and to lay before it the extreme urgency of affairs.438The chief cause of the delay in getting in the money was the dissatisfaction felt in the city at Strafford's trial being put off so long. The 17th February being at last fixed for his trial, there was some hope that the money would speedily now be forthcoming,439and the same day the Commons commissioned Sir William Uvedale to go to the lord mayor and get an order for receiving the money that had been collected up to £50,000.440Three days later the Court of Aldermen made out the necessary order for the Chamberlain to pay over the money.441Trial and execution of Strafford, March-May, 1641.Again there was delay in bringing Strafford to trial, and it was not until the 22nd March that he was arraigned in Westminster Hall, where alone room could be found for the crowds that were anxious to witness the proceedings. The mayor took steps to prevent a rush of people to Westminster and to suppress any riot that might arise. From five o'clock in the morning until nine at night a double watch was kept at the city's gates and landing stages on the river. The trained bands were held in readiness, whilst servants and apprentices were ordered to keep indoors.442At the end of three weeks a Bill of Attainder[pg 138]was brought in and read a first time (10 April), and on the 21st April it was read a third time and passed.443The Lords would willingly have let matters rest here, but the discovery of a design entertained by the queen of bringing the defeated English army from the north to Westminster to overawe the parliament, and likewise of an attempt made by Charles to get possession of the Tower that he might liberate Strafford by force, hurried the unfortunate earl's end. The citizens were determined not to rest until his head was off his shoulders, and 20,000 Londoners signed a petition addressed to both Houses (24 April) demanding his execution on the ground that he had advised the plundering of the city and putting it to fine and ransom.444The Peers deemed it advisable to give way. They passed the Bill of Attainder and on the 12th May Strafford was beheaded.The City stops the loan until justice is executed on Strafford, May, 1641.The Lords had another pressing reason for giving way, for until the citizens were assured that the full penalty of the law would be executed on Strafford they determined to stop payment of the loan. Writing to Matthew Bradley on the 3rd May, the treasurer of the army tells him "a strange story." "There is," he says, "money ready in the city, but none will be delivered until justice be done upon my lord of Strafford."445On that very day, the letter continues, there had been a crowd of 10,000 well-to-do persons at Westminster—"citizens of very good account, some[pg 139]worth £30,000, some £40,000" demanding justice against Strafford and threatening to send their servants the next day unless justice were speedily executed. "Truly these unsettled times do much trouble me."The "Protestation" accepted by the City, May, 1641.The discovery of the so-called "army plot" had in the meanwhile led to a preamble being drawn up to a document known as the "Protestation," or declaration in favour of the reformed religion, in which the danger from the army was for the first time clearly mentioned. The Protestation passed the Commons on the 3rd May,446and on the following day received the assent of the House of Lords. On the 11th May a printed copy of this document was introduced into the Court of Aldermen, when it received the willing assent not only of the aldermen present, but also of the Town Clerk and the City Remembrancer.447On the 29th it was accepted by the Common Council, and two days later the mayor issued his precept for a house-to-house visitation to be made in every ward for the purpose of getting all the inhabitants of the city to give in their adherence to it.448Establishment of a poll tax for disbanding the armies, July, 1641.Although the execution of Strafford somewhat allayed the nation's fears of having "two armies brought into the bowels of the kingdom," they were soon revived by a second army plot. The armies thus became a constant source of danger as well as expense, and it was determined to disband them. Charles could not withhold his assent, and a poll tax was established for the purpose of raising the[pg 140]necessary funds. This was in July (1641).449The masters and wardens of the livery companies were forthwith called upon to make a return in writing of the names of every person who had been and then was master and warden of each company; the names of all the livery, yeomanry and freemen of each company, noting in the margin of the return those who had ever been fined for alderman or sheriff, and the parish and ward in which each individual member of the company resided. Every alderman was likewise instructed to make a return of the names of his deputy and common councilmen of his ward; the names of every merchant-stranger that kept house there, every English merchant and factor, and every popish recusant; and finally the names of everyone in the ward above the age of sixteen years not otherwise rated.450The "friendly assistance," July, 1641.On the 3rd February the House had come to a resolution that the sum of £300,000 might justly be appointed as a "friendly assistance and relief" for the Scots. The manner in which it was to be raised was left for further consideration.451It was now arranged that £80,000 of that sum should be at once paid over to them, and that on August the 25th they should cross the Tweed. The City was called upon to find £40,000—or one-half of the amount immediately required—by Wednesday, the 28th July.452[pg 141]By order of the House of Commons (29 July) it was to be repaid with interest out of the poll money when levied.453So eager were the citizens to contribute towards the work of ridding the country of the Scottish forces before Charles should have an opportunity of using his powers of persuasion upon them that there was a difficulty in getting a sufficient number of tellers to receive it.454The queen mother in England.In addition to this heavy drain upon their resources, the citizens were called upon by the House of Commons (31 July) to forthwith pay the sum of £3,000 which they had undertaken to advance, upon the public faith of the House, towards "the furnishing of the queen-mother of France in her journey out of the kingdom."455Ever since October, 1638, Mary de Medicis had resided at St. James's Palace, and had caused no little discontent by her intermeddling in the affairs of the country and the favour she displayed towards Catholics. On her first arrival in London the citizens had accorded her a hearty welcome.456The acknowledgment that Charles subsequently made of his gratification at the City's action on this occasion was rendered somewhat ungracious by his requesting that a gift of the value of £1,000, "or thereabouts," should be made to the queen-mother in further demonstration of the City's love. After communicating with the Common Council the Court of[pg 142]Aldermen agreed to present her with a cup of the value of £800, "or thereabouts."457The king sets out for Scotland, 10 Aug., 1641.Charles had determined to set out for Scotland on Monday, the 9th August, in spite of every effort to get him to postpone his journey. So great indeed was the fear of danger likely to be incurred if he carried out his intention at this juncture that the House of Commons determined to sit on Sunday to contrive measures for avoiding the threatened risk—a proceeding which they publicly declared they would never have adopted, "but upon inevitable necessity, the peace and safety both of Church and State being so deeply concerned."458In answer to a fresh appeal Charles consented to put off his journey for one day, and on Tuesday (10 Aug.)—the day on which the treaty with the Scots was finished and the queen-mother left England—he set out for Scotland.Adjournment of the Houses, 8 Sept.A day of public thanksgiving, 7 Sept.On the 28th August, when all danger in the north appeared to have passed away and Charles had visited both armies without appealing to them for assistance, parliament decided to adjourn from the 8th September until the 20th October. The Commons were in need of rest after the excitement of the session, and the necessity for an adjournment was increased by another visitation of the plague,459which had already driven many members home without leave. The day preceding the adjournment was appointed to be kept as a day of thanksgiving for the peace; and, pursuant to an order of both Houses, the mayor issued his precept for shops to be closed and for the inhabitants of the[pg 143]city to attend divine service, after which bells were to be rung and bonfires lighted.460Judgment of Star Chamberrethe City's Irish estate reversed, 26 Aug., 1641.Before the Commons separated they delivered (26 Aug.) their judgment upon a petition461which the City had prepared for them in January touching its estate in Londonderry, of which it had been deprived in 1635 by sentence of the Court of Star Chamber. That petition set forth the unwillingness of the City to undertake the work of the Ulster plantation. It had only been undertaken at the late king's earnest desire, and subject to special articles, the City absolutely refusing to be bound by the general articles drawn up by his majesty for ordinary undertakers. The Irish Society and the companies had expended more than £130,000 (exclusive of money laid out by tenants) on their estate "in hope to have in the future enjoyed some benefitt of their great cost and charge." The city of Londonderry and the town of Coleraine had been rebuilt, and the castle of Culmore repaired and entrenched. Fifteen churches had been either built or repaired, besides a "very fair" church and free school which had been erected in Derry at a cost of more than £4,000. Roads had been made which had converted one of the most barbarous places in the kingdom into one of the most civilised. The society and the companies, the petition went on to say, had enjoyed this estate without interruption until Hilary Term a° 6 Charles I (1631), when the Attorney-General, Sir Robert Heath, exhibited an information against the mayor, commonalty and citizens of London and divers individuals, suggesting that they had[pg 144]possessed themselves of the said lands and taken the profits before any grant was made to them, and that they had a greater quantity of lands than was intended to be passed by the grant, and had by indirect means procured divers privileges to be inserted in the grant for which the Attorney General who passed the grant had no warrant. Evidence of witnesses had been taken on the matter, but before the cause came to a hearing this information was dropt and another exhibited in Hilary Term a° 8 Charles I (1633) against the petitioners and the Irish Society, in which new charges touching infringement of conditions of Letters Patent were inserted, and upon these pretences the Irish Society was adjudged by sentence of the Court of Star Chamber in Hilary Term a° 10 Charles I (1635) to pay a fine of £70,000 and to lose their estate on the ground that the said Letters Patent had been "unduly and surreptitiously obteyned to the prejudice and deceipt of his majestie." The companies refused to surrender their estates, and divers lands belonging to the City and to the Bridgehouse were seized to satisfy the fine, to the great prejudice of the City. Being otherwise unable to redeem themselves from the penalty of the Star Chamber sentence, the companies were forced to consent to relinquish their Irish estate and all arrears of rent, amounting to £20,000. Ascire faciaswas brought in and judgment allowed by default, whereupon the companies lost their estates, whilst the mayor and commonalty and citizens of London, although not parties to any patent or plantation—having done no more than lend their name for the better transaction of the business and for the purpose of raising money for the plantation,[pg 145]which otherwise could never have been effected—were fined £70,000. Seeing that the matter reflected so badly upon the justice of the late as well as the present king, the petitioners humbly prayed that a full investigation of the whole proceedings might be made and justice done.Such was the nature of the petition which the Common Council ordered in January (1641) to be submitted to parliament. The House had its hands too full to pay much attention to the City's grievance until recently; but now, within a fortnight of their adjournment for a well-earned rest, the Commons declared462the sentence in the Star Chamber to have been unlawful and unjust. They declared that, in the opinion of the House, the citizens of London had been solicited and pressed to undertake the plantation of Londonderry, that the king had not been deceived in the grant to the new corporation of the Irish Society, that no breach of covenant (if any there were) had been committed sufficient to cause a forfeiture of the lands, that the Star Chamber proceedings wereultra vires, and that the citizens of London and all those against whom judgment had been given in thescire faciasshould be discharged of that judgment and reinstated as they were before the sentence in the Star Chamber.Disbanded soldiers in the city, Sept.-Oct., 1641.Before the Houses again met, Richard Gurney, a man of the same royalist proclivity as Garway, and on that account, perhaps, described by Clarendon as "a man of wisdom and courage," had been elected mayor in succession to Edmund Wright.463The last[pg 146]days of Wright's mayoralty were days of sickness and tumult in the city. Numbers of disbanded soldiers from the north had made their way to London, where they carried on a system of rapine and outrage. The mayor issued precepts for search to be made in every ward for suspected persons and disbanded soldiers, as well as for keeping the streets well lighted at night by candle and lanthorn, whilst public proclamation was made by the king for soldiers to repair to their own homes.464The Irish rebellion of 1641.Shortly after the House of Commons had resumed its session attention was again drawn towards Ireland, where a rebellion had broken out. Seeing how successful Scotland had been in its resistance to England, the Irish had determined to strike a blow for the recovery of lands handed over to Protestant colonists, as well as for religious liberty. Charles himself had held out hopes of greater freedom to the Irish Catholics, who saw no reason why they should be worse treated than the rebellious Puritans of Scotland. The scene of massacre and cruelty which followed has been described by others, and remains to this day (in the words of Carlyle) "a huge blot, an indiscriminate blackness, one which the human memory cannot willingly charge itself with."The City asked for a loan of £50,000, 2 Nov., 1641.As soon as news of the outbreak reached parliament, application was forthwith made to the City for assistance. On the 3rd November lord mayor Gurney issued his precept465to the aldermen informing[pg 147]them that on the previous day divers lords and others of both Houses of Parliament had come to the Common Council and asked for a loan of £50,000 at eight per cent. Seeing that the matter was of so great importance, each alderman was desired to take steps in conjunction with his deputy and common councilmen of his ward to get liberal contributions made towards the loan.466The City declares against the Catholic lords and the bishops, 12 Nov., 1641.The attitude of the City now became more marked. Whilst consenting to find the money required, it asked parliament that the persons of the Catholic lords might be secured, and that the bishops, who were the cause of every good measure being defeated in the Upper House, might be deprived of their votes. It had a minor grievance in the custom that had arisen of members of both Houses granting their servants "protections" against creditors, a procedure extremely prejudicial to the city merchant and tradesman, and one which they would willingly see remedied.467Charles entertained in the city, 25 Nov., 1641.The City's declaration against the bishops, which Dr. Gardiner468characterises as being "the turning point in the struggle," augured badly for Charles. Nevertheless, he had friends in the city. The new mayor was a strong royalist, as also were the majority of the aldermen, and they took the opportunity of Charles paying his first visit to the city[pg 148](25 Nov.) since he ascended the throne to demonstrate their loyalty. On the 17th the Court of Aldermen appointed a committee to make the necessary arrangements,469whilst the mayor issued his precept the same day to the civic companies to prepare a certain number of their livery, well horsed and apparelled, to assist him in escorting the king and queen from the church of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, to the Guildhall on the morning of the eventful day, and thence, after the banquet, to Whitehall.470The Common Council agreed that the cost of the entertainment at the Guildhall should be defrayed by the Chamber.471The Recorder's speech, 25 Nov.On the king's approaching the northern suburbs of the city, whither the mayor and citizens had gone to meet him,472he was welcomed by the Recorder. There was some talk of presenting the king with a gift either of money or plate,473but the proposal fell through. "We tender to you," said Sir Thomas Gardiner, "no formal present; it would but lessen us; I am sure whatever it were it would be far short of our meaning."The king's reply.It was of the utmost importance to Charles to win over the city to his side if he could—"The loans[pg 149]of the London citizens alone had made it possible for the House of Commons to disband the armies; and without the loans of the London citizens the House would find it impossible to provide for a campaign in Ireland," and thus place itself in a position of military supremacy.474Accordingly, in a speech carefully prepared beforehand,475he expressed his gratification at finding that the better class of citizens were still loyal. "I see," said he, "that all those former tumults and disorders have only risen from the meaner sort of people, and that the affections of the better and main part of the city have ever been loyal and affectionate to my person and government." He proceeded to assure his hearers of his determination to maintain the true Protestant religion as established by Elizabeth and James, and he hoped with the assistance of parliament to re-establish the trade of the country. But what pleased the citizens perhaps more than anything was a promise he made to restore to them their Londonderry estate—at that moment in the hands of the rebels, but soon, he hoped, to be recovered. The Recorder was expressly commanded to wait upon his majesty and see that this promise was punctually performed.476Honours for the Mayor, Sheriffs and five aldermen.By way of further showing his favour Charles knighted both the Mayor and Recorder on the spot. He afterwards expressed his gratification at the[pg 150]reception that the City had accorded him,477and conferred knighthoods upon both of the sheriffs and five of the aldermen.478Measures prepared for restoration of Irish estate, 30 Nov., 1641.The Common Council took Charles at his word and lost no time in appointing a committee for the purpose of introducing a Bill in parliament for the recovery of the city's Irish estate. The Recorder had pointed out (20 Nov.) to the court that the "corporation" (i.e.the Irish society) had been dissolved, and it behoved them to consider in whose names the Irish estate should be vested, whether in the name of the mayor and commonalty of London or a "select company."A London mob at Westminster, Nov., 1641.The disaffected element in the city, which had voluntarily kept itself in the background, or had been suppressed by force on the day of the king's visit, again came to the surface as soon as the duties of hospitality had been executed. Once more a crowd gathered (29 Nov.) at Westminster, shouting "No bishops!" encouraged (it was said) by John Venn, a merchant taylor, who had succeeded Cradock, on the latter's decease, as one of the city's representatives in parliament. On the 10th December the mayor, acting under orders from the king, issued his precept to the aldermen to see that apprentices and servants were kept within doors and not allowed to go abroad to make tumult and hold unlawful meetings.479[pg 151]The character of the mob.A difference of opinion existed as to the representative character of those who had thus threatened parliament. "You much mistake," wrote Thomas Wiseman to Sir John Pennington ten days after the riot had taken place, "if you think those seditious meetings of sectaries and others ill affected, who have lately been at the parliament-house to cry for justice against the delinquent bishops, are the representative body of the city—they are not, but the representative body is the lord mayor, aldermen and Common Council, who gave the entertainment to the king and will stick to him and live and die in his service."480Petition to the House, 11 Dec., 1641.In order to dispel all doubts as to the respectability of the agitators they determined to present a formal petition to parliament for the removal of the bishops, and to do the thing in style. "Accoutred in the best manner they could," they rode to Westminster in coaches, "to prevent the aspersion that they were of the basest sort of people only which were that way affected."481They declared that the petition was signed by over 20,000 well-to-do citizens, including aldermen and members of the Common Council, and that many more signatures might have been obtained but for the obstruction of divers "ill-affected persons."482When the Commons came to inquire (20 Dec.) who these ill-affected persons were, it was found that the Mayor and the Recorder were the chief. The former was declared to have said that the petition had found[pg 152]favour only with ignorant or idle people, who did not realise the danger they were in, and that the petition "tended to mutiny." On hearing that part of the petition which stated that it was the wish of the "representative body" of the city to have the bishops removed, the Recorder lost all control over himself, and swore it was a lie. The petition, he said, tended to sedition, and to set men together by the ears. So far from tending to peace it was, he declared, "for blood and cutting of throats; and if it came to cutting of throats, thank yourselves; and your blood be upon your own heads."483The new Common Council, 21 Oct., 1641.The following day was the Feast of St. Thomas (21 Dec.), the day on which the members of the Common Council go out of office and present themselves to their constituents for re-election. The result of the elections turned out to be largely in favour of the Puritan opposition. The new Common Council, like the House of Commons, would support "King Pym" and his policy; whilst the more aristocratic Court of Aldermen would side with Charles and the House of Lords.484It cannot be doubted that the new council was more truly representative of the inhabitants of the city, and better able to give expression to their wishes than the last. There was only wanting a popular lord mayor. He was to come.Fresh riot at Westminster, 27 Dec., 1641.The trained bands called out, 28 Dec.The tardy and unsatisfactory reply Charles gave to the remonstrance—the "Grand Remonstrance of[pg 153]the state of the Church and Kingdom" presented to him at Hampton Court on the 1st December—and his appointment of Colonel Lunsford, a debauched ruffian, as lieutenant of the Tower, in place of Balfour, who was a favourite with the city, increased the exasperation against him, and the mayor was obliged to inform him (26 Dec.) that unless Lunsford was removed he could not answer for the peace of the city. This representation by Gurney had the desired effect, and Lunsford was removed that night.485Before his removal became generally known another riot broke out at Westminster (27 Dec.) between London apprentices and some officers of the late army, among whom was Lunsford himself. The officers drew their swords and drove the close-cropt apprentices, or "roundheads" as they were jeeringly called, out of Westminster, chasing them up King Street as far as Whitehall. Several of the rioters were hurt, but none killed. For some days the excitement was so great that everyone attending the court at Whitehall wore a sword; and 500 gentlemen of the Inns of Court offered their services to the king.486On the 28th December Charles directed the mayor to call out the trained bands, and to command their officers, "by shooting with bullets or otherwise," to slay and kill such as should persist in tumultuary and seditious ways and disorders.487The Peers were inclined to throw the blame of the disturbance upon the civic authorities, but Pym and[pg 154]the House of Commons refused "to discontent the citizens of London, our surest friends," at such a critical time.488Charles himself took the same view, and sent a letter to the City by the hand of Lord Newburgh, in which he expressed his continued confidence in the loyalty of the city, and ascribed the recent tumults and distempers to "the meane and unruly people of the suburbs." The Common Council in reply caused it to be signified to his majesty that neither that court nor any individual member of it was implicated in the late disorder, which they altogether disavowed and disclaimed.489Having committed this message to Lord Newburgh to carry to the king, the court proceeded to take measures for the better preserving the peace in the several wards of the city.A guard for parliament refused by the king, 3 Jan., 1642.The same day that these measures were being taken for public safety in the city the Commons directed halberds to be brought into the House for their own use in case of a sudden attack, and desired the king to appoint the Earl of Essex captain of the guard. After this they adjourned until the 3rd January, a committee being ordered to sit in the meanwhile at the Guildhall. Upon the re-assembling of the House Charles refused its request for a guard.490The Commons thereupon sent a message to the mayor for the trained bands to be put in readiness "for the safety of the king's person, the city and the commonwealth," and for good and strong watches to be set at all[pg 155]places convenient about the city. The following day Sir Thomas Soame, Alderman Pennington and Captain Venn were despatched to the city to inform the citizens of a new danger which was threatening the Commons.491The arrest of the five members demanded, 3 Jan., 1642.During the short recess Charles had at last made up his mind to a course long premeditated. He determined to seize the parliamentary leaders on a charge of treason, and articles of impeachment were drawn up against Lord Kimbolton, of the House of Peers, and Pym, Hampden, Holles, Hazlerigg and Strode, of the Commons. No sooner had the Commons met than the Sergeant-at-Arms appeared with orders to arrest the five members.492As such action affected the privileges of the House, a committee was appointed to send a reply to the king in due course. Baffled in this direction, the king despatched a message to the lord mayor forbidding him to call out the trained bands at the order of the Commons, but only to raise such a force as might be necessary to put down tumult and disorder.493Gurney was in bed at the time, but he promised to see to it in the morning.494Meeting of the Commons, 4 Jan.When the Commons met the next morning (4 Jan.) they sent up the articles of impeachment to the House of Lords as a scandalous paper. The king in the meantime was taking steps to secure the Tower and the city. He had heard that six pieces of ordnance had been removed from the artillery yard[pg 156]and placed near the Leadenhall, and he wrote to the mayor bidding him see that they were used only for the guard and preservation of the city if need be.495It was these measures that caused the Commons to send Soame, Pennington and Venn to the city to inform the citizens of the impending danger. On the afternoon of the same day Charles himself appeared in the House, to the door of which he had been accompanied by an armed retinue. Taking his stand before the Speaker's chair he professed sorrow for the necessity that had brought him there. Yesterday he had sent, he said, a Sergeant-at-Arms to apprehend certain persons accused of high treason. He had expected obedience and not an answer. Careful as he was and always would be of the privileges of the Commons, they were to know that there was no privilege in matters of treason. Failing himself to discover those whom he sought, he turned to Lenthall and asked him if they were in the House. "Do you see any of them?" The Speaker's reply was singularly apt. "May it please your majesty," said he, falling on his knee before Charles, "I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here." Casting one more glance round the House, and finding that the "birds had flown," the king withdrew amid cries of "Privilege! Privilege!" and the House immediately adjourned.The king at the Guildhall, 5 Jan., 1642.The king could not allow matters to rest here. The next morning, being Wednesday, the 5th January, he set out for the city with a small retinue, and[pg 157]presented himself at the Guildhall when a Court of Common Council was sitting. The city's archives are searched in vain for any record of what took place on that memorable occasion, but we have a vivid account of the scene handed down to us by an eye-witness, Captain Slingsby, who, happening to meet the royal party on its way to the city, turned back and followed it into the precincts of the Council Chamber.496Charles lost no time in coming to the point. He had come, he said, to demand those persons who had been already accused of high treason, and who were believed at that moment to be lurking within the city. He desired to bring them to a trial at law, and depended upon those present for their assistance. He was resolved to redress grievances and to preserve the privileges of parliament, but he must "question these traitors." After justifying the existence of a guard at Whitehall and saying a few friendly words to the aldermen, he invited himself to dinner with one of the sheriffs, choosing the sheriff who was less favourably disposed towards him, viz., sheriff Garrett. The king's speech was followed by an ominous pause. Then a cry, writes Slingsby, was raised in the council, "Parliament! Privileges of parliament!" and presently another, "God bless the king!" These continued for some time, but he professes to be unable to say which of the two was loudest. When silence was restored the king asked that a spokesman should make known to him their wishes. Thereupon a member of the council arose and said, "It is the vote[pg 158]of this court that your majesty hear the advice of your parliament." This statement was at once challenged by another, who cried out, "It is not the vote of this court: it is your own vote." The king replied by asking who it was that charged him with not taking the advice of his parliament, adding that he did take its advice and would continue to do so, but, said he, "I must distinguish between the parliament and some traitors in it," and these, he repeated, "he would bring to trial—to trial." "No privileges could protect a traitor from a trial." With this he turned to leave the Council Chamber. On reaching the outer hall he was again assailed with the cry that had been made to ring in his ears all the way from Whitehall to the city, "The privileges of parliament!" Undaunted he made his way through the mob to dine at Garrett's house, and later in the day, amid the same cries, he returned to Whitehall.The City's petition to the king, 5 Jan., 1642.Relieved of his presence, the Common Council, with great deliberation, agreed on the terms of a petition to be presented to his majesty.497After expressing their regret for the continuation of the rebellion in Ireland, the removal of the lieutenant of the Tower, in whom all had confidence, the steps taken to fortify Whitehall, and the recent disturbances at Westminster, they represented to the king the great increase of the fears of the citizens owing to his attempt to seize the five members, the effect of which was to prejudice the whole trade of the city and the kingdom. They therefore humbly desired him to take steps for the speedy relief of the[pg 159]Protestants in Ireland, to place the Tower in the hands of persons of trust, to remove discredited persons from Whitehall and Westminster, and not to proceed against Lord Kimbolton and the five members of the Commons otherwise than in accordance with the privileges of parliament.The Common Council vote £2,000 for the defence of the city.Having ordered this petition to be engrossed and afterwards to be presented to his majesty, the Common Council proceeded to vote a sum of £2,000 for the purpose of providing a stock of arms and ammunition for the defence of the city in "theis tymes of daungers and feares."Panic in the city, 6 Jan., 1642.Each alderman had already been directed to see that the trained bands, 6,000 strong, were fully equipt without the necessity of borrowing arms from the city halls or elsewhere; a double watch with halberds and muskets was ordered to be kept in each ward by night and day, chains and posts which were in any way defective were to be forthwith made good, and hooks, ladders, buckets, spades, shovels, pickaxes, augers and chisels were to be kept in readiness in case of fire.498Members of the Common Council were forbidden on the 6th January to leave their wards without express permission.499The same night an alarm was raised, and the mayor was asked to call out the trained bands. On his refusal the trained bands dispensed with his authority and turned out on their own account. The panic quickly spread, and every inhabitant, arming himself as best he could, hastened to join them. In course of time the alarm[pg 160]subsided, but the mayor was commanded by an Order in Council (8 Jan.) to investigate the cause of the alarm, and to secure the persons who had taken upon themselves to call out the trained bands.500This Order in Council was immediately met by a resolution of the Grand Committee of the Commons sitting at Grocers' Hall to the effect that the action of the citizens for the defence of parliament had been in accordance with their duty, and that anyone attempting to arrest them for so doing was a public enemy. More than this, the Committee declared that at a time when the king, kingdom and parliament were "in very eminent and apparent danger," it was the duty of the lord mayor, aldermen and Common Council, or the greater number of them, to make use of the trained bands or any other forces of the city for the preservation of the peace.501The king's reply to the City's petition. 8 Jan., 1642.On the same day (8 Jan.) the king's reply to the City's late petition was read before the Common Council.502He had hoped, he said, to have already satisfied most of the objections raised in the petition by his speech to the citizens on the previous Wednesday; nevertheless, he was willing to give a further answer to the several matters objected to, being persuaded that his so doing would be considered the greatest proof that he could offer of his good intention. His answer, however, in whatever terms it was couched, was considered far from satisfactory[pg 161]to the council, and preparations for resisting force by force began to be pushed on.Skippon to command the city's forces, 10 Jan.On Monday, the 10th January, a joint agreement for the future defence of parliament and the city was arrived at by the committee of parliament and a committee appointed by the Common Council.503The trained bands were ordered to their colours and placed under the command of Captain Philip Skippon, as sergeant-major-general of the forces of the city. Eight pieces of ordnance were to accompany the troops, and as many citizens as could supply themselves with horses were to serve on horseback. All this was done for the safety of the "king, parliament and kingdom." With the object of increasing the number of trained bands, the mayor was authorised by the Common Council (19 Jan.) to issue his precept for a return to be made by the alderman of each ward (1) of the number of men in his ward fit to find and bear arms, and (2) the number of men fit to bear arms but unable to find them.504The Common Council agreed to pay Skippon £300 a year for life, if he should so long continue in the city's service.505Guns and ammunition were stored up at the Leadenhall,506and a supply of corn laid in by the livery companies.507Charles quits London, 10 Jan., 1642.In the meanwhile Charles committed the fatal mistake of quitting London (10 Jan.), and parliament had thereupon returned to Westminster (11 Jan.). The appearance of the five members as they made their way by water from the city to Westminster was[pg 162]greeted with shouts of joy and firing of volleys. On entering the House they publicly acknowledged the kindness extended to them by the City, for which the sheriffs and the citizens received the thanks of the Commons, and a promise of indemnity for their action throughout the recent crisis.508The Tower held for the king.Everything now promised well for parliament except the refusal of Sir John Byron, lieutenant of the Tower, to submit to its orders. Once more the seamen or mariners of London, who play no unimportant part in the history of the city at political crises, came forward. They offered to take the Tower by assault. There was some talk of reducing the fortress by starvation, and Byron confessed to secretary Nicholas (22 Jan.)509that if the measures had been carried out he could not long have held the place, determined as he was to sell both the Tower and his life at as dear a rate as he could. No such strict investment, however, took place. Skippon attempted to win over a portion of the garrison in the absence of the lieutenant, but failed. The Tower, however, became less an object of fear to the citizens as its stock of munition of war became less every day by reason of shipments to Ireland.A loan of £100,000 demanded of the City for the Irish war, 22 Jan., 1642.It was to Ireland that Charles looked for assistance in his struggle with parliament. It behoved the latter, therefore, to use its utmost endeavours to reduce that country to subjection. A deputation from the House waited on the Common Council (22 Jan.) with a request[pg 163]for a loan of £100,000. Whilst this request was under consideration the mayor was directed by the council to write to all the livery companies interested in the Londonderry estate, and exhort them to contribute bread and corn for the relief of the plantation.510The City's reply, 24 Jan., 1642.Two days later (24 Jan.) the City resolved not to accede to the request. Answer was sent that they were unable to raise money for a foreign war by way of a tax, and it was hopeless to raise the money by voluntary contributions. The House was reminded that the City had already advanced a sum of £50,000 on the express understanding that troops should forthwith be despatched to Ireland, but none had gone. The citizens would refuse to lend more until assured that relief had been actually sent to Londonderry. The House was further reminded that the City was dissatisfied with the remissness shown in disarming Papists and pressing of soldiers, as well as in displacing the lieutenant of the Tower, and appointing one well approved by parliament. A similar representation was made to the House of Lords.511Money raised by promise of confiscated lands.On the 11th February a petition was presented to the House of Commons by "divers of his majesty's loyal subjects," offering to assist at their own charge in putting down the Irish rebellion, provided that they might have such satisfaction out of the rebels' estates as should be thought reasonable.512The suggestion was[pg 164]readily accepted, and a scheme for opening a public subscription passed through both Houses in a week. The mayor lost no time in setting a subscription on foot in the city.513The companies, to whom application had been made a month before for contributions of bread and corn, were now desirous to know if they could limit their relief to those sufferers on what was or had been their own estates in Ireland, and not have it distributed among all his majesty's distressed subjects in that country. The Common Council declined to undertake to answer this question, but recommended each company to appear before the parliamentary committee appointed for the purpose and make its own conditions.514The following day (3 March) the City was informed that an Act of Parliament was already in preparation for settling 2,500,000 acres of land according to the votes of both Houses, unto which his majesty had given his royal assent.515The companies were subsequently (19th March) invited to provide ordnance for the protection of Londonderry.516The militia ordinance, 31 Jan., 1642.Meanwhile the struggle that had been going on between the king and parliament as to who should have control over the fortresses and the trained bands or militia of the kingdom, resulted in the Commons drawing up an ordinance conferring power in each county upon persons, to be afterwards[pg 165]named, to raise an armed force for the suppression of rebellions and invasions (31 Jan.).517This "militia ordinance"—as it was called—caused no little dissatisfaction in the city as trespassing upon the authority of the lord mayor, and a petition against it was drawn up by a certain section of the inhabitants and presented to both Houses of Parliament. The same was printed and circulated together with the king's message to the Houses against the ordinance.518The Common Council uphold the ordinance, 17 March, 1642.The Common Council were determined, however, to stand by parliament. They passed a resolution disclaiming the petition against the militia ordinance, and ordered other petitions to be drawn up and presented to both Houses,519congratulating them on the steps they had taken "for the safety of his majesty, the parliament and the kingdom," which would meet with ready submission on the part of the petitioners, and thanking them for the honour they had done the City in allowing it to nominate those persons to whom its militia should be committed.520Gurney, the royalist mayor, did not preside at the court which sanctioned these petitions, being absent from illness, so it was said.Commissioners for the city's militia, 4 April.On the 4th April a militia commission appointed by parliament for the city was read before the Common Council, the commissioners being authorised to raise and train forces, appoint and remove officers, and do other things necessary for the suppressing of rebellions and resisting invasions.521It was suggested[pg 166]that six colonels and thirty-four captains should be set over the trained bands, which had been recently increased to forty companies, each 200 strong.522The pay of the officers was guaranteed by the Common Council.523A stock of gunpowder was laid up in the city ready for any emergency, and the livery companies were called upon to make a return of the arms stored in their several halls.524A muster in Finsbury Fields before both Houses of Parliament, 10 May, 1642.On the 10th May a grand review of all the trained bands of the city, with their new officer Skippon at their head, was held in Finsbury Fields in the presence of both Houses of Parliament, the members of which were hospitably entertained on the ground at the City's expense.525The City receives the thanks of both Houses, 16 May.So pleased was parliament—both Lords and Commons—at the zeal of the City in raising and training so large a force as 8,000 men, to serve as an example (it was hoped) to the rest of the kingdom, as also in contributing upwards of £40,000 (more than one-tenth part of the whole sum recently voted by parliament) for the defence of the kingdom, that a deputation from both houses waited on the Common Council (16 May) and returned their hearty thanks.526Skippon to ignore the king's order to go to York, 17 May.On the following day (17 May) the Houses resolved that Skippon should ignore an order from the king to attend his majesty at York, and directed the sheriffs to suppress any levy of men made without the major-general's authority.527[pg 167]Loan of £100,000 by the companies, June, 1642.It was no long time before application was again made to the city for more pecuniary assistance. The breach between king and parliament was rapidly widening. Charles was known to be collecting forces around him in spite of a formal prohibition by the Commons, who now more distinctly asserted their claim to sovereignty. On Thursday, the 2nd June, a deputation of Lords and Commons presented themselves before the livery of the several companies assembled in Common Hall, and desired a loan of £100,000 towards "the relief and preservation of the kingdom of Ireland" and "speedy supply of the great and urgent necessities of this kingdom." The money was voted "most freely and with great alacrity," and was to be raised by the companies according to their corn assessment, as on previous occasions. On the 4th June the Commons passed an ordinance for security of the loan, and the thanks of both Houses and of the whole kingdom were returned to the city for its ready compliance.528Two days later (6 June) Gurney, much against his own inclination we may be sure, was forced to issue his precept to the companies to raise their several contributions.529The Grocers' Company raised their quota of £9,000 by voluntary subscription without demur. The Merchant Taylors, on the other hand, who were assessed at £10,000, whilst expressing themselves ready to do their part in furnishing the loan, took occasion to formally place on record their resolution "that the Common Hall (consisting of the liveries of this city) assembled in the Guildhall, London, hath[pg 168]no power, right or authority to bind or impose upon this company any loan of money whatsoever."530Parliamentary order for bringing in of money, plate, etc., 10 June.The king's protest, 14 June.On the 10th the Commons issued "propositions" for the bringing in of money, plate, arms and horses for "the defence of the king and both houses of parliament." Those living in and around London within a radius of eighty miles were allowed a fortnight; and so great was the enthusiasm displayed for the parliamentary cause that (in the words of Clarendon)531"it is hardly credible what a vast proportion of plate was brought in to their treasurers within ten days, there being hardly men enough to receive it or room to lay it in." It was in vain that Charles protested and threatened the citizens with the loss of their charter if they carried out the behests of the Commons.532His protest was only met with a further levy of £50,000 on all strangers and aliens residing within the city.533Pennington elected mayorlocoGurney, discharged, 16 Aug., 1642.Charles sets up his standard at Nottingham, 22 Aug., 1642.Gurney's position as mayor had become more and more an anomalous one every day. In July he was impeached by the Commons for having published the king's commission of array in the city. On the 12th August the Lords sentenced him to be imprisoned during the pleasure of the House, and to be deprived of his mayoralty,534and at the same time ordered Sir Nicholas Raynton to summon a Common Hall for the election of a new mayor. A Common Hall was accordingly summoned for the 16th, when Isaac[pg 169]Pennington and John Wollaston being nominated by the livery, the former was selected by the Court of Aldermen as Gurney's successor.535Upon application being made to Gurney for theinsignia—the sword, cap, mace and collar of esses—"he pretended they were at his house in London, locked up, and he could not come at them"; and he stoutly refused to deliver up the city's sword to any one but the king.536With a rigid Puritan like Pennington in the mayoralty chair, and Gurney and Sir Thomas Gardiner already impeached, the city was made secure for parliament before Charles set up his standard at Nottingham (22 Aug.) in token that the Civil War had commenced.

[pg 132]CHAPTER XXII.Meeting of the Long Parliament, 3 Nov., 1640.Speaker Lenthall.Parliament—the Long Parliament—met as promised on the 3rd November, 1640. Charles had intended to nominate Sir Thomas Gardiner, the Recorder, a devoted adherent of the Crown, as Speaker of the Commons; but since the days of Heneage Finch the City had failed to return its Recorder to parliament.424Charles was therefore obliged to look elsewhere. His choice fell upon William Lenthall, who was the first to realise the position of a Speaker in times of political controversy, and who throughout his career acted up to his famous dictum, that "he had neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak, save as the House was pleased to direct him."The City and the Earl of Strafford.As soon as parliament met, Strafford, who was only too conscious of his impending fate, determined to take the bull by the horns, and to use every means to induce the king to anticipate the blow by boldly accusing the parliamentary leaders of treasonable designs. His efforts were futile. Rightly or wrongly, it was generally believed that he intended to establish a military despotism in England, and that London was to be brought into subjection. The way in which it was all to be effected was even described by Cradock, one[pg 133]of the city members, in a speech he made to the House. It is certain that the citizens regarded him as a deadly foe. They had not forgotten the advice he gave to Charles respecting the aldermen, nor his attempt to ruin their trade by depreciation of the coinage. For weeks past the city had been in a disordered state. On the 22nd October, the mob having forced its way into the Court of High Commission, some of the offenders were brought before the mayor and aldermen sitting on a commission of Oyer and Terminer; but the grand jury refused to find a true bill. These abortive proceedings were followed by a riot at St. Paul's.425Before the House had been in session a fortnight Strafford was ordered into custody.Necessity of raising money, Nov., 1640.The £50,000 which the City had advanced went but a little way towards meeting the king's necessities. The two armies in the north had to be paid, and there was not the wherewithal to pay them. The City was ready to lend a further sum of £25,000, on condition that the Londonderry estate was restored, the garrison in the Tower removed and the ordnance dismounted from its walls. Unless this were done, said Cradock, "such jealousies would possess the city, it would hinder supply."426Parliament agreed to the loan being repaid, as a first charge, out of the £100,000 ordered to be raised for the relief of the army and northern counties;427and the Common Council lost no time in preparing a petition[pg 134]to parliament for the restoration of the Irish lands.428Nor was it only in their corporate capacity that the citizens came forward to render pecuniary assistance to the government. On the 21st November Isaac Pennington, alderman of the ward of Bridge Without, and one of the city's representatives in parliament, announced to the House that his constituents had subscribed £21,000 to the loan.Alleged Popish plot, Nov., 1640.The general feeling of distrust that prevailed was heightened by an attack made upon a member of the House who, in his capacity of a justice of peace, had prepared a list of recusants, in pursuance of a recent proclamation.429So great was the alarm among the Commons that Pennington offered the House a guard of three hundred citizens, and at first there was a disposition to accept the alderman's offer, but in course of time better counsel prevailed and the idea was abandoned.Impeachment of Archbishop Laud, Dec., 1640.The tendency of the city towards Puritanism at this time was very marked. On the 28th November Prynne and Burton entered London, and their entry was made one long triumphal procession. This circumstance was specially noted by the royalist writer Clarendon as a remarkable "instance of the unruly and mutinous spirit of the City of London," which he is pleased to term "the sink of all the ill humour of the Kingdom."430A fortnight later (11 Dec.) a petition for church reform and the abolition of episcopacy "root and branch" was presented to[pg 135]parliament, signed by 15,000 Londoners.431The blow was aimed at Laud, who was looked upon as the cause of all the country's trouble. That day week (18 Dec.) the archbishop was impeached.The Scottish commissioners in the city.When the meetings held at Ripon between English and Scottish commissioners for the purpose of negotiating a treaty ceased (Oct. 1640), it was on the understanding that they were to be resumed in London. The Scottish commissioners accordingly came south, and were lodged in the city in a house adjacent to the church of St. Antholin, where they were visited by a large concourse of citizens and magnificently entertained.432It was with no little satisfaction that the success of the Scots had been watched by the majority of the inhabitants of the city, and now that the northern commissioners were in their midst the citizens took the opportunity of showing them substantial marks of favour.City loan of £60,000, Jan., 1641.Reprieve of Goodman, 22 Jan., 1641.Excitement in the city.On the 12th January, 1641, the Scottish demands were formally submitted to parliament, but they were not taken into consideration until the 22nd. After much debate it was agreed in general terms that a "friendly assistance" should be given, leaving the amount and the manner of collection for future consideration.433In the meantime the Speaker, Lenthall, had written (15 Jan.) to the mayor directing him to summon a Common Hall for the purpose of raising a loan of £60,000 required for the army, and the Common Council had agreed (18 Jan.) that the amount should be collected from the wards.434But[pg 136]before this could be accomplished an incident occurred which threatened to jeopardise the loan. This was the reprieve of John Goodman, a Roman Catholic priest, who had been condemned to death. The morning after parliament had agreed to raise money for the Scottish commissioners alderman Pennington rose in the House and declared that, in consequence of Goodman's reprieve and other suspicious circumstances, the City had resolved to lend nothing.435The Lords as well as the Commons followed the initiative of the alderman and made a joint demand for the execution of the condemned priest. As he had often done before, Charles again threw over the Catholics. He announced his intention not to allow the increase of Popery or superstition in the country; he would forthwith issue a proclamation commanding Jesuits and priests to leave the kingdom within a month, and he was willing to submit the case of Goodman to the decision of both Houses.436Fortunately for Goodman, the City and the Commons had higher game to fly at in Strafford, and the humbler priest was allowed to remain unmolested in prison.Letters from Lenthall to the City touching the loan of £60,000, 6 and 19 Feb., 1641.On the 6th February the Speaker addressed a second letter to the mayor to the effect that the money was required sooner than it could be collected by way of subsidies, as formerly suggested to his lordship, and that consequently the House had directed him to take steps for having £60,000 raised[pg 137]by subscription and paid into the Chamber of London, to be at the disposal of parliament.437The money not coming in so speedily as was desired, the Speaker wrote a third time (19 Feb.) to the mayor, directing him to summon a Common Hall and to lay before it the extreme urgency of affairs.438The chief cause of the delay in getting in the money was the dissatisfaction felt in the city at Strafford's trial being put off so long. The 17th February being at last fixed for his trial, there was some hope that the money would speedily now be forthcoming,439and the same day the Commons commissioned Sir William Uvedale to go to the lord mayor and get an order for receiving the money that had been collected up to £50,000.440Three days later the Court of Aldermen made out the necessary order for the Chamberlain to pay over the money.441Trial and execution of Strafford, March-May, 1641.Again there was delay in bringing Strafford to trial, and it was not until the 22nd March that he was arraigned in Westminster Hall, where alone room could be found for the crowds that were anxious to witness the proceedings. The mayor took steps to prevent a rush of people to Westminster and to suppress any riot that might arise. From five o'clock in the morning until nine at night a double watch was kept at the city's gates and landing stages on the river. The trained bands were held in readiness, whilst servants and apprentices were ordered to keep indoors.442At the end of three weeks a Bill of Attainder[pg 138]was brought in and read a first time (10 April), and on the 21st April it was read a third time and passed.443The Lords would willingly have let matters rest here, but the discovery of a design entertained by the queen of bringing the defeated English army from the north to Westminster to overawe the parliament, and likewise of an attempt made by Charles to get possession of the Tower that he might liberate Strafford by force, hurried the unfortunate earl's end. The citizens were determined not to rest until his head was off his shoulders, and 20,000 Londoners signed a petition addressed to both Houses (24 April) demanding his execution on the ground that he had advised the plundering of the city and putting it to fine and ransom.444The Peers deemed it advisable to give way. They passed the Bill of Attainder and on the 12th May Strafford was beheaded.The City stops the loan until justice is executed on Strafford, May, 1641.The Lords had another pressing reason for giving way, for until the citizens were assured that the full penalty of the law would be executed on Strafford they determined to stop payment of the loan. Writing to Matthew Bradley on the 3rd May, the treasurer of the army tells him "a strange story." "There is," he says, "money ready in the city, but none will be delivered until justice be done upon my lord of Strafford."445On that very day, the letter continues, there had been a crowd of 10,000 well-to-do persons at Westminster—"citizens of very good account, some[pg 139]worth £30,000, some £40,000" demanding justice against Strafford and threatening to send their servants the next day unless justice were speedily executed. "Truly these unsettled times do much trouble me."The "Protestation" accepted by the City, May, 1641.The discovery of the so-called "army plot" had in the meanwhile led to a preamble being drawn up to a document known as the "Protestation," or declaration in favour of the reformed religion, in which the danger from the army was for the first time clearly mentioned. The Protestation passed the Commons on the 3rd May,446and on the following day received the assent of the House of Lords. On the 11th May a printed copy of this document was introduced into the Court of Aldermen, when it received the willing assent not only of the aldermen present, but also of the Town Clerk and the City Remembrancer.447On the 29th it was accepted by the Common Council, and two days later the mayor issued his precept for a house-to-house visitation to be made in every ward for the purpose of getting all the inhabitants of the city to give in their adherence to it.448Establishment of a poll tax for disbanding the armies, July, 1641.Although the execution of Strafford somewhat allayed the nation's fears of having "two armies brought into the bowels of the kingdom," they were soon revived by a second army plot. The armies thus became a constant source of danger as well as expense, and it was determined to disband them. Charles could not withhold his assent, and a poll tax was established for the purpose of raising the[pg 140]necessary funds. This was in July (1641).449The masters and wardens of the livery companies were forthwith called upon to make a return in writing of the names of every person who had been and then was master and warden of each company; the names of all the livery, yeomanry and freemen of each company, noting in the margin of the return those who had ever been fined for alderman or sheriff, and the parish and ward in which each individual member of the company resided. Every alderman was likewise instructed to make a return of the names of his deputy and common councilmen of his ward; the names of every merchant-stranger that kept house there, every English merchant and factor, and every popish recusant; and finally the names of everyone in the ward above the age of sixteen years not otherwise rated.450The "friendly assistance," July, 1641.On the 3rd February the House had come to a resolution that the sum of £300,000 might justly be appointed as a "friendly assistance and relief" for the Scots. The manner in which it was to be raised was left for further consideration.451It was now arranged that £80,000 of that sum should be at once paid over to them, and that on August the 25th they should cross the Tweed. The City was called upon to find £40,000—or one-half of the amount immediately required—by Wednesday, the 28th July.452[pg 141]By order of the House of Commons (29 July) it was to be repaid with interest out of the poll money when levied.453So eager were the citizens to contribute towards the work of ridding the country of the Scottish forces before Charles should have an opportunity of using his powers of persuasion upon them that there was a difficulty in getting a sufficient number of tellers to receive it.454The queen mother in England.In addition to this heavy drain upon their resources, the citizens were called upon by the House of Commons (31 July) to forthwith pay the sum of £3,000 which they had undertaken to advance, upon the public faith of the House, towards "the furnishing of the queen-mother of France in her journey out of the kingdom."455Ever since October, 1638, Mary de Medicis had resided at St. James's Palace, and had caused no little discontent by her intermeddling in the affairs of the country and the favour she displayed towards Catholics. On her first arrival in London the citizens had accorded her a hearty welcome.456The acknowledgment that Charles subsequently made of his gratification at the City's action on this occasion was rendered somewhat ungracious by his requesting that a gift of the value of £1,000, "or thereabouts," should be made to the queen-mother in further demonstration of the City's love. After communicating with the Common Council the Court of[pg 142]Aldermen agreed to present her with a cup of the value of £800, "or thereabouts."457The king sets out for Scotland, 10 Aug., 1641.Charles had determined to set out for Scotland on Monday, the 9th August, in spite of every effort to get him to postpone his journey. So great indeed was the fear of danger likely to be incurred if he carried out his intention at this juncture that the House of Commons determined to sit on Sunday to contrive measures for avoiding the threatened risk—a proceeding which they publicly declared they would never have adopted, "but upon inevitable necessity, the peace and safety both of Church and State being so deeply concerned."458In answer to a fresh appeal Charles consented to put off his journey for one day, and on Tuesday (10 Aug.)—the day on which the treaty with the Scots was finished and the queen-mother left England—he set out for Scotland.Adjournment of the Houses, 8 Sept.A day of public thanksgiving, 7 Sept.On the 28th August, when all danger in the north appeared to have passed away and Charles had visited both armies without appealing to them for assistance, parliament decided to adjourn from the 8th September until the 20th October. The Commons were in need of rest after the excitement of the session, and the necessity for an adjournment was increased by another visitation of the plague,459which had already driven many members home without leave. The day preceding the adjournment was appointed to be kept as a day of thanksgiving for the peace; and, pursuant to an order of both Houses, the mayor issued his precept for shops to be closed and for the inhabitants of the[pg 143]city to attend divine service, after which bells were to be rung and bonfires lighted.460Judgment of Star Chamberrethe City's Irish estate reversed, 26 Aug., 1641.Before the Commons separated they delivered (26 Aug.) their judgment upon a petition461which the City had prepared for them in January touching its estate in Londonderry, of which it had been deprived in 1635 by sentence of the Court of Star Chamber. That petition set forth the unwillingness of the City to undertake the work of the Ulster plantation. It had only been undertaken at the late king's earnest desire, and subject to special articles, the City absolutely refusing to be bound by the general articles drawn up by his majesty for ordinary undertakers. The Irish Society and the companies had expended more than £130,000 (exclusive of money laid out by tenants) on their estate "in hope to have in the future enjoyed some benefitt of their great cost and charge." The city of Londonderry and the town of Coleraine had been rebuilt, and the castle of Culmore repaired and entrenched. Fifteen churches had been either built or repaired, besides a "very fair" church and free school which had been erected in Derry at a cost of more than £4,000. Roads had been made which had converted one of the most barbarous places in the kingdom into one of the most civilised. The society and the companies, the petition went on to say, had enjoyed this estate without interruption until Hilary Term a° 6 Charles I (1631), when the Attorney-General, Sir Robert Heath, exhibited an information against the mayor, commonalty and citizens of London and divers individuals, suggesting that they had[pg 144]possessed themselves of the said lands and taken the profits before any grant was made to them, and that they had a greater quantity of lands than was intended to be passed by the grant, and had by indirect means procured divers privileges to be inserted in the grant for which the Attorney General who passed the grant had no warrant. Evidence of witnesses had been taken on the matter, but before the cause came to a hearing this information was dropt and another exhibited in Hilary Term a° 8 Charles I (1633) against the petitioners and the Irish Society, in which new charges touching infringement of conditions of Letters Patent were inserted, and upon these pretences the Irish Society was adjudged by sentence of the Court of Star Chamber in Hilary Term a° 10 Charles I (1635) to pay a fine of £70,000 and to lose their estate on the ground that the said Letters Patent had been "unduly and surreptitiously obteyned to the prejudice and deceipt of his majestie." The companies refused to surrender their estates, and divers lands belonging to the City and to the Bridgehouse were seized to satisfy the fine, to the great prejudice of the City. Being otherwise unable to redeem themselves from the penalty of the Star Chamber sentence, the companies were forced to consent to relinquish their Irish estate and all arrears of rent, amounting to £20,000. Ascire faciaswas brought in and judgment allowed by default, whereupon the companies lost their estates, whilst the mayor and commonalty and citizens of London, although not parties to any patent or plantation—having done no more than lend their name for the better transaction of the business and for the purpose of raising money for the plantation,[pg 145]which otherwise could never have been effected—were fined £70,000. Seeing that the matter reflected so badly upon the justice of the late as well as the present king, the petitioners humbly prayed that a full investigation of the whole proceedings might be made and justice done.Such was the nature of the petition which the Common Council ordered in January (1641) to be submitted to parliament. The House had its hands too full to pay much attention to the City's grievance until recently; but now, within a fortnight of their adjournment for a well-earned rest, the Commons declared462the sentence in the Star Chamber to have been unlawful and unjust. They declared that, in the opinion of the House, the citizens of London had been solicited and pressed to undertake the plantation of Londonderry, that the king had not been deceived in the grant to the new corporation of the Irish Society, that no breach of covenant (if any there were) had been committed sufficient to cause a forfeiture of the lands, that the Star Chamber proceedings wereultra vires, and that the citizens of London and all those against whom judgment had been given in thescire faciasshould be discharged of that judgment and reinstated as they were before the sentence in the Star Chamber.Disbanded soldiers in the city, Sept.-Oct., 1641.Before the Houses again met, Richard Gurney, a man of the same royalist proclivity as Garway, and on that account, perhaps, described by Clarendon as "a man of wisdom and courage," had been elected mayor in succession to Edmund Wright.463The last[pg 146]days of Wright's mayoralty were days of sickness and tumult in the city. Numbers of disbanded soldiers from the north had made their way to London, where they carried on a system of rapine and outrage. The mayor issued precepts for search to be made in every ward for suspected persons and disbanded soldiers, as well as for keeping the streets well lighted at night by candle and lanthorn, whilst public proclamation was made by the king for soldiers to repair to their own homes.464The Irish rebellion of 1641.Shortly after the House of Commons had resumed its session attention was again drawn towards Ireland, where a rebellion had broken out. Seeing how successful Scotland had been in its resistance to England, the Irish had determined to strike a blow for the recovery of lands handed over to Protestant colonists, as well as for religious liberty. Charles himself had held out hopes of greater freedom to the Irish Catholics, who saw no reason why they should be worse treated than the rebellious Puritans of Scotland. The scene of massacre and cruelty which followed has been described by others, and remains to this day (in the words of Carlyle) "a huge blot, an indiscriminate blackness, one which the human memory cannot willingly charge itself with."The City asked for a loan of £50,000, 2 Nov., 1641.As soon as news of the outbreak reached parliament, application was forthwith made to the City for assistance. On the 3rd November lord mayor Gurney issued his precept465to the aldermen informing[pg 147]them that on the previous day divers lords and others of both Houses of Parliament had come to the Common Council and asked for a loan of £50,000 at eight per cent. Seeing that the matter was of so great importance, each alderman was desired to take steps in conjunction with his deputy and common councilmen of his ward to get liberal contributions made towards the loan.466The City declares against the Catholic lords and the bishops, 12 Nov., 1641.The attitude of the City now became more marked. Whilst consenting to find the money required, it asked parliament that the persons of the Catholic lords might be secured, and that the bishops, who were the cause of every good measure being defeated in the Upper House, might be deprived of their votes. It had a minor grievance in the custom that had arisen of members of both Houses granting their servants "protections" against creditors, a procedure extremely prejudicial to the city merchant and tradesman, and one which they would willingly see remedied.467Charles entertained in the city, 25 Nov., 1641.The City's declaration against the bishops, which Dr. Gardiner468characterises as being "the turning point in the struggle," augured badly for Charles. Nevertheless, he had friends in the city. The new mayor was a strong royalist, as also were the majority of the aldermen, and they took the opportunity of Charles paying his first visit to the city[pg 148](25 Nov.) since he ascended the throne to demonstrate their loyalty. On the 17th the Court of Aldermen appointed a committee to make the necessary arrangements,469whilst the mayor issued his precept the same day to the civic companies to prepare a certain number of their livery, well horsed and apparelled, to assist him in escorting the king and queen from the church of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, to the Guildhall on the morning of the eventful day, and thence, after the banquet, to Whitehall.470The Common Council agreed that the cost of the entertainment at the Guildhall should be defrayed by the Chamber.471The Recorder's speech, 25 Nov.On the king's approaching the northern suburbs of the city, whither the mayor and citizens had gone to meet him,472he was welcomed by the Recorder. There was some talk of presenting the king with a gift either of money or plate,473but the proposal fell through. "We tender to you," said Sir Thomas Gardiner, "no formal present; it would but lessen us; I am sure whatever it were it would be far short of our meaning."The king's reply.It was of the utmost importance to Charles to win over the city to his side if he could—"The loans[pg 149]of the London citizens alone had made it possible for the House of Commons to disband the armies; and without the loans of the London citizens the House would find it impossible to provide for a campaign in Ireland," and thus place itself in a position of military supremacy.474Accordingly, in a speech carefully prepared beforehand,475he expressed his gratification at finding that the better class of citizens were still loyal. "I see," said he, "that all those former tumults and disorders have only risen from the meaner sort of people, and that the affections of the better and main part of the city have ever been loyal and affectionate to my person and government." He proceeded to assure his hearers of his determination to maintain the true Protestant religion as established by Elizabeth and James, and he hoped with the assistance of parliament to re-establish the trade of the country. But what pleased the citizens perhaps more than anything was a promise he made to restore to them their Londonderry estate—at that moment in the hands of the rebels, but soon, he hoped, to be recovered. The Recorder was expressly commanded to wait upon his majesty and see that this promise was punctually performed.476Honours for the Mayor, Sheriffs and five aldermen.By way of further showing his favour Charles knighted both the Mayor and Recorder on the spot. He afterwards expressed his gratification at the[pg 150]reception that the City had accorded him,477and conferred knighthoods upon both of the sheriffs and five of the aldermen.478Measures prepared for restoration of Irish estate, 30 Nov., 1641.The Common Council took Charles at his word and lost no time in appointing a committee for the purpose of introducing a Bill in parliament for the recovery of the city's Irish estate. The Recorder had pointed out (20 Nov.) to the court that the "corporation" (i.e.the Irish society) had been dissolved, and it behoved them to consider in whose names the Irish estate should be vested, whether in the name of the mayor and commonalty of London or a "select company."A London mob at Westminster, Nov., 1641.The disaffected element in the city, which had voluntarily kept itself in the background, or had been suppressed by force on the day of the king's visit, again came to the surface as soon as the duties of hospitality had been executed. Once more a crowd gathered (29 Nov.) at Westminster, shouting "No bishops!" encouraged (it was said) by John Venn, a merchant taylor, who had succeeded Cradock, on the latter's decease, as one of the city's representatives in parliament. On the 10th December the mayor, acting under orders from the king, issued his precept to the aldermen to see that apprentices and servants were kept within doors and not allowed to go abroad to make tumult and hold unlawful meetings.479[pg 151]The character of the mob.A difference of opinion existed as to the representative character of those who had thus threatened parliament. "You much mistake," wrote Thomas Wiseman to Sir John Pennington ten days after the riot had taken place, "if you think those seditious meetings of sectaries and others ill affected, who have lately been at the parliament-house to cry for justice against the delinquent bishops, are the representative body of the city—they are not, but the representative body is the lord mayor, aldermen and Common Council, who gave the entertainment to the king and will stick to him and live and die in his service."480Petition to the House, 11 Dec., 1641.In order to dispel all doubts as to the respectability of the agitators they determined to present a formal petition to parliament for the removal of the bishops, and to do the thing in style. "Accoutred in the best manner they could," they rode to Westminster in coaches, "to prevent the aspersion that they were of the basest sort of people only which were that way affected."481They declared that the petition was signed by over 20,000 well-to-do citizens, including aldermen and members of the Common Council, and that many more signatures might have been obtained but for the obstruction of divers "ill-affected persons."482When the Commons came to inquire (20 Dec.) who these ill-affected persons were, it was found that the Mayor and the Recorder were the chief. The former was declared to have said that the petition had found[pg 152]favour only with ignorant or idle people, who did not realise the danger they were in, and that the petition "tended to mutiny." On hearing that part of the petition which stated that it was the wish of the "representative body" of the city to have the bishops removed, the Recorder lost all control over himself, and swore it was a lie. The petition, he said, tended to sedition, and to set men together by the ears. So far from tending to peace it was, he declared, "for blood and cutting of throats; and if it came to cutting of throats, thank yourselves; and your blood be upon your own heads."483The new Common Council, 21 Oct., 1641.The following day was the Feast of St. Thomas (21 Dec.), the day on which the members of the Common Council go out of office and present themselves to their constituents for re-election. The result of the elections turned out to be largely in favour of the Puritan opposition. The new Common Council, like the House of Commons, would support "King Pym" and his policy; whilst the more aristocratic Court of Aldermen would side with Charles and the House of Lords.484It cannot be doubted that the new council was more truly representative of the inhabitants of the city, and better able to give expression to their wishes than the last. There was only wanting a popular lord mayor. He was to come.Fresh riot at Westminster, 27 Dec., 1641.The trained bands called out, 28 Dec.The tardy and unsatisfactory reply Charles gave to the remonstrance—the "Grand Remonstrance of[pg 153]the state of the Church and Kingdom" presented to him at Hampton Court on the 1st December—and his appointment of Colonel Lunsford, a debauched ruffian, as lieutenant of the Tower, in place of Balfour, who was a favourite with the city, increased the exasperation against him, and the mayor was obliged to inform him (26 Dec.) that unless Lunsford was removed he could not answer for the peace of the city. This representation by Gurney had the desired effect, and Lunsford was removed that night.485Before his removal became generally known another riot broke out at Westminster (27 Dec.) between London apprentices and some officers of the late army, among whom was Lunsford himself. The officers drew their swords and drove the close-cropt apprentices, or "roundheads" as they were jeeringly called, out of Westminster, chasing them up King Street as far as Whitehall. Several of the rioters were hurt, but none killed. For some days the excitement was so great that everyone attending the court at Whitehall wore a sword; and 500 gentlemen of the Inns of Court offered their services to the king.486On the 28th December Charles directed the mayor to call out the trained bands, and to command their officers, "by shooting with bullets or otherwise," to slay and kill such as should persist in tumultuary and seditious ways and disorders.487The Peers were inclined to throw the blame of the disturbance upon the civic authorities, but Pym and[pg 154]the House of Commons refused "to discontent the citizens of London, our surest friends," at such a critical time.488Charles himself took the same view, and sent a letter to the City by the hand of Lord Newburgh, in which he expressed his continued confidence in the loyalty of the city, and ascribed the recent tumults and distempers to "the meane and unruly people of the suburbs." The Common Council in reply caused it to be signified to his majesty that neither that court nor any individual member of it was implicated in the late disorder, which they altogether disavowed and disclaimed.489Having committed this message to Lord Newburgh to carry to the king, the court proceeded to take measures for the better preserving the peace in the several wards of the city.A guard for parliament refused by the king, 3 Jan., 1642.The same day that these measures were being taken for public safety in the city the Commons directed halberds to be brought into the House for their own use in case of a sudden attack, and desired the king to appoint the Earl of Essex captain of the guard. After this they adjourned until the 3rd January, a committee being ordered to sit in the meanwhile at the Guildhall. Upon the re-assembling of the House Charles refused its request for a guard.490The Commons thereupon sent a message to the mayor for the trained bands to be put in readiness "for the safety of the king's person, the city and the commonwealth," and for good and strong watches to be set at all[pg 155]places convenient about the city. The following day Sir Thomas Soame, Alderman Pennington and Captain Venn were despatched to the city to inform the citizens of a new danger which was threatening the Commons.491The arrest of the five members demanded, 3 Jan., 1642.During the short recess Charles had at last made up his mind to a course long premeditated. He determined to seize the parliamentary leaders on a charge of treason, and articles of impeachment were drawn up against Lord Kimbolton, of the House of Peers, and Pym, Hampden, Holles, Hazlerigg and Strode, of the Commons. No sooner had the Commons met than the Sergeant-at-Arms appeared with orders to arrest the five members.492As such action affected the privileges of the House, a committee was appointed to send a reply to the king in due course. Baffled in this direction, the king despatched a message to the lord mayor forbidding him to call out the trained bands at the order of the Commons, but only to raise such a force as might be necessary to put down tumult and disorder.493Gurney was in bed at the time, but he promised to see to it in the morning.494Meeting of the Commons, 4 Jan.When the Commons met the next morning (4 Jan.) they sent up the articles of impeachment to the House of Lords as a scandalous paper. The king in the meantime was taking steps to secure the Tower and the city. He had heard that six pieces of ordnance had been removed from the artillery yard[pg 156]and placed near the Leadenhall, and he wrote to the mayor bidding him see that they were used only for the guard and preservation of the city if need be.495It was these measures that caused the Commons to send Soame, Pennington and Venn to the city to inform the citizens of the impending danger. On the afternoon of the same day Charles himself appeared in the House, to the door of which he had been accompanied by an armed retinue. Taking his stand before the Speaker's chair he professed sorrow for the necessity that had brought him there. Yesterday he had sent, he said, a Sergeant-at-Arms to apprehend certain persons accused of high treason. He had expected obedience and not an answer. Careful as he was and always would be of the privileges of the Commons, they were to know that there was no privilege in matters of treason. Failing himself to discover those whom he sought, he turned to Lenthall and asked him if they were in the House. "Do you see any of them?" The Speaker's reply was singularly apt. "May it please your majesty," said he, falling on his knee before Charles, "I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here." Casting one more glance round the House, and finding that the "birds had flown," the king withdrew amid cries of "Privilege! Privilege!" and the House immediately adjourned.The king at the Guildhall, 5 Jan., 1642.The king could not allow matters to rest here. The next morning, being Wednesday, the 5th January, he set out for the city with a small retinue, and[pg 157]presented himself at the Guildhall when a Court of Common Council was sitting. The city's archives are searched in vain for any record of what took place on that memorable occasion, but we have a vivid account of the scene handed down to us by an eye-witness, Captain Slingsby, who, happening to meet the royal party on its way to the city, turned back and followed it into the precincts of the Council Chamber.496Charles lost no time in coming to the point. He had come, he said, to demand those persons who had been already accused of high treason, and who were believed at that moment to be lurking within the city. He desired to bring them to a trial at law, and depended upon those present for their assistance. He was resolved to redress grievances and to preserve the privileges of parliament, but he must "question these traitors." After justifying the existence of a guard at Whitehall and saying a few friendly words to the aldermen, he invited himself to dinner with one of the sheriffs, choosing the sheriff who was less favourably disposed towards him, viz., sheriff Garrett. The king's speech was followed by an ominous pause. Then a cry, writes Slingsby, was raised in the council, "Parliament! Privileges of parliament!" and presently another, "God bless the king!" These continued for some time, but he professes to be unable to say which of the two was loudest. When silence was restored the king asked that a spokesman should make known to him their wishes. Thereupon a member of the council arose and said, "It is the vote[pg 158]of this court that your majesty hear the advice of your parliament." This statement was at once challenged by another, who cried out, "It is not the vote of this court: it is your own vote." The king replied by asking who it was that charged him with not taking the advice of his parliament, adding that he did take its advice and would continue to do so, but, said he, "I must distinguish between the parliament and some traitors in it," and these, he repeated, "he would bring to trial—to trial." "No privileges could protect a traitor from a trial." With this he turned to leave the Council Chamber. On reaching the outer hall he was again assailed with the cry that had been made to ring in his ears all the way from Whitehall to the city, "The privileges of parliament!" Undaunted he made his way through the mob to dine at Garrett's house, and later in the day, amid the same cries, he returned to Whitehall.The City's petition to the king, 5 Jan., 1642.Relieved of his presence, the Common Council, with great deliberation, agreed on the terms of a petition to be presented to his majesty.497After expressing their regret for the continuation of the rebellion in Ireland, the removal of the lieutenant of the Tower, in whom all had confidence, the steps taken to fortify Whitehall, and the recent disturbances at Westminster, they represented to the king the great increase of the fears of the citizens owing to his attempt to seize the five members, the effect of which was to prejudice the whole trade of the city and the kingdom. They therefore humbly desired him to take steps for the speedy relief of the[pg 159]Protestants in Ireland, to place the Tower in the hands of persons of trust, to remove discredited persons from Whitehall and Westminster, and not to proceed against Lord Kimbolton and the five members of the Commons otherwise than in accordance with the privileges of parliament.The Common Council vote £2,000 for the defence of the city.Having ordered this petition to be engrossed and afterwards to be presented to his majesty, the Common Council proceeded to vote a sum of £2,000 for the purpose of providing a stock of arms and ammunition for the defence of the city in "theis tymes of daungers and feares."Panic in the city, 6 Jan., 1642.Each alderman had already been directed to see that the trained bands, 6,000 strong, were fully equipt without the necessity of borrowing arms from the city halls or elsewhere; a double watch with halberds and muskets was ordered to be kept in each ward by night and day, chains and posts which were in any way defective were to be forthwith made good, and hooks, ladders, buckets, spades, shovels, pickaxes, augers and chisels were to be kept in readiness in case of fire.498Members of the Common Council were forbidden on the 6th January to leave their wards without express permission.499The same night an alarm was raised, and the mayor was asked to call out the trained bands. On his refusal the trained bands dispensed with his authority and turned out on their own account. The panic quickly spread, and every inhabitant, arming himself as best he could, hastened to join them. In course of time the alarm[pg 160]subsided, but the mayor was commanded by an Order in Council (8 Jan.) to investigate the cause of the alarm, and to secure the persons who had taken upon themselves to call out the trained bands.500This Order in Council was immediately met by a resolution of the Grand Committee of the Commons sitting at Grocers' Hall to the effect that the action of the citizens for the defence of parliament had been in accordance with their duty, and that anyone attempting to arrest them for so doing was a public enemy. More than this, the Committee declared that at a time when the king, kingdom and parliament were "in very eminent and apparent danger," it was the duty of the lord mayor, aldermen and Common Council, or the greater number of them, to make use of the trained bands or any other forces of the city for the preservation of the peace.501The king's reply to the City's petition. 8 Jan., 1642.On the same day (8 Jan.) the king's reply to the City's late petition was read before the Common Council.502He had hoped, he said, to have already satisfied most of the objections raised in the petition by his speech to the citizens on the previous Wednesday; nevertheless, he was willing to give a further answer to the several matters objected to, being persuaded that his so doing would be considered the greatest proof that he could offer of his good intention. His answer, however, in whatever terms it was couched, was considered far from satisfactory[pg 161]to the council, and preparations for resisting force by force began to be pushed on.Skippon to command the city's forces, 10 Jan.On Monday, the 10th January, a joint agreement for the future defence of parliament and the city was arrived at by the committee of parliament and a committee appointed by the Common Council.503The trained bands were ordered to their colours and placed under the command of Captain Philip Skippon, as sergeant-major-general of the forces of the city. Eight pieces of ordnance were to accompany the troops, and as many citizens as could supply themselves with horses were to serve on horseback. All this was done for the safety of the "king, parliament and kingdom." With the object of increasing the number of trained bands, the mayor was authorised by the Common Council (19 Jan.) to issue his precept for a return to be made by the alderman of each ward (1) of the number of men in his ward fit to find and bear arms, and (2) the number of men fit to bear arms but unable to find them.504The Common Council agreed to pay Skippon £300 a year for life, if he should so long continue in the city's service.505Guns and ammunition were stored up at the Leadenhall,506and a supply of corn laid in by the livery companies.507Charles quits London, 10 Jan., 1642.In the meanwhile Charles committed the fatal mistake of quitting London (10 Jan.), and parliament had thereupon returned to Westminster (11 Jan.). The appearance of the five members as they made their way by water from the city to Westminster was[pg 162]greeted with shouts of joy and firing of volleys. On entering the House they publicly acknowledged the kindness extended to them by the City, for which the sheriffs and the citizens received the thanks of the Commons, and a promise of indemnity for their action throughout the recent crisis.508The Tower held for the king.Everything now promised well for parliament except the refusal of Sir John Byron, lieutenant of the Tower, to submit to its orders. Once more the seamen or mariners of London, who play no unimportant part in the history of the city at political crises, came forward. They offered to take the Tower by assault. There was some talk of reducing the fortress by starvation, and Byron confessed to secretary Nicholas (22 Jan.)509that if the measures had been carried out he could not long have held the place, determined as he was to sell both the Tower and his life at as dear a rate as he could. No such strict investment, however, took place. Skippon attempted to win over a portion of the garrison in the absence of the lieutenant, but failed. The Tower, however, became less an object of fear to the citizens as its stock of munition of war became less every day by reason of shipments to Ireland.A loan of £100,000 demanded of the City for the Irish war, 22 Jan., 1642.It was to Ireland that Charles looked for assistance in his struggle with parliament. It behoved the latter, therefore, to use its utmost endeavours to reduce that country to subjection. A deputation from the House waited on the Common Council (22 Jan.) with a request[pg 163]for a loan of £100,000. Whilst this request was under consideration the mayor was directed by the council to write to all the livery companies interested in the Londonderry estate, and exhort them to contribute bread and corn for the relief of the plantation.510The City's reply, 24 Jan., 1642.Two days later (24 Jan.) the City resolved not to accede to the request. Answer was sent that they were unable to raise money for a foreign war by way of a tax, and it was hopeless to raise the money by voluntary contributions. The House was reminded that the City had already advanced a sum of £50,000 on the express understanding that troops should forthwith be despatched to Ireland, but none had gone. The citizens would refuse to lend more until assured that relief had been actually sent to Londonderry. The House was further reminded that the City was dissatisfied with the remissness shown in disarming Papists and pressing of soldiers, as well as in displacing the lieutenant of the Tower, and appointing one well approved by parliament. A similar representation was made to the House of Lords.511Money raised by promise of confiscated lands.On the 11th February a petition was presented to the House of Commons by "divers of his majesty's loyal subjects," offering to assist at their own charge in putting down the Irish rebellion, provided that they might have such satisfaction out of the rebels' estates as should be thought reasonable.512The suggestion was[pg 164]readily accepted, and a scheme for opening a public subscription passed through both Houses in a week. The mayor lost no time in setting a subscription on foot in the city.513The companies, to whom application had been made a month before for contributions of bread and corn, were now desirous to know if they could limit their relief to those sufferers on what was or had been their own estates in Ireland, and not have it distributed among all his majesty's distressed subjects in that country. The Common Council declined to undertake to answer this question, but recommended each company to appear before the parliamentary committee appointed for the purpose and make its own conditions.514The following day (3 March) the City was informed that an Act of Parliament was already in preparation for settling 2,500,000 acres of land according to the votes of both Houses, unto which his majesty had given his royal assent.515The companies were subsequently (19th March) invited to provide ordnance for the protection of Londonderry.516The militia ordinance, 31 Jan., 1642.Meanwhile the struggle that had been going on between the king and parliament as to who should have control over the fortresses and the trained bands or militia of the kingdom, resulted in the Commons drawing up an ordinance conferring power in each county upon persons, to be afterwards[pg 165]named, to raise an armed force for the suppression of rebellions and invasions (31 Jan.).517This "militia ordinance"—as it was called—caused no little dissatisfaction in the city as trespassing upon the authority of the lord mayor, and a petition against it was drawn up by a certain section of the inhabitants and presented to both Houses of Parliament. The same was printed and circulated together with the king's message to the Houses against the ordinance.518The Common Council uphold the ordinance, 17 March, 1642.The Common Council were determined, however, to stand by parliament. They passed a resolution disclaiming the petition against the militia ordinance, and ordered other petitions to be drawn up and presented to both Houses,519congratulating them on the steps they had taken "for the safety of his majesty, the parliament and the kingdom," which would meet with ready submission on the part of the petitioners, and thanking them for the honour they had done the City in allowing it to nominate those persons to whom its militia should be committed.520Gurney, the royalist mayor, did not preside at the court which sanctioned these petitions, being absent from illness, so it was said.Commissioners for the city's militia, 4 April.On the 4th April a militia commission appointed by parliament for the city was read before the Common Council, the commissioners being authorised to raise and train forces, appoint and remove officers, and do other things necessary for the suppressing of rebellions and resisting invasions.521It was suggested[pg 166]that six colonels and thirty-four captains should be set over the trained bands, which had been recently increased to forty companies, each 200 strong.522The pay of the officers was guaranteed by the Common Council.523A stock of gunpowder was laid up in the city ready for any emergency, and the livery companies were called upon to make a return of the arms stored in their several halls.524A muster in Finsbury Fields before both Houses of Parliament, 10 May, 1642.On the 10th May a grand review of all the trained bands of the city, with their new officer Skippon at their head, was held in Finsbury Fields in the presence of both Houses of Parliament, the members of which were hospitably entertained on the ground at the City's expense.525The City receives the thanks of both Houses, 16 May.So pleased was parliament—both Lords and Commons—at the zeal of the City in raising and training so large a force as 8,000 men, to serve as an example (it was hoped) to the rest of the kingdom, as also in contributing upwards of £40,000 (more than one-tenth part of the whole sum recently voted by parliament) for the defence of the kingdom, that a deputation from both houses waited on the Common Council (16 May) and returned their hearty thanks.526Skippon to ignore the king's order to go to York, 17 May.On the following day (17 May) the Houses resolved that Skippon should ignore an order from the king to attend his majesty at York, and directed the sheriffs to suppress any levy of men made without the major-general's authority.527[pg 167]Loan of £100,000 by the companies, June, 1642.It was no long time before application was again made to the city for more pecuniary assistance. The breach between king and parliament was rapidly widening. Charles was known to be collecting forces around him in spite of a formal prohibition by the Commons, who now more distinctly asserted their claim to sovereignty. On Thursday, the 2nd June, a deputation of Lords and Commons presented themselves before the livery of the several companies assembled in Common Hall, and desired a loan of £100,000 towards "the relief and preservation of the kingdom of Ireland" and "speedy supply of the great and urgent necessities of this kingdom." The money was voted "most freely and with great alacrity," and was to be raised by the companies according to their corn assessment, as on previous occasions. On the 4th June the Commons passed an ordinance for security of the loan, and the thanks of both Houses and of the whole kingdom were returned to the city for its ready compliance.528Two days later (6 June) Gurney, much against his own inclination we may be sure, was forced to issue his precept to the companies to raise their several contributions.529The Grocers' Company raised their quota of £9,000 by voluntary subscription without demur. The Merchant Taylors, on the other hand, who were assessed at £10,000, whilst expressing themselves ready to do their part in furnishing the loan, took occasion to formally place on record their resolution "that the Common Hall (consisting of the liveries of this city) assembled in the Guildhall, London, hath[pg 168]no power, right or authority to bind or impose upon this company any loan of money whatsoever."530Parliamentary order for bringing in of money, plate, etc., 10 June.The king's protest, 14 June.On the 10th the Commons issued "propositions" for the bringing in of money, plate, arms and horses for "the defence of the king and both houses of parliament." Those living in and around London within a radius of eighty miles were allowed a fortnight; and so great was the enthusiasm displayed for the parliamentary cause that (in the words of Clarendon)531"it is hardly credible what a vast proportion of plate was brought in to their treasurers within ten days, there being hardly men enough to receive it or room to lay it in." It was in vain that Charles protested and threatened the citizens with the loss of their charter if they carried out the behests of the Commons.532His protest was only met with a further levy of £50,000 on all strangers and aliens residing within the city.533Pennington elected mayorlocoGurney, discharged, 16 Aug., 1642.Charles sets up his standard at Nottingham, 22 Aug., 1642.Gurney's position as mayor had become more and more an anomalous one every day. In July he was impeached by the Commons for having published the king's commission of array in the city. On the 12th August the Lords sentenced him to be imprisoned during the pleasure of the House, and to be deprived of his mayoralty,534and at the same time ordered Sir Nicholas Raynton to summon a Common Hall for the election of a new mayor. A Common Hall was accordingly summoned for the 16th, when Isaac[pg 169]Pennington and John Wollaston being nominated by the livery, the former was selected by the Court of Aldermen as Gurney's successor.535Upon application being made to Gurney for theinsignia—the sword, cap, mace and collar of esses—"he pretended they were at his house in London, locked up, and he could not come at them"; and he stoutly refused to deliver up the city's sword to any one but the king.536With a rigid Puritan like Pennington in the mayoralty chair, and Gurney and Sir Thomas Gardiner already impeached, the city was made secure for parliament before Charles set up his standard at Nottingham (22 Aug.) in token that the Civil War had commenced.

Meeting of the Long Parliament, 3 Nov., 1640.Speaker Lenthall.Parliament—the Long Parliament—met as promised on the 3rd November, 1640. Charles had intended to nominate Sir Thomas Gardiner, the Recorder, a devoted adherent of the Crown, as Speaker of the Commons; but since the days of Heneage Finch the City had failed to return its Recorder to parliament.424Charles was therefore obliged to look elsewhere. His choice fell upon William Lenthall, who was the first to realise the position of a Speaker in times of political controversy, and who throughout his career acted up to his famous dictum, that "he had neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak, save as the House was pleased to direct him."The City and the Earl of Strafford.As soon as parliament met, Strafford, who was only too conscious of his impending fate, determined to take the bull by the horns, and to use every means to induce the king to anticipate the blow by boldly accusing the parliamentary leaders of treasonable designs. His efforts were futile. Rightly or wrongly, it was generally believed that he intended to establish a military despotism in England, and that London was to be brought into subjection. The way in which it was all to be effected was even described by Cradock, one[pg 133]of the city members, in a speech he made to the House. It is certain that the citizens regarded him as a deadly foe. They had not forgotten the advice he gave to Charles respecting the aldermen, nor his attempt to ruin their trade by depreciation of the coinage. For weeks past the city had been in a disordered state. On the 22nd October, the mob having forced its way into the Court of High Commission, some of the offenders were brought before the mayor and aldermen sitting on a commission of Oyer and Terminer; but the grand jury refused to find a true bill. These abortive proceedings were followed by a riot at St. Paul's.425Before the House had been in session a fortnight Strafford was ordered into custody.Necessity of raising money, Nov., 1640.The £50,000 which the City had advanced went but a little way towards meeting the king's necessities. The two armies in the north had to be paid, and there was not the wherewithal to pay them. The City was ready to lend a further sum of £25,000, on condition that the Londonderry estate was restored, the garrison in the Tower removed and the ordnance dismounted from its walls. Unless this were done, said Cradock, "such jealousies would possess the city, it would hinder supply."426Parliament agreed to the loan being repaid, as a first charge, out of the £100,000 ordered to be raised for the relief of the army and northern counties;427and the Common Council lost no time in preparing a petition[pg 134]to parliament for the restoration of the Irish lands.428Nor was it only in their corporate capacity that the citizens came forward to render pecuniary assistance to the government. On the 21st November Isaac Pennington, alderman of the ward of Bridge Without, and one of the city's representatives in parliament, announced to the House that his constituents had subscribed £21,000 to the loan.Alleged Popish plot, Nov., 1640.The general feeling of distrust that prevailed was heightened by an attack made upon a member of the House who, in his capacity of a justice of peace, had prepared a list of recusants, in pursuance of a recent proclamation.429So great was the alarm among the Commons that Pennington offered the House a guard of three hundred citizens, and at first there was a disposition to accept the alderman's offer, but in course of time better counsel prevailed and the idea was abandoned.Impeachment of Archbishop Laud, Dec., 1640.The tendency of the city towards Puritanism at this time was very marked. On the 28th November Prynne and Burton entered London, and their entry was made one long triumphal procession. This circumstance was specially noted by the royalist writer Clarendon as a remarkable "instance of the unruly and mutinous spirit of the City of London," which he is pleased to term "the sink of all the ill humour of the Kingdom."430A fortnight later (11 Dec.) a petition for church reform and the abolition of episcopacy "root and branch" was presented to[pg 135]parliament, signed by 15,000 Londoners.431The blow was aimed at Laud, who was looked upon as the cause of all the country's trouble. That day week (18 Dec.) the archbishop was impeached.The Scottish commissioners in the city.When the meetings held at Ripon between English and Scottish commissioners for the purpose of negotiating a treaty ceased (Oct. 1640), it was on the understanding that they were to be resumed in London. The Scottish commissioners accordingly came south, and were lodged in the city in a house adjacent to the church of St. Antholin, where they were visited by a large concourse of citizens and magnificently entertained.432It was with no little satisfaction that the success of the Scots had been watched by the majority of the inhabitants of the city, and now that the northern commissioners were in their midst the citizens took the opportunity of showing them substantial marks of favour.City loan of £60,000, Jan., 1641.Reprieve of Goodman, 22 Jan., 1641.Excitement in the city.On the 12th January, 1641, the Scottish demands were formally submitted to parliament, but they were not taken into consideration until the 22nd. After much debate it was agreed in general terms that a "friendly assistance" should be given, leaving the amount and the manner of collection for future consideration.433In the meantime the Speaker, Lenthall, had written (15 Jan.) to the mayor directing him to summon a Common Hall for the purpose of raising a loan of £60,000 required for the army, and the Common Council had agreed (18 Jan.) that the amount should be collected from the wards.434But[pg 136]before this could be accomplished an incident occurred which threatened to jeopardise the loan. This was the reprieve of John Goodman, a Roman Catholic priest, who had been condemned to death. The morning after parliament had agreed to raise money for the Scottish commissioners alderman Pennington rose in the House and declared that, in consequence of Goodman's reprieve and other suspicious circumstances, the City had resolved to lend nothing.435The Lords as well as the Commons followed the initiative of the alderman and made a joint demand for the execution of the condemned priest. As he had often done before, Charles again threw over the Catholics. He announced his intention not to allow the increase of Popery or superstition in the country; he would forthwith issue a proclamation commanding Jesuits and priests to leave the kingdom within a month, and he was willing to submit the case of Goodman to the decision of both Houses.436Fortunately for Goodman, the City and the Commons had higher game to fly at in Strafford, and the humbler priest was allowed to remain unmolested in prison.Letters from Lenthall to the City touching the loan of £60,000, 6 and 19 Feb., 1641.On the 6th February the Speaker addressed a second letter to the mayor to the effect that the money was required sooner than it could be collected by way of subsidies, as formerly suggested to his lordship, and that consequently the House had directed him to take steps for having £60,000 raised[pg 137]by subscription and paid into the Chamber of London, to be at the disposal of parliament.437The money not coming in so speedily as was desired, the Speaker wrote a third time (19 Feb.) to the mayor, directing him to summon a Common Hall and to lay before it the extreme urgency of affairs.438The chief cause of the delay in getting in the money was the dissatisfaction felt in the city at Strafford's trial being put off so long. The 17th February being at last fixed for his trial, there was some hope that the money would speedily now be forthcoming,439and the same day the Commons commissioned Sir William Uvedale to go to the lord mayor and get an order for receiving the money that had been collected up to £50,000.440Three days later the Court of Aldermen made out the necessary order for the Chamberlain to pay over the money.441Trial and execution of Strafford, March-May, 1641.Again there was delay in bringing Strafford to trial, and it was not until the 22nd March that he was arraigned in Westminster Hall, where alone room could be found for the crowds that were anxious to witness the proceedings. The mayor took steps to prevent a rush of people to Westminster and to suppress any riot that might arise. From five o'clock in the morning until nine at night a double watch was kept at the city's gates and landing stages on the river. The trained bands were held in readiness, whilst servants and apprentices were ordered to keep indoors.442At the end of three weeks a Bill of Attainder[pg 138]was brought in and read a first time (10 April), and on the 21st April it was read a third time and passed.443The Lords would willingly have let matters rest here, but the discovery of a design entertained by the queen of bringing the defeated English army from the north to Westminster to overawe the parliament, and likewise of an attempt made by Charles to get possession of the Tower that he might liberate Strafford by force, hurried the unfortunate earl's end. The citizens were determined not to rest until his head was off his shoulders, and 20,000 Londoners signed a petition addressed to both Houses (24 April) demanding his execution on the ground that he had advised the plundering of the city and putting it to fine and ransom.444The Peers deemed it advisable to give way. They passed the Bill of Attainder and on the 12th May Strafford was beheaded.The City stops the loan until justice is executed on Strafford, May, 1641.The Lords had another pressing reason for giving way, for until the citizens were assured that the full penalty of the law would be executed on Strafford they determined to stop payment of the loan. Writing to Matthew Bradley on the 3rd May, the treasurer of the army tells him "a strange story." "There is," he says, "money ready in the city, but none will be delivered until justice be done upon my lord of Strafford."445On that very day, the letter continues, there had been a crowd of 10,000 well-to-do persons at Westminster—"citizens of very good account, some[pg 139]worth £30,000, some £40,000" demanding justice against Strafford and threatening to send their servants the next day unless justice were speedily executed. "Truly these unsettled times do much trouble me."The "Protestation" accepted by the City, May, 1641.The discovery of the so-called "army plot" had in the meanwhile led to a preamble being drawn up to a document known as the "Protestation," or declaration in favour of the reformed religion, in which the danger from the army was for the first time clearly mentioned. The Protestation passed the Commons on the 3rd May,446and on the following day received the assent of the House of Lords. On the 11th May a printed copy of this document was introduced into the Court of Aldermen, when it received the willing assent not only of the aldermen present, but also of the Town Clerk and the City Remembrancer.447On the 29th it was accepted by the Common Council, and two days later the mayor issued his precept for a house-to-house visitation to be made in every ward for the purpose of getting all the inhabitants of the city to give in their adherence to it.448Establishment of a poll tax for disbanding the armies, July, 1641.Although the execution of Strafford somewhat allayed the nation's fears of having "two armies brought into the bowels of the kingdom," they were soon revived by a second army plot. The armies thus became a constant source of danger as well as expense, and it was determined to disband them. Charles could not withhold his assent, and a poll tax was established for the purpose of raising the[pg 140]necessary funds. This was in July (1641).449The masters and wardens of the livery companies were forthwith called upon to make a return in writing of the names of every person who had been and then was master and warden of each company; the names of all the livery, yeomanry and freemen of each company, noting in the margin of the return those who had ever been fined for alderman or sheriff, and the parish and ward in which each individual member of the company resided. Every alderman was likewise instructed to make a return of the names of his deputy and common councilmen of his ward; the names of every merchant-stranger that kept house there, every English merchant and factor, and every popish recusant; and finally the names of everyone in the ward above the age of sixteen years not otherwise rated.450The "friendly assistance," July, 1641.On the 3rd February the House had come to a resolution that the sum of £300,000 might justly be appointed as a "friendly assistance and relief" for the Scots. The manner in which it was to be raised was left for further consideration.451It was now arranged that £80,000 of that sum should be at once paid over to them, and that on August the 25th they should cross the Tweed. The City was called upon to find £40,000—or one-half of the amount immediately required—by Wednesday, the 28th July.452[pg 141]By order of the House of Commons (29 July) it was to be repaid with interest out of the poll money when levied.453So eager were the citizens to contribute towards the work of ridding the country of the Scottish forces before Charles should have an opportunity of using his powers of persuasion upon them that there was a difficulty in getting a sufficient number of tellers to receive it.454The queen mother in England.In addition to this heavy drain upon their resources, the citizens were called upon by the House of Commons (31 July) to forthwith pay the sum of £3,000 which they had undertaken to advance, upon the public faith of the House, towards "the furnishing of the queen-mother of France in her journey out of the kingdom."455Ever since October, 1638, Mary de Medicis had resided at St. James's Palace, and had caused no little discontent by her intermeddling in the affairs of the country and the favour she displayed towards Catholics. On her first arrival in London the citizens had accorded her a hearty welcome.456The acknowledgment that Charles subsequently made of his gratification at the City's action on this occasion was rendered somewhat ungracious by his requesting that a gift of the value of £1,000, "or thereabouts," should be made to the queen-mother in further demonstration of the City's love. After communicating with the Common Council the Court of[pg 142]Aldermen agreed to present her with a cup of the value of £800, "or thereabouts."457The king sets out for Scotland, 10 Aug., 1641.Charles had determined to set out for Scotland on Monday, the 9th August, in spite of every effort to get him to postpone his journey. So great indeed was the fear of danger likely to be incurred if he carried out his intention at this juncture that the House of Commons determined to sit on Sunday to contrive measures for avoiding the threatened risk—a proceeding which they publicly declared they would never have adopted, "but upon inevitable necessity, the peace and safety both of Church and State being so deeply concerned."458In answer to a fresh appeal Charles consented to put off his journey for one day, and on Tuesday (10 Aug.)—the day on which the treaty with the Scots was finished and the queen-mother left England—he set out for Scotland.Adjournment of the Houses, 8 Sept.A day of public thanksgiving, 7 Sept.On the 28th August, when all danger in the north appeared to have passed away and Charles had visited both armies without appealing to them for assistance, parliament decided to adjourn from the 8th September until the 20th October. The Commons were in need of rest after the excitement of the session, and the necessity for an adjournment was increased by another visitation of the plague,459which had already driven many members home without leave. The day preceding the adjournment was appointed to be kept as a day of thanksgiving for the peace; and, pursuant to an order of both Houses, the mayor issued his precept for shops to be closed and for the inhabitants of the[pg 143]city to attend divine service, after which bells were to be rung and bonfires lighted.460Judgment of Star Chamberrethe City's Irish estate reversed, 26 Aug., 1641.Before the Commons separated they delivered (26 Aug.) their judgment upon a petition461which the City had prepared for them in January touching its estate in Londonderry, of which it had been deprived in 1635 by sentence of the Court of Star Chamber. That petition set forth the unwillingness of the City to undertake the work of the Ulster plantation. It had only been undertaken at the late king's earnest desire, and subject to special articles, the City absolutely refusing to be bound by the general articles drawn up by his majesty for ordinary undertakers. The Irish Society and the companies had expended more than £130,000 (exclusive of money laid out by tenants) on their estate "in hope to have in the future enjoyed some benefitt of their great cost and charge." The city of Londonderry and the town of Coleraine had been rebuilt, and the castle of Culmore repaired and entrenched. Fifteen churches had been either built or repaired, besides a "very fair" church and free school which had been erected in Derry at a cost of more than £4,000. Roads had been made which had converted one of the most barbarous places in the kingdom into one of the most civilised. The society and the companies, the petition went on to say, had enjoyed this estate without interruption until Hilary Term a° 6 Charles I (1631), when the Attorney-General, Sir Robert Heath, exhibited an information against the mayor, commonalty and citizens of London and divers individuals, suggesting that they had[pg 144]possessed themselves of the said lands and taken the profits before any grant was made to them, and that they had a greater quantity of lands than was intended to be passed by the grant, and had by indirect means procured divers privileges to be inserted in the grant for which the Attorney General who passed the grant had no warrant. Evidence of witnesses had been taken on the matter, but before the cause came to a hearing this information was dropt and another exhibited in Hilary Term a° 8 Charles I (1633) against the petitioners and the Irish Society, in which new charges touching infringement of conditions of Letters Patent were inserted, and upon these pretences the Irish Society was adjudged by sentence of the Court of Star Chamber in Hilary Term a° 10 Charles I (1635) to pay a fine of £70,000 and to lose their estate on the ground that the said Letters Patent had been "unduly and surreptitiously obteyned to the prejudice and deceipt of his majestie." The companies refused to surrender their estates, and divers lands belonging to the City and to the Bridgehouse were seized to satisfy the fine, to the great prejudice of the City. Being otherwise unable to redeem themselves from the penalty of the Star Chamber sentence, the companies were forced to consent to relinquish their Irish estate and all arrears of rent, amounting to £20,000. Ascire faciaswas brought in and judgment allowed by default, whereupon the companies lost their estates, whilst the mayor and commonalty and citizens of London, although not parties to any patent or plantation—having done no more than lend their name for the better transaction of the business and for the purpose of raising money for the plantation,[pg 145]which otherwise could never have been effected—were fined £70,000. Seeing that the matter reflected so badly upon the justice of the late as well as the present king, the petitioners humbly prayed that a full investigation of the whole proceedings might be made and justice done.Such was the nature of the petition which the Common Council ordered in January (1641) to be submitted to parliament. The House had its hands too full to pay much attention to the City's grievance until recently; but now, within a fortnight of their adjournment for a well-earned rest, the Commons declared462the sentence in the Star Chamber to have been unlawful and unjust. They declared that, in the opinion of the House, the citizens of London had been solicited and pressed to undertake the plantation of Londonderry, that the king had not been deceived in the grant to the new corporation of the Irish Society, that no breach of covenant (if any there were) had been committed sufficient to cause a forfeiture of the lands, that the Star Chamber proceedings wereultra vires, and that the citizens of London and all those against whom judgment had been given in thescire faciasshould be discharged of that judgment and reinstated as they were before the sentence in the Star Chamber.Disbanded soldiers in the city, Sept.-Oct., 1641.Before the Houses again met, Richard Gurney, a man of the same royalist proclivity as Garway, and on that account, perhaps, described by Clarendon as "a man of wisdom and courage," had been elected mayor in succession to Edmund Wright.463The last[pg 146]days of Wright's mayoralty were days of sickness and tumult in the city. Numbers of disbanded soldiers from the north had made their way to London, where they carried on a system of rapine and outrage. The mayor issued precepts for search to be made in every ward for suspected persons and disbanded soldiers, as well as for keeping the streets well lighted at night by candle and lanthorn, whilst public proclamation was made by the king for soldiers to repair to their own homes.464The Irish rebellion of 1641.Shortly after the House of Commons had resumed its session attention was again drawn towards Ireland, where a rebellion had broken out. Seeing how successful Scotland had been in its resistance to England, the Irish had determined to strike a blow for the recovery of lands handed over to Protestant colonists, as well as for religious liberty. Charles himself had held out hopes of greater freedom to the Irish Catholics, who saw no reason why they should be worse treated than the rebellious Puritans of Scotland. The scene of massacre and cruelty which followed has been described by others, and remains to this day (in the words of Carlyle) "a huge blot, an indiscriminate blackness, one which the human memory cannot willingly charge itself with."The City asked for a loan of £50,000, 2 Nov., 1641.As soon as news of the outbreak reached parliament, application was forthwith made to the City for assistance. On the 3rd November lord mayor Gurney issued his precept465to the aldermen informing[pg 147]them that on the previous day divers lords and others of both Houses of Parliament had come to the Common Council and asked for a loan of £50,000 at eight per cent. Seeing that the matter was of so great importance, each alderman was desired to take steps in conjunction with his deputy and common councilmen of his ward to get liberal contributions made towards the loan.466The City declares against the Catholic lords and the bishops, 12 Nov., 1641.The attitude of the City now became more marked. Whilst consenting to find the money required, it asked parliament that the persons of the Catholic lords might be secured, and that the bishops, who were the cause of every good measure being defeated in the Upper House, might be deprived of their votes. It had a minor grievance in the custom that had arisen of members of both Houses granting their servants "protections" against creditors, a procedure extremely prejudicial to the city merchant and tradesman, and one which they would willingly see remedied.467Charles entertained in the city, 25 Nov., 1641.The City's declaration against the bishops, which Dr. Gardiner468characterises as being "the turning point in the struggle," augured badly for Charles. Nevertheless, he had friends in the city. The new mayor was a strong royalist, as also were the majority of the aldermen, and they took the opportunity of Charles paying his first visit to the city[pg 148](25 Nov.) since he ascended the throne to demonstrate their loyalty. On the 17th the Court of Aldermen appointed a committee to make the necessary arrangements,469whilst the mayor issued his precept the same day to the civic companies to prepare a certain number of their livery, well horsed and apparelled, to assist him in escorting the king and queen from the church of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, to the Guildhall on the morning of the eventful day, and thence, after the banquet, to Whitehall.470The Common Council agreed that the cost of the entertainment at the Guildhall should be defrayed by the Chamber.471The Recorder's speech, 25 Nov.On the king's approaching the northern suburbs of the city, whither the mayor and citizens had gone to meet him,472he was welcomed by the Recorder. There was some talk of presenting the king with a gift either of money or plate,473but the proposal fell through. "We tender to you," said Sir Thomas Gardiner, "no formal present; it would but lessen us; I am sure whatever it were it would be far short of our meaning."The king's reply.It was of the utmost importance to Charles to win over the city to his side if he could—"The loans[pg 149]of the London citizens alone had made it possible for the House of Commons to disband the armies; and without the loans of the London citizens the House would find it impossible to provide for a campaign in Ireland," and thus place itself in a position of military supremacy.474Accordingly, in a speech carefully prepared beforehand,475he expressed his gratification at finding that the better class of citizens were still loyal. "I see," said he, "that all those former tumults and disorders have only risen from the meaner sort of people, and that the affections of the better and main part of the city have ever been loyal and affectionate to my person and government." He proceeded to assure his hearers of his determination to maintain the true Protestant religion as established by Elizabeth and James, and he hoped with the assistance of parliament to re-establish the trade of the country. But what pleased the citizens perhaps more than anything was a promise he made to restore to them their Londonderry estate—at that moment in the hands of the rebels, but soon, he hoped, to be recovered. The Recorder was expressly commanded to wait upon his majesty and see that this promise was punctually performed.476Honours for the Mayor, Sheriffs and five aldermen.By way of further showing his favour Charles knighted both the Mayor and Recorder on the spot. He afterwards expressed his gratification at the[pg 150]reception that the City had accorded him,477and conferred knighthoods upon both of the sheriffs and five of the aldermen.478Measures prepared for restoration of Irish estate, 30 Nov., 1641.The Common Council took Charles at his word and lost no time in appointing a committee for the purpose of introducing a Bill in parliament for the recovery of the city's Irish estate. The Recorder had pointed out (20 Nov.) to the court that the "corporation" (i.e.the Irish society) had been dissolved, and it behoved them to consider in whose names the Irish estate should be vested, whether in the name of the mayor and commonalty of London or a "select company."A London mob at Westminster, Nov., 1641.The disaffected element in the city, which had voluntarily kept itself in the background, or had been suppressed by force on the day of the king's visit, again came to the surface as soon as the duties of hospitality had been executed. Once more a crowd gathered (29 Nov.) at Westminster, shouting "No bishops!" encouraged (it was said) by John Venn, a merchant taylor, who had succeeded Cradock, on the latter's decease, as one of the city's representatives in parliament. On the 10th December the mayor, acting under orders from the king, issued his precept to the aldermen to see that apprentices and servants were kept within doors and not allowed to go abroad to make tumult and hold unlawful meetings.479[pg 151]The character of the mob.A difference of opinion existed as to the representative character of those who had thus threatened parliament. "You much mistake," wrote Thomas Wiseman to Sir John Pennington ten days after the riot had taken place, "if you think those seditious meetings of sectaries and others ill affected, who have lately been at the parliament-house to cry for justice against the delinquent bishops, are the representative body of the city—they are not, but the representative body is the lord mayor, aldermen and Common Council, who gave the entertainment to the king and will stick to him and live and die in his service."480Petition to the House, 11 Dec., 1641.In order to dispel all doubts as to the respectability of the agitators they determined to present a formal petition to parliament for the removal of the bishops, and to do the thing in style. "Accoutred in the best manner they could," they rode to Westminster in coaches, "to prevent the aspersion that they were of the basest sort of people only which were that way affected."481They declared that the petition was signed by over 20,000 well-to-do citizens, including aldermen and members of the Common Council, and that many more signatures might have been obtained but for the obstruction of divers "ill-affected persons."482When the Commons came to inquire (20 Dec.) who these ill-affected persons were, it was found that the Mayor and the Recorder were the chief. The former was declared to have said that the petition had found[pg 152]favour only with ignorant or idle people, who did not realise the danger they were in, and that the petition "tended to mutiny." On hearing that part of the petition which stated that it was the wish of the "representative body" of the city to have the bishops removed, the Recorder lost all control over himself, and swore it was a lie. The petition, he said, tended to sedition, and to set men together by the ears. So far from tending to peace it was, he declared, "for blood and cutting of throats; and if it came to cutting of throats, thank yourselves; and your blood be upon your own heads."483The new Common Council, 21 Oct., 1641.The following day was the Feast of St. Thomas (21 Dec.), the day on which the members of the Common Council go out of office and present themselves to their constituents for re-election. The result of the elections turned out to be largely in favour of the Puritan opposition. The new Common Council, like the House of Commons, would support "King Pym" and his policy; whilst the more aristocratic Court of Aldermen would side with Charles and the House of Lords.484It cannot be doubted that the new council was more truly representative of the inhabitants of the city, and better able to give expression to their wishes than the last. There was only wanting a popular lord mayor. He was to come.Fresh riot at Westminster, 27 Dec., 1641.The trained bands called out, 28 Dec.The tardy and unsatisfactory reply Charles gave to the remonstrance—the "Grand Remonstrance of[pg 153]the state of the Church and Kingdom" presented to him at Hampton Court on the 1st December—and his appointment of Colonel Lunsford, a debauched ruffian, as lieutenant of the Tower, in place of Balfour, who was a favourite with the city, increased the exasperation against him, and the mayor was obliged to inform him (26 Dec.) that unless Lunsford was removed he could not answer for the peace of the city. This representation by Gurney had the desired effect, and Lunsford was removed that night.485Before his removal became generally known another riot broke out at Westminster (27 Dec.) between London apprentices and some officers of the late army, among whom was Lunsford himself. The officers drew their swords and drove the close-cropt apprentices, or "roundheads" as they were jeeringly called, out of Westminster, chasing them up King Street as far as Whitehall. Several of the rioters were hurt, but none killed. For some days the excitement was so great that everyone attending the court at Whitehall wore a sword; and 500 gentlemen of the Inns of Court offered their services to the king.486On the 28th December Charles directed the mayor to call out the trained bands, and to command their officers, "by shooting with bullets or otherwise," to slay and kill such as should persist in tumultuary and seditious ways and disorders.487The Peers were inclined to throw the blame of the disturbance upon the civic authorities, but Pym and[pg 154]the House of Commons refused "to discontent the citizens of London, our surest friends," at such a critical time.488Charles himself took the same view, and sent a letter to the City by the hand of Lord Newburgh, in which he expressed his continued confidence in the loyalty of the city, and ascribed the recent tumults and distempers to "the meane and unruly people of the suburbs." The Common Council in reply caused it to be signified to his majesty that neither that court nor any individual member of it was implicated in the late disorder, which they altogether disavowed and disclaimed.489Having committed this message to Lord Newburgh to carry to the king, the court proceeded to take measures for the better preserving the peace in the several wards of the city.A guard for parliament refused by the king, 3 Jan., 1642.The same day that these measures were being taken for public safety in the city the Commons directed halberds to be brought into the House for their own use in case of a sudden attack, and desired the king to appoint the Earl of Essex captain of the guard. After this they adjourned until the 3rd January, a committee being ordered to sit in the meanwhile at the Guildhall. Upon the re-assembling of the House Charles refused its request for a guard.490The Commons thereupon sent a message to the mayor for the trained bands to be put in readiness "for the safety of the king's person, the city and the commonwealth," and for good and strong watches to be set at all[pg 155]places convenient about the city. The following day Sir Thomas Soame, Alderman Pennington and Captain Venn were despatched to the city to inform the citizens of a new danger which was threatening the Commons.491The arrest of the five members demanded, 3 Jan., 1642.During the short recess Charles had at last made up his mind to a course long premeditated. He determined to seize the parliamentary leaders on a charge of treason, and articles of impeachment were drawn up against Lord Kimbolton, of the House of Peers, and Pym, Hampden, Holles, Hazlerigg and Strode, of the Commons. No sooner had the Commons met than the Sergeant-at-Arms appeared with orders to arrest the five members.492As such action affected the privileges of the House, a committee was appointed to send a reply to the king in due course. Baffled in this direction, the king despatched a message to the lord mayor forbidding him to call out the trained bands at the order of the Commons, but only to raise such a force as might be necessary to put down tumult and disorder.493Gurney was in bed at the time, but he promised to see to it in the morning.494Meeting of the Commons, 4 Jan.When the Commons met the next morning (4 Jan.) they sent up the articles of impeachment to the House of Lords as a scandalous paper. The king in the meantime was taking steps to secure the Tower and the city. He had heard that six pieces of ordnance had been removed from the artillery yard[pg 156]and placed near the Leadenhall, and he wrote to the mayor bidding him see that they were used only for the guard and preservation of the city if need be.495It was these measures that caused the Commons to send Soame, Pennington and Venn to the city to inform the citizens of the impending danger. On the afternoon of the same day Charles himself appeared in the House, to the door of which he had been accompanied by an armed retinue. Taking his stand before the Speaker's chair he professed sorrow for the necessity that had brought him there. Yesterday he had sent, he said, a Sergeant-at-Arms to apprehend certain persons accused of high treason. He had expected obedience and not an answer. Careful as he was and always would be of the privileges of the Commons, they were to know that there was no privilege in matters of treason. Failing himself to discover those whom he sought, he turned to Lenthall and asked him if they were in the House. "Do you see any of them?" The Speaker's reply was singularly apt. "May it please your majesty," said he, falling on his knee before Charles, "I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here." Casting one more glance round the House, and finding that the "birds had flown," the king withdrew amid cries of "Privilege! Privilege!" and the House immediately adjourned.The king at the Guildhall, 5 Jan., 1642.The king could not allow matters to rest here. The next morning, being Wednesday, the 5th January, he set out for the city with a small retinue, and[pg 157]presented himself at the Guildhall when a Court of Common Council was sitting. The city's archives are searched in vain for any record of what took place on that memorable occasion, but we have a vivid account of the scene handed down to us by an eye-witness, Captain Slingsby, who, happening to meet the royal party on its way to the city, turned back and followed it into the precincts of the Council Chamber.496Charles lost no time in coming to the point. He had come, he said, to demand those persons who had been already accused of high treason, and who were believed at that moment to be lurking within the city. He desired to bring them to a trial at law, and depended upon those present for their assistance. He was resolved to redress grievances and to preserve the privileges of parliament, but he must "question these traitors." After justifying the existence of a guard at Whitehall and saying a few friendly words to the aldermen, he invited himself to dinner with one of the sheriffs, choosing the sheriff who was less favourably disposed towards him, viz., sheriff Garrett. The king's speech was followed by an ominous pause. Then a cry, writes Slingsby, was raised in the council, "Parliament! Privileges of parliament!" and presently another, "God bless the king!" These continued for some time, but he professes to be unable to say which of the two was loudest. When silence was restored the king asked that a spokesman should make known to him their wishes. Thereupon a member of the council arose and said, "It is the vote[pg 158]of this court that your majesty hear the advice of your parliament." This statement was at once challenged by another, who cried out, "It is not the vote of this court: it is your own vote." The king replied by asking who it was that charged him with not taking the advice of his parliament, adding that he did take its advice and would continue to do so, but, said he, "I must distinguish between the parliament and some traitors in it," and these, he repeated, "he would bring to trial—to trial." "No privileges could protect a traitor from a trial." With this he turned to leave the Council Chamber. On reaching the outer hall he was again assailed with the cry that had been made to ring in his ears all the way from Whitehall to the city, "The privileges of parliament!" Undaunted he made his way through the mob to dine at Garrett's house, and later in the day, amid the same cries, he returned to Whitehall.The City's petition to the king, 5 Jan., 1642.Relieved of his presence, the Common Council, with great deliberation, agreed on the terms of a petition to be presented to his majesty.497After expressing their regret for the continuation of the rebellion in Ireland, the removal of the lieutenant of the Tower, in whom all had confidence, the steps taken to fortify Whitehall, and the recent disturbances at Westminster, they represented to the king the great increase of the fears of the citizens owing to his attempt to seize the five members, the effect of which was to prejudice the whole trade of the city and the kingdom. They therefore humbly desired him to take steps for the speedy relief of the[pg 159]Protestants in Ireland, to place the Tower in the hands of persons of trust, to remove discredited persons from Whitehall and Westminster, and not to proceed against Lord Kimbolton and the five members of the Commons otherwise than in accordance with the privileges of parliament.The Common Council vote £2,000 for the defence of the city.Having ordered this petition to be engrossed and afterwards to be presented to his majesty, the Common Council proceeded to vote a sum of £2,000 for the purpose of providing a stock of arms and ammunition for the defence of the city in "theis tymes of daungers and feares."Panic in the city, 6 Jan., 1642.Each alderman had already been directed to see that the trained bands, 6,000 strong, were fully equipt without the necessity of borrowing arms from the city halls or elsewhere; a double watch with halberds and muskets was ordered to be kept in each ward by night and day, chains and posts which were in any way defective were to be forthwith made good, and hooks, ladders, buckets, spades, shovels, pickaxes, augers and chisels were to be kept in readiness in case of fire.498Members of the Common Council were forbidden on the 6th January to leave their wards without express permission.499The same night an alarm was raised, and the mayor was asked to call out the trained bands. On his refusal the trained bands dispensed with his authority and turned out on their own account. The panic quickly spread, and every inhabitant, arming himself as best he could, hastened to join them. In course of time the alarm[pg 160]subsided, but the mayor was commanded by an Order in Council (8 Jan.) to investigate the cause of the alarm, and to secure the persons who had taken upon themselves to call out the trained bands.500This Order in Council was immediately met by a resolution of the Grand Committee of the Commons sitting at Grocers' Hall to the effect that the action of the citizens for the defence of parliament had been in accordance with their duty, and that anyone attempting to arrest them for so doing was a public enemy. More than this, the Committee declared that at a time when the king, kingdom and parliament were "in very eminent and apparent danger," it was the duty of the lord mayor, aldermen and Common Council, or the greater number of them, to make use of the trained bands or any other forces of the city for the preservation of the peace.501The king's reply to the City's petition. 8 Jan., 1642.On the same day (8 Jan.) the king's reply to the City's late petition was read before the Common Council.502He had hoped, he said, to have already satisfied most of the objections raised in the petition by his speech to the citizens on the previous Wednesday; nevertheless, he was willing to give a further answer to the several matters objected to, being persuaded that his so doing would be considered the greatest proof that he could offer of his good intention. His answer, however, in whatever terms it was couched, was considered far from satisfactory[pg 161]to the council, and preparations for resisting force by force began to be pushed on.Skippon to command the city's forces, 10 Jan.On Monday, the 10th January, a joint agreement for the future defence of parliament and the city was arrived at by the committee of parliament and a committee appointed by the Common Council.503The trained bands were ordered to their colours and placed under the command of Captain Philip Skippon, as sergeant-major-general of the forces of the city. Eight pieces of ordnance were to accompany the troops, and as many citizens as could supply themselves with horses were to serve on horseback. All this was done for the safety of the "king, parliament and kingdom." With the object of increasing the number of trained bands, the mayor was authorised by the Common Council (19 Jan.) to issue his precept for a return to be made by the alderman of each ward (1) of the number of men in his ward fit to find and bear arms, and (2) the number of men fit to bear arms but unable to find them.504The Common Council agreed to pay Skippon £300 a year for life, if he should so long continue in the city's service.505Guns and ammunition were stored up at the Leadenhall,506and a supply of corn laid in by the livery companies.507Charles quits London, 10 Jan., 1642.In the meanwhile Charles committed the fatal mistake of quitting London (10 Jan.), and parliament had thereupon returned to Westminster (11 Jan.). The appearance of the five members as they made their way by water from the city to Westminster was[pg 162]greeted with shouts of joy and firing of volleys. On entering the House they publicly acknowledged the kindness extended to them by the City, for which the sheriffs and the citizens received the thanks of the Commons, and a promise of indemnity for their action throughout the recent crisis.508The Tower held for the king.Everything now promised well for parliament except the refusal of Sir John Byron, lieutenant of the Tower, to submit to its orders. Once more the seamen or mariners of London, who play no unimportant part in the history of the city at political crises, came forward. They offered to take the Tower by assault. There was some talk of reducing the fortress by starvation, and Byron confessed to secretary Nicholas (22 Jan.)509that if the measures had been carried out he could not long have held the place, determined as he was to sell both the Tower and his life at as dear a rate as he could. No such strict investment, however, took place. Skippon attempted to win over a portion of the garrison in the absence of the lieutenant, but failed. The Tower, however, became less an object of fear to the citizens as its stock of munition of war became less every day by reason of shipments to Ireland.A loan of £100,000 demanded of the City for the Irish war, 22 Jan., 1642.It was to Ireland that Charles looked for assistance in his struggle with parliament. It behoved the latter, therefore, to use its utmost endeavours to reduce that country to subjection. A deputation from the House waited on the Common Council (22 Jan.) with a request[pg 163]for a loan of £100,000. Whilst this request was under consideration the mayor was directed by the council to write to all the livery companies interested in the Londonderry estate, and exhort them to contribute bread and corn for the relief of the plantation.510The City's reply, 24 Jan., 1642.Two days later (24 Jan.) the City resolved not to accede to the request. Answer was sent that they were unable to raise money for a foreign war by way of a tax, and it was hopeless to raise the money by voluntary contributions. The House was reminded that the City had already advanced a sum of £50,000 on the express understanding that troops should forthwith be despatched to Ireland, but none had gone. The citizens would refuse to lend more until assured that relief had been actually sent to Londonderry. The House was further reminded that the City was dissatisfied with the remissness shown in disarming Papists and pressing of soldiers, as well as in displacing the lieutenant of the Tower, and appointing one well approved by parliament. A similar representation was made to the House of Lords.511Money raised by promise of confiscated lands.On the 11th February a petition was presented to the House of Commons by "divers of his majesty's loyal subjects," offering to assist at their own charge in putting down the Irish rebellion, provided that they might have such satisfaction out of the rebels' estates as should be thought reasonable.512The suggestion was[pg 164]readily accepted, and a scheme for opening a public subscription passed through both Houses in a week. The mayor lost no time in setting a subscription on foot in the city.513The companies, to whom application had been made a month before for contributions of bread and corn, were now desirous to know if they could limit their relief to those sufferers on what was or had been their own estates in Ireland, and not have it distributed among all his majesty's distressed subjects in that country. The Common Council declined to undertake to answer this question, but recommended each company to appear before the parliamentary committee appointed for the purpose and make its own conditions.514The following day (3 March) the City was informed that an Act of Parliament was already in preparation for settling 2,500,000 acres of land according to the votes of both Houses, unto which his majesty had given his royal assent.515The companies were subsequently (19th March) invited to provide ordnance for the protection of Londonderry.516The militia ordinance, 31 Jan., 1642.Meanwhile the struggle that had been going on between the king and parliament as to who should have control over the fortresses and the trained bands or militia of the kingdom, resulted in the Commons drawing up an ordinance conferring power in each county upon persons, to be afterwards[pg 165]named, to raise an armed force for the suppression of rebellions and invasions (31 Jan.).517This "militia ordinance"—as it was called—caused no little dissatisfaction in the city as trespassing upon the authority of the lord mayor, and a petition against it was drawn up by a certain section of the inhabitants and presented to both Houses of Parliament. The same was printed and circulated together with the king's message to the Houses against the ordinance.518The Common Council uphold the ordinance, 17 March, 1642.The Common Council were determined, however, to stand by parliament. They passed a resolution disclaiming the petition against the militia ordinance, and ordered other petitions to be drawn up and presented to both Houses,519congratulating them on the steps they had taken "for the safety of his majesty, the parliament and the kingdom," which would meet with ready submission on the part of the petitioners, and thanking them for the honour they had done the City in allowing it to nominate those persons to whom its militia should be committed.520Gurney, the royalist mayor, did not preside at the court which sanctioned these petitions, being absent from illness, so it was said.Commissioners for the city's militia, 4 April.On the 4th April a militia commission appointed by parliament for the city was read before the Common Council, the commissioners being authorised to raise and train forces, appoint and remove officers, and do other things necessary for the suppressing of rebellions and resisting invasions.521It was suggested[pg 166]that six colonels and thirty-four captains should be set over the trained bands, which had been recently increased to forty companies, each 200 strong.522The pay of the officers was guaranteed by the Common Council.523A stock of gunpowder was laid up in the city ready for any emergency, and the livery companies were called upon to make a return of the arms stored in their several halls.524A muster in Finsbury Fields before both Houses of Parliament, 10 May, 1642.On the 10th May a grand review of all the trained bands of the city, with their new officer Skippon at their head, was held in Finsbury Fields in the presence of both Houses of Parliament, the members of which were hospitably entertained on the ground at the City's expense.525The City receives the thanks of both Houses, 16 May.So pleased was parliament—both Lords and Commons—at the zeal of the City in raising and training so large a force as 8,000 men, to serve as an example (it was hoped) to the rest of the kingdom, as also in contributing upwards of £40,000 (more than one-tenth part of the whole sum recently voted by parliament) for the defence of the kingdom, that a deputation from both houses waited on the Common Council (16 May) and returned their hearty thanks.526Skippon to ignore the king's order to go to York, 17 May.On the following day (17 May) the Houses resolved that Skippon should ignore an order from the king to attend his majesty at York, and directed the sheriffs to suppress any levy of men made without the major-general's authority.527[pg 167]Loan of £100,000 by the companies, June, 1642.It was no long time before application was again made to the city for more pecuniary assistance. The breach between king and parliament was rapidly widening. Charles was known to be collecting forces around him in spite of a formal prohibition by the Commons, who now more distinctly asserted their claim to sovereignty. On Thursday, the 2nd June, a deputation of Lords and Commons presented themselves before the livery of the several companies assembled in Common Hall, and desired a loan of £100,000 towards "the relief and preservation of the kingdom of Ireland" and "speedy supply of the great and urgent necessities of this kingdom." The money was voted "most freely and with great alacrity," and was to be raised by the companies according to their corn assessment, as on previous occasions. On the 4th June the Commons passed an ordinance for security of the loan, and the thanks of both Houses and of the whole kingdom were returned to the city for its ready compliance.528Two days later (6 June) Gurney, much against his own inclination we may be sure, was forced to issue his precept to the companies to raise their several contributions.529The Grocers' Company raised their quota of £9,000 by voluntary subscription without demur. The Merchant Taylors, on the other hand, who were assessed at £10,000, whilst expressing themselves ready to do their part in furnishing the loan, took occasion to formally place on record their resolution "that the Common Hall (consisting of the liveries of this city) assembled in the Guildhall, London, hath[pg 168]no power, right or authority to bind or impose upon this company any loan of money whatsoever."530Parliamentary order for bringing in of money, plate, etc., 10 June.The king's protest, 14 June.On the 10th the Commons issued "propositions" for the bringing in of money, plate, arms and horses for "the defence of the king and both houses of parliament." Those living in and around London within a radius of eighty miles were allowed a fortnight; and so great was the enthusiasm displayed for the parliamentary cause that (in the words of Clarendon)531"it is hardly credible what a vast proportion of plate was brought in to their treasurers within ten days, there being hardly men enough to receive it or room to lay it in." It was in vain that Charles protested and threatened the citizens with the loss of their charter if they carried out the behests of the Commons.532His protest was only met with a further levy of £50,000 on all strangers and aliens residing within the city.533Pennington elected mayorlocoGurney, discharged, 16 Aug., 1642.Charles sets up his standard at Nottingham, 22 Aug., 1642.Gurney's position as mayor had become more and more an anomalous one every day. In July he was impeached by the Commons for having published the king's commission of array in the city. On the 12th August the Lords sentenced him to be imprisoned during the pleasure of the House, and to be deprived of his mayoralty,534and at the same time ordered Sir Nicholas Raynton to summon a Common Hall for the election of a new mayor. A Common Hall was accordingly summoned for the 16th, when Isaac[pg 169]Pennington and John Wollaston being nominated by the livery, the former was selected by the Court of Aldermen as Gurney's successor.535Upon application being made to Gurney for theinsignia—the sword, cap, mace and collar of esses—"he pretended they were at his house in London, locked up, and he could not come at them"; and he stoutly refused to deliver up the city's sword to any one but the king.536With a rigid Puritan like Pennington in the mayoralty chair, and Gurney and Sir Thomas Gardiner already impeached, the city was made secure for parliament before Charles set up his standard at Nottingham (22 Aug.) in token that the Civil War had commenced.

Meeting of the Long Parliament, 3 Nov., 1640.

Meeting of the Long Parliament, 3 Nov., 1640.

Meeting of the Long Parliament, 3 Nov., 1640.

Speaker Lenthall.

Speaker Lenthall.

Speaker Lenthall.

Parliament—the Long Parliament—met as promised on the 3rd November, 1640. Charles had intended to nominate Sir Thomas Gardiner, the Recorder, a devoted adherent of the Crown, as Speaker of the Commons; but since the days of Heneage Finch the City had failed to return its Recorder to parliament.424Charles was therefore obliged to look elsewhere. His choice fell upon William Lenthall, who was the first to realise the position of a Speaker in times of political controversy, and who throughout his career acted up to his famous dictum, that "he had neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak, save as the House was pleased to direct him."

The City and the Earl of Strafford.

The City and the Earl of Strafford.

The City and the Earl of Strafford.

As soon as parliament met, Strafford, who was only too conscious of his impending fate, determined to take the bull by the horns, and to use every means to induce the king to anticipate the blow by boldly accusing the parliamentary leaders of treasonable designs. His efforts were futile. Rightly or wrongly, it was generally believed that he intended to establish a military despotism in England, and that London was to be brought into subjection. The way in which it was all to be effected was even described by Cradock, one[pg 133]of the city members, in a speech he made to the House. It is certain that the citizens regarded him as a deadly foe. They had not forgotten the advice he gave to Charles respecting the aldermen, nor his attempt to ruin their trade by depreciation of the coinage. For weeks past the city had been in a disordered state. On the 22nd October, the mob having forced its way into the Court of High Commission, some of the offenders were brought before the mayor and aldermen sitting on a commission of Oyer and Terminer; but the grand jury refused to find a true bill. These abortive proceedings were followed by a riot at St. Paul's.425Before the House had been in session a fortnight Strafford was ordered into custody.

Necessity of raising money, Nov., 1640.

Necessity of raising money, Nov., 1640.

Necessity of raising money, Nov., 1640.

The £50,000 which the City had advanced went but a little way towards meeting the king's necessities. The two armies in the north had to be paid, and there was not the wherewithal to pay them. The City was ready to lend a further sum of £25,000, on condition that the Londonderry estate was restored, the garrison in the Tower removed and the ordnance dismounted from its walls. Unless this were done, said Cradock, "such jealousies would possess the city, it would hinder supply."426Parliament agreed to the loan being repaid, as a first charge, out of the £100,000 ordered to be raised for the relief of the army and northern counties;427and the Common Council lost no time in preparing a petition[pg 134]to parliament for the restoration of the Irish lands.428Nor was it only in their corporate capacity that the citizens came forward to render pecuniary assistance to the government. On the 21st November Isaac Pennington, alderman of the ward of Bridge Without, and one of the city's representatives in parliament, announced to the House that his constituents had subscribed £21,000 to the loan.

Alleged Popish plot, Nov., 1640.

Alleged Popish plot, Nov., 1640.

Alleged Popish plot, Nov., 1640.

The general feeling of distrust that prevailed was heightened by an attack made upon a member of the House who, in his capacity of a justice of peace, had prepared a list of recusants, in pursuance of a recent proclamation.429So great was the alarm among the Commons that Pennington offered the House a guard of three hundred citizens, and at first there was a disposition to accept the alderman's offer, but in course of time better counsel prevailed and the idea was abandoned.

Impeachment of Archbishop Laud, Dec., 1640.

Impeachment of Archbishop Laud, Dec., 1640.

Impeachment of Archbishop Laud, Dec., 1640.

The tendency of the city towards Puritanism at this time was very marked. On the 28th November Prynne and Burton entered London, and their entry was made one long triumphal procession. This circumstance was specially noted by the royalist writer Clarendon as a remarkable "instance of the unruly and mutinous spirit of the City of London," which he is pleased to term "the sink of all the ill humour of the Kingdom."430A fortnight later (11 Dec.) a petition for church reform and the abolition of episcopacy "root and branch" was presented to[pg 135]parliament, signed by 15,000 Londoners.431The blow was aimed at Laud, who was looked upon as the cause of all the country's trouble. That day week (18 Dec.) the archbishop was impeached.

The Scottish commissioners in the city.

The Scottish commissioners in the city.

The Scottish commissioners in the city.

When the meetings held at Ripon between English and Scottish commissioners for the purpose of negotiating a treaty ceased (Oct. 1640), it was on the understanding that they were to be resumed in London. The Scottish commissioners accordingly came south, and were lodged in the city in a house adjacent to the church of St. Antholin, where they were visited by a large concourse of citizens and magnificently entertained.432It was with no little satisfaction that the success of the Scots had been watched by the majority of the inhabitants of the city, and now that the northern commissioners were in their midst the citizens took the opportunity of showing them substantial marks of favour.

City loan of £60,000, Jan., 1641.

City loan of £60,000, Jan., 1641.

City loan of £60,000, Jan., 1641.

Reprieve of Goodman, 22 Jan., 1641.

Reprieve of Goodman, 22 Jan., 1641.

Reprieve of Goodman, 22 Jan., 1641.

Excitement in the city.

Excitement in the city.

Excitement in the city.

On the 12th January, 1641, the Scottish demands were formally submitted to parliament, but they were not taken into consideration until the 22nd. After much debate it was agreed in general terms that a "friendly assistance" should be given, leaving the amount and the manner of collection for future consideration.433In the meantime the Speaker, Lenthall, had written (15 Jan.) to the mayor directing him to summon a Common Hall for the purpose of raising a loan of £60,000 required for the army, and the Common Council had agreed (18 Jan.) that the amount should be collected from the wards.434But[pg 136]before this could be accomplished an incident occurred which threatened to jeopardise the loan. This was the reprieve of John Goodman, a Roman Catholic priest, who had been condemned to death. The morning after parliament had agreed to raise money for the Scottish commissioners alderman Pennington rose in the House and declared that, in consequence of Goodman's reprieve and other suspicious circumstances, the City had resolved to lend nothing.435The Lords as well as the Commons followed the initiative of the alderman and made a joint demand for the execution of the condemned priest. As he had often done before, Charles again threw over the Catholics. He announced his intention not to allow the increase of Popery or superstition in the country; he would forthwith issue a proclamation commanding Jesuits and priests to leave the kingdom within a month, and he was willing to submit the case of Goodman to the decision of both Houses.436Fortunately for Goodman, the City and the Commons had higher game to fly at in Strafford, and the humbler priest was allowed to remain unmolested in prison.

Letters from Lenthall to the City touching the loan of £60,000, 6 and 19 Feb., 1641.

Letters from Lenthall to the City touching the loan of £60,000, 6 and 19 Feb., 1641.

Letters from Lenthall to the City touching the loan of £60,000, 6 and 19 Feb., 1641.

On the 6th February the Speaker addressed a second letter to the mayor to the effect that the money was required sooner than it could be collected by way of subsidies, as formerly suggested to his lordship, and that consequently the House had directed him to take steps for having £60,000 raised[pg 137]by subscription and paid into the Chamber of London, to be at the disposal of parliament.437The money not coming in so speedily as was desired, the Speaker wrote a third time (19 Feb.) to the mayor, directing him to summon a Common Hall and to lay before it the extreme urgency of affairs.438The chief cause of the delay in getting in the money was the dissatisfaction felt in the city at Strafford's trial being put off so long. The 17th February being at last fixed for his trial, there was some hope that the money would speedily now be forthcoming,439and the same day the Commons commissioned Sir William Uvedale to go to the lord mayor and get an order for receiving the money that had been collected up to £50,000.440Three days later the Court of Aldermen made out the necessary order for the Chamberlain to pay over the money.441

Trial and execution of Strafford, March-May, 1641.

Trial and execution of Strafford, March-May, 1641.

Trial and execution of Strafford, March-May, 1641.

Again there was delay in bringing Strafford to trial, and it was not until the 22nd March that he was arraigned in Westminster Hall, where alone room could be found for the crowds that were anxious to witness the proceedings. The mayor took steps to prevent a rush of people to Westminster and to suppress any riot that might arise. From five o'clock in the morning until nine at night a double watch was kept at the city's gates and landing stages on the river. The trained bands were held in readiness, whilst servants and apprentices were ordered to keep indoors.442At the end of three weeks a Bill of Attainder[pg 138]was brought in and read a first time (10 April), and on the 21st April it was read a third time and passed.443The Lords would willingly have let matters rest here, but the discovery of a design entertained by the queen of bringing the defeated English army from the north to Westminster to overawe the parliament, and likewise of an attempt made by Charles to get possession of the Tower that he might liberate Strafford by force, hurried the unfortunate earl's end. The citizens were determined not to rest until his head was off his shoulders, and 20,000 Londoners signed a petition addressed to both Houses (24 April) demanding his execution on the ground that he had advised the plundering of the city and putting it to fine and ransom.444The Peers deemed it advisable to give way. They passed the Bill of Attainder and on the 12th May Strafford was beheaded.

The City stops the loan until justice is executed on Strafford, May, 1641.

The City stops the loan until justice is executed on Strafford, May, 1641.

The City stops the loan until justice is executed on Strafford, May, 1641.

The Lords had another pressing reason for giving way, for until the citizens were assured that the full penalty of the law would be executed on Strafford they determined to stop payment of the loan. Writing to Matthew Bradley on the 3rd May, the treasurer of the army tells him "a strange story." "There is," he says, "money ready in the city, but none will be delivered until justice be done upon my lord of Strafford."445On that very day, the letter continues, there had been a crowd of 10,000 well-to-do persons at Westminster—"citizens of very good account, some[pg 139]worth £30,000, some £40,000" demanding justice against Strafford and threatening to send their servants the next day unless justice were speedily executed. "Truly these unsettled times do much trouble me."

The "Protestation" accepted by the City, May, 1641.

The "Protestation" accepted by the City, May, 1641.

The "Protestation" accepted by the City, May, 1641.

The discovery of the so-called "army plot" had in the meanwhile led to a preamble being drawn up to a document known as the "Protestation," or declaration in favour of the reformed religion, in which the danger from the army was for the first time clearly mentioned. The Protestation passed the Commons on the 3rd May,446and on the following day received the assent of the House of Lords. On the 11th May a printed copy of this document was introduced into the Court of Aldermen, when it received the willing assent not only of the aldermen present, but also of the Town Clerk and the City Remembrancer.447On the 29th it was accepted by the Common Council, and two days later the mayor issued his precept for a house-to-house visitation to be made in every ward for the purpose of getting all the inhabitants of the city to give in their adherence to it.448

Establishment of a poll tax for disbanding the armies, July, 1641.

Establishment of a poll tax for disbanding the armies, July, 1641.

Establishment of a poll tax for disbanding the armies, July, 1641.

Although the execution of Strafford somewhat allayed the nation's fears of having "two armies brought into the bowels of the kingdom," they were soon revived by a second army plot. The armies thus became a constant source of danger as well as expense, and it was determined to disband them. Charles could not withhold his assent, and a poll tax was established for the purpose of raising the[pg 140]necessary funds. This was in July (1641).449The masters and wardens of the livery companies were forthwith called upon to make a return in writing of the names of every person who had been and then was master and warden of each company; the names of all the livery, yeomanry and freemen of each company, noting in the margin of the return those who had ever been fined for alderman or sheriff, and the parish and ward in which each individual member of the company resided. Every alderman was likewise instructed to make a return of the names of his deputy and common councilmen of his ward; the names of every merchant-stranger that kept house there, every English merchant and factor, and every popish recusant; and finally the names of everyone in the ward above the age of sixteen years not otherwise rated.450

The "friendly assistance," July, 1641.

The "friendly assistance," July, 1641.

The "friendly assistance," July, 1641.

On the 3rd February the House had come to a resolution that the sum of £300,000 might justly be appointed as a "friendly assistance and relief" for the Scots. The manner in which it was to be raised was left for further consideration.451It was now arranged that £80,000 of that sum should be at once paid over to them, and that on August the 25th they should cross the Tweed. The City was called upon to find £40,000—or one-half of the amount immediately required—by Wednesday, the 28th July.452[pg 141]By order of the House of Commons (29 July) it was to be repaid with interest out of the poll money when levied.453So eager were the citizens to contribute towards the work of ridding the country of the Scottish forces before Charles should have an opportunity of using his powers of persuasion upon them that there was a difficulty in getting a sufficient number of tellers to receive it.454

The queen mother in England.

The queen mother in England.

The queen mother in England.

In addition to this heavy drain upon their resources, the citizens were called upon by the House of Commons (31 July) to forthwith pay the sum of £3,000 which they had undertaken to advance, upon the public faith of the House, towards "the furnishing of the queen-mother of France in her journey out of the kingdom."455Ever since October, 1638, Mary de Medicis had resided at St. James's Palace, and had caused no little discontent by her intermeddling in the affairs of the country and the favour she displayed towards Catholics. On her first arrival in London the citizens had accorded her a hearty welcome.456The acknowledgment that Charles subsequently made of his gratification at the City's action on this occasion was rendered somewhat ungracious by his requesting that a gift of the value of £1,000, "or thereabouts," should be made to the queen-mother in further demonstration of the City's love. After communicating with the Common Council the Court of[pg 142]Aldermen agreed to present her with a cup of the value of £800, "or thereabouts."457

The king sets out for Scotland, 10 Aug., 1641.

The king sets out for Scotland, 10 Aug., 1641.

The king sets out for Scotland, 10 Aug., 1641.

Charles had determined to set out for Scotland on Monday, the 9th August, in spite of every effort to get him to postpone his journey. So great indeed was the fear of danger likely to be incurred if he carried out his intention at this juncture that the House of Commons determined to sit on Sunday to contrive measures for avoiding the threatened risk—a proceeding which they publicly declared they would never have adopted, "but upon inevitable necessity, the peace and safety both of Church and State being so deeply concerned."458In answer to a fresh appeal Charles consented to put off his journey for one day, and on Tuesday (10 Aug.)—the day on which the treaty with the Scots was finished and the queen-mother left England—he set out for Scotland.

Adjournment of the Houses, 8 Sept.

Adjournment of the Houses, 8 Sept.

Adjournment of the Houses, 8 Sept.

A day of public thanksgiving, 7 Sept.

A day of public thanksgiving, 7 Sept.

A day of public thanksgiving, 7 Sept.

On the 28th August, when all danger in the north appeared to have passed away and Charles had visited both armies without appealing to them for assistance, parliament decided to adjourn from the 8th September until the 20th October. The Commons were in need of rest after the excitement of the session, and the necessity for an adjournment was increased by another visitation of the plague,459which had already driven many members home without leave. The day preceding the adjournment was appointed to be kept as a day of thanksgiving for the peace; and, pursuant to an order of both Houses, the mayor issued his precept for shops to be closed and for the inhabitants of the[pg 143]city to attend divine service, after which bells were to be rung and bonfires lighted.460

Judgment of Star Chamberrethe City's Irish estate reversed, 26 Aug., 1641.

Judgment of Star Chamberrethe City's Irish estate reversed, 26 Aug., 1641.

Judgment of Star Chamberrethe City's Irish estate reversed, 26 Aug., 1641.

Before the Commons separated they delivered (26 Aug.) their judgment upon a petition461which the City had prepared for them in January touching its estate in Londonderry, of which it had been deprived in 1635 by sentence of the Court of Star Chamber. That petition set forth the unwillingness of the City to undertake the work of the Ulster plantation. It had only been undertaken at the late king's earnest desire, and subject to special articles, the City absolutely refusing to be bound by the general articles drawn up by his majesty for ordinary undertakers. The Irish Society and the companies had expended more than £130,000 (exclusive of money laid out by tenants) on their estate "in hope to have in the future enjoyed some benefitt of their great cost and charge." The city of Londonderry and the town of Coleraine had been rebuilt, and the castle of Culmore repaired and entrenched. Fifteen churches had been either built or repaired, besides a "very fair" church and free school which had been erected in Derry at a cost of more than £4,000. Roads had been made which had converted one of the most barbarous places in the kingdom into one of the most civilised. The society and the companies, the petition went on to say, had enjoyed this estate without interruption until Hilary Term a° 6 Charles I (1631), when the Attorney-General, Sir Robert Heath, exhibited an information against the mayor, commonalty and citizens of London and divers individuals, suggesting that they had[pg 144]possessed themselves of the said lands and taken the profits before any grant was made to them, and that they had a greater quantity of lands than was intended to be passed by the grant, and had by indirect means procured divers privileges to be inserted in the grant for which the Attorney General who passed the grant had no warrant. Evidence of witnesses had been taken on the matter, but before the cause came to a hearing this information was dropt and another exhibited in Hilary Term a° 8 Charles I (1633) against the petitioners and the Irish Society, in which new charges touching infringement of conditions of Letters Patent were inserted, and upon these pretences the Irish Society was adjudged by sentence of the Court of Star Chamber in Hilary Term a° 10 Charles I (1635) to pay a fine of £70,000 and to lose their estate on the ground that the said Letters Patent had been "unduly and surreptitiously obteyned to the prejudice and deceipt of his majestie." The companies refused to surrender their estates, and divers lands belonging to the City and to the Bridgehouse were seized to satisfy the fine, to the great prejudice of the City. Being otherwise unable to redeem themselves from the penalty of the Star Chamber sentence, the companies were forced to consent to relinquish their Irish estate and all arrears of rent, amounting to £20,000. Ascire faciaswas brought in and judgment allowed by default, whereupon the companies lost their estates, whilst the mayor and commonalty and citizens of London, although not parties to any patent or plantation—having done no more than lend their name for the better transaction of the business and for the purpose of raising money for the plantation,[pg 145]which otherwise could never have been effected—were fined £70,000. Seeing that the matter reflected so badly upon the justice of the late as well as the present king, the petitioners humbly prayed that a full investigation of the whole proceedings might be made and justice done.

Such was the nature of the petition which the Common Council ordered in January (1641) to be submitted to parliament. The House had its hands too full to pay much attention to the City's grievance until recently; but now, within a fortnight of their adjournment for a well-earned rest, the Commons declared462the sentence in the Star Chamber to have been unlawful and unjust. They declared that, in the opinion of the House, the citizens of London had been solicited and pressed to undertake the plantation of Londonderry, that the king had not been deceived in the grant to the new corporation of the Irish Society, that no breach of covenant (if any there were) had been committed sufficient to cause a forfeiture of the lands, that the Star Chamber proceedings wereultra vires, and that the citizens of London and all those against whom judgment had been given in thescire faciasshould be discharged of that judgment and reinstated as they were before the sentence in the Star Chamber.

Disbanded soldiers in the city, Sept.-Oct., 1641.

Disbanded soldiers in the city, Sept.-Oct., 1641.

Disbanded soldiers in the city, Sept.-Oct., 1641.

Before the Houses again met, Richard Gurney, a man of the same royalist proclivity as Garway, and on that account, perhaps, described by Clarendon as "a man of wisdom and courage," had been elected mayor in succession to Edmund Wright.463The last[pg 146]days of Wright's mayoralty were days of sickness and tumult in the city. Numbers of disbanded soldiers from the north had made their way to London, where they carried on a system of rapine and outrage. The mayor issued precepts for search to be made in every ward for suspected persons and disbanded soldiers, as well as for keeping the streets well lighted at night by candle and lanthorn, whilst public proclamation was made by the king for soldiers to repair to their own homes.464

The Irish rebellion of 1641.

The Irish rebellion of 1641.

The Irish rebellion of 1641.

Shortly after the House of Commons had resumed its session attention was again drawn towards Ireland, where a rebellion had broken out. Seeing how successful Scotland had been in its resistance to England, the Irish had determined to strike a blow for the recovery of lands handed over to Protestant colonists, as well as for religious liberty. Charles himself had held out hopes of greater freedom to the Irish Catholics, who saw no reason why they should be worse treated than the rebellious Puritans of Scotland. The scene of massacre and cruelty which followed has been described by others, and remains to this day (in the words of Carlyle) "a huge blot, an indiscriminate blackness, one which the human memory cannot willingly charge itself with."

The City asked for a loan of £50,000, 2 Nov., 1641.

The City asked for a loan of £50,000, 2 Nov., 1641.

The City asked for a loan of £50,000, 2 Nov., 1641.

As soon as news of the outbreak reached parliament, application was forthwith made to the City for assistance. On the 3rd November lord mayor Gurney issued his precept465to the aldermen informing[pg 147]them that on the previous day divers lords and others of both Houses of Parliament had come to the Common Council and asked for a loan of £50,000 at eight per cent. Seeing that the matter was of so great importance, each alderman was desired to take steps in conjunction with his deputy and common councilmen of his ward to get liberal contributions made towards the loan.466

The City declares against the Catholic lords and the bishops, 12 Nov., 1641.

The City declares against the Catholic lords and the bishops, 12 Nov., 1641.

The City declares against the Catholic lords and the bishops, 12 Nov., 1641.

The attitude of the City now became more marked. Whilst consenting to find the money required, it asked parliament that the persons of the Catholic lords might be secured, and that the bishops, who were the cause of every good measure being defeated in the Upper House, might be deprived of their votes. It had a minor grievance in the custom that had arisen of members of both Houses granting their servants "protections" against creditors, a procedure extremely prejudicial to the city merchant and tradesman, and one which they would willingly see remedied.467

Charles entertained in the city, 25 Nov., 1641.

Charles entertained in the city, 25 Nov., 1641.

Charles entertained in the city, 25 Nov., 1641.

The City's declaration against the bishops, which Dr. Gardiner468characterises as being "the turning point in the struggle," augured badly for Charles. Nevertheless, he had friends in the city. The new mayor was a strong royalist, as also were the majority of the aldermen, and they took the opportunity of Charles paying his first visit to the city[pg 148](25 Nov.) since he ascended the throne to demonstrate their loyalty. On the 17th the Court of Aldermen appointed a committee to make the necessary arrangements,469whilst the mayor issued his precept the same day to the civic companies to prepare a certain number of their livery, well horsed and apparelled, to assist him in escorting the king and queen from the church of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, to the Guildhall on the morning of the eventful day, and thence, after the banquet, to Whitehall.470The Common Council agreed that the cost of the entertainment at the Guildhall should be defrayed by the Chamber.471

The Recorder's speech, 25 Nov.

The Recorder's speech, 25 Nov.

The Recorder's speech, 25 Nov.

On the king's approaching the northern suburbs of the city, whither the mayor and citizens had gone to meet him,472he was welcomed by the Recorder. There was some talk of presenting the king with a gift either of money or plate,473but the proposal fell through. "We tender to you," said Sir Thomas Gardiner, "no formal present; it would but lessen us; I am sure whatever it were it would be far short of our meaning."

The king's reply.

The king's reply.

The king's reply.

It was of the utmost importance to Charles to win over the city to his side if he could—"The loans[pg 149]of the London citizens alone had made it possible for the House of Commons to disband the armies; and without the loans of the London citizens the House would find it impossible to provide for a campaign in Ireland," and thus place itself in a position of military supremacy.474Accordingly, in a speech carefully prepared beforehand,475he expressed his gratification at finding that the better class of citizens were still loyal. "I see," said he, "that all those former tumults and disorders have only risen from the meaner sort of people, and that the affections of the better and main part of the city have ever been loyal and affectionate to my person and government." He proceeded to assure his hearers of his determination to maintain the true Protestant religion as established by Elizabeth and James, and he hoped with the assistance of parliament to re-establish the trade of the country. But what pleased the citizens perhaps more than anything was a promise he made to restore to them their Londonderry estate—at that moment in the hands of the rebels, but soon, he hoped, to be recovered. The Recorder was expressly commanded to wait upon his majesty and see that this promise was punctually performed.476

Honours for the Mayor, Sheriffs and five aldermen.

Honours for the Mayor, Sheriffs and five aldermen.

Honours for the Mayor, Sheriffs and five aldermen.

By way of further showing his favour Charles knighted both the Mayor and Recorder on the spot. He afterwards expressed his gratification at the[pg 150]reception that the City had accorded him,477and conferred knighthoods upon both of the sheriffs and five of the aldermen.478

Measures prepared for restoration of Irish estate, 30 Nov., 1641.

Measures prepared for restoration of Irish estate, 30 Nov., 1641.

Measures prepared for restoration of Irish estate, 30 Nov., 1641.

The Common Council took Charles at his word and lost no time in appointing a committee for the purpose of introducing a Bill in parliament for the recovery of the city's Irish estate. The Recorder had pointed out (20 Nov.) to the court that the "corporation" (i.e.the Irish society) had been dissolved, and it behoved them to consider in whose names the Irish estate should be vested, whether in the name of the mayor and commonalty of London or a "select company."

A London mob at Westminster, Nov., 1641.

A London mob at Westminster, Nov., 1641.

A London mob at Westminster, Nov., 1641.

The disaffected element in the city, which had voluntarily kept itself in the background, or had been suppressed by force on the day of the king's visit, again came to the surface as soon as the duties of hospitality had been executed. Once more a crowd gathered (29 Nov.) at Westminster, shouting "No bishops!" encouraged (it was said) by John Venn, a merchant taylor, who had succeeded Cradock, on the latter's decease, as one of the city's representatives in parliament. On the 10th December the mayor, acting under orders from the king, issued his precept to the aldermen to see that apprentices and servants were kept within doors and not allowed to go abroad to make tumult and hold unlawful meetings.479

The character of the mob.

The character of the mob.

The character of the mob.

A difference of opinion existed as to the representative character of those who had thus threatened parliament. "You much mistake," wrote Thomas Wiseman to Sir John Pennington ten days after the riot had taken place, "if you think those seditious meetings of sectaries and others ill affected, who have lately been at the parliament-house to cry for justice against the delinquent bishops, are the representative body of the city—they are not, but the representative body is the lord mayor, aldermen and Common Council, who gave the entertainment to the king and will stick to him and live and die in his service."480

Petition to the House, 11 Dec., 1641.

Petition to the House, 11 Dec., 1641.

Petition to the House, 11 Dec., 1641.

In order to dispel all doubts as to the respectability of the agitators they determined to present a formal petition to parliament for the removal of the bishops, and to do the thing in style. "Accoutred in the best manner they could," they rode to Westminster in coaches, "to prevent the aspersion that they were of the basest sort of people only which were that way affected."481They declared that the petition was signed by over 20,000 well-to-do citizens, including aldermen and members of the Common Council, and that many more signatures might have been obtained but for the obstruction of divers "ill-affected persons."482When the Commons came to inquire (20 Dec.) who these ill-affected persons were, it was found that the Mayor and the Recorder were the chief. The former was declared to have said that the petition had found[pg 152]favour only with ignorant or idle people, who did not realise the danger they were in, and that the petition "tended to mutiny." On hearing that part of the petition which stated that it was the wish of the "representative body" of the city to have the bishops removed, the Recorder lost all control over himself, and swore it was a lie. The petition, he said, tended to sedition, and to set men together by the ears. So far from tending to peace it was, he declared, "for blood and cutting of throats; and if it came to cutting of throats, thank yourselves; and your blood be upon your own heads."483

The new Common Council, 21 Oct., 1641.

The new Common Council, 21 Oct., 1641.

The new Common Council, 21 Oct., 1641.

The following day was the Feast of St. Thomas (21 Dec.), the day on which the members of the Common Council go out of office and present themselves to their constituents for re-election. The result of the elections turned out to be largely in favour of the Puritan opposition. The new Common Council, like the House of Commons, would support "King Pym" and his policy; whilst the more aristocratic Court of Aldermen would side with Charles and the House of Lords.484It cannot be doubted that the new council was more truly representative of the inhabitants of the city, and better able to give expression to their wishes than the last. There was only wanting a popular lord mayor. He was to come.

Fresh riot at Westminster, 27 Dec., 1641.

Fresh riot at Westminster, 27 Dec., 1641.

Fresh riot at Westminster, 27 Dec., 1641.

The trained bands called out, 28 Dec.

The trained bands called out, 28 Dec.

The trained bands called out, 28 Dec.

The tardy and unsatisfactory reply Charles gave to the remonstrance—the "Grand Remonstrance of[pg 153]the state of the Church and Kingdom" presented to him at Hampton Court on the 1st December—and his appointment of Colonel Lunsford, a debauched ruffian, as lieutenant of the Tower, in place of Balfour, who was a favourite with the city, increased the exasperation against him, and the mayor was obliged to inform him (26 Dec.) that unless Lunsford was removed he could not answer for the peace of the city. This representation by Gurney had the desired effect, and Lunsford was removed that night.485Before his removal became generally known another riot broke out at Westminster (27 Dec.) between London apprentices and some officers of the late army, among whom was Lunsford himself. The officers drew their swords and drove the close-cropt apprentices, or "roundheads" as they were jeeringly called, out of Westminster, chasing them up King Street as far as Whitehall. Several of the rioters were hurt, but none killed. For some days the excitement was so great that everyone attending the court at Whitehall wore a sword; and 500 gentlemen of the Inns of Court offered their services to the king.486On the 28th December Charles directed the mayor to call out the trained bands, and to command their officers, "by shooting with bullets or otherwise," to slay and kill such as should persist in tumultuary and seditious ways and disorders.487The Peers were inclined to throw the blame of the disturbance upon the civic authorities, but Pym and[pg 154]the House of Commons refused "to discontent the citizens of London, our surest friends," at such a critical time.488Charles himself took the same view, and sent a letter to the City by the hand of Lord Newburgh, in which he expressed his continued confidence in the loyalty of the city, and ascribed the recent tumults and distempers to "the meane and unruly people of the suburbs." The Common Council in reply caused it to be signified to his majesty that neither that court nor any individual member of it was implicated in the late disorder, which they altogether disavowed and disclaimed.489Having committed this message to Lord Newburgh to carry to the king, the court proceeded to take measures for the better preserving the peace in the several wards of the city.

A guard for parliament refused by the king, 3 Jan., 1642.

A guard for parliament refused by the king, 3 Jan., 1642.

A guard for parliament refused by the king, 3 Jan., 1642.

The same day that these measures were being taken for public safety in the city the Commons directed halberds to be brought into the House for their own use in case of a sudden attack, and desired the king to appoint the Earl of Essex captain of the guard. After this they adjourned until the 3rd January, a committee being ordered to sit in the meanwhile at the Guildhall. Upon the re-assembling of the House Charles refused its request for a guard.490The Commons thereupon sent a message to the mayor for the trained bands to be put in readiness "for the safety of the king's person, the city and the commonwealth," and for good and strong watches to be set at all[pg 155]places convenient about the city. The following day Sir Thomas Soame, Alderman Pennington and Captain Venn were despatched to the city to inform the citizens of a new danger which was threatening the Commons.491

The arrest of the five members demanded, 3 Jan., 1642.

The arrest of the five members demanded, 3 Jan., 1642.

The arrest of the five members demanded, 3 Jan., 1642.

During the short recess Charles had at last made up his mind to a course long premeditated. He determined to seize the parliamentary leaders on a charge of treason, and articles of impeachment were drawn up against Lord Kimbolton, of the House of Peers, and Pym, Hampden, Holles, Hazlerigg and Strode, of the Commons. No sooner had the Commons met than the Sergeant-at-Arms appeared with orders to arrest the five members.492As such action affected the privileges of the House, a committee was appointed to send a reply to the king in due course. Baffled in this direction, the king despatched a message to the lord mayor forbidding him to call out the trained bands at the order of the Commons, but only to raise such a force as might be necessary to put down tumult and disorder.493Gurney was in bed at the time, but he promised to see to it in the morning.494

Meeting of the Commons, 4 Jan.

Meeting of the Commons, 4 Jan.

Meeting of the Commons, 4 Jan.

When the Commons met the next morning (4 Jan.) they sent up the articles of impeachment to the House of Lords as a scandalous paper. The king in the meantime was taking steps to secure the Tower and the city. He had heard that six pieces of ordnance had been removed from the artillery yard[pg 156]and placed near the Leadenhall, and he wrote to the mayor bidding him see that they were used only for the guard and preservation of the city if need be.495It was these measures that caused the Commons to send Soame, Pennington and Venn to the city to inform the citizens of the impending danger. On the afternoon of the same day Charles himself appeared in the House, to the door of which he had been accompanied by an armed retinue. Taking his stand before the Speaker's chair he professed sorrow for the necessity that had brought him there. Yesterday he had sent, he said, a Sergeant-at-Arms to apprehend certain persons accused of high treason. He had expected obedience and not an answer. Careful as he was and always would be of the privileges of the Commons, they were to know that there was no privilege in matters of treason. Failing himself to discover those whom he sought, he turned to Lenthall and asked him if they were in the House. "Do you see any of them?" The Speaker's reply was singularly apt. "May it please your majesty," said he, falling on his knee before Charles, "I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here." Casting one more glance round the House, and finding that the "birds had flown," the king withdrew amid cries of "Privilege! Privilege!" and the House immediately adjourned.

The king at the Guildhall, 5 Jan., 1642.

The king at the Guildhall, 5 Jan., 1642.

The king at the Guildhall, 5 Jan., 1642.

The king could not allow matters to rest here. The next morning, being Wednesday, the 5th January, he set out for the city with a small retinue, and[pg 157]presented himself at the Guildhall when a Court of Common Council was sitting. The city's archives are searched in vain for any record of what took place on that memorable occasion, but we have a vivid account of the scene handed down to us by an eye-witness, Captain Slingsby, who, happening to meet the royal party on its way to the city, turned back and followed it into the precincts of the Council Chamber.496Charles lost no time in coming to the point. He had come, he said, to demand those persons who had been already accused of high treason, and who were believed at that moment to be lurking within the city. He desired to bring them to a trial at law, and depended upon those present for their assistance. He was resolved to redress grievances and to preserve the privileges of parliament, but he must "question these traitors." After justifying the existence of a guard at Whitehall and saying a few friendly words to the aldermen, he invited himself to dinner with one of the sheriffs, choosing the sheriff who was less favourably disposed towards him, viz., sheriff Garrett. The king's speech was followed by an ominous pause. Then a cry, writes Slingsby, was raised in the council, "Parliament! Privileges of parliament!" and presently another, "God bless the king!" These continued for some time, but he professes to be unable to say which of the two was loudest. When silence was restored the king asked that a spokesman should make known to him their wishes. Thereupon a member of the council arose and said, "It is the vote[pg 158]of this court that your majesty hear the advice of your parliament." This statement was at once challenged by another, who cried out, "It is not the vote of this court: it is your own vote." The king replied by asking who it was that charged him with not taking the advice of his parliament, adding that he did take its advice and would continue to do so, but, said he, "I must distinguish between the parliament and some traitors in it," and these, he repeated, "he would bring to trial—to trial." "No privileges could protect a traitor from a trial." With this he turned to leave the Council Chamber. On reaching the outer hall he was again assailed with the cry that had been made to ring in his ears all the way from Whitehall to the city, "The privileges of parliament!" Undaunted he made his way through the mob to dine at Garrett's house, and later in the day, amid the same cries, he returned to Whitehall.

The City's petition to the king, 5 Jan., 1642.

The City's petition to the king, 5 Jan., 1642.

The City's petition to the king, 5 Jan., 1642.

Relieved of his presence, the Common Council, with great deliberation, agreed on the terms of a petition to be presented to his majesty.497After expressing their regret for the continuation of the rebellion in Ireland, the removal of the lieutenant of the Tower, in whom all had confidence, the steps taken to fortify Whitehall, and the recent disturbances at Westminster, they represented to the king the great increase of the fears of the citizens owing to his attempt to seize the five members, the effect of which was to prejudice the whole trade of the city and the kingdom. They therefore humbly desired him to take steps for the speedy relief of the[pg 159]Protestants in Ireland, to place the Tower in the hands of persons of trust, to remove discredited persons from Whitehall and Westminster, and not to proceed against Lord Kimbolton and the five members of the Commons otherwise than in accordance with the privileges of parliament.

The Common Council vote £2,000 for the defence of the city.

The Common Council vote £2,000 for the defence of the city.

The Common Council vote £2,000 for the defence of the city.

Having ordered this petition to be engrossed and afterwards to be presented to his majesty, the Common Council proceeded to vote a sum of £2,000 for the purpose of providing a stock of arms and ammunition for the defence of the city in "theis tymes of daungers and feares."

Panic in the city, 6 Jan., 1642.

Panic in the city, 6 Jan., 1642.

Panic in the city, 6 Jan., 1642.

Each alderman had already been directed to see that the trained bands, 6,000 strong, were fully equipt without the necessity of borrowing arms from the city halls or elsewhere; a double watch with halberds and muskets was ordered to be kept in each ward by night and day, chains and posts which were in any way defective were to be forthwith made good, and hooks, ladders, buckets, spades, shovels, pickaxes, augers and chisels were to be kept in readiness in case of fire.498Members of the Common Council were forbidden on the 6th January to leave their wards without express permission.499The same night an alarm was raised, and the mayor was asked to call out the trained bands. On his refusal the trained bands dispensed with his authority and turned out on their own account. The panic quickly spread, and every inhabitant, arming himself as best he could, hastened to join them. In course of time the alarm[pg 160]subsided, but the mayor was commanded by an Order in Council (8 Jan.) to investigate the cause of the alarm, and to secure the persons who had taken upon themselves to call out the trained bands.500This Order in Council was immediately met by a resolution of the Grand Committee of the Commons sitting at Grocers' Hall to the effect that the action of the citizens for the defence of parliament had been in accordance with their duty, and that anyone attempting to arrest them for so doing was a public enemy. More than this, the Committee declared that at a time when the king, kingdom and parliament were "in very eminent and apparent danger," it was the duty of the lord mayor, aldermen and Common Council, or the greater number of them, to make use of the trained bands or any other forces of the city for the preservation of the peace.501

The king's reply to the City's petition. 8 Jan., 1642.

The king's reply to the City's petition. 8 Jan., 1642.

The king's reply to the City's petition. 8 Jan., 1642.

On the same day (8 Jan.) the king's reply to the City's late petition was read before the Common Council.502He had hoped, he said, to have already satisfied most of the objections raised in the petition by his speech to the citizens on the previous Wednesday; nevertheless, he was willing to give a further answer to the several matters objected to, being persuaded that his so doing would be considered the greatest proof that he could offer of his good intention. His answer, however, in whatever terms it was couched, was considered far from satisfactory[pg 161]to the council, and preparations for resisting force by force began to be pushed on.

Skippon to command the city's forces, 10 Jan.

Skippon to command the city's forces, 10 Jan.

Skippon to command the city's forces, 10 Jan.

On Monday, the 10th January, a joint agreement for the future defence of parliament and the city was arrived at by the committee of parliament and a committee appointed by the Common Council.503The trained bands were ordered to their colours and placed under the command of Captain Philip Skippon, as sergeant-major-general of the forces of the city. Eight pieces of ordnance were to accompany the troops, and as many citizens as could supply themselves with horses were to serve on horseback. All this was done for the safety of the "king, parliament and kingdom." With the object of increasing the number of trained bands, the mayor was authorised by the Common Council (19 Jan.) to issue his precept for a return to be made by the alderman of each ward (1) of the number of men in his ward fit to find and bear arms, and (2) the number of men fit to bear arms but unable to find them.504The Common Council agreed to pay Skippon £300 a year for life, if he should so long continue in the city's service.505Guns and ammunition were stored up at the Leadenhall,506and a supply of corn laid in by the livery companies.507

Charles quits London, 10 Jan., 1642.

Charles quits London, 10 Jan., 1642.

Charles quits London, 10 Jan., 1642.

In the meanwhile Charles committed the fatal mistake of quitting London (10 Jan.), and parliament had thereupon returned to Westminster (11 Jan.). The appearance of the five members as they made their way by water from the city to Westminster was[pg 162]greeted with shouts of joy and firing of volleys. On entering the House they publicly acknowledged the kindness extended to them by the City, for which the sheriffs and the citizens received the thanks of the Commons, and a promise of indemnity for their action throughout the recent crisis.508

The Tower held for the king.

The Tower held for the king.

The Tower held for the king.

Everything now promised well for parliament except the refusal of Sir John Byron, lieutenant of the Tower, to submit to its orders. Once more the seamen or mariners of London, who play no unimportant part in the history of the city at political crises, came forward. They offered to take the Tower by assault. There was some talk of reducing the fortress by starvation, and Byron confessed to secretary Nicholas (22 Jan.)509that if the measures had been carried out he could not long have held the place, determined as he was to sell both the Tower and his life at as dear a rate as he could. No such strict investment, however, took place. Skippon attempted to win over a portion of the garrison in the absence of the lieutenant, but failed. The Tower, however, became less an object of fear to the citizens as its stock of munition of war became less every day by reason of shipments to Ireland.

A loan of £100,000 demanded of the City for the Irish war, 22 Jan., 1642.

A loan of £100,000 demanded of the City for the Irish war, 22 Jan., 1642.

A loan of £100,000 demanded of the City for the Irish war, 22 Jan., 1642.

It was to Ireland that Charles looked for assistance in his struggle with parliament. It behoved the latter, therefore, to use its utmost endeavours to reduce that country to subjection. A deputation from the House waited on the Common Council (22 Jan.) with a request[pg 163]for a loan of £100,000. Whilst this request was under consideration the mayor was directed by the council to write to all the livery companies interested in the Londonderry estate, and exhort them to contribute bread and corn for the relief of the plantation.510

The City's reply, 24 Jan., 1642.

The City's reply, 24 Jan., 1642.

The City's reply, 24 Jan., 1642.

Two days later (24 Jan.) the City resolved not to accede to the request. Answer was sent that they were unable to raise money for a foreign war by way of a tax, and it was hopeless to raise the money by voluntary contributions. The House was reminded that the City had already advanced a sum of £50,000 on the express understanding that troops should forthwith be despatched to Ireland, but none had gone. The citizens would refuse to lend more until assured that relief had been actually sent to Londonderry. The House was further reminded that the City was dissatisfied with the remissness shown in disarming Papists and pressing of soldiers, as well as in displacing the lieutenant of the Tower, and appointing one well approved by parliament. A similar representation was made to the House of Lords.511

Money raised by promise of confiscated lands.

Money raised by promise of confiscated lands.

Money raised by promise of confiscated lands.

On the 11th February a petition was presented to the House of Commons by "divers of his majesty's loyal subjects," offering to assist at their own charge in putting down the Irish rebellion, provided that they might have such satisfaction out of the rebels' estates as should be thought reasonable.512The suggestion was[pg 164]readily accepted, and a scheme for opening a public subscription passed through both Houses in a week. The mayor lost no time in setting a subscription on foot in the city.513The companies, to whom application had been made a month before for contributions of bread and corn, were now desirous to know if they could limit their relief to those sufferers on what was or had been their own estates in Ireland, and not have it distributed among all his majesty's distressed subjects in that country. The Common Council declined to undertake to answer this question, but recommended each company to appear before the parliamentary committee appointed for the purpose and make its own conditions.514

The following day (3 March) the City was informed that an Act of Parliament was already in preparation for settling 2,500,000 acres of land according to the votes of both Houses, unto which his majesty had given his royal assent.515The companies were subsequently (19th March) invited to provide ordnance for the protection of Londonderry.516

The militia ordinance, 31 Jan., 1642.

The militia ordinance, 31 Jan., 1642.

The militia ordinance, 31 Jan., 1642.

Meanwhile the struggle that had been going on between the king and parliament as to who should have control over the fortresses and the trained bands or militia of the kingdom, resulted in the Commons drawing up an ordinance conferring power in each county upon persons, to be afterwards[pg 165]named, to raise an armed force for the suppression of rebellions and invasions (31 Jan.).517This "militia ordinance"—as it was called—caused no little dissatisfaction in the city as trespassing upon the authority of the lord mayor, and a petition against it was drawn up by a certain section of the inhabitants and presented to both Houses of Parliament. The same was printed and circulated together with the king's message to the Houses against the ordinance.518

The Common Council uphold the ordinance, 17 March, 1642.

The Common Council uphold the ordinance, 17 March, 1642.

The Common Council uphold the ordinance, 17 March, 1642.

The Common Council were determined, however, to stand by parliament. They passed a resolution disclaiming the petition against the militia ordinance, and ordered other petitions to be drawn up and presented to both Houses,519congratulating them on the steps they had taken "for the safety of his majesty, the parliament and the kingdom," which would meet with ready submission on the part of the petitioners, and thanking them for the honour they had done the City in allowing it to nominate those persons to whom its militia should be committed.520Gurney, the royalist mayor, did not preside at the court which sanctioned these petitions, being absent from illness, so it was said.

Commissioners for the city's militia, 4 April.

Commissioners for the city's militia, 4 April.

Commissioners for the city's militia, 4 April.

On the 4th April a militia commission appointed by parliament for the city was read before the Common Council, the commissioners being authorised to raise and train forces, appoint and remove officers, and do other things necessary for the suppressing of rebellions and resisting invasions.521It was suggested[pg 166]that six colonels and thirty-four captains should be set over the trained bands, which had been recently increased to forty companies, each 200 strong.522The pay of the officers was guaranteed by the Common Council.523A stock of gunpowder was laid up in the city ready for any emergency, and the livery companies were called upon to make a return of the arms stored in their several halls.524

A muster in Finsbury Fields before both Houses of Parliament, 10 May, 1642.

A muster in Finsbury Fields before both Houses of Parliament, 10 May, 1642.

A muster in Finsbury Fields before both Houses of Parliament, 10 May, 1642.

On the 10th May a grand review of all the trained bands of the city, with their new officer Skippon at their head, was held in Finsbury Fields in the presence of both Houses of Parliament, the members of which were hospitably entertained on the ground at the City's expense.525

The City receives the thanks of both Houses, 16 May.

The City receives the thanks of both Houses, 16 May.

The City receives the thanks of both Houses, 16 May.

So pleased was parliament—both Lords and Commons—at the zeal of the City in raising and training so large a force as 8,000 men, to serve as an example (it was hoped) to the rest of the kingdom, as also in contributing upwards of £40,000 (more than one-tenth part of the whole sum recently voted by parliament) for the defence of the kingdom, that a deputation from both houses waited on the Common Council (16 May) and returned their hearty thanks.526

Skippon to ignore the king's order to go to York, 17 May.

Skippon to ignore the king's order to go to York, 17 May.

Skippon to ignore the king's order to go to York, 17 May.

On the following day (17 May) the Houses resolved that Skippon should ignore an order from the king to attend his majesty at York, and directed the sheriffs to suppress any levy of men made without the major-general's authority.527

Loan of £100,000 by the companies, June, 1642.

Loan of £100,000 by the companies, June, 1642.

Loan of £100,000 by the companies, June, 1642.

It was no long time before application was again made to the city for more pecuniary assistance. The breach between king and parliament was rapidly widening. Charles was known to be collecting forces around him in spite of a formal prohibition by the Commons, who now more distinctly asserted their claim to sovereignty. On Thursday, the 2nd June, a deputation of Lords and Commons presented themselves before the livery of the several companies assembled in Common Hall, and desired a loan of £100,000 towards "the relief and preservation of the kingdom of Ireland" and "speedy supply of the great and urgent necessities of this kingdom." The money was voted "most freely and with great alacrity," and was to be raised by the companies according to their corn assessment, as on previous occasions. On the 4th June the Commons passed an ordinance for security of the loan, and the thanks of both Houses and of the whole kingdom were returned to the city for its ready compliance.528Two days later (6 June) Gurney, much against his own inclination we may be sure, was forced to issue his precept to the companies to raise their several contributions.529The Grocers' Company raised their quota of £9,000 by voluntary subscription without demur. The Merchant Taylors, on the other hand, who were assessed at £10,000, whilst expressing themselves ready to do their part in furnishing the loan, took occasion to formally place on record their resolution "that the Common Hall (consisting of the liveries of this city) assembled in the Guildhall, London, hath[pg 168]no power, right or authority to bind or impose upon this company any loan of money whatsoever."530

Parliamentary order for bringing in of money, plate, etc., 10 June.

Parliamentary order for bringing in of money, plate, etc., 10 June.

Parliamentary order for bringing in of money, plate, etc., 10 June.

The king's protest, 14 June.

The king's protest, 14 June.

The king's protest, 14 June.

On the 10th the Commons issued "propositions" for the bringing in of money, plate, arms and horses for "the defence of the king and both houses of parliament." Those living in and around London within a radius of eighty miles were allowed a fortnight; and so great was the enthusiasm displayed for the parliamentary cause that (in the words of Clarendon)531"it is hardly credible what a vast proportion of plate was brought in to their treasurers within ten days, there being hardly men enough to receive it or room to lay it in." It was in vain that Charles protested and threatened the citizens with the loss of their charter if they carried out the behests of the Commons.532His protest was only met with a further levy of £50,000 on all strangers and aliens residing within the city.533

Pennington elected mayorlocoGurney, discharged, 16 Aug., 1642.

Pennington elected mayorlocoGurney, discharged, 16 Aug., 1642.

Pennington elected mayorlocoGurney, discharged, 16 Aug., 1642.

Charles sets up his standard at Nottingham, 22 Aug., 1642.

Charles sets up his standard at Nottingham, 22 Aug., 1642.

Charles sets up his standard at Nottingham, 22 Aug., 1642.

Gurney's position as mayor had become more and more an anomalous one every day. In July he was impeached by the Commons for having published the king's commission of array in the city. On the 12th August the Lords sentenced him to be imprisoned during the pleasure of the House, and to be deprived of his mayoralty,534and at the same time ordered Sir Nicholas Raynton to summon a Common Hall for the election of a new mayor. A Common Hall was accordingly summoned for the 16th, when Isaac[pg 169]Pennington and John Wollaston being nominated by the livery, the former was selected by the Court of Aldermen as Gurney's successor.535Upon application being made to Gurney for theinsignia—the sword, cap, mace and collar of esses—"he pretended they were at his house in London, locked up, and he could not come at them"; and he stoutly refused to deliver up the city's sword to any one but the king.536With a rigid Puritan like Pennington in the mayoralty chair, and Gurney and Sir Thomas Gardiner already impeached, the city was made secure for parliament before Charles set up his standard at Nottingham (22 Aug.) in token that the Civil War had commenced.

Back to IndexNext