CHAPTER XXXI.

[pg 506]CHAPTER XXXI.The Accession of James II, 6 Feb., 1685."They will never kill me, James, to make you king," the late king is said to have cynically remarked to his brother; and, indeed, the accession of the Duke of York was accepted by the nation in general, as well as by the City of London in particular, with considerable foreboding. The new king for a short while was content to feel his way before plunging into the headstrong course of action which eventually lost him the crown. Although suspected of being a Catholic at heart, it was only during his last moments that Charles had accepted the ministrations of the Roman Church. The new king had for years been an avowed Catholic; nevertheless, in his first speech to the Privy Council he announced his intention of maintaining the established government, both in Church and State. This speech, made within an hour of the late king's death, was received with rapturous applause. It was quickly followed by a proclamation of his majesty's wish that all persons in office at the time of the decease of the late king should so continue until further notice.1556Another document proclaiming the death of the late king and the devolution of the crown to the Duke of York was at the same time drawn up by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, with the assistance of the privy council, the mayor, aldermen and citizens of London and others.1557This[pg 507]document did not bear the signature of the mayor as that proclaiming James I had done.The question of continuation of customs and excise.James had not been many days on the throne before the question of supply had to be settled. More than one-half of the whole revenue of the crown was derived from the customs, and these had been settled on Charles for life only, and could not therefore be exacted by his successor without the assent of parliament. No parliament had been summoned since the dissolution of the parliament at Oxford four years since (28 March, 1681). As time was pressing and some delay must have taken place before a new parliament could meet, James took the advice of Chief Justice Jeffreys, and did violence to the constitution by proclaiming (9 Feb.) the continuation of the payment of customs as a matter of necessity, whilst at the same time he intimated his intention of speedily calling a parliament.1558The pill thus gilded was swallowed without protest. The excise duties was another matter and was dealt with differently. The "additional excise," like the customs, had been given to the late king for life, but there was a clause in the Act which empowered the Lords of the Treasury to let them to farm for a term of three years without any limitation as to their being so long due. A lease was now propounded as having been made during the late king's life (the document bearing date the 5th February, the day preceding his decease), although there was every reason for supposing it to have been made after his death and to have been post-dated. The judges were[pg 508]appealed to, and with every desire to curry favour with the new king, the majority pronounced the document to be good in law. Thus fortified, James no longer hesitated to issue a proclamation (16 Feb.) for the continuation of the excise.1559The coronation of king and queen, 23 April, 1685.A parliament was summoned for the 9th April, but did not meet until the 19th May. In the meantime the king and queen had been crowned at Westminster on St. George's day (23 April). The City put in their customary claim,1560but this was at first disallowed "in regard of the judgment upon theQuo Warrantofor seizure of the cities franchise." Upon appeal being made, however, to the king himself the claim was allowed, and the mayor, aldermen and citizens were treated with high honour both in the Abbey and at the banquet in Westminster Hall, the mayor being presented by the king with the cup of pure gold and cover, weighing in all upwards of twenty ounces, with which he had served his majesty with wine.1561A few days before the banquet took place Sir Robert Vyner sent to the mayor to borrow the City's plate for the occasion. The matter was laid before the Court of Aldermen and permission was granted the lord mayor to lend such plate as could be spared.1562A Tory parliament, 1685.When parliament met (19 May) the majority in favour of the court party was enormous. This was in no small measure due to the reformation that had been forced on other corporate towns besides the city of London. They had been made to surrender their[pg 509]charters, and the late king had in return granted them new charters in which Tories alone were named as members of the corporations. Only one more step was necessary in order to secure the return of a Tory parliament when the time for fresh elections should arrive, and that step was taken. The parliamentary franchise in boroughs was restricted to members of the corporations.1563In London the Whigs were kept down by fear, and the Tory party reigned supreme. The mayor and half the Court of Aldermen were nominees of the Crown, acting by royal commission. No Common Council sat, or if it did it was only for the purpose of enrolling a proclamation by the king or a precept by the mayor. As the election drew near the king, in order to render the result in his favour more sure, authorized the Court of Aldermen to grant liveries to several of the city companies, taking care that such only should be admitted to the livery as were of "unquestionable loyalty" for the purpose of voting.1564By this means four of the most pronounced Tories in the city were returned, all of them being aldermen. These were Sir John Moore and Sir William Pritchard, both of whom had been placed in the mayoralty chair, one after the other (in 1681 and 1682), by court influence, Sir Peter Rich, who had served as sheriff with Dudley North in 1682, and Sir Samuel Dashwood, who filled the same office the following year with Peter Daniel, both of them, like their immediate predecessors, being nominees of the Crown.[pg 510]As soon as the House met the Commons unanimously granted the king the full revenue which had been enjoyed by his brother.1565Oates and Dangerfield whipt at the cart's tail, May, 1685.The bent of the king's mind was quickly discerned in the sentences pronounced by judges eager to secure his favour. Titus Oates was taken out of prison and whipt at the cart's tail from Aldgate to Newgate the day after parliament met. Two days later he was again whipt from Newgate to Tyburn, and the punishment was so mercilessly carried out that it nearly cost him his life. Precautions had to be taken by the mayor to prevent a display of force by Oates's partisans, who overturned the pillory on which he was to stand.1566Dangerfield, another professional informer, was made to undergo a punishment scarcely less severe. He survived the punishment, but only to die from the effect of a vicious blow dealt him by a bystander as he was being carried back to gaol from Tyburn.Richard Baxter brought to trial, 30 May, 1685.On the other hand Richard Baxter—the most learned and moderate of Nonconformists—was tried at the Guildhall on a charge of having introduced into his commentary on the New Testament some seditious remarks respecting the attitude of the government towards dissenters. The infamous Jeffreys presided at the trial, and spared neither counsel nor prisoner his insolent invectives. The whole proceedings were nothing less than a farce, and the evidence adduced was of such a flimsy character that Baxter volunteered a remark expressing a doubt whether any jury would convict a man on it. He was, however, mistaken.[pg 511]The sheriffs, like the mayor, were but tools of the court party, and the jurymen selected to sit on the trial did not hesitate to bring in a verdict of guilty. He was fortunate to get off with no worse sentence than a fine of 500 marks and imprisonment until it was paid.1567The Monmouth Rebellion, 1685.There was doubtless a large number of inhabitants of the city who would gladly have assisted Monmouth—"the champion of the dissenters and extreme Protestants"—had they been in a position to do so. But as soon as the news of the duke's landing in Dorsetshire reached London orders were issued by the mayor for a strict watch to be kept by night throughout the city, and for the arrest of all suspicious characters, whilst the duke and his supporters were proclaimed traitors and rebels. It was forbidden to circulate the duke's manifesto in the city, and on the 16th June, or within five days of his landing, a price of £5,000 was put upon his head.1568After Monmouth's defeat at Sedgmoor (6 July) he and his companions sought safety in flight. Monmouth himself fled to the New Forest, where he was captured in the last stage of poverty, sleeping in a ditch, and was brought to London. He was lodged in the Tower, where his wife and three children had already been sent. Thousands of spectators, who, we are told, "seemed much troubled," went forth to witness his arrival by water on the evening of the 13th July. Two days later he was executed on Tower Hill.Trial of Cornish and others, 19 Oct., 1685.The utmost cruelty, both military and judicial, was inflicted on Monmouth's supporters. Many were[pg 512]hanged by royalist soldiers—"Kirke's lambs," as they were called—without form of law. Others were committed for trial until Jeffreys came to hold his "Bloody Assize," when to the cruelty of the sentences passed on most of them was added the ribald insolence of the judge. The opportunity was taken of giving the city of London a lesson, and Henry Cornish, late alderman and sheriff, was suddenly arrested. This took place on Tuesday the 13th October. He was kept a close prisoner, not allowed to see friends or counsel, and deprived of writing materials. On Saturday he was informed for the first time that he would be tried on a charge of high treason, and that the trial would commence on the following Monday (19 Oct.). His attitude before the judges was calm and dignified. Before pleading not guilty to the charge of having consented to aid and abet the late Duke of Monmouth and others in their attempt on the life of the late king (the Rye House Plot), he entered a protest against the indecent haste with which he had been called upon to plead and the short time allowed him to prepare his case. He asked for further time, but this the judges refused.One of the chief witnesses for the Crown was Goodenough, who had a personal spite against Cornish for his having objected to him (Goodenough) serving as under-sheriff in 1680-1, the year when Bethell and Cornish were sheriffs.1569Goodenough had risked his neck in Monmouth's late rebellion, but[pg 513]he had succeeded in obtaining a pardon by promises of valuable information against others. With the king's pardon in his pocket he unblushingly declared before the judges that he, as well as Cornish and some others, had determined upon a general rising in the city at the time of the Rye House Plot. "We designed," said he, "to divide it (i.e., the city) into twenty parts, and out of each part to raise five hundred men, if it might be done, to make an insurrection."1570The Tower was to be seized and the guard expelled.Cornish had been afforded no opportunity for instructing counsel in his defence. He was therefore obliged to act as his own counsel, with the result usual in such cases. He rested his main defence upon the improbability of his having acted as the prosecution endeavoured to make out. This he so persistently urged that the judges lost patience. Improbability was not enough, they declared; let him call his witnesses. When, however, Cornish desired an adjournment in order that he might bring a witness up from Lancashire, his request was refused. His chief witness he omitted to call until after the lord chief justice had summed up. This man was a vintner of the city, named Shephard, at whose house Cornish was charged with having met and held consultation with Monmouth and the rest of the conspirators. The bench after some demur assented to the prisoner's earnest prayer that Shephard's evidence might be taken. He showed that he had been in the habit of having commercial transactions with Cornish and was at that moment in his debt; that on the occasion in question Cornish had come to his[pg 514]house, but whether he came to speak with the Duke of Monmouth or not the witness could not say for certain; that he only remained a few minutes, and that no paper or declaration (on which so much stress had been laid) in connection with the conspiracy was read in Cornish's presence; that in fact Cornish was not considered at the time as being in the plot. Such evidence, if not conclusive, ought to have gone far towards obtaining a verdict of acquittal for the prisoner. This was not the case, however; the witness was characterised by one of the judges as "very forward," and when Cornish humbly remonstrated with the treatment his witness was receiving from the bench he was sharply told to hold his tongue. The jury after a brief consultation brought in a verdict of guilty, and Cornish had to submit to the indignity of being tied—like a dangerous criminal—whilst sentence of death was passed upon him and three others who had been tried at the same time.Execution of Cornish, 23 Oct., 1685.The prisoner was allowed but three clear days before he was hanged at the corner of King Street and Cheapside, within sight of the Guildhall which he had so often frequented as an alderman of the city, and on which his head was afterwards placed. He met his end with courage and with many pious expressions, but to the last maintained his innocence with such vehemence that his enemies gave out that he had "died in a fit of fury."1571The injustice of his sentence was recognised and his conviction and attainder was afterwards reversed and annulled by parliament (22 June, 1689).1572[pg 515]Execution of Mrs. Gaunt, 23 Oct.Of the three others who had been tried with Cornish, two were reprieved (one was afterwards executed), but the third, Elizabeth Gaunt, was burnt at Tyburn the same day that Cornish suffered (23 Oct.) for having harboured an outlaw named Burton and assisted him to escape beyond the law. He had been implicated in the Rye House Plot, but with the aid of Mrs. Gaunt, who lived in the city, had contrived to avoid capture. In order to save his own skin the wretch did not hesitate to turn king's evidence and to sacrifice the life of his benefactress, a woman who is described as having "spent a great part of her life in acts of charity, visiting the gaols and looking after the poor." She too died with great fortitude, arranging with her own hands the straw around her, so as to burn the more speedily.1573The revocation of the Edict of Nantes, Oct., 1685.Parliament began to be alarmed at the favour shown to Catholics, and this alarm was increased by a report from France that Louis XIV, with whom James was known to be closely allied, and on whom he depended, like his late brother, for pecuniary support, had revoked the Edict of Nantes granted by Henry IV in favour of his Protestant subjects. The report was soon confirmed by the appearance of numbers of French Protestants—refugees from persecution—in England, and more especially in the city of London. What Louis had done in France James, it was feared, would carry out in England by means of his standing army commanded by Roman Catholic officers. Hence the alarm which pervaded not only parliament, but also the city and the nation at large.[pg 516]Session of parliament, 9-20 Nov., 1685.Hence too it was that when the Houses, which had been adjourned during the campaign in the West, met on the 9th November,1574they remonstrated with him for the favour he had shown to Catholics in direct contravention of the law. Finding himself unable to bend parliament to his will, he determined to do without one, and accordingly, after a brief session, it stood prorogued (20 Nov.),1575never to meet again during the present reign.James and the Catholics, 1686.Without a parliament James could act with a free hand. By a piece of chicanery he managed to get a legal decision acknowledging the dispensing power of the king.1576He established an Ecclesiastical Commission Court, with the infamous Jeffreys at its head, the first act of which was to suspend the Bishop of London for upholding the Protestant faith. He removed the Earl of Clarendon (son of the late Chancellor), who had recently been appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,1577and appointed as lord deputy the Earl of Tyrconnel, a Roman Catholic of low character, who had gained an unenviable notoriety as the "lying Dick Talbot." The country was over-run with Papists from abroad. All the laws against the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion were set at defiance. There was no disguise. Mass was publicly celebrated at Whitehall and Roman Catholic chapels sprang up everywhere, giving rise to no small dissatisfaction and tumult. The agitation in London was great, but greater in the city, where men had been less accustomed to the[pg 517]sight of the Romish ceremonial than those who lived in the neighbourhood of the court. Riots in the city were of frequent occurrence, more especially on Sundays, when the Roman Catholics were more in evidence than on week days. A Roman Catholic chapel had recently been erected by the Elector Palatine in Lime Street. An ineffectual attempt had been made by the mayor and aldermen to stay the work. They were summoned to appear before the king and reprimanded. The work was accordingly allowed to go on and the chapel was opened. On Sunday, the 18th April (1686), the priests attached to the chapel were followed by a mob into Cheapside, and matters would have gone hard with them had not the mayor and aldermen appeared on the scene with a regiment of trained bands. James again sent for the mayor and told him that if he could not keep better order in the city he should himself send some "assistance."1578Nevertheless another riot broke out on the following Sunday. A mob entered a Roman Catholic chapel and carried away a crucifix, crying out they would have no "wooden gods." A cross was set up on the parish pump and mock obeisance made to it. The priests were insulted, but no violence was offered them. When the mayor appeared to quell the tumult the crowd affected to disbelieve that his lordship was in earnest. "What! the lord mayor of our city come to preach up popery! too sure, it cannot be!" When the trained bands were ordered to disperse the crowd they declared that in conscience they could not hinder them in their work.1579[pg 518]The camp at Hounslow opened, 28 May, 1686.These disturbances were very injurious to the trade of the city, and caused a considerable fall in the amount of customs paid for merchandise entering the port of London. A regiment or two of the standing army which James had formed might any day appear in the city. "I shall not wonder if the Scotch regiment of guards now quartering at Greenwich be quartered in Cheapside before this week is out," wrote a contemporary on the 27th April.1580A month later the army was encamped at Hounslow, the king himself being also there, ready to send "assistance" to the city should occasion arise.1581The Declaration of Indulgence, 4 April, 1687.For a time James had entertained the hope of obtaining favours for the Catholics with the goodwill of the Church of England, whilst continuing the persecution of dissenters. Finding this impossible he determined to make friends of the dissenters, and to include them in a general declaration of indulgence. Accordingly on the 4th April, 1687, there appeared a Declaration of Indulgence suspending all laws against Roman Catholics and dissenters alike.1582Corporations further "regulated," 1687.James would willingly have obtained parliamentary sanction for his declaration if he could. To this end he again took to tampering with corporations throughout the country, in the hope of securing thereby a parliament favourable to his policy of toleration. Six commissioners were appointed in November to "regulate" all the corporations of England, by turning out all who were opposed to the abolition of the penal laws and Test Act and putting in their place those who[pg 519]favoured it.1583In London dispensations were granted to the livery companies relieving their members from taking the oaths and test, whilst similar dispensations were included in the royal commissions appointing aldermen. In many of the companies Tories of a too pronounced character were turned out and their places taken by dissenters.1584Everywhere dissenters were treated with the greatest consideration. Notwithstanding every effort, however, to capture the constituencies at the next elections, James found public opinion against him to be too strong, and all thought of summoning a fresh parliament had to be abandoned.The king and the Court of Aldermen, June, 1687.In the meanwhile addresses flowed in from various parts of the country thanking the king for his declaration. Presbyterians, Quakers, Independents, Congregationalists alike sent addresses, but as yet no address was presented on behalf of the Court of Aldermen—the governing body of the city, now that the Common Council was in abeyance. That body had to be largely remodelled before it would consent to present any such address. On Thursday, the 16th June, the infamous Jeffreys, who had been rewarded with the seals for his work at the Bloody Assizes, appeared before the Court of Aldermen and declared his majesty's pleasure that in future that court should nominate and recommend to the Crown such persons as they thought fit to be aldermen as vacancies occurred, and that no one so nominated[pg 520]should be exempt from service except for insufficiency of estate, to be declared on oath. Those who were capable of serving and refused to serve when nominated by the court were to be fined, and the fines were to be devoted to the use and benefit of the city's orphans. The ancient privilege, too, of the mayor drinking to a future sheriff received the king's sanction.1585Having listened to the lord chancellor's message the court resolved to wait upon the king at Windsor on the following Sunday to thank his majesty "for that and all other his majesties acts of grace to this court and city."1586Both the mayor and the Court of Aldermen lost no time in exercising their privileges, but they experienced great difficulty in getting any one to serve sheriff or alderman. Fines ran up apace, until no less than £8,500 had been paid by persons desirous at any cost to be discharged from filling either of those thankless offices. Many of the aldermen either voluntarily resigned their gowns or were dismissed from the court because they were unwilling to vote an address of thanks to James for his declaration.1587Thanks from Court of Aldermen for Declaration, 26 July, 1687.At length the court was sufficiently packed with dissenters to pass an address to the king (26 July) thanking him for his declaration, and assuring his majesty of their readiness to stand by him with their lives and fortunes.1588The orphans of the city also voted an address,1589as well they might, seeing the amount of money that the declaration had been the means of bringing into the orphans' fund.[pg 521]William Kiffin appointed by the king alderman of Cheap, 6 Aug., 1687.His reluctance to accept office.At last consents, and is sworn, 27 Oct., 1687.Not every dissenter welcomed the king's declaration. To many of them it seemed—what the king intended it to be—only a lever for raising the Roman Catholics. Baxter, to whom friendly overtures were made by government to win him over, refused to join in any address of thanks for the declaration. John Howe declared himself an opponent of the dispensing power, and Bunyan declined to enter into any negotiations on the matter at all. William Kiffin, on the other hand, an influential Baptist in the city, succumbed to the threats, if not to the blandishments, of James.1590In addition to possessing spiritual gifts of no mean order, Kiffin was also a man of wealth and position in the world of commerce. In every way he would prove a valuable ally, if only he could be won over. Against this, however, there was one great impediment: the recollection of the judicial murder of his two grandsons, Benjamin and William Hewling, by Jeffreys at the Bloody Assizes. Fondly imagining that the memory of that foul act could be blotted out and the stricken heart salved by an increase of wealth or elevation in rank, James sent for him to court, and after some preliminary remarks touching the royal favour that was being shown to dissenters, told Kiffin that he had put him down as an alderman in his "new charter," alluding no doubt to the royal commission of 6th August, in which Kiffin's name appears as alderman of Cheap ward in the place of[pg 522]Samuel Dashwood. On hearing this Kiffin replied, "Sir, I am a very old man,"—he was seventy years of age when he lost his grandchildren—"I have withdrawn myself from all kind of business for some years past, and am incapable of doing any service in such an affair to your majesty or the city. Besides, sir," the old man continued, with tears running down his cheeks, and looking the king steadily in the face, "the death of my grandsons gave a wound to my heart which is still bleeding, and never will close but in the grave." For a moment the king was abashed, but quickly recovering himself told Kiffin that he (James) would find "a balsam for that sore." The old man still held out, until, hearing that legal proceedings were about to be taken against him, he took counsel's opinion as to what was best to be done. He was told that he was running a great risk by refusing to become an alderman, for the judges, as they then were, might subject him to a penalty of ten, twenty, or thirty thousand pounds, "even what they pleased." Under such circumstances he consented to be made an alderman, rather than bring ruin on himself and family. He, however, put off the evil day as long as he could, and was not sworn into office until the 27th October.1591Kiffin expressed himself as pleased with the reception he met with in his ward, where he was almost a stranger. But much of the business which the Court of Aldermen was called upon to execute in those days was distasteful to him. "We had frequently orders from the king" (he writes) "to[pg 523]send to the several companies to put out great numbers of liverymen out of the privilege of being liverymen, and others to be put in their rooms; most of which that were so turned out were Protestants of the Church of England. There has been a list of seven hundred at a time to be discharged, although no crime laid to their charge." The royal commission which appointed him an alderman also created him a justice of the peace and a member of the Court of Lieutenancy, but to use his own words, "I never meddled with either of those places, neither in any act of power in that court [i.e., Court of Aldermen] touching causes between man and man, but only such things as concerned the welfare of the city and good of the orphans, whose distressed condition called for help, although we were able to do little towards it." He was not called upon to discharge his invidious duties for any great length of time; for after being in office only nine months he obtained his discharge, to his "very great satisfaction." He continued to live for another thirteen years, dying on the 29th December, 1701, in his 86th year, and he was buried in Bunhill Fields—that "God's acre" which holds the dust of so many of his fellow non-conformists.Sir John Shorter, mayor, Oct., 1687.In September the king had issued a patent for Sir John Shorter to be lord mayor for the year ensuing. Shorter was a dissenter—"an Anabaptist, a very odd ignorant person, a mechanic, I think," wrote Evelyn1592of him—and on that account a clause was inserted in his commission permitting him to have any preacher he might choose.1593His granddaughter[pg 524]was married to Sir Robert Walpole. He was at one time alderman of Cripplegate ward, but in December, 1682, he fell foul of Charles II for attending a conventicle at Pinmakers' Hall, and the Court of Aldermen received orders to remove him.1594He had recently, however (6 Aug., 1687), been restored to his aldermanry and to his rank of precedence by commission from James,1595and now, by the same usurped authority, he was to become lord mayor. The feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.) happening this year to fall on a Friday, the installation of the new lord mayor, as well as the banquet to which James and the Papal Nuncio had been invited, was postponed until the following day. The aldermen agreed to defray the cost of the entertainment out of their own pockets,1596each laying down the sum of £50. Kiffin also sent £50, although he had not yet been sworn a member of the court; but he afterwards regretted having done so when he learnt that the Pope's Nuncio and other priests had been invited as guests.1597The day passed off well. The Goldsmiths' Company, of which the new lord mayor was a member, made a particularly brave show. The entire roadway from Charing Cross to the city had been fresh gravelled that morning, and the king, who was accompanied by the queen, expressed himself as well pleased with the entertainment afforded him.1598[pg 525]The Dissenters supreme in the city.The Dissenters now had matters all their own way. The livery companies had become so leavened with an influx of new members, whose claim for admittance rested chiefly on their antagonism to the established Church, that most of them now sent in addresses to the king thanking him for his Declaration of Indulgence. The Barber-Surgeons and the Apothecaries had already done so; so had the Clothworkers, the Mercers and the Glovers. Their example was now followed by the Cutlers, the Goldsmiths, the Haberdashers, the Joiners and the Weavers.1599The mayor, who kept his mayoralty at Grocers' Hall, openly held a conventicle there on Sunday, the 6th November,1600whilst he declined to listen to a sermon by the learned Dr. Stillingfleet in the Guildhall chapel.1601More than this, he would have turned the chapel itself into a conventicle could he have had his own way.1602The second Declaration of Indulgence, 27 April, 1688.In the Spring of 1688 James published a second Declaration of Indulgence varying but slightly from the former one, and ordered it to be read in the churches of London and Westminster on the 20th and 27th May, and in the country on the 3rd and 10th June. This was more than the clergy could stand. A meeting of bishops was held at Lambeth for the purpose of drawing up a petition to the king praying[pg 526]that the clergy might be excused reading an illegal document in the midst of public service. This petition was signed by Sancroft, the primate, and six bishops. Although the Bishop of London was not among those who signed the petition—he at the time being under disability—there is reason for believing that Compton had been taken into counsel by those who drafted it.1603On the petition being presented James pretended the utmost surprise, and insisted that the presentation of such a petition was "a standard of rebellion." This took place on Friday preceding the first Sunday (20th May) when the Declaration was to be read in the London churches. When Sunday arrived people flocked to the churches to hear what would happen. Only a few of the London clergy attempted to read the Declaration.1604In the country not more than 200 clergy carried out the king's orders, "and of these some read it the first Sunday, but changed their minds before the second; others declared in their sermons that though they obeyed the order they did not approve the Declaration." One minister in particular told his congregation that though he was obliged to read it they were not obliged to hear it, and waited until all had left the church before he commenced reading the hateful document. In other places the congregation took the initiative and rose to go as soon as the minister commenced reading it.1605The seven bishops committed to the Tower.What followed is well known. On Friday the 8th June the Archbishop of Canterbury and the six bishops who had signed the petition were summoned[pg 527]before the council and asked if they acknowledged their respective signatures. They were next required to enter into bond for appearance before the King's Bench. This they declined to do, and were thereupon committed to the Tower.1606To have carried them through the streets of the city might have caused a riot; they were therefore conveyed to the Tower by water, "and all along as they passed the banks of the river were full of people, who kneeled down and asked their blessing, and with loud shouts expressed their good wishes for them and their concern in their preservation."1607The enthusiasm of the Londoners did not end here. They continued to flock to the Tower, filling the small chapel where the bishops attended service to overflowing in order to gaze upon their beloved pastors and receive their blessing.1608After being kept in separate confinement, and allowed to meet only at meals and in chapel, for ten days, the bishops were allowed to come out on bail.Trial and acquittal of the bishops, 29 and 30 June, 1688.On the 29th June they appeared before the King's Bench on a charge of publishing a seditious libel. A technical difficulty presented itself at the outset, but this was got over, and after a trial of some hours the question of their innocence or guilt was left to a jury drawn, not from London, but from the county of Middlesex. One of the panel stuck out against the rest, and wished to bring in a verdict of guilty, but after being locked up through the night he allowed himself to be persuaded by his fellow-jurymen, and on the morning of the 30th June a verdict of not guilty was found. Thereupon "there were such shoutings, so long continued, and as it were echoed[pg 528]into the city, that all people were struck with it."1609Bonfires were lighted, guns discharged and church bells rung, not only in London but throughout the kingdom.Disaffection among the troops at Hounslow.The beginning of the end was approaching. Already the troops encamped at Hounslow, on which James placed so much dependence, showed signs of disaffection. He had hoped that his army would have overawed London, instead of which the free spirit of London had, as a result of his policy, entirely captivated his army. So long as the king was in their midst the troops maintained a respectful demeanour, but as soon as his back was turned they threw off all restraint, and joined in the general exultation at the late joyful deliverance to the Church of England.1610The birth of Prince Charles Edward, 10 June, 1688.The birth of a prince (10 June), which had recently taken place, served to hasten the crisis. Those who were willing to have waited patiently for a recurrence to the old order of things at the king's death now saw their hopes dashed to the ground. The king's heir and successor, brought up, as he undoubtedly would be, in the tenets of his father, promised them little relief. Even before the birth of the prince overtures had been made to William of Orange to appear in England at the head of an army. Nevertheless the Court of Aldermen displayed its loyalty by resolving that the conduits in Cheapside and at the Stocks Market should run with claret on Thanksgiving-day. The sheriffs were to take the matter in hand, whilst the sum of £50 was raised by the court to defray the cost, the mayor contributing £10, each of the sheriffs £5, and the rest of the[pg 529]aldermen the balance between them.1611Later on (29 June) the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs waited upon the infant prince and kissed his hand. The various nurses were presented by the Chamberlain with the respectabledouceurof sixty guineas, whilst ten guineas were given to the lord chancellor's messenger who brought the news to the city of the prince's birth.1612Invitation to William of Orange, 30 June, 1688.The day that saw the bishops acquitted a letter was despatched, signed by Shrewsbury, Danby, Compton (the suspended Bishop of London) and others, to the Prince of Orange, again inviting him to land in England with an armed force, and promising to render him every assistance. After some hesitation William accepted the invitation, and began to make preparations, both naval and military, for his descent on England. Towards the close of September news came from Holland of the vast preparations that were being pushed forward in that country. A fleet of sixty sail was in readiness, and the prince himself was shortly expected on board. James lost no time in informing the lord mayor of the state of affairs, and desired that he and the aldermen would take measures for preserving the city in peace.1613On the 28th he issued a proclamation informing his subjects of the threatened invasion, and calling upon them to lay aside all jealousies and to unite in defending the country against the foreign enemy.1614Restoration of the City's liberties, 6 Oct., 1688.James saw, when it was too late, that he had over-taxed the patience of his subjects. He was now[pg 530]ready to make any and every concession. As for the citizens of London, they should have their charter restored. Accordingly, on Saturday the 6th October Lord Chancellor Jeffreys appeared before the Court of Aldermen with two separate grants under the great seal, the one appointing Sir John Chapman to be mayor (in the place of Sir John Eyles1615) up to the feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.), with liberty to the citizens in the meantime to elect one of their own choice to be mayor for the year ensuing; the other, continuing in office Sir Samuel Thompson and Sir Humphrey Edwin, then sheriffs, until a new election of sheriffs should be made by the citizens. The newly-appointed mayor and the existing sheriffs thereupon went down into the Guildhall, accompanied by the lord chancellor, who informed the citizens of the restitution of their liberties.1616The mayor and sheriffs having taken the oaths and subscribed the declaration prescribed by the Corporation Act, the aldermen returned to their chamber, and such as had been aldermen at the time of the judgment upon the writ ofQuo Warrantoand were then present were forthwith sworn in for the respective wards from which they had been deposed. The court next proceeded to draw up an address to the king, in which his majesty was assured that with all duty and faithfulness they would cheerfully and readilydischarge the trust reposed in themto the[pg 531]utmost hazard of their lives and fortunes.1617One cannot help noticing how studiously different the wording of this address is from those previously presented. Not a word about defending his majesty's person with their lives and fortunes; these are thenceforth to be expended in guarding their own liberties! When the Court of Aldermen met three days later (9 Oct.) the common sergeant, the town clerk, the comptroller, swordbearer, common crier and other officers who had been ousted from their places under theQuo Warrantowere formally re-instated;1618and the same day Chapman issued his precept for a Common Hall to meet on the 11th for the election of sheriffs for the year ensuing.1619Several aldermen who had lost their places in 1683 declined to be re-instated, among them being Sir Robert Clayton.1620Sir George Treby, who had been recorder at the time of the confiscation of the city's liberties, also refused to accept office again; but the Court of Aldermen finding great difficulty in getting a suitable person to accept the appointment, Treby was finally induced to change his mind, and before the end of the year he occupied his old place and continued to occupy it until, in 1692, he was made chief justice of common pleas.1621[pg 532]The city was still without a Common Council, and it was not until the 26th November that the Court of Aldermen advised the mayor to issue his precept for an election of common councilmen to take place on the 28th. The council so elected was to be but a provisional one until the regular election should take place on St. Thomas-day (21 Dec.).1622On the 1st December the new Common Council sat for the first time,1623none having met since the 2nd October, 1683.Writs for a new parliament.The day that a new Common Council was elected Jeffreys (who was already packing up to be off) notified that writs were about to be issued for a new parliament. The House was to meet on the 15th January (1689). James had purposed summoning a parliament for November (1688), and some of the writs had been actually sent out, but the Dutch preparations so alarmed him that the writs were recalled.1624Question as to the legitimacy of Prince Charles, 20 Oct., 1688.In the meantime an extraordinary council had been held at Whitehall (20 Oct.) which the mayor and aldermen of the city had been invited to attend. The object of the meeting was to dissipate any doubt that had been entertained as to the infant prince being actually the king's son. There had been rumours to the contrary, and as the king was about to enter upon a dangerous enterprise in person, he declared his intention of settling the question beyond all doubt before leaving. Some twenty witnesses were accordingly examined then and there as to the prince's legitimacy, the king offering to send for the[pg 533]queen herself if the meeting so wished. This offer, one need scarcely say, was declined.1625The same day proclamation was made for guarding the sea coast and withdrawing all draft cattle into the interior.1626A "mass house" in the city wrecked by the mob, 29 Oct., 1688.The feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.) falling on Sunday, Sir John Chapman, who had been re-elected mayor by free choice of the citizens, proceeded to Westminster by water according to custom on the following Monday, accompanied by the aldermen, and was sworn before the barons of the exchequer. He returned to Grocers' Hall and there entertained the lords of the council, the judges and many of the nobility. Notwithstanding the precautions taken against riot during the mayor's absence from the city the mob broke out and sacked and burnt a "mass house" in Bucklersbury. For this disturbance the mayor and sheriffs were called to account by the king.1627Arrival of William and his march on London, Nov., 1688.On the 5th November the Prince of Orange successfully effected a landing in Torbay. As soon as the news reached London James again sent for the mayor and aldermen, ordered them to take care of the city, and, if he should fall in battle, to proclaim the Prince of Wales successor to the crown.1628William proceeded to march upon London. At Exeter he was well received, but some little time elapsed before the gentry showed any disposition to throw in their lot with the prince. On the 17th James set out with his army to meet the invader, after receiving an assurance from the mayor and aldermen that they would take[pg 534]care of the city during his absence.1629He reached Salisbury, but soon found himself deserted by officers and friends. Among the former was Lord Churchill, afterwards known as the Duke of Marlborough, and the greatest soldier of the age. Left almost alone, James returned to London, having been absent from the capital less than ten days. Like his name-sake the Conqueror, William made no haste to reach London, but advanced by slow marches, putting up at various gentlemen's houses on the way. It was agreed that both armies should remain at a distance of forty miles from London in order to allow the new parliament to meet in safety.Renewed attacks made on Catholics in London.Since the news of the prince's landing there had been a renewal of the attacks made on Roman Catholics and their places of worship in London. On the 11th November the mob broke into St. John's, Clerkenwell, where rumour declared there were stored gridirons, spits and other instruments for torturing Protestants. The troops were called out and one or two of the rioters killed. It was deemed advisable to close all the Roman Catholic chapels except the royal chapels and those belonging to foreign ambassadors.1630Another sign of the times was the fact that the sceptre belonging to the statue of Queen Mary set up in the Royal Exchange had either accidentally fallen or (as was more probable) had been forcibly struck out of her hand.1631On the 7th December the mayor issued a precept to the aldermen of each ward for[pg 535]a careful search to be made in the city for all Papists and suspicious persons. He did this because he understood that the inhabitants of the city were much alarmed at the great resort of Papists to the city who were believed to be meditating some attack upon London.1632Proceeding in the city after the king's flight, 11 Dec., 1688.The negotiations which had been opened with William were only intended by James to serve the purpose of giving the latter time to place his wife and child in a place of security before he himself should seek safety in flight. On the 11th December he attempted to make good his escape. As soon as it was known that the king had left London a great number of lords, both spiritual and temporal, came to the Guildhall, as to a place of security, the better to consult and take measures for the common weal. Having informed the Court of Aldermen of the king's flight the lords retired into the "gallery adjoining to yecouncell chamber," and there drew up a Declaration,1633containing in effect their resolution to assist the Prince of Orange in maintaining the religion, the rights and the liberties which had been invaded by Jesuitical counsels. This was communicated to the Court of Aldermen, who thanked the lords for the favour shown to the Court. As the occasion was an important one it was deemed advisable to summon forthwith a Common Council, as well as the law officers of the City, to advise the aldermen as to what was best to be done.1634A Common Council was accordingly held that same day. Being informed of the state of affairs, the court quickly resolved to[pg 536]follow the example set by the lords, and themselves to present an address to the prince.1635An address was accordingly prepared, in which, having warmly acknowledged the prince's zeal for the Protestant religion and expressed regret at the king's measures and his recent flight, the citizens implored the prince's protection, promising him at the same time a hearty welcome whenever he should repair to their city. The lieutenancy of the city followed suit the same day with another address, in which his highness was assured that measures had been taken for preserving the city in peace until his arrival.1636The lords, having finished their business in the city, dined the same evening with the lord mayor at Grocers' Hall.1637Letter from the prince to the city, 17 Dec., 1688.On the 17th a letter from the prince was read before the Common Council. The terms of the letter are not recorded in the City's archives, but it probably contained some reference to the peace of the city, for the council, after preparing an answer to it, forthwith gave orders for the guards of the trained bands to be increased by three regiments.1638The prince enters London, 18 Dec.The following day (18 Dec.) the prince himself entered London, and the council, having heard of his arrival, immediately despatched the sheriffs and the common sergeant to learn when his highness would be pleased to receive a deputation from the city. It was arranged that the aldermen and their deputies and one or two members of the council of each ward,[pg 537]according to the number of its representatives, should form the deputation.1639The lord mayor (Chapman) being indisposed was unable to attend. He had recently been seized with a fit of apoplexy whilst trying the terrible Jeffreys, who had been discovered and apprehended in disguise at Wapping. But Treby, the recorder, was there, and made a speech on the City's behalf.1640A representative assembly meet to discuss the state of affairs, 26 Dec., 1688.A Convention Parliament to meet, 22 Jan., 1689.By this time James, who had been foiled in his first attempt to reach the coast, and had returned to London, had, with the connivance of the Prince of Orange, been more successful in a second attempt, and had crossed over to France, where he spent the remainder of his days. The country was therefore left without king, parliament or legal system for its government. In London the Corporation of the city was almost the only authority that remained unaffected by the king's abdication; and it is significant as well of its power as of the respect which that body commanded that when William was endeavouring to form an authoritative assembly by summoning all the members who had ever sat in parliament under Charles II,1641he likewise desired that the lord mayor of the city, the entire Court of Aldermen and fifty representatives of the Common Council should attend.1642This assembly met on the 26th December, and after due consultation decided to adopt the same procedure as was adopted in 1660 before the return of Charles II. As there[pg 538]was no king there could be no writs for a parliament, but William could call a Convention, which would be a parliament in everything but name. A Convention was accordingly summoned to meet on the 22nd January, 1689. The election of the city members to serve in the convention was ordered to take place on Wednesday the 9th January,1643when the choice of the citizens fell upon their former well-tried representatives, Sir Patience Ward, Sir Robert Clayton, Pilkington (who had regained his liberty in August, 1686)1644and Love.Letter from the prince desiring a city loan, 8 Jan., 1689.In the meantime (8 Jan.) the prince wrote to the civic authorities setting forth the inadequacy of the revenue to supply three pressing wants. These were the maintenance of the navy, the partial disbandment of the army and the furnishing of a force for the speedy relief of the Protestants in Ireland. He desired the City, therefore, to advance him such a sum as could be "conveniently spared."1645The City was still to keep up its character as the purse of the nation. The Common Council, having heard the letter read, at once resolved to assist the prince to the utmost of their power. A committee was appointed to settle with the revenue officers the nature of the security, and orders were given for precepts to be sent to the aldermen to raise subscriptions in the various wards.1646Sir Peter Rich, who had recently been re-instated in the office of city chamberlain from[pg 539]which he had been ousted, was instructed to pay into the exchequer all money received on account of the loan, and to strike tallies for the same in his own name in trust for the use of the several lenders. Ten days later (18 Jan.) the committee reported the steps taken for the security of repayment of the money already paid into the exchequer, and the council recommended that similar steps should be taken with respect to those sums yet to be paid in. It was at the same time unanimously agreed to ask the Prince to dinner in the city, and the recorder, the sheriffs and the common sergeant were instructed to wait on his highness and learn his pleasure.1647Meeting of the convention parliament, 22 Jan., 1689.On the 22nd January the Convention met. On the 28th the Commons declared the throne to be vacant, and on the 6th February a vote to similar effect was passed by the Lords. Some over-zealous inhabitants of the city had in the meanwhile prepared a petition, which they purposed presenting to the House of Lords, praying that the crown might be offered to the Prince of Orange and his consort. The prince ordered the lord mayor to put a stop to such proceedings, and a precept (200 copies of which were ordered to be printed) was accordingly issued to this effect.1648William and Mary proclaimed king and queen, 13 Feb., 1689.A Declaration of Rights was drawn up condemning the unconstitutional acts of James II, and offering to settle the crown on William and Mary and their children, with remainders over. On the 13th February this offer was accepted,1649and the prince and princess[pg 540]were forthwith proclaimed king and queen with the usual ceremony. The next day the Common Council unanimously agreed to wait upon their majesties and congratulate them upon their accession to the throne.1650Coronation of William and Mary, 11 April, 1689.At the coronation banquet of the king and queen, which took place on the 11th April, the masters of the twelve principal livery companies were for the first time nominated by the Court of Aldermen to join with the lord mayor in assisting the chief butler,1651and they continued to be so nominated on like occasions up to the coronation of George IV, when in consequence of a change of masters taking place between the time of their nomination and the day of the coronation, the new masters presented a petition to the Court of Claims praying to have their names inserted in the place of the former masters whose term of office had expired. This petition was opposed by the Remembrancer, on behalf of the City, on the ground that the masters of the livery companies enjoyed no peculiar right to serve on such occasions, and after some deliberation the commissioners declined to interfere, inasmuch as the power of nominating the twelve citizens rested absolutely with the Court of Aldermen.1652The lord mayor and swordbearer were resplendent at the coronation ceremony in new crimson and damask gowns, whilst the city's plate—again lent for the occasion—added lustre to the banquet.1653

[pg 506]CHAPTER XXXI.The Accession of James II, 6 Feb., 1685."They will never kill me, James, to make you king," the late king is said to have cynically remarked to his brother; and, indeed, the accession of the Duke of York was accepted by the nation in general, as well as by the City of London in particular, with considerable foreboding. The new king for a short while was content to feel his way before plunging into the headstrong course of action which eventually lost him the crown. Although suspected of being a Catholic at heart, it was only during his last moments that Charles had accepted the ministrations of the Roman Church. The new king had for years been an avowed Catholic; nevertheless, in his first speech to the Privy Council he announced his intention of maintaining the established government, both in Church and State. This speech, made within an hour of the late king's death, was received with rapturous applause. It was quickly followed by a proclamation of his majesty's wish that all persons in office at the time of the decease of the late king should so continue until further notice.1556Another document proclaiming the death of the late king and the devolution of the crown to the Duke of York was at the same time drawn up by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, with the assistance of the privy council, the mayor, aldermen and citizens of London and others.1557This[pg 507]document did not bear the signature of the mayor as that proclaiming James I had done.The question of continuation of customs and excise.James had not been many days on the throne before the question of supply had to be settled. More than one-half of the whole revenue of the crown was derived from the customs, and these had been settled on Charles for life only, and could not therefore be exacted by his successor without the assent of parliament. No parliament had been summoned since the dissolution of the parliament at Oxford four years since (28 March, 1681). As time was pressing and some delay must have taken place before a new parliament could meet, James took the advice of Chief Justice Jeffreys, and did violence to the constitution by proclaiming (9 Feb.) the continuation of the payment of customs as a matter of necessity, whilst at the same time he intimated his intention of speedily calling a parliament.1558The pill thus gilded was swallowed without protest. The excise duties was another matter and was dealt with differently. The "additional excise," like the customs, had been given to the late king for life, but there was a clause in the Act which empowered the Lords of the Treasury to let them to farm for a term of three years without any limitation as to their being so long due. A lease was now propounded as having been made during the late king's life (the document bearing date the 5th February, the day preceding his decease), although there was every reason for supposing it to have been made after his death and to have been post-dated. The judges were[pg 508]appealed to, and with every desire to curry favour with the new king, the majority pronounced the document to be good in law. Thus fortified, James no longer hesitated to issue a proclamation (16 Feb.) for the continuation of the excise.1559The coronation of king and queen, 23 April, 1685.A parliament was summoned for the 9th April, but did not meet until the 19th May. In the meantime the king and queen had been crowned at Westminster on St. George's day (23 April). The City put in their customary claim,1560but this was at first disallowed "in regard of the judgment upon theQuo Warrantofor seizure of the cities franchise." Upon appeal being made, however, to the king himself the claim was allowed, and the mayor, aldermen and citizens were treated with high honour both in the Abbey and at the banquet in Westminster Hall, the mayor being presented by the king with the cup of pure gold and cover, weighing in all upwards of twenty ounces, with which he had served his majesty with wine.1561A few days before the banquet took place Sir Robert Vyner sent to the mayor to borrow the City's plate for the occasion. The matter was laid before the Court of Aldermen and permission was granted the lord mayor to lend such plate as could be spared.1562A Tory parliament, 1685.When parliament met (19 May) the majority in favour of the court party was enormous. This was in no small measure due to the reformation that had been forced on other corporate towns besides the city of London. They had been made to surrender their[pg 509]charters, and the late king had in return granted them new charters in which Tories alone were named as members of the corporations. Only one more step was necessary in order to secure the return of a Tory parliament when the time for fresh elections should arrive, and that step was taken. The parliamentary franchise in boroughs was restricted to members of the corporations.1563In London the Whigs were kept down by fear, and the Tory party reigned supreme. The mayor and half the Court of Aldermen were nominees of the Crown, acting by royal commission. No Common Council sat, or if it did it was only for the purpose of enrolling a proclamation by the king or a precept by the mayor. As the election drew near the king, in order to render the result in his favour more sure, authorized the Court of Aldermen to grant liveries to several of the city companies, taking care that such only should be admitted to the livery as were of "unquestionable loyalty" for the purpose of voting.1564By this means four of the most pronounced Tories in the city were returned, all of them being aldermen. These were Sir John Moore and Sir William Pritchard, both of whom had been placed in the mayoralty chair, one after the other (in 1681 and 1682), by court influence, Sir Peter Rich, who had served as sheriff with Dudley North in 1682, and Sir Samuel Dashwood, who filled the same office the following year with Peter Daniel, both of them, like their immediate predecessors, being nominees of the Crown.[pg 510]As soon as the House met the Commons unanimously granted the king the full revenue which had been enjoyed by his brother.1565Oates and Dangerfield whipt at the cart's tail, May, 1685.The bent of the king's mind was quickly discerned in the sentences pronounced by judges eager to secure his favour. Titus Oates was taken out of prison and whipt at the cart's tail from Aldgate to Newgate the day after parliament met. Two days later he was again whipt from Newgate to Tyburn, and the punishment was so mercilessly carried out that it nearly cost him his life. Precautions had to be taken by the mayor to prevent a display of force by Oates's partisans, who overturned the pillory on which he was to stand.1566Dangerfield, another professional informer, was made to undergo a punishment scarcely less severe. He survived the punishment, but only to die from the effect of a vicious blow dealt him by a bystander as he was being carried back to gaol from Tyburn.Richard Baxter brought to trial, 30 May, 1685.On the other hand Richard Baxter—the most learned and moderate of Nonconformists—was tried at the Guildhall on a charge of having introduced into his commentary on the New Testament some seditious remarks respecting the attitude of the government towards dissenters. The infamous Jeffreys presided at the trial, and spared neither counsel nor prisoner his insolent invectives. The whole proceedings were nothing less than a farce, and the evidence adduced was of such a flimsy character that Baxter volunteered a remark expressing a doubt whether any jury would convict a man on it. He was, however, mistaken.[pg 511]The sheriffs, like the mayor, were but tools of the court party, and the jurymen selected to sit on the trial did not hesitate to bring in a verdict of guilty. He was fortunate to get off with no worse sentence than a fine of 500 marks and imprisonment until it was paid.1567The Monmouth Rebellion, 1685.There was doubtless a large number of inhabitants of the city who would gladly have assisted Monmouth—"the champion of the dissenters and extreme Protestants"—had they been in a position to do so. But as soon as the news of the duke's landing in Dorsetshire reached London orders were issued by the mayor for a strict watch to be kept by night throughout the city, and for the arrest of all suspicious characters, whilst the duke and his supporters were proclaimed traitors and rebels. It was forbidden to circulate the duke's manifesto in the city, and on the 16th June, or within five days of his landing, a price of £5,000 was put upon his head.1568After Monmouth's defeat at Sedgmoor (6 July) he and his companions sought safety in flight. Monmouth himself fled to the New Forest, where he was captured in the last stage of poverty, sleeping in a ditch, and was brought to London. He was lodged in the Tower, where his wife and three children had already been sent. Thousands of spectators, who, we are told, "seemed much troubled," went forth to witness his arrival by water on the evening of the 13th July. Two days later he was executed on Tower Hill.Trial of Cornish and others, 19 Oct., 1685.The utmost cruelty, both military and judicial, was inflicted on Monmouth's supporters. Many were[pg 512]hanged by royalist soldiers—"Kirke's lambs," as they were called—without form of law. Others were committed for trial until Jeffreys came to hold his "Bloody Assize," when to the cruelty of the sentences passed on most of them was added the ribald insolence of the judge. The opportunity was taken of giving the city of London a lesson, and Henry Cornish, late alderman and sheriff, was suddenly arrested. This took place on Tuesday the 13th October. He was kept a close prisoner, not allowed to see friends or counsel, and deprived of writing materials. On Saturday he was informed for the first time that he would be tried on a charge of high treason, and that the trial would commence on the following Monday (19 Oct.). His attitude before the judges was calm and dignified. Before pleading not guilty to the charge of having consented to aid and abet the late Duke of Monmouth and others in their attempt on the life of the late king (the Rye House Plot), he entered a protest against the indecent haste with which he had been called upon to plead and the short time allowed him to prepare his case. He asked for further time, but this the judges refused.One of the chief witnesses for the Crown was Goodenough, who had a personal spite against Cornish for his having objected to him (Goodenough) serving as under-sheriff in 1680-1, the year when Bethell and Cornish were sheriffs.1569Goodenough had risked his neck in Monmouth's late rebellion, but[pg 513]he had succeeded in obtaining a pardon by promises of valuable information against others. With the king's pardon in his pocket he unblushingly declared before the judges that he, as well as Cornish and some others, had determined upon a general rising in the city at the time of the Rye House Plot. "We designed," said he, "to divide it (i.e., the city) into twenty parts, and out of each part to raise five hundred men, if it might be done, to make an insurrection."1570The Tower was to be seized and the guard expelled.Cornish had been afforded no opportunity for instructing counsel in his defence. He was therefore obliged to act as his own counsel, with the result usual in such cases. He rested his main defence upon the improbability of his having acted as the prosecution endeavoured to make out. This he so persistently urged that the judges lost patience. Improbability was not enough, they declared; let him call his witnesses. When, however, Cornish desired an adjournment in order that he might bring a witness up from Lancashire, his request was refused. His chief witness he omitted to call until after the lord chief justice had summed up. This man was a vintner of the city, named Shephard, at whose house Cornish was charged with having met and held consultation with Monmouth and the rest of the conspirators. The bench after some demur assented to the prisoner's earnest prayer that Shephard's evidence might be taken. He showed that he had been in the habit of having commercial transactions with Cornish and was at that moment in his debt; that on the occasion in question Cornish had come to his[pg 514]house, but whether he came to speak with the Duke of Monmouth or not the witness could not say for certain; that he only remained a few minutes, and that no paper or declaration (on which so much stress had been laid) in connection with the conspiracy was read in Cornish's presence; that in fact Cornish was not considered at the time as being in the plot. Such evidence, if not conclusive, ought to have gone far towards obtaining a verdict of acquittal for the prisoner. This was not the case, however; the witness was characterised by one of the judges as "very forward," and when Cornish humbly remonstrated with the treatment his witness was receiving from the bench he was sharply told to hold his tongue. The jury after a brief consultation brought in a verdict of guilty, and Cornish had to submit to the indignity of being tied—like a dangerous criminal—whilst sentence of death was passed upon him and three others who had been tried at the same time.Execution of Cornish, 23 Oct., 1685.The prisoner was allowed but three clear days before he was hanged at the corner of King Street and Cheapside, within sight of the Guildhall which he had so often frequented as an alderman of the city, and on which his head was afterwards placed. He met his end with courage and with many pious expressions, but to the last maintained his innocence with such vehemence that his enemies gave out that he had "died in a fit of fury."1571The injustice of his sentence was recognised and his conviction and attainder was afterwards reversed and annulled by parliament (22 June, 1689).1572[pg 515]Execution of Mrs. Gaunt, 23 Oct.Of the three others who had been tried with Cornish, two were reprieved (one was afterwards executed), but the third, Elizabeth Gaunt, was burnt at Tyburn the same day that Cornish suffered (23 Oct.) for having harboured an outlaw named Burton and assisted him to escape beyond the law. He had been implicated in the Rye House Plot, but with the aid of Mrs. Gaunt, who lived in the city, had contrived to avoid capture. In order to save his own skin the wretch did not hesitate to turn king's evidence and to sacrifice the life of his benefactress, a woman who is described as having "spent a great part of her life in acts of charity, visiting the gaols and looking after the poor." She too died with great fortitude, arranging with her own hands the straw around her, so as to burn the more speedily.1573The revocation of the Edict of Nantes, Oct., 1685.Parliament began to be alarmed at the favour shown to Catholics, and this alarm was increased by a report from France that Louis XIV, with whom James was known to be closely allied, and on whom he depended, like his late brother, for pecuniary support, had revoked the Edict of Nantes granted by Henry IV in favour of his Protestant subjects. The report was soon confirmed by the appearance of numbers of French Protestants—refugees from persecution—in England, and more especially in the city of London. What Louis had done in France James, it was feared, would carry out in England by means of his standing army commanded by Roman Catholic officers. Hence the alarm which pervaded not only parliament, but also the city and the nation at large.[pg 516]Session of parliament, 9-20 Nov., 1685.Hence too it was that when the Houses, which had been adjourned during the campaign in the West, met on the 9th November,1574they remonstrated with him for the favour he had shown to Catholics in direct contravention of the law. Finding himself unable to bend parliament to his will, he determined to do without one, and accordingly, after a brief session, it stood prorogued (20 Nov.),1575never to meet again during the present reign.James and the Catholics, 1686.Without a parliament James could act with a free hand. By a piece of chicanery he managed to get a legal decision acknowledging the dispensing power of the king.1576He established an Ecclesiastical Commission Court, with the infamous Jeffreys at its head, the first act of which was to suspend the Bishop of London for upholding the Protestant faith. He removed the Earl of Clarendon (son of the late Chancellor), who had recently been appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,1577and appointed as lord deputy the Earl of Tyrconnel, a Roman Catholic of low character, who had gained an unenviable notoriety as the "lying Dick Talbot." The country was over-run with Papists from abroad. All the laws against the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion were set at defiance. There was no disguise. Mass was publicly celebrated at Whitehall and Roman Catholic chapels sprang up everywhere, giving rise to no small dissatisfaction and tumult. The agitation in London was great, but greater in the city, where men had been less accustomed to the[pg 517]sight of the Romish ceremonial than those who lived in the neighbourhood of the court. Riots in the city were of frequent occurrence, more especially on Sundays, when the Roman Catholics were more in evidence than on week days. A Roman Catholic chapel had recently been erected by the Elector Palatine in Lime Street. An ineffectual attempt had been made by the mayor and aldermen to stay the work. They were summoned to appear before the king and reprimanded. The work was accordingly allowed to go on and the chapel was opened. On Sunday, the 18th April (1686), the priests attached to the chapel were followed by a mob into Cheapside, and matters would have gone hard with them had not the mayor and aldermen appeared on the scene with a regiment of trained bands. James again sent for the mayor and told him that if he could not keep better order in the city he should himself send some "assistance."1578Nevertheless another riot broke out on the following Sunday. A mob entered a Roman Catholic chapel and carried away a crucifix, crying out they would have no "wooden gods." A cross was set up on the parish pump and mock obeisance made to it. The priests were insulted, but no violence was offered them. When the mayor appeared to quell the tumult the crowd affected to disbelieve that his lordship was in earnest. "What! the lord mayor of our city come to preach up popery! too sure, it cannot be!" When the trained bands were ordered to disperse the crowd they declared that in conscience they could not hinder them in their work.1579[pg 518]The camp at Hounslow opened, 28 May, 1686.These disturbances were very injurious to the trade of the city, and caused a considerable fall in the amount of customs paid for merchandise entering the port of London. A regiment or two of the standing army which James had formed might any day appear in the city. "I shall not wonder if the Scotch regiment of guards now quartering at Greenwich be quartered in Cheapside before this week is out," wrote a contemporary on the 27th April.1580A month later the army was encamped at Hounslow, the king himself being also there, ready to send "assistance" to the city should occasion arise.1581The Declaration of Indulgence, 4 April, 1687.For a time James had entertained the hope of obtaining favours for the Catholics with the goodwill of the Church of England, whilst continuing the persecution of dissenters. Finding this impossible he determined to make friends of the dissenters, and to include them in a general declaration of indulgence. Accordingly on the 4th April, 1687, there appeared a Declaration of Indulgence suspending all laws against Roman Catholics and dissenters alike.1582Corporations further "regulated," 1687.James would willingly have obtained parliamentary sanction for his declaration if he could. To this end he again took to tampering with corporations throughout the country, in the hope of securing thereby a parliament favourable to his policy of toleration. Six commissioners were appointed in November to "regulate" all the corporations of England, by turning out all who were opposed to the abolition of the penal laws and Test Act and putting in their place those who[pg 519]favoured it.1583In London dispensations were granted to the livery companies relieving their members from taking the oaths and test, whilst similar dispensations were included in the royal commissions appointing aldermen. In many of the companies Tories of a too pronounced character were turned out and their places taken by dissenters.1584Everywhere dissenters were treated with the greatest consideration. Notwithstanding every effort, however, to capture the constituencies at the next elections, James found public opinion against him to be too strong, and all thought of summoning a fresh parliament had to be abandoned.The king and the Court of Aldermen, June, 1687.In the meanwhile addresses flowed in from various parts of the country thanking the king for his declaration. Presbyterians, Quakers, Independents, Congregationalists alike sent addresses, but as yet no address was presented on behalf of the Court of Aldermen—the governing body of the city, now that the Common Council was in abeyance. That body had to be largely remodelled before it would consent to present any such address. On Thursday, the 16th June, the infamous Jeffreys, who had been rewarded with the seals for his work at the Bloody Assizes, appeared before the Court of Aldermen and declared his majesty's pleasure that in future that court should nominate and recommend to the Crown such persons as they thought fit to be aldermen as vacancies occurred, and that no one so nominated[pg 520]should be exempt from service except for insufficiency of estate, to be declared on oath. Those who were capable of serving and refused to serve when nominated by the court were to be fined, and the fines were to be devoted to the use and benefit of the city's orphans. The ancient privilege, too, of the mayor drinking to a future sheriff received the king's sanction.1585Having listened to the lord chancellor's message the court resolved to wait upon the king at Windsor on the following Sunday to thank his majesty "for that and all other his majesties acts of grace to this court and city."1586Both the mayor and the Court of Aldermen lost no time in exercising their privileges, but they experienced great difficulty in getting any one to serve sheriff or alderman. Fines ran up apace, until no less than £8,500 had been paid by persons desirous at any cost to be discharged from filling either of those thankless offices. Many of the aldermen either voluntarily resigned their gowns or were dismissed from the court because they were unwilling to vote an address of thanks to James for his declaration.1587Thanks from Court of Aldermen for Declaration, 26 July, 1687.At length the court was sufficiently packed with dissenters to pass an address to the king (26 July) thanking him for his declaration, and assuring his majesty of their readiness to stand by him with their lives and fortunes.1588The orphans of the city also voted an address,1589as well they might, seeing the amount of money that the declaration had been the means of bringing into the orphans' fund.[pg 521]William Kiffin appointed by the king alderman of Cheap, 6 Aug., 1687.His reluctance to accept office.At last consents, and is sworn, 27 Oct., 1687.Not every dissenter welcomed the king's declaration. To many of them it seemed—what the king intended it to be—only a lever for raising the Roman Catholics. Baxter, to whom friendly overtures were made by government to win him over, refused to join in any address of thanks for the declaration. John Howe declared himself an opponent of the dispensing power, and Bunyan declined to enter into any negotiations on the matter at all. William Kiffin, on the other hand, an influential Baptist in the city, succumbed to the threats, if not to the blandishments, of James.1590In addition to possessing spiritual gifts of no mean order, Kiffin was also a man of wealth and position in the world of commerce. In every way he would prove a valuable ally, if only he could be won over. Against this, however, there was one great impediment: the recollection of the judicial murder of his two grandsons, Benjamin and William Hewling, by Jeffreys at the Bloody Assizes. Fondly imagining that the memory of that foul act could be blotted out and the stricken heart salved by an increase of wealth or elevation in rank, James sent for him to court, and after some preliminary remarks touching the royal favour that was being shown to dissenters, told Kiffin that he had put him down as an alderman in his "new charter," alluding no doubt to the royal commission of 6th August, in which Kiffin's name appears as alderman of Cheap ward in the place of[pg 522]Samuel Dashwood. On hearing this Kiffin replied, "Sir, I am a very old man,"—he was seventy years of age when he lost his grandchildren—"I have withdrawn myself from all kind of business for some years past, and am incapable of doing any service in such an affair to your majesty or the city. Besides, sir," the old man continued, with tears running down his cheeks, and looking the king steadily in the face, "the death of my grandsons gave a wound to my heart which is still bleeding, and never will close but in the grave." For a moment the king was abashed, but quickly recovering himself told Kiffin that he (James) would find "a balsam for that sore." The old man still held out, until, hearing that legal proceedings were about to be taken against him, he took counsel's opinion as to what was best to be done. He was told that he was running a great risk by refusing to become an alderman, for the judges, as they then were, might subject him to a penalty of ten, twenty, or thirty thousand pounds, "even what they pleased." Under such circumstances he consented to be made an alderman, rather than bring ruin on himself and family. He, however, put off the evil day as long as he could, and was not sworn into office until the 27th October.1591Kiffin expressed himself as pleased with the reception he met with in his ward, where he was almost a stranger. But much of the business which the Court of Aldermen was called upon to execute in those days was distasteful to him. "We had frequently orders from the king" (he writes) "to[pg 523]send to the several companies to put out great numbers of liverymen out of the privilege of being liverymen, and others to be put in their rooms; most of which that were so turned out were Protestants of the Church of England. There has been a list of seven hundred at a time to be discharged, although no crime laid to their charge." The royal commission which appointed him an alderman also created him a justice of the peace and a member of the Court of Lieutenancy, but to use his own words, "I never meddled with either of those places, neither in any act of power in that court [i.e., Court of Aldermen] touching causes between man and man, but only such things as concerned the welfare of the city and good of the orphans, whose distressed condition called for help, although we were able to do little towards it." He was not called upon to discharge his invidious duties for any great length of time; for after being in office only nine months he obtained his discharge, to his "very great satisfaction." He continued to live for another thirteen years, dying on the 29th December, 1701, in his 86th year, and he was buried in Bunhill Fields—that "God's acre" which holds the dust of so many of his fellow non-conformists.Sir John Shorter, mayor, Oct., 1687.In September the king had issued a patent for Sir John Shorter to be lord mayor for the year ensuing. Shorter was a dissenter—"an Anabaptist, a very odd ignorant person, a mechanic, I think," wrote Evelyn1592of him—and on that account a clause was inserted in his commission permitting him to have any preacher he might choose.1593His granddaughter[pg 524]was married to Sir Robert Walpole. He was at one time alderman of Cripplegate ward, but in December, 1682, he fell foul of Charles II for attending a conventicle at Pinmakers' Hall, and the Court of Aldermen received orders to remove him.1594He had recently, however (6 Aug., 1687), been restored to his aldermanry and to his rank of precedence by commission from James,1595and now, by the same usurped authority, he was to become lord mayor. The feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.) happening this year to fall on a Friday, the installation of the new lord mayor, as well as the banquet to which James and the Papal Nuncio had been invited, was postponed until the following day. The aldermen agreed to defray the cost of the entertainment out of their own pockets,1596each laying down the sum of £50. Kiffin also sent £50, although he had not yet been sworn a member of the court; but he afterwards regretted having done so when he learnt that the Pope's Nuncio and other priests had been invited as guests.1597The day passed off well. The Goldsmiths' Company, of which the new lord mayor was a member, made a particularly brave show. The entire roadway from Charing Cross to the city had been fresh gravelled that morning, and the king, who was accompanied by the queen, expressed himself as well pleased with the entertainment afforded him.1598[pg 525]The Dissenters supreme in the city.The Dissenters now had matters all their own way. The livery companies had become so leavened with an influx of new members, whose claim for admittance rested chiefly on their antagonism to the established Church, that most of them now sent in addresses to the king thanking him for his Declaration of Indulgence. The Barber-Surgeons and the Apothecaries had already done so; so had the Clothworkers, the Mercers and the Glovers. Their example was now followed by the Cutlers, the Goldsmiths, the Haberdashers, the Joiners and the Weavers.1599The mayor, who kept his mayoralty at Grocers' Hall, openly held a conventicle there on Sunday, the 6th November,1600whilst he declined to listen to a sermon by the learned Dr. Stillingfleet in the Guildhall chapel.1601More than this, he would have turned the chapel itself into a conventicle could he have had his own way.1602The second Declaration of Indulgence, 27 April, 1688.In the Spring of 1688 James published a second Declaration of Indulgence varying but slightly from the former one, and ordered it to be read in the churches of London and Westminster on the 20th and 27th May, and in the country on the 3rd and 10th June. This was more than the clergy could stand. A meeting of bishops was held at Lambeth for the purpose of drawing up a petition to the king praying[pg 526]that the clergy might be excused reading an illegal document in the midst of public service. This petition was signed by Sancroft, the primate, and six bishops. Although the Bishop of London was not among those who signed the petition—he at the time being under disability—there is reason for believing that Compton had been taken into counsel by those who drafted it.1603On the petition being presented James pretended the utmost surprise, and insisted that the presentation of such a petition was "a standard of rebellion." This took place on Friday preceding the first Sunday (20th May) when the Declaration was to be read in the London churches. When Sunday arrived people flocked to the churches to hear what would happen. Only a few of the London clergy attempted to read the Declaration.1604In the country not more than 200 clergy carried out the king's orders, "and of these some read it the first Sunday, but changed their minds before the second; others declared in their sermons that though they obeyed the order they did not approve the Declaration." One minister in particular told his congregation that though he was obliged to read it they were not obliged to hear it, and waited until all had left the church before he commenced reading the hateful document. In other places the congregation took the initiative and rose to go as soon as the minister commenced reading it.1605The seven bishops committed to the Tower.What followed is well known. On Friday the 8th June the Archbishop of Canterbury and the six bishops who had signed the petition were summoned[pg 527]before the council and asked if they acknowledged their respective signatures. They were next required to enter into bond for appearance before the King's Bench. This they declined to do, and were thereupon committed to the Tower.1606To have carried them through the streets of the city might have caused a riot; they were therefore conveyed to the Tower by water, "and all along as they passed the banks of the river were full of people, who kneeled down and asked their blessing, and with loud shouts expressed their good wishes for them and their concern in their preservation."1607The enthusiasm of the Londoners did not end here. They continued to flock to the Tower, filling the small chapel where the bishops attended service to overflowing in order to gaze upon their beloved pastors and receive their blessing.1608After being kept in separate confinement, and allowed to meet only at meals and in chapel, for ten days, the bishops were allowed to come out on bail.Trial and acquittal of the bishops, 29 and 30 June, 1688.On the 29th June they appeared before the King's Bench on a charge of publishing a seditious libel. A technical difficulty presented itself at the outset, but this was got over, and after a trial of some hours the question of their innocence or guilt was left to a jury drawn, not from London, but from the county of Middlesex. One of the panel stuck out against the rest, and wished to bring in a verdict of guilty, but after being locked up through the night he allowed himself to be persuaded by his fellow-jurymen, and on the morning of the 30th June a verdict of not guilty was found. Thereupon "there were such shoutings, so long continued, and as it were echoed[pg 528]into the city, that all people were struck with it."1609Bonfires were lighted, guns discharged and church bells rung, not only in London but throughout the kingdom.Disaffection among the troops at Hounslow.The beginning of the end was approaching. Already the troops encamped at Hounslow, on which James placed so much dependence, showed signs of disaffection. He had hoped that his army would have overawed London, instead of which the free spirit of London had, as a result of his policy, entirely captivated his army. So long as the king was in their midst the troops maintained a respectful demeanour, but as soon as his back was turned they threw off all restraint, and joined in the general exultation at the late joyful deliverance to the Church of England.1610The birth of Prince Charles Edward, 10 June, 1688.The birth of a prince (10 June), which had recently taken place, served to hasten the crisis. Those who were willing to have waited patiently for a recurrence to the old order of things at the king's death now saw their hopes dashed to the ground. The king's heir and successor, brought up, as he undoubtedly would be, in the tenets of his father, promised them little relief. Even before the birth of the prince overtures had been made to William of Orange to appear in England at the head of an army. Nevertheless the Court of Aldermen displayed its loyalty by resolving that the conduits in Cheapside and at the Stocks Market should run with claret on Thanksgiving-day. The sheriffs were to take the matter in hand, whilst the sum of £50 was raised by the court to defray the cost, the mayor contributing £10, each of the sheriffs £5, and the rest of the[pg 529]aldermen the balance between them.1611Later on (29 June) the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs waited upon the infant prince and kissed his hand. The various nurses were presented by the Chamberlain with the respectabledouceurof sixty guineas, whilst ten guineas were given to the lord chancellor's messenger who brought the news to the city of the prince's birth.1612Invitation to William of Orange, 30 June, 1688.The day that saw the bishops acquitted a letter was despatched, signed by Shrewsbury, Danby, Compton (the suspended Bishop of London) and others, to the Prince of Orange, again inviting him to land in England with an armed force, and promising to render him every assistance. After some hesitation William accepted the invitation, and began to make preparations, both naval and military, for his descent on England. Towards the close of September news came from Holland of the vast preparations that were being pushed forward in that country. A fleet of sixty sail was in readiness, and the prince himself was shortly expected on board. James lost no time in informing the lord mayor of the state of affairs, and desired that he and the aldermen would take measures for preserving the city in peace.1613On the 28th he issued a proclamation informing his subjects of the threatened invasion, and calling upon them to lay aside all jealousies and to unite in defending the country against the foreign enemy.1614Restoration of the City's liberties, 6 Oct., 1688.James saw, when it was too late, that he had over-taxed the patience of his subjects. He was now[pg 530]ready to make any and every concession. As for the citizens of London, they should have their charter restored. Accordingly, on Saturday the 6th October Lord Chancellor Jeffreys appeared before the Court of Aldermen with two separate grants under the great seal, the one appointing Sir John Chapman to be mayor (in the place of Sir John Eyles1615) up to the feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.), with liberty to the citizens in the meantime to elect one of their own choice to be mayor for the year ensuing; the other, continuing in office Sir Samuel Thompson and Sir Humphrey Edwin, then sheriffs, until a new election of sheriffs should be made by the citizens. The newly-appointed mayor and the existing sheriffs thereupon went down into the Guildhall, accompanied by the lord chancellor, who informed the citizens of the restitution of their liberties.1616The mayor and sheriffs having taken the oaths and subscribed the declaration prescribed by the Corporation Act, the aldermen returned to their chamber, and such as had been aldermen at the time of the judgment upon the writ ofQuo Warrantoand were then present were forthwith sworn in for the respective wards from which they had been deposed. The court next proceeded to draw up an address to the king, in which his majesty was assured that with all duty and faithfulness they would cheerfully and readilydischarge the trust reposed in themto the[pg 531]utmost hazard of their lives and fortunes.1617One cannot help noticing how studiously different the wording of this address is from those previously presented. Not a word about defending his majesty's person with their lives and fortunes; these are thenceforth to be expended in guarding their own liberties! When the Court of Aldermen met three days later (9 Oct.) the common sergeant, the town clerk, the comptroller, swordbearer, common crier and other officers who had been ousted from their places under theQuo Warrantowere formally re-instated;1618and the same day Chapman issued his precept for a Common Hall to meet on the 11th for the election of sheriffs for the year ensuing.1619Several aldermen who had lost their places in 1683 declined to be re-instated, among them being Sir Robert Clayton.1620Sir George Treby, who had been recorder at the time of the confiscation of the city's liberties, also refused to accept office again; but the Court of Aldermen finding great difficulty in getting a suitable person to accept the appointment, Treby was finally induced to change his mind, and before the end of the year he occupied his old place and continued to occupy it until, in 1692, he was made chief justice of common pleas.1621[pg 532]The city was still without a Common Council, and it was not until the 26th November that the Court of Aldermen advised the mayor to issue his precept for an election of common councilmen to take place on the 28th. The council so elected was to be but a provisional one until the regular election should take place on St. Thomas-day (21 Dec.).1622On the 1st December the new Common Council sat for the first time,1623none having met since the 2nd October, 1683.Writs for a new parliament.The day that a new Common Council was elected Jeffreys (who was already packing up to be off) notified that writs were about to be issued for a new parliament. The House was to meet on the 15th January (1689). James had purposed summoning a parliament for November (1688), and some of the writs had been actually sent out, but the Dutch preparations so alarmed him that the writs were recalled.1624Question as to the legitimacy of Prince Charles, 20 Oct., 1688.In the meantime an extraordinary council had been held at Whitehall (20 Oct.) which the mayor and aldermen of the city had been invited to attend. The object of the meeting was to dissipate any doubt that had been entertained as to the infant prince being actually the king's son. There had been rumours to the contrary, and as the king was about to enter upon a dangerous enterprise in person, he declared his intention of settling the question beyond all doubt before leaving. Some twenty witnesses were accordingly examined then and there as to the prince's legitimacy, the king offering to send for the[pg 533]queen herself if the meeting so wished. This offer, one need scarcely say, was declined.1625The same day proclamation was made for guarding the sea coast and withdrawing all draft cattle into the interior.1626A "mass house" in the city wrecked by the mob, 29 Oct., 1688.The feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.) falling on Sunday, Sir John Chapman, who had been re-elected mayor by free choice of the citizens, proceeded to Westminster by water according to custom on the following Monday, accompanied by the aldermen, and was sworn before the barons of the exchequer. He returned to Grocers' Hall and there entertained the lords of the council, the judges and many of the nobility. Notwithstanding the precautions taken against riot during the mayor's absence from the city the mob broke out and sacked and burnt a "mass house" in Bucklersbury. For this disturbance the mayor and sheriffs were called to account by the king.1627Arrival of William and his march on London, Nov., 1688.On the 5th November the Prince of Orange successfully effected a landing in Torbay. As soon as the news reached London James again sent for the mayor and aldermen, ordered them to take care of the city, and, if he should fall in battle, to proclaim the Prince of Wales successor to the crown.1628William proceeded to march upon London. At Exeter he was well received, but some little time elapsed before the gentry showed any disposition to throw in their lot with the prince. On the 17th James set out with his army to meet the invader, after receiving an assurance from the mayor and aldermen that they would take[pg 534]care of the city during his absence.1629He reached Salisbury, but soon found himself deserted by officers and friends. Among the former was Lord Churchill, afterwards known as the Duke of Marlborough, and the greatest soldier of the age. Left almost alone, James returned to London, having been absent from the capital less than ten days. Like his name-sake the Conqueror, William made no haste to reach London, but advanced by slow marches, putting up at various gentlemen's houses on the way. It was agreed that both armies should remain at a distance of forty miles from London in order to allow the new parliament to meet in safety.Renewed attacks made on Catholics in London.Since the news of the prince's landing there had been a renewal of the attacks made on Roman Catholics and their places of worship in London. On the 11th November the mob broke into St. John's, Clerkenwell, where rumour declared there were stored gridirons, spits and other instruments for torturing Protestants. The troops were called out and one or two of the rioters killed. It was deemed advisable to close all the Roman Catholic chapels except the royal chapels and those belonging to foreign ambassadors.1630Another sign of the times was the fact that the sceptre belonging to the statue of Queen Mary set up in the Royal Exchange had either accidentally fallen or (as was more probable) had been forcibly struck out of her hand.1631On the 7th December the mayor issued a precept to the aldermen of each ward for[pg 535]a careful search to be made in the city for all Papists and suspicious persons. He did this because he understood that the inhabitants of the city were much alarmed at the great resort of Papists to the city who were believed to be meditating some attack upon London.1632Proceeding in the city after the king's flight, 11 Dec., 1688.The negotiations which had been opened with William were only intended by James to serve the purpose of giving the latter time to place his wife and child in a place of security before he himself should seek safety in flight. On the 11th December he attempted to make good his escape. As soon as it was known that the king had left London a great number of lords, both spiritual and temporal, came to the Guildhall, as to a place of security, the better to consult and take measures for the common weal. Having informed the Court of Aldermen of the king's flight the lords retired into the "gallery adjoining to yecouncell chamber," and there drew up a Declaration,1633containing in effect their resolution to assist the Prince of Orange in maintaining the religion, the rights and the liberties which had been invaded by Jesuitical counsels. This was communicated to the Court of Aldermen, who thanked the lords for the favour shown to the Court. As the occasion was an important one it was deemed advisable to summon forthwith a Common Council, as well as the law officers of the City, to advise the aldermen as to what was best to be done.1634A Common Council was accordingly held that same day. Being informed of the state of affairs, the court quickly resolved to[pg 536]follow the example set by the lords, and themselves to present an address to the prince.1635An address was accordingly prepared, in which, having warmly acknowledged the prince's zeal for the Protestant religion and expressed regret at the king's measures and his recent flight, the citizens implored the prince's protection, promising him at the same time a hearty welcome whenever he should repair to their city. The lieutenancy of the city followed suit the same day with another address, in which his highness was assured that measures had been taken for preserving the city in peace until his arrival.1636The lords, having finished their business in the city, dined the same evening with the lord mayor at Grocers' Hall.1637Letter from the prince to the city, 17 Dec., 1688.On the 17th a letter from the prince was read before the Common Council. The terms of the letter are not recorded in the City's archives, but it probably contained some reference to the peace of the city, for the council, after preparing an answer to it, forthwith gave orders for the guards of the trained bands to be increased by three regiments.1638The prince enters London, 18 Dec.The following day (18 Dec.) the prince himself entered London, and the council, having heard of his arrival, immediately despatched the sheriffs and the common sergeant to learn when his highness would be pleased to receive a deputation from the city. It was arranged that the aldermen and their deputies and one or two members of the council of each ward,[pg 537]according to the number of its representatives, should form the deputation.1639The lord mayor (Chapman) being indisposed was unable to attend. He had recently been seized with a fit of apoplexy whilst trying the terrible Jeffreys, who had been discovered and apprehended in disguise at Wapping. But Treby, the recorder, was there, and made a speech on the City's behalf.1640A representative assembly meet to discuss the state of affairs, 26 Dec., 1688.A Convention Parliament to meet, 22 Jan., 1689.By this time James, who had been foiled in his first attempt to reach the coast, and had returned to London, had, with the connivance of the Prince of Orange, been more successful in a second attempt, and had crossed over to France, where he spent the remainder of his days. The country was therefore left without king, parliament or legal system for its government. In London the Corporation of the city was almost the only authority that remained unaffected by the king's abdication; and it is significant as well of its power as of the respect which that body commanded that when William was endeavouring to form an authoritative assembly by summoning all the members who had ever sat in parliament under Charles II,1641he likewise desired that the lord mayor of the city, the entire Court of Aldermen and fifty representatives of the Common Council should attend.1642This assembly met on the 26th December, and after due consultation decided to adopt the same procedure as was adopted in 1660 before the return of Charles II. As there[pg 538]was no king there could be no writs for a parliament, but William could call a Convention, which would be a parliament in everything but name. A Convention was accordingly summoned to meet on the 22nd January, 1689. The election of the city members to serve in the convention was ordered to take place on Wednesday the 9th January,1643when the choice of the citizens fell upon their former well-tried representatives, Sir Patience Ward, Sir Robert Clayton, Pilkington (who had regained his liberty in August, 1686)1644and Love.Letter from the prince desiring a city loan, 8 Jan., 1689.In the meantime (8 Jan.) the prince wrote to the civic authorities setting forth the inadequacy of the revenue to supply three pressing wants. These were the maintenance of the navy, the partial disbandment of the army and the furnishing of a force for the speedy relief of the Protestants in Ireland. He desired the City, therefore, to advance him such a sum as could be "conveniently spared."1645The City was still to keep up its character as the purse of the nation. The Common Council, having heard the letter read, at once resolved to assist the prince to the utmost of their power. A committee was appointed to settle with the revenue officers the nature of the security, and orders were given for precepts to be sent to the aldermen to raise subscriptions in the various wards.1646Sir Peter Rich, who had recently been re-instated in the office of city chamberlain from[pg 539]which he had been ousted, was instructed to pay into the exchequer all money received on account of the loan, and to strike tallies for the same in his own name in trust for the use of the several lenders. Ten days later (18 Jan.) the committee reported the steps taken for the security of repayment of the money already paid into the exchequer, and the council recommended that similar steps should be taken with respect to those sums yet to be paid in. It was at the same time unanimously agreed to ask the Prince to dinner in the city, and the recorder, the sheriffs and the common sergeant were instructed to wait on his highness and learn his pleasure.1647Meeting of the convention parliament, 22 Jan., 1689.On the 22nd January the Convention met. On the 28th the Commons declared the throne to be vacant, and on the 6th February a vote to similar effect was passed by the Lords. Some over-zealous inhabitants of the city had in the meanwhile prepared a petition, which they purposed presenting to the House of Lords, praying that the crown might be offered to the Prince of Orange and his consort. The prince ordered the lord mayor to put a stop to such proceedings, and a precept (200 copies of which were ordered to be printed) was accordingly issued to this effect.1648William and Mary proclaimed king and queen, 13 Feb., 1689.A Declaration of Rights was drawn up condemning the unconstitutional acts of James II, and offering to settle the crown on William and Mary and their children, with remainders over. On the 13th February this offer was accepted,1649and the prince and princess[pg 540]were forthwith proclaimed king and queen with the usual ceremony. The next day the Common Council unanimously agreed to wait upon their majesties and congratulate them upon their accession to the throne.1650Coronation of William and Mary, 11 April, 1689.At the coronation banquet of the king and queen, which took place on the 11th April, the masters of the twelve principal livery companies were for the first time nominated by the Court of Aldermen to join with the lord mayor in assisting the chief butler,1651and they continued to be so nominated on like occasions up to the coronation of George IV, when in consequence of a change of masters taking place between the time of their nomination and the day of the coronation, the new masters presented a petition to the Court of Claims praying to have their names inserted in the place of the former masters whose term of office had expired. This petition was opposed by the Remembrancer, on behalf of the City, on the ground that the masters of the livery companies enjoyed no peculiar right to serve on such occasions, and after some deliberation the commissioners declined to interfere, inasmuch as the power of nominating the twelve citizens rested absolutely with the Court of Aldermen.1652The lord mayor and swordbearer were resplendent at the coronation ceremony in new crimson and damask gowns, whilst the city's plate—again lent for the occasion—added lustre to the banquet.1653

[pg 506]CHAPTER XXXI.The Accession of James II, 6 Feb., 1685."They will never kill me, James, to make you king," the late king is said to have cynically remarked to his brother; and, indeed, the accession of the Duke of York was accepted by the nation in general, as well as by the City of London in particular, with considerable foreboding. The new king for a short while was content to feel his way before plunging into the headstrong course of action which eventually lost him the crown. Although suspected of being a Catholic at heart, it was only during his last moments that Charles had accepted the ministrations of the Roman Church. The new king had for years been an avowed Catholic; nevertheless, in his first speech to the Privy Council he announced his intention of maintaining the established government, both in Church and State. This speech, made within an hour of the late king's death, was received with rapturous applause. It was quickly followed by a proclamation of his majesty's wish that all persons in office at the time of the decease of the late king should so continue until further notice.1556Another document proclaiming the death of the late king and the devolution of the crown to the Duke of York was at the same time drawn up by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, with the assistance of the privy council, the mayor, aldermen and citizens of London and others.1557This[pg 507]document did not bear the signature of the mayor as that proclaiming James I had done.The question of continuation of customs and excise.James had not been many days on the throne before the question of supply had to be settled. More than one-half of the whole revenue of the crown was derived from the customs, and these had been settled on Charles for life only, and could not therefore be exacted by his successor without the assent of parliament. No parliament had been summoned since the dissolution of the parliament at Oxford four years since (28 March, 1681). As time was pressing and some delay must have taken place before a new parliament could meet, James took the advice of Chief Justice Jeffreys, and did violence to the constitution by proclaiming (9 Feb.) the continuation of the payment of customs as a matter of necessity, whilst at the same time he intimated his intention of speedily calling a parliament.1558The pill thus gilded was swallowed without protest. The excise duties was another matter and was dealt with differently. The "additional excise," like the customs, had been given to the late king for life, but there was a clause in the Act which empowered the Lords of the Treasury to let them to farm for a term of three years without any limitation as to their being so long due. A lease was now propounded as having been made during the late king's life (the document bearing date the 5th February, the day preceding his decease), although there was every reason for supposing it to have been made after his death and to have been post-dated. The judges were[pg 508]appealed to, and with every desire to curry favour with the new king, the majority pronounced the document to be good in law. Thus fortified, James no longer hesitated to issue a proclamation (16 Feb.) for the continuation of the excise.1559The coronation of king and queen, 23 April, 1685.A parliament was summoned for the 9th April, but did not meet until the 19th May. In the meantime the king and queen had been crowned at Westminster on St. George's day (23 April). The City put in their customary claim,1560but this was at first disallowed "in regard of the judgment upon theQuo Warrantofor seizure of the cities franchise." Upon appeal being made, however, to the king himself the claim was allowed, and the mayor, aldermen and citizens were treated with high honour both in the Abbey and at the banquet in Westminster Hall, the mayor being presented by the king with the cup of pure gold and cover, weighing in all upwards of twenty ounces, with which he had served his majesty with wine.1561A few days before the banquet took place Sir Robert Vyner sent to the mayor to borrow the City's plate for the occasion. The matter was laid before the Court of Aldermen and permission was granted the lord mayor to lend such plate as could be spared.1562A Tory parliament, 1685.When parliament met (19 May) the majority in favour of the court party was enormous. This was in no small measure due to the reformation that had been forced on other corporate towns besides the city of London. They had been made to surrender their[pg 509]charters, and the late king had in return granted them new charters in which Tories alone were named as members of the corporations. Only one more step was necessary in order to secure the return of a Tory parliament when the time for fresh elections should arrive, and that step was taken. The parliamentary franchise in boroughs was restricted to members of the corporations.1563In London the Whigs were kept down by fear, and the Tory party reigned supreme. The mayor and half the Court of Aldermen were nominees of the Crown, acting by royal commission. No Common Council sat, or if it did it was only for the purpose of enrolling a proclamation by the king or a precept by the mayor. As the election drew near the king, in order to render the result in his favour more sure, authorized the Court of Aldermen to grant liveries to several of the city companies, taking care that such only should be admitted to the livery as were of "unquestionable loyalty" for the purpose of voting.1564By this means four of the most pronounced Tories in the city were returned, all of them being aldermen. These were Sir John Moore and Sir William Pritchard, both of whom had been placed in the mayoralty chair, one after the other (in 1681 and 1682), by court influence, Sir Peter Rich, who had served as sheriff with Dudley North in 1682, and Sir Samuel Dashwood, who filled the same office the following year with Peter Daniel, both of them, like their immediate predecessors, being nominees of the Crown.[pg 510]As soon as the House met the Commons unanimously granted the king the full revenue which had been enjoyed by his brother.1565Oates and Dangerfield whipt at the cart's tail, May, 1685.The bent of the king's mind was quickly discerned in the sentences pronounced by judges eager to secure his favour. Titus Oates was taken out of prison and whipt at the cart's tail from Aldgate to Newgate the day after parliament met. Two days later he was again whipt from Newgate to Tyburn, and the punishment was so mercilessly carried out that it nearly cost him his life. Precautions had to be taken by the mayor to prevent a display of force by Oates's partisans, who overturned the pillory on which he was to stand.1566Dangerfield, another professional informer, was made to undergo a punishment scarcely less severe. He survived the punishment, but only to die from the effect of a vicious blow dealt him by a bystander as he was being carried back to gaol from Tyburn.Richard Baxter brought to trial, 30 May, 1685.On the other hand Richard Baxter—the most learned and moderate of Nonconformists—was tried at the Guildhall on a charge of having introduced into his commentary on the New Testament some seditious remarks respecting the attitude of the government towards dissenters. The infamous Jeffreys presided at the trial, and spared neither counsel nor prisoner his insolent invectives. The whole proceedings were nothing less than a farce, and the evidence adduced was of such a flimsy character that Baxter volunteered a remark expressing a doubt whether any jury would convict a man on it. He was, however, mistaken.[pg 511]The sheriffs, like the mayor, were but tools of the court party, and the jurymen selected to sit on the trial did not hesitate to bring in a verdict of guilty. He was fortunate to get off with no worse sentence than a fine of 500 marks and imprisonment until it was paid.1567The Monmouth Rebellion, 1685.There was doubtless a large number of inhabitants of the city who would gladly have assisted Monmouth—"the champion of the dissenters and extreme Protestants"—had they been in a position to do so. But as soon as the news of the duke's landing in Dorsetshire reached London orders were issued by the mayor for a strict watch to be kept by night throughout the city, and for the arrest of all suspicious characters, whilst the duke and his supporters were proclaimed traitors and rebels. It was forbidden to circulate the duke's manifesto in the city, and on the 16th June, or within five days of his landing, a price of £5,000 was put upon his head.1568After Monmouth's defeat at Sedgmoor (6 July) he and his companions sought safety in flight. Monmouth himself fled to the New Forest, where he was captured in the last stage of poverty, sleeping in a ditch, and was brought to London. He was lodged in the Tower, where his wife and three children had already been sent. Thousands of spectators, who, we are told, "seemed much troubled," went forth to witness his arrival by water on the evening of the 13th July. Two days later he was executed on Tower Hill.Trial of Cornish and others, 19 Oct., 1685.The utmost cruelty, both military and judicial, was inflicted on Monmouth's supporters. Many were[pg 512]hanged by royalist soldiers—"Kirke's lambs," as they were called—without form of law. Others were committed for trial until Jeffreys came to hold his "Bloody Assize," when to the cruelty of the sentences passed on most of them was added the ribald insolence of the judge. The opportunity was taken of giving the city of London a lesson, and Henry Cornish, late alderman and sheriff, was suddenly arrested. This took place on Tuesday the 13th October. He was kept a close prisoner, not allowed to see friends or counsel, and deprived of writing materials. On Saturday he was informed for the first time that he would be tried on a charge of high treason, and that the trial would commence on the following Monday (19 Oct.). His attitude before the judges was calm and dignified. Before pleading not guilty to the charge of having consented to aid and abet the late Duke of Monmouth and others in their attempt on the life of the late king (the Rye House Plot), he entered a protest against the indecent haste with which he had been called upon to plead and the short time allowed him to prepare his case. He asked for further time, but this the judges refused.One of the chief witnesses for the Crown was Goodenough, who had a personal spite against Cornish for his having objected to him (Goodenough) serving as under-sheriff in 1680-1, the year when Bethell and Cornish were sheriffs.1569Goodenough had risked his neck in Monmouth's late rebellion, but[pg 513]he had succeeded in obtaining a pardon by promises of valuable information against others. With the king's pardon in his pocket he unblushingly declared before the judges that he, as well as Cornish and some others, had determined upon a general rising in the city at the time of the Rye House Plot. "We designed," said he, "to divide it (i.e., the city) into twenty parts, and out of each part to raise five hundred men, if it might be done, to make an insurrection."1570The Tower was to be seized and the guard expelled.Cornish had been afforded no opportunity for instructing counsel in his defence. He was therefore obliged to act as his own counsel, with the result usual in such cases. He rested his main defence upon the improbability of his having acted as the prosecution endeavoured to make out. This he so persistently urged that the judges lost patience. Improbability was not enough, they declared; let him call his witnesses. When, however, Cornish desired an adjournment in order that he might bring a witness up from Lancashire, his request was refused. His chief witness he omitted to call until after the lord chief justice had summed up. This man was a vintner of the city, named Shephard, at whose house Cornish was charged with having met and held consultation with Monmouth and the rest of the conspirators. The bench after some demur assented to the prisoner's earnest prayer that Shephard's evidence might be taken. He showed that he had been in the habit of having commercial transactions with Cornish and was at that moment in his debt; that on the occasion in question Cornish had come to his[pg 514]house, but whether he came to speak with the Duke of Monmouth or not the witness could not say for certain; that he only remained a few minutes, and that no paper or declaration (on which so much stress had been laid) in connection with the conspiracy was read in Cornish's presence; that in fact Cornish was not considered at the time as being in the plot. Such evidence, if not conclusive, ought to have gone far towards obtaining a verdict of acquittal for the prisoner. This was not the case, however; the witness was characterised by one of the judges as "very forward," and when Cornish humbly remonstrated with the treatment his witness was receiving from the bench he was sharply told to hold his tongue. The jury after a brief consultation brought in a verdict of guilty, and Cornish had to submit to the indignity of being tied—like a dangerous criminal—whilst sentence of death was passed upon him and three others who had been tried at the same time.Execution of Cornish, 23 Oct., 1685.The prisoner was allowed but three clear days before he was hanged at the corner of King Street and Cheapside, within sight of the Guildhall which he had so often frequented as an alderman of the city, and on which his head was afterwards placed. He met his end with courage and with many pious expressions, but to the last maintained his innocence with such vehemence that his enemies gave out that he had "died in a fit of fury."1571The injustice of his sentence was recognised and his conviction and attainder was afterwards reversed and annulled by parliament (22 June, 1689).1572[pg 515]Execution of Mrs. Gaunt, 23 Oct.Of the three others who had been tried with Cornish, two were reprieved (one was afterwards executed), but the third, Elizabeth Gaunt, was burnt at Tyburn the same day that Cornish suffered (23 Oct.) for having harboured an outlaw named Burton and assisted him to escape beyond the law. He had been implicated in the Rye House Plot, but with the aid of Mrs. Gaunt, who lived in the city, had contrived to avoid capture. In order to save his own skin the wretch did not hesitate to turn king's evidence and to sacrifice the life of his benefactress, a woman who is described as having "spent a great part of her life in acts of charity, visiting the gaols and looking after the poor." She too died with great fortitude, arranging with her own hands the straw around her, so as to burn the more speedily.1573The revocation of the Edict of Nantes, Oct., 1685.Parliament began to be alarmed at the favour shown to Catholics, and this alarm was increased by a report from France that Louis XIV, with whom James was known to be closely allied, and on whom he depended, like his late brother, for pecuniary support, had revoked the Edict of Nantes granted by Henry IV in favour of his Protestant subjects. The report was soon confirmed by the appearance of numbers of French Protestants—refugees from persecution—in England, and more especially in the city of London. What Louis had done in France James, it was feared, would carry out in England by means of his standing army commanded by Roman Catholic officers. Hence the alarm which pervaded not only parliament, but also the city and the nation at large.[pg 516]Session of parliament, 9-20 Nov., 1685.Hence too it was that when the Houses, which had been adjourned during the campaign in the West, met on the 9th November,1574they remonstrated with him for the favour he had shown to Catholics in direct contravention of the law. Finding himself unable to bend parliament to his will, he determined to do without one, and accordingly, after a brief session, it stood prorogued (20 Nov.),1575never to meet again during the present reign.James and the Catholics, 1686.Without a parliament James could act with a free hand. By a piece of chicanery he managed to get a legal decision acknowledging the dispensing power of the king.1576He established an Ecclesiastical Commission Court, with the infamous Jeffreys at its head, the first act of which was to suspend the Bishop of London for upholding the Protestant faith. He removed the Earl of Clarendon (son of the late Chancellor), who had recently been appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,1577and appointed as lord deputy the Earl of Tyrconnel, a Roman Catholic of low character, who had gained an unenviable notoriety as the "lying Dick Talbot." The country was over-run with Papists from abroad. All the laws against the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion were set at defiance. There was no disguise. Mass was publicly celebrated at Whitehall and Roman Catholic chapels sprang up everywhere, giving rise to no small dissatisfaction and tumult. The agitation in London was great, but greater in the city, where men had been less accustomed to the[pg 517]sight of the Romish ceremonial than those who lived in the neighbourhood of the court. Riots in the city were of frequent occurrence, more especially on Sundays, when the Roman Catholics were more in evidence than on week days. A Roman Catholic chapel had recently been erected by the Elector Palatine in Lime Street. An ineffectual attempt had been made by the mayor and aldermen to stay the work. They were summoned to appear before the king and reprimanded. The work was accordingly allowed to go on and the chapel was opened. On Sunday, the 18th April (1686), the priests attached to the chapel were followed by a mob into Cheapside, and matters would have gone hard with them had not the mayor and aldermen appeared on the scene with a regiment of trained bands. James again sent for the mayor and told him that if he could not keep better order in the city he should himself send some "assistance."1578Nevertheless another riot broke out on the following Sunday. A mob entered a Roman Catholic chapel and carried away a crucifix, crying out they would have no "wooden gods." A cross was set up on the parish pump and mock obeisance made to it. The priests were insulted, but no violence was offered them. When the mayor appeared to quell the tumult the crowd affected to disbelieve that his lordship was in earnest. "What! the lord mayor of our city come to preach up popery! too sure, it cannot be!" When the trained bands were ordered to disperse the crowd they declared that in conscience they could not hinder them in their work.1579[pg 518]The camp at Hounslow opened, 28 May, 1686.These disturbances were very injurious to the trade of the city, and caused a considerable fall in the amount of customs paid for merchandise entering the port of London. A regiment or two of the standing army which James had formed might any day appear in the city. "I shall not wonder if the Scotch regiment of guards now quartering at Greenwich be quartered in Cheapside before this week is out," wrote a contemporary on the 27th April.1580A month later the army was encamped at Hounslow, the king himself being also there, ready to send "assistance" to the city should occasion arise.1581The Declaration of Indulgence, 4 April, 1687.For a time James had entertained the hope of obtaining favours for the Catholics with the goodwill of the Church of England, whilst continuing the persecution of dissenters. Finding this impossible he determined to make friends of the dissenters, and to include them in a general declaration of indulgence. Accordingly on the 4th April, 1687, there appeared a Declaration of Indulgence suspending all laws against Roman Catholics and dissenters alike.1582Corporations further "regulated," 1687.James would willingly have obtained parliamentary sanction for his declaration if he could. To this end he again took to tampering with corporations throughout the country, in the hope of securing thereby a parliament favourable to his policy of toleration. Six commissioners were appointed in November to "regulate" all the corporations of England, by turning out all who were opposed to the abolition of the penal laws and Test Act and putting in their place those who[pg 519]favoured it.1583In London dispensations were granted to the livery companies relieving their members from taking the oaths and test, whilst similar dispensations were included in the royal commissions appointing aldermen. In many of the companies Tories of a too pronounced character were turned out and their places taken by dissenters.1584Everywhere dissenters were treated with the greatest consideration. Notwithstanding every effort, however, to capture the constituencies at the next elections, James found public opinion against him to be too strong, and all thought of summoning a fresh parliament had to be abandoned.The king and the Court of Aldermen, June, 1687.In the meanwhile addresses flowed in from various parts of the country thanking the king for his declaration. Presbyterians, Quakers, Independents, Congregationalists alike sent addresses, but as yet no address was presented on behalf of the Court of Aldermen—the governing body of the city, now that the Common Council was in abeyance. That body had to be largely remodelled before it would consent to present any such address. On Thursday, the 16th June, the infamous Jeffreys, who had been rewarded with the seals for his work at the Bloody Assizes, appeared before the Court of Aldermen and declared his majesty's pleasure that in future that court should nominate and recommend to the Crown such persons as they thought fit to be aldermen as vacancies occurred, and that no one so nominated[pg 520]should be exempt from service except for insufficiency of estate, to be declared on oath. Those who were capable of serving and refused to serve when nominated by the court were to be fined, and the fines were to be devoted to the use and benefit of the city's orphans. The ancient privilege, too, of the mayor drinking to a future sheriff received the king's sanction.1585Having listened to the lord chancellor's message the court resolved to wait upon the king at Windsor on the following Sunday to thank his majesty "for that and all other his majesties acts of grace to this court and city."1586Both the mayor and the Court of Aldermen lost no time in exercising their privileges, but they experienced great difficulty in getting any one to serve sheriff or alderman. Fines ran up apace, until no less than £8,500 had been paid by persons desirous at any cost to be discharged from filling either of those thankless offices. Many of the aldermen either voluntarily resigned their gowns or were dismissed from the court because they were unwilling to vote an address of thanks to James for his declaration.1587Thanks from Court of Aldermen for Declaration, 26 July, 1687.At length the court was sufficiently packed with dissenters to pass an address to the king (26 July) thanking him for his declaration, and assuring his majesty of their readiness to stand by him with their lives and fortunes.1588The orphans of the city also voted an address,1589as well they might, seeing the amount of money that the declaration had been the means of bringing into the orphans' fund.[pg 521]William Kiffin appointed by the king alderman of Cheap, 6 Aug., 1687.His reluctance to accept office.At last consents, and is sworn, 27 Oct., 1687.Not every dissenter welcomed the king's declaration. To many of them it seemed—what the king intended it to be—only a lever for raising the Roman Catholics. Baxter, to whom friendly overtures were made by government to win him over, refused to join in any address of thanks for the declaration. John Howe declared himself an opponent of the dispensing power, and Bunyan declined to enter into any negotiations on the matter at all. William Kiffin, on the other hand, an influential Baptist in the city, succumbed to the threats, if not to the blandishments, of James.1590In addition to possessing spiritual gifts of no mean order, Kiffin was also a man of wealth and position in the world of commerce. In every way he would prove a valuable ally, if only he could be won over. Against this, however, there was one great impediment: the recollection of the judicial murder of his two grandsons, Benjamin and William Hewling, by Jeffreys at the Bloody Assizes. Fondly imagining that the memory of that foul act could be blotted out and the stricken heart salved by an increase of wealth or elevation in rank, James sent for him to court, and after some preliminary remarks touching the royal favour that was being shown to dissenters, told Kiffin that he had put him down as an alderman in his "new charter," alluding no doubt to the royal commission of 6th August, in which Kiffin's name appears as alderman of Cheap ward in the place of[pg 522]Samuel Dashwood. On hearing this Kiffin replied, "Sir, I am a very old man,"—he was seventy years of age when he lost his grandchildren—"I have withdrawn myself from all kind of business for some years past, and am incapable of doing any service in such an affair to your majesty or the city. Besides, sir," the old man continued, with tears running down his cheeks, and looking the king steadily in the face, "the death of my grandsons gave a wound to my heart which is still bleeding, and never will close but in the grave." For a moment the king was abashed, but quickly recovering himself told Kiffin that he (James) would find "a balsam for that sore." The old man still held out, until, hearing that legal proceedings were about to be taken against him, he took counsel's opinion as to what was best to be done. He was told that he was running a great risk by refusing to become an alderman, for the judges, as they then were, might subject him to a penalty of ten, twenty, or thirty thousand pounds, "even what they pleased." Under such circumstances he consented to be made an alderman, rather than bring ruin on himself and family. He, however, put off the evil day as long as he could, and was not sworn into office until the 27th October.1591Kiffin expressed himself as pleased with the reception he met with in his ward, where he was almost a stranger. But much of the business which the Court of Aldermen was called upon to execute in those days was distasteful to him. "We had frequently orders from the king" (he writes) "to[pg 523]send to the several companies to put out great numbers of liverymen out of the privilege of being liverymen, and others to be put in their rooms; most of which that were so turned out were Protestants of the Church of England. There has been a list of seven hundred at a time to be discharged, although no crime laid to their charge." The royal commission which appointed him an alderman also created him a justice of the peace and a member of the Court of Lieutenancy, but to use his own words, "I never meddled with either of those places, neither in any act of power in that court [i.e., Court of Aldermen] touching causes between man and man, but only such things as concerned the welfare of the city and good of the orphans, whose distressed condition called for help, although we were able to do little towards it." He was not called upon to discharge his invidious duties for any great length of time; for after being in office only nine months he obtained his discharge, to his "very great satisfaction." He continued to live for another thirteen years, dying on the 29th December, 1701, in his 86th year, and he was buried in Bunhill Fields—that "God's acre" which holds the dust of so many of his fellow non-conformists.Sir John Shorter, mayor, Oct., 1687.In September the king had issued a patent for Sir John Shorter to be lord mayor for the year ensuing. Shorter was a dissenter—"an Anabaptist, a very odd ignorant person, a mechanic, I think," wrote Evelyn1592of him—and on that account a clause was inserted in his commission permitting him to have any preacher he might choose.1593His granddaughter[pg 524]was married to Sir Robert Walpole. He was at one time alderman of Cripplegate ward, but in December, 1682, he fell foul of Charles II for attending a conventicle at Pinmakers' Hall, and the Court of Aldermen received orders to remove him.1594He had recently, however (6 Aug., 1687), been restored to his aldermanry and to his rank of precedence by commission from James,1595and now, by the same usurped authority, he was to become lord mayor. The feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.) happening this year to fall on a Friday, the installation of the new lord mayor, as well as the banquet to which James and the Papal Nuncio had been invited, was postponed until the following day. The aldermen agreed to defray the cost of the entertainment out of their own pockets,1596each laying down the sum of £50. Kiffin also sent £50, although he had not yet been sworn a member of the court; but he afterwards regretted having done so when he learnt that the Pope's Nuncio and other priests had been invited as guests.1597The day passed off well. The Goldsmiths' Company, of which the new lord mayor was a member, made a particularly brave show. The entire roadway from Charing Cross to the city had been fresh gravelled that morning, and the king, who was accompanied by the queen, expressed himself as well pleased with the entertainment afforded him.1598[pg 525]The Dissenters supreme in the city.The Dissenters now had matters all their own way. The livery companies had become so leavened with an influx of new members, whose claim for admittance rested chiefly on their antagonism to the established Church, that most of them now sent in addresses to the king thanking him for his Declaration of Indulgence. The Barber-Surgeons and the Apothecaries had already done so; so had the Clothworkers, the Mercers and the Glovers. Their example was now followed by the Cutlers, the Goldsmiths, the Haberdashers, the Joiners and the Weavers.1599The mayor, who kept his mayoralty at Grocers' Hall, openly held a conventicle there on Sunday, the 6th November,1600whilst he declined to listen to a sermon by the learned Dr. Stillingfleet in the Guildhall chapel.1601More than this, he would have turned the chapel itself into a conventicle could he have had his own way.1602The second Declaration of Indulgence, 27 April, 1688.In the Spring of 1688 James published a second Declaration of Indulgence varying but slightly from the former one, and ordered it to be read in the churches of London and Westminster on the 20th and 27th May, and in the country on the 3rd and 10th June. This was more than the clergy could stand. A meeting of bishops was held at Lambeth for the purpose of drawing up a petition to the king praying[pg 526]that the clergy might be excused reading an illegal document in the midst of public service. This petition was signed by Sancroft, the primate, and six bishops. Although the Bishop of London was not among those who signed the petition—he at the time being under disability—there is reason for believing that Compton had been taken into counsel by those who drafted it.1603On the petition being presented James pretended the utmost surprise, and insisted that the presentation of such a petition was "a standard of rebellion." This took place on Friday preceding the first Sunday (20th May) when the Declaration was to be read in the London churches. When Sunday arrived people flocked to the churches to hear what would happen. Only a few of the London clergy attempted to read the Declaration.1604In the country not more than 200 clergy carried out the king's orders, "and of these some read it the first Sunday, but changed their minds before the second; others declared in their sermons that though they obeyed the order they did not approve the Declaration." One minister in particular told his congregation that though he was obliged to read it they were not obliged to hear it, and waited until all had left the church before he commenced reading the hateful document. In other places the congregation took the initiative and rose to go as soon as the minister commenced reading it.1605The seven bishops committed to the Tower.What followed is well known. On Friday the 8th June the Archbishop of Canterbury and the six bishops who had signed the petition were summoned[pg 527]before the council and asked if they acknowledged their respective signatures. They were next required to enter into bond for appearance before the King's Bench. This they declined to do, and were thereupon committed to the Tower.1606To have carried them through the streets of the city might have caused a riot; they were therefore conveyed to the Tower by water, "and all along as they passed the banks of the river were full of people, who kneeled down and asked their blessing, and with loud shouts expressed their good wishes for them and their concern in their preservation."1607The enthusiasm of the Londoners did not end here. They continued to flock to the Tower, filling the small chapel where the bishops attended service to overflowing in order to gaze upon their beloved pastors and receive their blessing.1608After being kept in separate confinement, and allowed to meet only at meals and in chapel, for ten days, the bishops were allowed to come out on bail.Trial and acquittal of the bishops, 29 and 30 June, 1688.On the 29th June they appeared before the King's Bench on a charge of publishing a seditious libel. A technical difficulty presented itself at the outset, but this was got over, and after a trial of some hours the question of their innocence or guilt was left to a jury drawn, not from London, but from the county of Middlesex. One of the panel stuck out against the rest, and wished to bring in a verdict of guilty, but after being locked up through the night he allowed himself to be persuaded by his fellow-jurymen, and on the morning of the 30th June a verdict of not guilty was found. Thereupon "there were such shoutings, so long continued, and as it were echoed[pg 528]into the city, that all people were struck with it."1609Bonfires were lighted, guns discharged and church bells rung, not only in London but throughout the kingdom.Disaffection among the troops at Hounslow.The beginning of the end was approaching. Already the troops encamped at Hounslow, on which James placed so much dependence, showed signs of disaffection. He had hoped that his army would have overawed London, instead of which the free spirit of London had, as a result of his policy, entirely captivated his army. So long as the king was in their midst the troops maintained a respectful demeanour, but as soon as his back was turned they threw off all restraint, and joined in the general exultation at the late joyful deliverance to the Church of England.1610The birth of Prince Charles Edward, 10 June, 1688.The birth of a prince (10 June), which had recently taken place, served to hasten the crisis. Those who were willing to have waited patiently for a recurrence to the old order of things at the king's death now saw their hopes dashed to the ground. The king's heir and successor, brought up, as he undoubtedly would be, in the tenets of his father, promised them little relief. Even before the birth of the prince overtures had been made to William of Orange to appear in England at the head of an army. Nevertheless the Court of Aldermen displayed its loyalty by resolving that the conduits in Cheapside and at the Stocks Market should run with claret on Thanksgiving-day. The sheriffs were to take the matter in hand, whilst the sum of £50 was raised by the court to defray the cost, the mayor contributing £10, each of the sheriffs £5, and the rest of the[pg 529]aldermen the balance between them.1611Later on (29 June) the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs waited upon the infant prince and kissed his hand. The various nurses were presented by the Chamberlain with the respectabledouceurof sixty guineas, whilst ten guineas were given to the lord chancellor's messenger who brought the news to the city of the prince's birth.1612Invitation to William of Orange, 30 June, 1688.The day that saw the bishops acquitted a letter was despatched, signed by Shrewsbury, Danby, Compton (the suspended Bishop of London) and others, to the Prince of Orange, again inviting him to land in England with an armed force, and promising to render him every assistance. After some hesitation William accepted the invitation, and began to make preparations, both naval and military, for his descent on England. Towards the close of September news came from Holland of the vast preparations that were being pushed forward in that country. A fleet of sixty sail was in readiness, and the prince himself was shortly expected on board. James lost no time in informing the lord mayor of the state of affairs, and desired that he and the aldermen would take measures for preserving the city in peace.1613On the 28th he issued a proclamation informing his subjects of the threatened invasion, and calling upon them to lay aside all jealousies and to unite in defending the country against the foreign enemy.1614Restoration of the City's liberties, 6 Oct., 1688.James saw, when it was too late, that he had over-taxed the patience of his subjects. He was now[pg 530]ready to make any and every concession. As for the citizens of London, they should have their charter restored. Accordingly, on Saturday the 6th October Lord Chancellor Jeffreys appeared before the Court of Aldermen with two separate grants under the great seal, the one appointing Sir John Chapman to be mayor (in the place of Sir John Eyles1615) up to the feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.), with liberty to the citizens in the meantime to elect one of their own choice to be mayor for the year ensuing; the other, continuing in office Sir Samuel Thompson and Sir Humphrey Edwin, then sheriffs, until a new election of sheriffs should be made by the citizens. The newly-appointed mayor and the existing sheriffs thereupon went down into the Guildhall, accompanied by the lord chancellor, who informed the citizens of the restitution of their liberties.1616The mayor and sheriffs having taken the oaths and subscribed the declaration prescribed by the Corporation Act, the aldermen returned to their chamber, and such as had been aldermen at the time of the judgment upon the writ ofQuo Warrantoand were then present were forthwith sworn in for the respective wards from which they had been deposed. The court next proceeded to draw up an address to the king, in which his majesty was assured that with all duty and faithfulness they would cheerfully and readilydischarge the trust reposed in themto the[pg 531]utmost hazard of their lives and fortunes.1617One cannot help noticing how studiously different the wording of this address is from those previously presented. Not a word about defending his majesty's person with their lives and fortunes; these are thenceforth to be expended in guarding their own liberties! When the Court of Aldermen met three days later (9 Oct.) the common sergeant, the town clerk, the comptroller, swordbearer, common crier and other officers who had been ousted from their places under theQuo Warrantowere formally re-instated;1618and the same day Chapman issued his precept for a Common Hall to meet on the 11th for the election of sheriffs for the year ensuing.1619Several aldermen who had lost their places in 1683 declined to be re-instated, among them being Sir Robert Clayton.1620Sir George Treby, who had been recorder at the time of the confiscation of the city's liberties, also refused to accept office again; but the Court of Aldermen finding great difficulty in getting a suitable person to accept the appointment, Treby was finally induced to change his mind, and before the end of the year he occupied his old place and continued to occupy it until, in 1692, he was made chief justice of common pleas.1621[pg 532]The city was still without a Common Council, and it was not until the 26th November that the Court of Aldermen advised the mayor to issue his precept for an election of common councilmen to take place on the 28th. The council so elected was to be but a provisional one until the regular election should take place on St. Thomas-day (21 Dec.).1622On the 1st December the new Common Council sat for the first time,1623none having met since the 2nd October, 1683.Writs for a new parliament.The day that a new Common Council was elected Jeffreys (who was already packing up to be off) notified that writs were about to be issued for a new parliament. The House was to meet on the 15th January (1689). James had purposed summoning a parliament for November (1688), and some of the writs had been actually sent out, but the Dutch preparations so alarmed him that the writs were recalled.1624Question as to the legitimacy of Prince Charles, 20 Oct., 1688.In the meantime an extraordinary council had been held at Whitehall (20 Oct.) which the mayor and aldermen of the city had been invited to attend. The object of the meeting was to dissipate any doubt that had been entertained as to the infant prince being actually the king's son. There had been rumours to the contrary, and as the king was about to enter upon a dangerous enterprise in person, he declared his intention of settling the question beyond all doubt before leaving. Some twenty witnesses were accordingly examined then and there as to the prince's legitimacy, the king offering to send for the[pg 533]queen herself if the meeting so wished. This offer, one need scarcely say, was declined.1625The same day proclamation was made for guarding the sea coast and withdrawing all draft cattle into the interior.1626A "mass house" in the city wrecked by the mob, 29 Oct., 1688.The feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.) falling on Sunday, Sir John Chapman, who had been re-elected mayor by free choice of the citizens, proceeded to Westminster by water according to custom on the following Monday, accompanied by the aldermen, and was sworn before the barons of the exchequer. He returned to Grocers' Hall and there entertained the lords of the council, the judges and many of the nobility. Notwithstanding the precautions taken against riot during the mayor's absence from the city the mob broke out and sacked and burnt a "mass house" in Bucklersbury. For this disturbance the mayor and sheriffs were called to account by the king.1627Arrival of William and his march on London, Nov., 1688.On the 5th November the Prince of Orange successfully effected a landing in Torbay. As soon as the news reached London James again sent for the mayor and aldermen, ordered them to take care of the city, and, if he should fall in battle, to proclaim the Prince of Wales successor to the crown.1628William proceeded to march upon London. At Exeter he was well received, but some little time elapsed before the gentry showed any disposition to throw in their lot with the prince. On the 17th James set out with his army to meet the invader, after receiving an assurance from the mayor and aldermen that they would take[pg 534]care of the city during his absence.1629He reached Salisbury, but soon found himself deserted by officers and friends. Among the former was Lord Churchill, afterwards known as the Duke of Marlborough, and the greatest soldier of the age. Left almost alone, James returned to London, having been absent from the capital less than ten days. Like his name-sake the Conqueror, William made no haste to reach London, but advanced by slow marches, putting up at various gentlemen's houses on the way. It was agreed that both armies should remain at a distance of forty miles from London in order to allow the new parliament to meet in safety.Renewed attacks made on Catholics in London.Since the news of the prince's landing there had been a renewal of the attacks made on Roman Catholics and their places of worship in London. On the 11th November the mob broke into St. John's, Clerkenwell, where rumour declared there were stored gridirons, spits and other instruments for torturing Protestants. The troops were called out and one or two of the rioters killed. It was deemed advisable to close all the Roman Catholic chapels except the royal chapels and those belonging to foreign ambassadors.1630Another sign of the times was the fact that the sceptre belonging to the statue of Queen Mary set up in the Royal Exchange had either accidentally fallen or (as was more probable) had been forcibly struck out of her hand.1631On the 7th December the mayor issued a precept to the aldermen of each ward for[pg 535]a careful search to be made in the city for all Papists and suspicious persons. He did this because he understood that the inhabitants of the city were much alarmed at the great resort of Papists to the city who were believed to be meditating some attack upon London.1632Proceeding in the city after the king's flight, 11 Dec., 1688.The negotiations which had been opened with William were only intended by James to serve the purpose of giving the latter time to place his wife and child in a place of security before he himself should seek safety in flight. On the 11th December he attempted to make good his escape. As soon as it was known that the king had left London a great number of lords, both spiritual and temporal, came to the Guildhall, as to a place of security, the better to consult and take measures for the common weal. Having informed the Court of Aldermen of the king's flight the lords retired into the "gallery adjoining to yecouncell chamber," and there drew up a Declaration,1633containing in effect their resolution to assist the Prince of Orange in maintaining the religion, the rights and the liberties which had been invaded by Jesuitical counsels. This was communicated to the Court of Aldermen, who thanked the lords for the favour shown to the Court. As the occasion was an important one it was deemed advisable to summon forthwith a Common Council, as well as the law officers of the City, to advise the aldermen as to what was best to be done.1634A Common Council was accordingly held that same day. Being informed of the state of affairs, the court quickly resolved to[pg 536]follow the example set by the lords, and themselves to present an address to the prince.1635An address was accordingly prepared, in which, having warmly acknowledged the prince's zeal for the Protestant religion and expressed regret at the king's measures and his recent flight, the citizens implored the prince's protection, promising him at the same time a hearty welcome whenever he should repair to their city. The lieutenancy of the city followed suit the same day with another address, in which his highness was assured that measures had been taken for preserving the city in peace until his arrival.1636The lords, having finished their business in the city, dined the same evening with the lord mayor at Grocers' Hall.1637Letter from the prince to the city, 17 Dec., 1688.On the 17th a letter from the prince was read before the Common Council. The terms of the letter are not recorded in the City's archives, but it probably contained some reference to the peace of the city, for the council, after preparing an answer to it, forthwith gave orders for the guards of the trained bands to be increased by three regiments.1638The prince enters London, 18 Dec.The following day (18 Dec.) the prince himself entered London, and the council, having heard of his arrival, immediately despatched the sheriffs and the common sergeant to learn when his highness would be pleased to receive a deputation from the city. It was arranged that the aldermen and their deputies and one or two members of the council of each ward,[pg 537]according to the number of its representatives, should form the deputation.1639The lord mayor (Chapman) being indisposed was unable to attend. He had recently been seized with a fit of apoplexy whilst trying the terrible Jeffreys, who had been discovered and apprehended in disguise at Wapping. But Treby, the recorder, was there, and made a speech on the City's behalf.1640A representative assembly meet to discuss the state of affairs, 26 Dec., 1688.A Convention Parliament to meet, 22 Jan., 1689.By this time James, who had been foiled in his first attempt to reach the coast, and had returned to London, had, with the connivance of the Prince of Orange, been more successful in a second attempt, and had crossed over to France, where he spent the remainder of his days. The country was therefore left without king, parliament or legal system for its government. In London the Corporation of the city was almost the only authority that remained unaffected by the king's abdication; and it is significant as well of its power as of the respect which that body commanded that when William was endeavouring to form an authoritative assembly by summoning all the members who had ever sat in parliament under Charles II,1641he likewise desired that the lord mayor of the city, the entire Court of Aldermen and fifty representatives of the Common Council should attend.1642This assembly met on the 26th December, and after due consultation decided to adopt the same procedure as was adopted in 1660 before the return of Charles II. As there[pg 538]was no king there could be no writs for a parliament, but William could call a Convention, which would be a parliament in everything but name. A Convention was accordingly summoned to meet on the 22nd January, 1689. The election of the city members to serve in the convention was ordered to take place on Wednesday the 9th January,1643when the choice of the citizens fell upon their former well-tried representatives, Sir Patience Ward, Sir Robert Clayton, Pilkington (who had regained his liberty in August, 1686)1644and Love.Letter from the prince desiring a city loan, 8 Jan., 1689.In the meantime (8 Jan.) the prince wrote to the civic authorities setting forth the inadequacy of the revenue to supply three pressing wants. These were the maintenance of the navy, the partial disbandment of the army and the furnishing of a force for the speedy relief of the Protestants in Ireland. He desired the City, therefore, to advance him such a sum as could be "conveniently spared."1645The City was still to keep up its character as the purse of the nation. The Common Council, having heard the letter read, at once resolved to assist the prince to the utmost of their power. A committee was appointed to settle with the revenue officers the nature of the security, and orders were given for precepts to be sent to the aldermen to raise subscriptions in the various wards.1646Sir Peter Rich, who had recently been re-instated in the office of city chamberlain from[pg 539]which he had been ousted, was instructed to pay into the exchequer all money received on account of the loan, and to strike tallies for the same in his own name in trust for the use of the several lenders. Ten days later (18 Jan.) the committee reported the steps taken for the security of repayment of the money already paid into the exchequer, and the council recommended that similar steps should be taken with respect to those sums yet to be paid in. It was at the same time unanimously agreed to ask the Prince to dinner in the city, and the recorder, the sheriffs and the common sergeant were instructed to wait on his highness and learn his pleasure.1647Meeting of the convention parliament, 22 Jan., 1689.On the 22nd January the Convention met. On the 28th the Commons declared the throne to be vacant, and on the 6th February a vote to similar effect was passed by the Lords. Some over-zealous inhabitants of the city had in the meanwhile prepared a petition, which they purposed presenting to the House of Lords, praying that the crown might be offered to the Prince of Orange and his consort. The prince ordered the lord mayor to put a stop to such proceedings, and a precept (200 copies of which were ordered to be printed) was accordingly issued to this effect.1648William and Mary proclaimed king and queen, 13 Feb., 1689.A Declaration of Rights was drawn up condemning the unconstitutional acts of James II, and offering to settle the crown on William and Mary and their children, with remainders over. On the 13th February this offer was accepted,1649and the prince and princess[pg 540]were forthwith proclaimed king and queen with the usual ceremony. The next day the Common Council unanimously agreed to wait upon their majesties and congratulate them upon their accession to the throne.1650Coronation of William and Mary, 11 April, 1689.At the coronation banquet of the king and queen, which took place on the 11th April, the masters of the twelve principal livery companies were for the first time nominated by the Court of Aldermen to join with the lord mayor in assisting the chief butler,1651and they continued to be so nominated on like occasions up to the coronation of George IV, when in consequence of a change of masters taking place between the time of their nomination and the day of the coronation, the new masters presented a petition to the Court of Claims praying to have their names inserted in the place of the former masters whose term of office had expired. This petition was opposed by the Remembrancer, on behalf of the City, on the ground that the masters of the livery companies enjoyed no peculiar right to serve on such occasions, and after some deliberation the commissioners declined to interfere, inasmuch as the power of nominating the twelve citizens rested absolutely with the Court of Aldermen.1652The lord mayor and swordbearer were resplendent at the coronation ceremony in new crimson and damask gowns, whilst the city's plate—again lent for the occasion—added lustre to the banquet.1653

The Accession of James II, 6 Feb., 1685."They will never kill me, James, to make you king," the late king is said to have cynically remarked to his brother; and, indeed, the accession of the Duke of York was accepted by the nation in general, as well as by the City of London in particular, with considerable foreboding. The new king for a short while was content to feel his way before plunging into the headstrong course of action which eventually lost him the crown. Although suspected of being a Catholic at heart, it was only during his last moments that Charles had accepted the ministrations of the Roman Church. The new king had for years been an avowed Catholic; nevertheless, in his first speech to the Privy Council he announced his intention of maintaining the established government, both in Church and State. This speech, made within an hour of the late king's death, was received with rapturous applause. It was quickly followed by a proclamation of his majesty's wish that all persons in office at the time of the decease of the late king should so continue until further notice.1556Another document proclaiming the death of the late king and the devolution of the crown to the Duke of York was at the same time drawn up by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, with the assistance of the privy council, the mayor, aldermen and citizens of London and others.1557This[pg 507]document did not bear the signature of the mayor as that proclaiming James I had done.The question of continuation of customs and excise.James had not been many days on the throne before the question of supply had to be settled. More than one-half of the whole revenue of the crown was derived from the customs, and these had been settled on Charles for life only, and could not therefore be exacted by his successor without the assent of parliament. No parliament had been summoned since the dissolution of the parliament at Oxford four years since (28 March, 1681). As time was pressing and some delay must have taken place before a new parliament could meet, James took the advice of Chief Justice Jeffreys, and did violence to the constitution by proclaiming (9 Feb.) the continuation of the payment of customs as a matter of necessity, whilst at the same time he intimated his intention of speedily calling a parliament.1558The pill thus gilded was swallowed without protest. The excise duties was another matter and was dealt with differently. The "additional excise," like the customs, had been given to the late king for life, but there was a clause in the Act which empowered the Lords of the Treasury to let them to farm for a term of three years without any limitation as to their being so long due. A lease was now propounded as having been made during the late king's life (the document bearing date the 5th February, the day preceding his decease), although there was every reason for supposing it to have been made after his death and to have been post-dated. The judges were[pg 508]appealed to, and with every desire to curry favour with the new king, the majority pronounced the document to be good in law. Thus fortified, James no longer hesitated to issue a proclamation (16 Feb.) for the continuation of the excise.1559The coronation of king and queen, 23 April, 1685.A parliament was summoned for the 9th April, but did not meet until the 19th May. In the meantime the king and queen had been crowned at Westminster on St. George's day (23 April). The City put in their customary claim,1560but this was at first disallowed "in regard of the judgment upon theQuo Warrantofor seizure of the cities franchise." Upon appeal being made, however, to the king himself the claim was allowed, and the mayor, aldermen and citizens were treated with high honour both in the Abbey and at the banquet in Westminster Hall, the mayor being presented by the king with the cup of pure gold and cover, weighing in all upwards of twenty ounces, with which he had served his majesty with wine.1561A few days before the banquet took place Sir Robert Vyner sent to the mayor to borrow the City's plate for the occasion. The matter was laid before the Court of Aldermen and permission was granted the lord mayor to lend such plate as could be spared.1562A Tory parliament, 1685.When parliament met (19 May) the majority in favour of the court party was enormous. This was in no small measure due to the reformation that had been forced on other corporate towns besides the city of London. They had been made to surrender their[pg 509]charters, and the late king had in return granted them new charters in which Tories alone were named as members of the corporations. Only one more step was necessary in order to secure the return of a Tory parliament when the time for fresh elections should arrive, and that step was taken. The parliamentary franchise in boroughs was restricted to members of the corporations.1563In London the Whigs were kept down by fear, and the Tory party reigned supreme. The mayor and half the Court of Aldermen were nominees of the Crown, acting by royal commission. No Common Council sat, or if it did it was only for the purpose of enrolling a proclamation by the king or a precept by the mayor. As the election drew near the king, in order to render the result in his favour more sure, authorized the Court of Aldermen to grant liveries to several of the city companies, taking care that such only should be admitted to the livery as were of "unquestionable loyalty" for the purpose of voting.1564By this means four of the most pronounced Tories in the city were returned, all of them being aldermen. These were Sir John Moore and Sir William Pritchard, both of whom had been placed in the mayoralty chair, one after the other (in 1681 and 1682), by court influence, Sir Peter Rich, who had served as sheriff with Dudley North in 1682, and Sir Samuel Dashwood, who filled the same office the following year with Peter Daniel, both of them, like their immediate predecessors, being nominees of the Crown.[pg 510]As soon as the House met the Commons unanimously granted the king the full revenue which had been enjoyed by his brother.1565Oates and Dangerfield whipt at the cart's tail, May, 1685.The bent of the king's mind was quickly discerned in the sentences pronounced by judges eager to secure his favour. Titus Oates was taken out of prison and whipt at the cart's tail from Aldgate to Newgate the day after parliament met. Two days later he was again whipt from Newgate to Tyburn, and the punishment was so mercilessly carried out that it nearly cost him his life. Precautions had to be taken by the mayor to prevent a display of force by Oates's partisans, who overturned the pillory on which he was to stand.1566Dangerfield, another professional informer, was made to undergo a punishment scarcely less severe. He survived the punishment, but only to die from the effect of a vicious blow dealt him by a bystander as he was being carried back to gaol from Tyburn.Richard Baxter brought to trial, 30 May, 1685.On the other hand Richard Baxter—the most learned and moderate of Nonconformists—was tried at the Guildhall on a charge of having introduced into his commentary on the New Testament some seditious remarks respecting the attitude of the government towards dissenters. The infamous Jeffreys presided at the trial, and spared neither counsel nor prisoner his insolent invectives. The whole proceedings were nothing less than a farce, and the evidence adduced was of such a flimsy character that Baxter volunteered a remark expressing a doubt whether any jury would convict a man on it. He was, however, mistaken.[pg 511]The sheriffs, like the mayor, were but tools of the court party, and the jurymen selected to sit on the trial did not hesitate to bring in a verdict of guilty. He was fortunate to get off with no worse sentence than a fine of 500 marks and imprisonment until it was paid.1567The Monmouth Rebellion, 1685.There was doubtless a large number of inhabitants of the city who would gladly have assisted Monmouth—"the champion of the dissenters and extreme Protestants"—had they been in a position to do so. But as soon as the news of the duke's landing in Dorsetshire reached London orders were issued by the mayor for a strict watch to be kept by night throughout the city, and for the arrest of all suspicious characters, whilst the duke and his supporters were proclaimed traitors and rebels. It was forbidden to circulate the duke's manifesto in the city, and on the 16th June, or within five days of his landing, a price of £5,000 was put upon his head.1568After Monmouth's defeat at Sedgmoor (6 July) he and his companions sought safety in flight. Monmouth himself fled to the New Forest, where he was captured in the last stage of poverty, sleeping in a ditch, and was brought to London. He was lodged in the Tower, where his wife and three children had already been sent. Thousands of spectators, who, we are told, "seemed much troubled," went forth to witness his arrival by water on the evening of the 13th July. Two days later he was executed on Tower Hill.Trial of Cornish and others, 19 Oct., 1685.The utmost cruelty, both military and judicial, was inflicted on Monmouth's supporters. Many were[pg 512]hanged by royalist soldiers—"Kirke's lambs," as they were called—without form of law. Others were committed for trial until Jeffreys came to hold his "Bloody Assize," when to the cruelty of the sentences passed on most of them was added the ribald insolence of the judge. The opportunity was taken of giving the city of London a lesson, and Henry Cornish, late alderman and sheriff, was suddenly arrested. This took place on Tuesday the 13th October. He was kept a close prisoner, not allowed to see friends or counsel, and deprived of writing materials. On Saturday he was informed for the first time that he would be tried on a charge of high treason, and that the trial would commence on the following Monday (19 Oct.). His attitude before the judges was calm and dignified. Before pleading not guilty to the charge of having consented to aid and abet the late Duke of Monmouth and others in their attempt on the life of the late king (the Rye House Plot), he entered a protest against the indecent haste with which he had been called upon to plead and the short time allowed him to prepare his case. He asked for further time, but this the judges refused.One of the chief witnesses for the Crown was Goodenough, who had a personal spite against Cornish for his having objected to him (Goodenough) serving as under-sheriff in 1680-1, the year when Bethell and Cornish were sheriffs.1569Goodenough had risked his neck in Monmouth's late rebellion, but[pg 513]he had succeeded in obtaining a pardon by promises of valuable information against others. With the king's pardon in his pocket he unblushingly declared before the judges that he, as well as Cornish and some others, had determined upon a general rising in the city at the time of the Rye House Plot. "We designed," said he, "to divide it (i.e., the city) into twenty parts, and out of each part to raise five hundred men, if it might be done, to make an insurrection."1570The Tower was to be seized and the guard expelled.Cornish had been afforded no opportunity for instructing counsel in his defence. He was therefore obliged to act as his own counsel, with the result usual in such cases. He rested his main defence upon the improbability of his having acted as the prosecution endeavoured to make out. This he so persistently urged that the judges lost patience. Improbability was not enough, they declared; let him call his witnesses. When, however, Cornish desired an adjournment in order that he might bring a witness up from Lancashire, his request was refused. His chief witness he omitted to call until after the lord chief justice had summed up. This man was a vintner of the city, named Shephard, at whose house Cornish was charged with having met and held consultation with Monmouth and the rest of the conspirators. The bench after some demur assented to the prisoner's earnest prayer that Shephard's evidence might be taken. He showed that he had been in the habit of having commercial transactions with Cornish and was at that moment in his debt; that on the occasion in question Cornish had come to his[pg 514]house, but whether he came to speak with the Duke of Monmouth or not the witness could not say for certain; that he only remained a few minutes, and that no paper or declaration (on which so much stress had been laid) in connection with the conspiracy was read in Cornish's presence; that in fact Cornish was not considered at the time as being in the plot. Such evidence, if not conclusive, ought to have gone far towards obtaining a verdict of acquittal for the prisoner. This was not the case, however; the witness was characterised by one of the judges as "very forward," and when Cornish humbly remonstrated with the treatment his witness was receiving from the bench he was sharply told to hold his tongue. The jury after a brief consultation brought in a verdict of guilty, and Cornish had to submit to the indignity of being tied—like a dangerous criminal—whilst sentence of death was passed upon him and three others who had been tried at the same time.Execution of Cornish, 23 Oct., 1685.The prisoner was allowed but three clear days before he was hanged at the corner of King Street and Cheapside, within sight of the Guildhall which he had so often frequented as an alderman of the city, and on which his head was afterwards placed. He met his end with courage and with many pious expressions, but to the last maintained his innocence with such vehemence that his enemies gave out that he had "died in a fit of fury."1571The injustice of his sentence was recognised and his conviction and attainder was afterwards reversed and annulled by parliament (22 June, 1689).1572[pg 515]Execution of Mrs. Gaunt, 23 Oct.Of the three others who had been tried with Cornish, two were reprieved (one was afterwards executed), but the third, Elizabeth Gaunt, was burnt at Tyburn the same day that Cornish suffered (23 Oct.) for having harboured an outlaw named Burton and assisted him to escape beyond the law. He had been implicated in the Rye House Plot, but with the aid of Mrs. Gaunt, who lived in the city, had contrived to avoid capture. In order to save his own skin the wretch did not hesitate to turn king's evidence and to sacrifice the life of his benefactress, a woman who is described as having "spent a great part of her life in acts of charity, visiting the gaols and looking after the poor." She too died with great fortitude, arranging with her own hands the straw around her, so as to burn the more speedily.1573The revocation of the Edict of Nantes, Oct., 1685.Parliament began to be alarmed at the favour shown to Catholics, and this alarm was increased by a report from France that Louis XIV, with whom James was known to be closely allied, and on whom he depended, like his late brother, for pecuniary support, had revoked the Edict of Nantes granted by Henry IV in favour of his Protestant subjects. The report was soon confirmed by the appearance of numbers of French Protestants—refugees from persecution—in England, and more especially in the city of London. What Louis had done in France James, it was feared, would carry out in England by means of his standing army commanded by Roman Catholic officers. Hence the alarm which pervaded not only parliament, but also the city and the nation at large.[pg 516]Session of parliament, 9-20 Nov., 1685.Hence too it was that when the Houses, which had been adjourned during the campaign in the West, met on the 9th November,1574they remonstrated with him for the favour he had shown to Catholics in direct contravention of the law. Finding himself unable to bend parliament to his will, he determined to do without one, and accordingly, after a brief session, it stood prorogued (20 Nov.),1575never to meet again during the present reign.James and the Catholics, 1686.Without a parliament James could act with a free hand. By a piece of chicanery he managed to get a legal decision acknowledging the dispensing power of the king.1576He established an Ecclesiastical Commission Court, with the infamous Jeffreys at its head, the first act of which was to suspend the Bishop of London for upholding the Protestant faith. He removed the Earl of Clarendon (son of the late Chancellor), who had recently been appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,1577and appointed as lord deputy the Earl of Tyrconnel, a Roman Catholic of low character, who had gained an unenviable notoriety as the "lying Dick Talbot." The country was over-run with Papists from abroad. All the laws against the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion were set at defiance. There was no disguise. Mass was publicly celebrated at Whitehall and Roman Catholic chapels sprang up everywhere, giving rise to no small dissatisfaction and tumult. The agitation in London was great, but greater in the city, where men had been less accustomed to the[pg 517]sight of the Romish ceremonial than those who lived in the neighbourhood of the court. Riots in the city were of frequent occurrence, more especially on Sundays, when the Roman Catholics were more in evidence than on week days. A Roman Catholic chapel had recently been erected by the Elector Palatine in Lime Street. An ineffectual attempt had been made by the mayor and aldermen to stay the work. They were summoned to appear before the king and reprimanded. The work was accordingly allowed to go on and the chapel was opened. On Sunday, the 18th April (1686), the priests attached to the chapel were followed by a mob into Cheapside, and matters would have gone hard with them had not the mayor and aldermen appeared on the scene with a regiment of trained bands. James again sent for the mayor and told him that if he could not keep better order in the city he should himself send some "assistance."1578Nevertheless another riot broke out on the following Sunday. A mob entered a Roman Catholic chapel and carried away a crucifix, crying out they would have no "wooden gods." A cross was set up on the parish pump and mock obeisance made to it. The priests were insulted, but no violence was offered them. When the mayor appeared to quell the tumult the crowd affected to disbelieve that his lordship was in earnest. "What! the lord mayor of our city come to preach up popery! too sure, it cannot be!" When the trained bands were ordered to disperse the crowd they declared that in conscience they could not hinder them in their work.1579[pg 518]The camp at Hounslow opened, 28 May, 1686.These disturbances were very injurious to the trade of the city, and caused a considerable fall in the amount of customs paid for merchandise entering the port of London. A regiment or two of the standing army which James had formed might any day appear in the city. "I shall not wonder if the Scotch regiment of guards now quartering at Greenwich be quartered in Cheapside before this week is out," wrote a contemporary on the 27th April.1580A month later the army was encamped at Hounslow, the king himself being also there, ready to send "assistance" to the city should occasion arise.1581The Declaration of Indulgence, 4 April, 1687.For a time James had entertained the hope of obtaining favours for the Catholics with the goodwill of the Church of England, whilst continuing the persecution of dissenters. Finding this impossible he determined to make friends of the dissenters, and to include them in a general declaration of indulgence. Accordingly on the 4th April, 1687, there appeared a Declaration of Indulgence suspending all laws against Roman Catholics and dissenters alike.1582Corporations further "regulated," 1687.James would willingly have obtained parliamentary sanction for his declaration if he could. To this end he again took to tampering with corporations throughout the country, in the hope of securing thereby a parliament favourable to his policy of toleration. Six commissioners were appointed in November to "regulate" all the corporations of England, by turning out all who were opposed to the abolition of the penal laws and Test Act and putting in their place those who[pg 519]favoured it.1583In London dispensations were granted to the livery companies relieving their members from taking the oaths and test, whilst similar dispensations were included in the royal commissions appointing aldermen. In many of the companies Tories of a too pronounced character were turned out and their places taken by dissenters.1584Everywhere dissenters were treated with the greatest consideration. Notwithstanding every effort, however, to capture the constituencies at the next elections, James found public opinion against him to be too strong, and all thought of summoning a fresh parliament had to be abandoned.The king and the Court of Aldermen, June, 1687.In the meanwhile addresses flowed in from various parts of the country thanking the king for his declaration. Presbyterians, Quakers, Independents, Congregationalists alike sent addresses, but as yet no address was presented on behalf of the Court of Aldermen—the governing body of the city, now that the Common Council was in abeyance. That body had to be largely remodelled before it would consent to present any such address. On Thursday, the 16th June, the infamous Jeffreys, who had been rewarded with the seals for his work at the Bloody Assizes, appeared before the Court of Aldermen and declared his majesty's pleasure that in future that court should nominate and recommend to the Crown such persons as they thought fit to be aldermen as vacancies occurred, and that no one so nominated[pg 520]should be exempt from service except for insufficiency of estate, to be declared on oath. Those who were capable of serving and refused to serve when nominated by the court were to be fined, and the fines were to be devoted to the use and benefit of the city's orphans. The ancient privilege, too, of the mayor drinking to a future sheriff received the king's sanction.1585Having listened to the lord chancellor's message the court resolved to wait upon the king at Windsor on the following Sunday to thank his majesty "for that and all other his majesties acts of grace to this court and city."1586Both the mayor and the Court of Aldermen lost no time in exercising their privileges, but they experienced great difficulty in getting any one to serve sheriff or alderman. Fines ran up apace, until no less than £8,500 had been paid by persons desirous at any cost to be discharged from filling either of those thankless offices. Many of the aldermen either voluntarily resigned their gowns or were dismissed from the court because they were unwilling to vote an address of thanks to James for his declaration.1587Thanks from Court of Aldermen for Declaration, 26 July, 1687.At length the court was sufficiently packed with dissenters to pass an address to the king (26 July) thanking him for his declaration, and assuring his majesty of their readiness to stand by him with their lives and fortunes.1588The orphans of the city also voted an address,1589as well they might, seeing the amount of money that the declaration had been the means of bringing into the orphans' fund.[pg 521]William Kiffin appointed by the king alderman of Cheap, 6 Aug., 1687.His reluctance to accept office.At last consents, and is sworn, 27 Oct., 1687.Not every dissenter welcomed the king's declaration. To many of them it seemed—what the king intended it to be—only a lever for raising the Roman Catholics. Baxter, to whom friendly overtures were made by government to win him over, refused to join in any address of thanks for the declaration. John Howe declared himself an opponent of the dispensing power, and Bunyan declined to enter into any negotiations on the matter at all. William Kiffin, on the other hand, an influential Baptist in the city, succumbed to the threats, if not to the blandishments, of James.1590In addition to possessing spiritual gifts of no mean order, Kiffin was also a man of wealth and position in the world of commerce. In every way he would prove a valuable ally, if only he could be won over. Against this, however, there was one great impediment: the recollection of the judicial murder of his two grandsons, Benjamin and William Hewling, by Jeffreys at the Bloody Assizes. Fondly imagining that the memory of that foul act could be blotted out and the stricken heart salved by an increase of wealth or elevation in rank, James sent for him to court, and after some preliminary remarks touching the royal favour that was being shown to dissenters, told Kiffin that he had put him down as an alderman in his "new charter," alluding no doubt to the royal commission of 6th August, in which Kiffin's name appears as alderman of Cheap ward in the place of[pg 522]Samuel Dashwood. On hearing this Kiffin replied, "Sir, I am a very old man,"—he was seventy years of age when he lost his grandchildren—"I have withdrawn myself from all kind of business for some years past, and am incapable of doing any service in such an affair to your majesty or the city. Besides, sir," the old man continued, with tears running down his cheeks, and looking the king steadily in the face, "the death of my grandsons gave a wound to my heart which is still bleeding, and never will close but in the grave." For a moment the king was abashed, but quickly recovering himself told Kiffin that he (James) would find "a balsam for that sore." The old man still held out, until, hearing that legal proceedings were about to be taken against him, he took counsel's opinion as to what was best to be done. He was told that he was running a great risk by refusing to become an alderman, for the judges, as they then were, might subject him to a penalty of ten, twenty, or thirty thousand pounds, "even what they pleased." Under such circumstances he consented to be made an alderman, rather than bring ruin on himself and family. He, however, put off the evil day as long as he could, and was not sworn into office until the 27th October.1591Kiffin expressed himself as pleased with the reception he met with in his ward, where he was almost a stranger. But much of the business which the Court of Aldermen was called upon to execute in those days was distasteful to him. "We had frequently orders from the king" (he writes) "to[pg 523]send to the several companies to put out great numbers of liverymen out of the privilege of being liverymen, and others to be put in their rooms; most of which that were so turned out were Protestants of the Church of England. There has been a list of seven hundred at a time to be discharged, although no crime laid to their charge." The royal commission which appointed him an alderman also created him a justice of the peace and a member of the Court of Lieutenancy, but to use his own words, "I never meddled with either of those places, neither in any act of power in that court [i.e., Court of Aldermen] touching causes between man and man, but only such things as concerned the welfare of the city and good of the orphans, whose distressed condition called for help, although we were able to do little towards it." He was not called upon to discharge his invidious duties for any great length of time; for after being in office only nine months he obtained his discharge, to his "very great satisfaction." He continued to live for another thirteen years, dying on the 29th December, 1701, in his 86th year, and he was buried in Bunhill Fields—that "God's acre" which holds the dust of so many of his fellow non-conformists.Sir John Shorter, mayor, Oct., 1687.In September the king had issued a patent for Sir John Shorter to be lord mayor for the year ensuing. Shorter was a dissenter—"an Anabaptist, a very odd ignorant person, a mechanic, I think," wrote Evelyn1592of him—and on that account a clause was inserted in his commission permitting him to have any preacher he might choose.1593His granddaughter[pg 524]was married to Sir Robert Walpole. He was at one time alderman of Cripplegate ward, but in December, 1682, he fell foul of Charles II for attending a conventicle at Pinmakers' Hall, and the Court of Aldermen received orders to remove him.1594He had recently, however (6 Aug., 1687), been restored to his aldermanry and to his rank of precedence by commission from James,1595and now, by the same usurped authority, he was to become lord mayor. The feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.) happening this year to fall on a Friday, the installation of the new lord mayor, as well as the banquet to which James and the Papal Nuncio had been invited, was postponed until the following day. The aldermen agreed to defray the cost of the entertainment out of their own pockets,1596each laying down the sum of £50. Kiffin also sent £50, although he had not yet been sworn a member of the court; but he afterwards regretted having done so when he learnt that the Pope's Nuncio and other priests had been invited as guests.1597The day passed off well. The Goldsmiths' Company, of which the new lord mayor was a member, made a particularly brave show. The entire roadway from Charing Cross to the city had been fresh gravelled that morning, and the king, who was accompanied by the queen, expressed himself as well pleased with the entertainment afforded him.1598[pg 525]The Dissenters supreme in the city.The Dissenters now had matters all their own way. The livery companies had become so leavened with an influx of new members, whose claim for admittance rested chiefly on their antagonism to the established Church, that most of them now sent in addresses to the king thanking him for his Declaration of Indulgence. The Barber-Surgeons and the Apothecaries had already done so; so had the Clothworkers, the Mercers and the Glovers. Their example was now followed by the Cutlers, the Goldsmiths, the Haberdashers, the Joiners and the Weavers.1599The mayor, who kept his mayoralty at Grocers' Hall, openly held a conventicle there on Sunday, the 6th November,1600whilst he declined to listen to a sermon by the learned Dr. Stillingfleet in the Guildhall chapel.1601More than this, he would have turned the chapel itself into a conventicle could he have had his own way.1602The second Declaration of Indulgence, 27 April, 1688.In the Spring of 1688 James published a second Declaration of Indulgence varying but slightly from the former one, and ordered it to be read in the churches of London and Westminster on the 20th and 27th May, and in the country on the 3rd and 10th June. This was more than the clergy could stand. A meeting of bishops was held at Lambeth for the purpose of drawing up a petition to the king praying[pg 526]that the clergy might be excused reading an illegal document in the midst of public service. This petition was signed by Sancroft, the primate, and six bishops. Although the Bishop of London was not among those who signed the petition—he at the time being under disability—there is reason for believing that Compton had been taken into counsel by those who drafted it.1603On the petition being presented James pretended the utmost surprise, and insisted that the presentation of such a petition was "a standard of rebellion." This took place on Friday preceding the first Sunday (20th May) when the Declaration was to be read in the London churches. When Sunday arrived people flocked to the churches to hear what would happen. Only a few of the London clergy attempted to read the Declaration.1604In the country not more than 200 clergy carried out the king's orders, "and of these some read it the first Sunday, but changed their minds before the second; others declared in their sermons that though they obeyed the order they did not approve the Declaration." One minister in particular told his congregation that though he was obliged to read it they were not obliged to hear it, and waited until all had left the church before he commenced reading the hateful document. In other places the congregation took the initiative and rose to go as soon as the minister commenced reading it.1605The seven bishops committed to the Tower.What followed is well known. On Friday the 8th June the Archbishop of Canterbury and the six bishops who had signed the petition were summoned[pg 527]before the council and asked if they acknowledged their respective signatures. They were next required to enter into bond for appearance before the King's Bench. This they declined to do, and were thereupon committed to the Tower.1606To have carried them through the streets of the city might have caused a riot; they were therefore conveyed to the Tower by water, "and all along as they passed the banks of the river were full of people, who kneeled down and asked their blessing, and with loud shouts expressed their good wishes for them and their concern in their preservation."1607The enthusiasm of the Londoners did not end here. They continued to flock to the Tower, filling the small chapel where the bishops attended service to overflowing in order to gaze upon their beloved pastors and receive their blessing.1608After being kept in separate confinement, and allowed to meet only at meals and in chapel, for ten days, the bishops were allowed to come out on bail.Trial and acquittal of the bishops, 29 and 30 June, 1688.On the 29th June they appeared before the King's Bench on a charge of publishing a seditious libel. A technical difficulty presented itself at the outset, but this was got over, and after a trial of some hours the question of their innocence or guilt was left to a jury drawn, not from London, but from the county of Middlesex. One of the panel stuck out against the rest, and wished to bring in a verdict of guilty, but after being locked up through the night he allowed himself to be persuaded by his fellow-jurymen, and on the morning of the 30th June a verdict of not guilty was found. Thereupon "there were such shoutings, so long continued, and as it were echoed[pg 528]into the city, that all people were struck with it."1609Bonfires were lighted, guns discharged and church bells rung, not only in London but throughout the kingdom.Disaffection among the troops at Hounslow.The beginning of the end was approaching. Already the troops encamped at Hounslow, on which James placed so much dependence, showed signs of disaffection. He had hoped that his army would have overawed London, instead of which the free spirit of London had, as a result of his policy, entirely captivated his army. So long as the king was in their midst the troops maintained a respectful demeanour, but as soon as his back was turned they threw off all restraint, and joined in the general exultation at the late joyful deliverance to the Church of England.1610The birth of Prince Charles Edward, 10 June, 1688.The birth of a prince (10 June), which had recently taken place, served to hasten the crisis. Those who were willing to have waited patiently for a recurrence to the old order of things at the king's death now saw their hopes dashed to the ground. The king's heir and successor, brought up, as he undoubtedly would be, in the tenets of his father, promised them little relief. Even before the birth of the prince overtures had been made to William of Orange to appear in England at the head of an army. Nevertheless the Court of Aldermen displayed its loyalty by resolving that the conduits in Cheapside and at the Stocks Market should run with claret on Thanksgiving-day. The sheriffs were to take the matter in hand, whilst the sum of £50 was raised by the court to defray the cost, the mayor contributing £10, each of the sheriffs £5, and the rest of the[pg 529]aldermen the balance between them.1611Later on (29 June) the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs waited upon the infant prince and kissed his hand. The various nurses were presented by the Chamberlain with the respectabledouceurof sixty guineas, whilst ten guineas were given to the lord chancellor's messenger who brought the news to the city of the prince's birth.1612Invitation to William of Orange, 30 June, 1688.The day that saw the bishops acquitted a letter was despatched, signed by Shrewsbury, Danby, Compton (the suspended Bishop of London) and others, to the Prince of Orange, again inviting him to land in England with an armed force, and promising to render him every assistance. After some hesitation William accepted the invitation, and began to make preparations, both naval and military, for his descent on England. Towards the close of September news came from Holland of the vast preparations that were being pushed forward in that country. A fleet of sixty sail was in readiness, and the prince himself was shortly expected on board. James lost no time in informing the lord mayor of the state of affairs, and desired that he and the aldermen would take measures for preserving the city in peace.1613On the 28th he issued a proclamation informing his subjects of the threatened invasion, and calling upon them to lay aside all jealousies and to unite in defending the country against the foreign enemy.1614Restoration of the City's liberties, 6 Oct., 1688.James saw, when it was too late, that he had over-taxed the patience of his subjects. He was now[pg 530]ready to make any and every concession. As for the citizens of London, they should have their charter restored. Accordingly, on Saturday the 6th October Lord Chancellor Jeffreys appeared before the Court of Aldermen with two separate grants under the great seal, the one appointing Sir John Chapman to be mayor (in the place of Sir John Eyles1615) up to the feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.), with liberty to the citizens in the meantime to elect one of their own choice to be mayor for the year ensuing; the other, continuing in office Sir Samuel Thompson and Sir Humphrey Edwin, then sheriffs, until a new election of sheriffs should be made by the citizens. The newly-appointed mayor and the existing sheriffs thereupon went down into the Guildhall, accompanied by the lord chancellor, who informed the citizens of the restitution of their liberties.1616The mayor and sheriffs having taken the oaths and subscribed the declaration prescribed by the Corporation Act, the aldermen returned to their chamber, and such as had been aldermen at the time of the judgment upon the writ ofQuo Warrantoand were then present were forthwith sworn in for the respective wards from which they had been deposed. The court next proceeded to draw up an address to the king, in which his majesty was assured that with all duty and faithfulness they would cheerfully and readilydischarge the trust reposed in themto the[pg 531]utmost hazard of their lives and fortunes.1617One cannot help noticing how studiously different the wording of this address is from those previously presented. Not a word about defending his majesty's person with their lives and fortunes; these are thenceforth to be expended in guarding their own liberties! When the Court of Aldermen met three days later (9 Oct.) the common sergeant, the town clerk, the comptroller, swordbearer, common crier and other officers who had been ousted from their places under theQuo Warrantowere formally re-instated;1618and the same day Chapman issued his precept for a Common Hall to meet on the 11th for the election of sheriffs for the year ensuing.1619Several aldermen who had lost their places in 1683 declined to be re-instated, among them being Sir Robert Clayton.1620Sir George Treby, who had been recorder at the time of the confiscation of the city's liberties, also refused to accept office again; but the Court of Aldermen finding great difficulty in getting a suitable person to accept the appointment, Treby was finally induced to change his mind, and before the end of the year he occupied his old place and continued to occupy it until, in 1692, he was made chief justice of common pleas.1621[pg 532]The city was still without a Common Council, and it was not until the 26th November that the Court of Aldermen advised the mayor to issue his precept for an election of common councilmen to take place on the 28th. The council so elected was to be but a provisional one until the regular election should take place on St. Thomas-day (21 Dec.).1622On the 1st December the new Common Council sat for the first time,1623none having met since the 2nd October, 1683.Writs for a new parliament.The day that a new Common Council was elected Jeffreys (who was already packing up to be off) notified that writs were about to be issued for a new parliament. The House was to meet on the 15th January (1689). James had purposed summoning a parliament for November (1688), and some of the writs had been actually sent out, but the Dutch preparations so alarmed him that the writs were recalled.1624Question as to the legitimacy of Prince Charles, 20 Oct., 1688.In the meantime an extraordinary council had been held at Whitehall (20 Oct.) which the mayor and aldermen of the city had been invited to attend. The object of the meeting was to dissipate any doubt that had been entertained as to the infant prince being actually the king's son. There had been rumours to the contrary, and as the king was about to enter upon a dangerous enterprise in person, he declared his intention of settling the question beyond all doubt before leaving. Some twenty witnesses were accordingly examined then and there as to the prince's legitimacy, the king offering to send for the[pg 533]queen herself if the meeting so wished. This offer, one need scarcely say, was declined.1625The same day proclamation was made for guarding the sea coast and withdrawing all draft cattle into the interior.1626A "mass house" in the city wrecked by the mob, 29 Oct., 1688.The feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.) falling on Sunday, Sir John Chapman, who had been re-elected mayor by free choice of the citizens, proceeded to Westminster by water according to custom on the following Monday, accompanied by the aldermen, and was sworn before the barons of the exchequer. He returned to Grocers' Hall and there entertained the lords of the council, the judges and many of the nobility. Notwithstanding the precautions taken against riot during the mayor's absence from the city the mob broke out and sacked and burnt a "mass house" in Bucklersbury. For this disturbance the mayor and sheriffs were called to account by the king.1627Arrival of William and his march on London, Nov., 1688.On the 5th November the Prince of Orange successfully effected a landing in Torbay. As soon as the news reached London James again sent for the mayor and aldermen, ordered them to take care of the city, and, if he should fall in battle, to proclaim the Prince of Wales successor to the crown.1628William proceeded to march upon London. At Exeter he was well received, but some little time elapsed before the gentry showed any disposition to throw in their lot with the prince. On the 17th James set out with his army to meet the invader, after receiving an assurance from the mayor and aldermen that they would take[pg 534]care of the city during his absence.1629He reached Salisbury, but soon found himself deserted by officers and friends. Among the former was Lord Churchill, afterwards known as the Duke of Marlborough, and the greatest soldier of the age. Left almost alone, James returned to London, having been absent from the capital less than ten days. Like his name-sake the Conqueror, William made no haste to reach London, but advanced by slow marches, putting up at various gentlemen's houses on the way. It was agreed that both armies should remain at a distance of forty miles from London in order to allow the new parliament to meet in safety.Renewed attacks made on Catholics in London.Since the news of the prince's landing there had been a renewal of the attacks made on Roman Catholics and their places of worship in London. On the 11th November the mob broke into St. John's, Clerkenwell, where rumour declared there were stored gridirons, spits and other instruments for torturing Protestants. The troops were called out and one or two of the rioters killed. It was deemed advisable to close all the Roman Catholic chapels except the royal chapels and those belonging to foreign ambassadors.1630Another sign of the times was the fact that the sceptre belonging to the statue of Queen Mary set up in the Royal Exchange had either accidentally fallen or (as was more probable) had been forcibly struck out of her hand.1631On the 7th December the mayor issued a precept to the aldermen of each ward for[pg 535]a careful search to be made in the city for all Papists and suspicious persons. He did this because he understood that the inhabitants of the city were much alarmed at the great resort of Papists to the city who were believed to be meditating some attack upon London.1632Proceeding in the city after the king's flight, 11 Dec., 1688.The negotiations which had been opened with William were only intended by James to serve the purpose of giving the latter time to place his wife and child in a place of security before he himself should seek safety in flight. On the 11th December he attempted to make good his escape. As soon as it was known that the king had left London a great number of lords, both spiritual and temporal, came to the Guildhall, as to a place of security, the better to consult and take measures for the common weal. Having informed the Court of Aldermen of the king's flight the lords retired into the "gallery adjoining to yecouncell chamber," and there drew up a Declaration,1633containing in effect their resolution to assist the Prince of Orange in maintaining the religion, the rights and the liberties which had been invaded by Jesuitical counsels. This was communicated to the Court of Aldermen, who thanked the lords for the favour shown to the Court. As the occasion was an important one it was deemed advisable to summon forthwith a Common Council, as well as the law officers of the City, to advise the aldermen as to what was best to be done.1634A Common Council was accordingly held that same day. Being informed of the state of affairs, the court quickly resolved to[pg 536]follow the example set by the lords, and themselves to present an address to the prince.1635An address was accordingly prepared, in which, having warmly acknowledged the prince's zeal for the Protestant religion and expressed regret at the king's measures and his recent flight, the citizens implored the prince's protection, promising him at the same time a hearty welcome whenever he should repair to their city. The lieutenancy of the city followed suit the same day with another address, in which his highness was assured that measures had been taken for preserving the city in peace until his arrival.1636The lords, having finished their business in the city, dined the same evening with the lord mayor at Grocers' Hall.1637Letter from the prince to the city, 17 Dec., 1688.On the 17th a letter from the prince was read before the Common Council. The terms of the letter are not recorded in the City's archives, but it probably contained some reference to the peace of the city, for the council, after preparing an answer to it, forthwith gave orders for the guards of the trained bands to be increased by three regiments.1638The prince enters London, 18 Dec.The following day (18 Dec.) the prince himself entered London, and the council, having heard of his arrival, immediately despatched the sheriffs and the common sergeant to learn when his highness would be pleased to receive a deputation from the city. It was arranged that the aldermen and their deputies and one or two members of the council of each ward,[pg 537]according to the number of its representatives, should form the deputation.1639The lord mayor (Chapman) being indisposed was unable to attend. He had recently been seized with a fit of apoplexy whilst trying the terrible Jeffreys, who had been discovered and apprehended in disguise at Wapping. But Treby, the recorder, was there, and made a speech on the City's behalf.1640A representative assembly meet to discuss the state of affairs, 26 Dec., 1688.A Convention Parliament to meet, 22 Jan., 1689.By this time James, who had been foiled in his first attempt to reach the coast, and had returned to London, had, with the connivance of the Prince of Orange, been more successful in a second attempt, and had crossed over to France, where he spent the remainder of his days. The country was therefore left without king, parliament or legal system for its government. In London the Corporation of the city was almost the only authority that remained unaffected by the king's abdication; and it is significant as well of its power as of the respect which that body commanded that when William was endeavouring to form an authoritative assembly by summoning all the members who had ever sat in parliament under Charles II,1641he likewise desired that the lord mayor of the city, the entire Court of Aldermen and fifty representatives of the Common Council should attend.1642This assembly met on the 26th December, and after due consultation decided to adopt the same procedure as was adopted in 1660 before the return of Charles II. As there[pg 538]was no king there could be no writs for a parliament, but William could call a Convention, which would be a parliament in everything but name. A Convention was accordingly summoned to meet on the 22nd January, 1689. The election of the city members to serve in the convention was ordered to take place on Wednesday the 9th January,1643when the choice of the citizens fell upon their former well-tried representatives, Sir Patience Ward, Sir Robert Clayton, Pilkington (who had regained his liberty in August, 1686)1644and Love.Letter from the prince desiring a city loan, 8 Jan., 1689.In the meantime (8 Jan.) the prince wrote to the civic authorities setting forth the inadequacy of the revenue to supply three pressing wants. These were the maintenance of the navy, the partial disbandment of the army and the furnishing of a force for the speedy relief of the Protestants in Ireland. He desired the City, therefore, to advance him such a sum as could be "conveniently spared."1645The City was still to keep up its character as the purse of the nation. The Common Council, having heard the letter read, at once resolved to assist the prince to the utmost of their power. A committee was appointed to settle with the revenue officers the nature of the security, and orders were given for precepts to be sent to the aldermen to raise subscriptions in the various wards.1646Sir Peter Rich, who had recently been re-instated in the office of city chamberlain from[pg 539]which he had been ousted, was instructed to pay into the exchequer all money received on account of the loan, and to strike tallies for the same in his own name in trust for the use of the several lenders. Ten days later (18 Jan.) the committee reported the steps taken for the security of repayment of the money already paid into the exchequer, and the council recommended that similar steps should be taken with respect to those sums yet to be paid in. It was at the same time unanimously agreed to ask the Prince to dinner in the city, and the recorder, the sheriffs and the common sergeant were instructed to wait on his highness and learn his pleasure.1647Meeting of the convention parliament, 22 Jan., 1689.On the 22nd January the Convention met. On the 28th the Commons declared the throne to be vacant, and on the 6th February a vote to similar effect was passed by the Lords. Some over-zealous inhabitants of the city had in the meanwhile prepared a petition, which they purposed presenting to the House of Lords, praying that the crown might be offered to the Prince of Orange and his consort. The prince ordered the lord mayor to put a stop to such proceedings, and a precept (200 copies of which were ordered to be printed) was accordingly issued to this effect.1648William and Mary proclaimed king and queen, 13 Feb., 1689.A Declaration of Rights was drawn up condemning the unconstitutional acts of James II, and offering to settle the crown on William and Mary and their children, with remainders over. On the 13th February this offer was accepted,1649and the prince and princess[pg 540]were forthwith proclaimed king and queen with the usual ceremony. The next day the Common Council unanimously agreed to wait upon their majesties and congratulate them upon their accession to the throne.1650Coronation of William and Mary, 11 April, 1689.At the coronation banquet of the king and queen, which took place on the 11th April, the masters of the twelve principal livery companies were for the first time nominated by the Court of Aldermen to join with the lord mayor in assisting the chief butler,1651and they continued to be so nominated on like occasions up to the coronation of George IV, when in consequence of a change of masters taking place between the time of their nomination and the day of the coronation, the new masters presented a petition to the Court of Claims praying to have their names inserted in the place of the former masters whose term of office had expired. This petition was opposed by the Remembrancer, on behalf of the City, on the ground that the masters of the livery companies enjoyed no peculiar right to serve on such occasions, and after some deliberation the commissioners declined to interfere, inasmuch as the power of nominating the twelve citizens rested absolutely with the Court of Aldermen.1652The lord mayor and swordbearer were resplendent at the coronation ceremony in new crimson and damask gowns, whilst the city's plate—again lent for the occasion—added lustre to the banquet.1653

The Accession of James II, 6 Feb., 1685.

The Accession of James II, 6 Feb., 1685.

The Accession of James II, 6 Feb., 1685.

"They will never kill me, James, to make you king," the late king is said to have cynically remarked to his brother; and, indeed, the accession of the Duke of York was accepted by the nation in general, as well as by the City of London in particular, with considerable foreboding. The new king for a short while was content to feel his way before plunging into the headstrong course of action which eventually lost him the crown. Although suspected of being a Catholic at heart, it was only during his last moments that Charles had accepted the ministrations of the Roman Church. The new king had for years been an avowed Catholic; nevertheless, in his first speech to the Privy Council he announced his intention of maintaining the established government, both in Church and State. This speech, made within an hour of the late king's death, was received with rapturous applause. It was quickly followed by a proclamation of his majesty's wish that all persons in office at the time of the decease of the late king should so continue until further notice.1556Another document proclaiming the death of the late king and the devolution of the crown to the Duke of York was at the same time drawn up by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, with the assistance of the privy council, the mayor, aldermen and citizens of London and others.1557This[pg 507]document did not bear the signature of the mayor as that proclaiming James I had done.

The question of continuation of customs and excise.

The question of continuation of customs and excise.

The question of continuation of customs and excise.

James had not been many days on the throne before the question of supply had to be settled. More than one-half of the whole revenue of the crown was derived from the customs, and these had been settled on Charles for life only, and could not therefore be exacted by his successor without the assent of parliament. No parliament had been summoned since the dissolution of the parliament at Oxford four years since (28 March, 1681). As time was pressing and some delay must have taken place before a new parliament could meet, James took the advice of Chief Justice Jeffreys, and did violence to the constitution by proclaiming (9 Feb.) the continuation of the payment of customs as a matter of necessity, whilst at the same time he intimated his intention of speedily calling a parliament.1558The pill thus gilded was swallowed without protest. The excise duties was another matter and was dealt with differently. The "additional excise," like the customs, had been given to the late king for life, but there was a clause in the Act which empowered the Lords of the Treasury to let them to farm for a term of three years without any limitation as to their being so long due. A lease was now propounded as having been made during the late king's life (the document bearing date the 5th February, the day preceding his decease), although there was every reason for supposing it to have been made after his death and to have been post-dated. The judges were[pg 508]appealed to, and with every desire to curry favour with the new king, the majority pronounced the document to be good in law. Thus fortified, James no longer hesitated to issue a proclamation (16 Feb.) for the continuation of the excise.1559

The coronation of king and queen, 23 April, 1685.

The coronation of king and queen, 23 April, 1685.

The coronation of king and queen, 23 April, 1685.

A parliament was summoned for the 9th April, but did not meet until the 19th May. In the meantime the king and queen had been crowned at Westminster on St. George's day (23 April). The City put in their customary claim,1560but this was at first disallowed "in regard of the judgment upon theQuo Warrantofor seizure of the cities franchise." Upon appeal being made, however, to the king himself the claim was allowed, and the mayor, aldermen and citizens were treated with high honour both in the Abbey and at the banquet in Westminster Hall, the mayor being presented by the king with the cup of pure gold and cover, weighing in all upwards of twenty ounces, with which he had served his majesty with wine.1561A few days before the banquet took place Sir Robert Vyner sent to the mayor to borrow the City's plate for the occasion. The matter was laid before the Court of Aldermen and permission was granted the lord mayor to lend such plate as could be spared.1562

A Tory parliament, 1685.

A Tory parliament, 1685.

A Tory parliament, 1685.

When parliament met (19 May) the majority in favour of the court party was enormous. This was in no small measure due to the reformation that had been forced on other corporate towns besides the city of London. They had been made to surrender their[pg 509]charters, and the late king had in return granted them new charters in which Tories alone were named as members of the corporations. Only one more step was necessary in order to secure the return of a Tory parliament when the time for fresh elections should arrive, and that step was taken. The parliamentary franchise in boroughs was restricted to members of the corporations.1563In London the Whigs were kept down by fear, and the Tory party reigned supreme. The mayor and half the Court of Aldermen were nominees of the Crown, acting by royal commission. No Common Council sat, or if it did it was only for the purpose of enrolling a proclamation by the king or a precept by the mayor. As the election drew near the king, in order to render the result in his favour more sure, authorized the Court of Aldermen to grant liveries to several of the city companies, taking care that such only should be admitted to the livery as were of "unquestionable loyalty" for the purpose of voting.1564By this means four of the most pronounced Tories in the city were returned, all of them being aldermen. These were Sir John Moore and Sir William Pritchard, both of whom had been placed in the mayoralty chair, one after the other (in 1681 and 1682), by court influence, Sir Peter Rich, who had served as sheriff with Dudley North in 1682, and Sir Samuel Dashwood, who filled the same office the following year with Peter Daniel, both of them, like their immediate predecessors, being nominees of the Crown.[pg 510]As soon as the House met the Commons unanimously granted the king the full revenue which had been enjoyed by his brother.1565

Oates and Dangerfield whipt at the cart's tail, May, 1685.

Oates and Dangerfield whipt at the cart's tail, May, 1685.

Oates and Dangerfield whipt at the cart's tail, May, 1685.

The bent of the king's mind was quickly discerned in the sentences pronounced by judges eager to secure his favour. Titus Oates was taken out of prison and whipt at the cart's tail from Aldgate to Newgate the day after parliament met. Two days later he was again whipt from Newgate to Tyburn, and the punishment was so mercilessly carried out that it nearly cost him his life. Precautions had to be taken by the mayor to prevent a display of force by Oates's partisans, who overturned the pillory on which he was to stand.1566Dangerfield, another professional informer, was made to undergo a punishment scarcely less severe. He survived the punishment, but only to die from the effect of a vicious blow dealt him by a bystander as he was being carried back to gaol from Tyburn.

Richard Baxter brought to trial, 30 May, 1685.

Richard Baxter brought to trial, 30 May, 1685.

Richard Baxter brought to trial, 30 May, 1685.

On the other hand Richard Baxter—the most learned and moderate of Nonconformists—was tried at the Guildhall on a charge of having introduced into his commentary on the New Testament some seditious remarks respecting the attitude of the government towards dissenters. The infamous Jeffreys presided at the trial, and spared neither counsel nor prisoner his insolent invectives. The whole proceedings were nothing less than a farce, and the evidence adduced was of such a flimsy character that Baxter volunteered a remark expressing a doubt whether any jury would convict a man on it. He was, however, mistaken.[pg 511]The sheriffs, like the mayor, were but tools of the court party, and the jurymen selected to sit on the trial did not hesitate to bring in a verdict of guilty. He was fortunate to get off with no worse sentence than a fine of 500 marks and imprisonment until it was paid.1567

The Monmouth Rebellion, 1685.

The Monmouth Rebellion, 1685.

The Monmouth Rebellion, 1685.

There was doubtless a large number of inhabitants of the city who would gladly have assisted Monmouth—"the champion of the dissenters and extreme Protestants"—had they been in a position to do so. But as soon as the news of the duke's landing in Dorsetshire reached London orders were issued by the mayor for a strict watch to be kept by night throughout the city, and for the arrest of all suspicious characters, whilst the duke and his supporters were proclaimed traitors and rebels. It was forbidden to circulate the duke's manifesto in the city, and on the 16th June, or within five days of his landing, a price of £5,000 was put upon his head.1568After Monmouth's defeat at Sedgmoor (6 July) he and his companions sought safety in flight. Monmouth himself fled to the New Forest, where he was captured in the last stage of poverty, sleeping in a ditch, and was brought to London. He was lodged in the Tower, where his wife and three children had already been sent. Thousands of spectators, who, we are told, "seemed much troubled," went forth to witness his arrival by water on the evening of the 13th July. Two days later he was executed on Tower Hill.

Trial of Cornish and others, 19 Oct., 1685.

Trial of Cornish and others, 19 Oct., 1685.

Trial of Cornish and others, 19 Oct., 1685.

The utmost cruelty, both military and judicial, was inflicted on Monmouth's supporters. Many were[pg 512]hanged by royalist soldiers—"Kirke's lambs," as they were called—without form of law. Others were committed for trial until Jeffreys came to hold his "Bloody Assize," when to the cruelty of the sentences passed on most of them was added the ribald insolence of the judge. The opportunity was taken of giving the city of London a lesson, and Henry Cornish, late alderman and sheriff, was suddenly arrested. This took place on Tuesday the 13th October. He was kept a close prisoner, not allowed to see friends or counsel, and deprived of writing materials. On Saturday he was informed for the first time that he would be tried on a charge of high treason, and that the trial would commence on the following Monday (19 Oct.). His attitude before the judges was calm and dignified. Before pleading not guilty to the charge of having consented to aid and abet the late Duke of Monmouth and others in their attempt on the life of the late king (the Rye House Plot), he entered a protest against the indecent haste with which he had been called upon to plead and the short time allowed him to prepare his case. He asked for further time, but this the judges refused.

One of the chief witnesses for the Crown was Goodenough, who had a personal spite against Cornish for his having objected to him (Goodenough) serving as under-sheriff in 1680-1, the year when Bethell and Cornish were sheriffs.1569Goodenough had risked his neck in Monmouth's late rebellion, but[pg 513]he had succeeded in obtaining a pardon by promises of valuable information against others. With the king's pardon in his pocket he unblushingly declared before the judges that he, as well as Cornish and some others, had determined upon a general rising in the city at the time of the Rye House Plot. "We designed," said he, "to divide it (i.e., the city) into twenty parts, and out of each part to raise five hundred men, if it might be done, to make an insurrection."1570The Tower was to be seized and the guard expelled.

Cornish had been afforded no opportunity for instructing counsel in his defence. He was therefore obliged to act as his own counsel, with the result usual in such cases. He rested his main defence upon the improbability of his having acted as the prosecution endeavoured to make out. This he so persistently urged that the judges lost patience. Improbability was not enough, they declared; let him call his witnesses. When, however, Cornish desired an adjournment in order that he might bring a witness up from Lancashire, his request was refused. His chief witness he omitted to call until after the lord chief justice had summed up. This man was a vintner of the city, named Shephard, at whose house Cornish was charged with having met and held consultation with Monmouth and the rest of the conspirators. The bench after some demur assented to the prisoner's earnest prayer that Shephard's evidence might be taken. He showed that he had been in the habit of having commercial transactions with Cornish and was at that moment in his debt; that on the occasion in question Cornish had come to his[pg 514]house, but whether he came to speak with the Duke of Monmouth or not the witness could not say for certain; that he only remained a few minutes, and that no paper or declaration (on which so much stress had been laid) in connection with the conspiracy was read in Cornish's presence; that in fact Cornish was not considered at the time as being in the plot. Such evidence, if not conclusive, ought to have gone far towards obtaining a verdict of acquittal for the prisoner. This was not the case, however; the witness was characterised by one of the judges as "very forward," and when Cornish humbly remonstrated with the treatment his witness was receiving from the bench he was sharply told to hold his tongue. The jury after a brief consultation brought in a verdict of guilty, and Cornish had to submit to the indignity of being tied—like a dangerous criminal—whilst sentence of death was passed upon him and three others who had been tried at the same time.

Execution of Cornish, 23 Oct., 1685.

Execution of Cornish, 23 Oct., 1685.

Execution of Cornish, 23 Oct., 1685.

The prisoner was allowed but three clear days before he was hanged at the corner of King Street and Cheapside, within sight of the Guildhall which he had so often frequented as an alderman of the city, and on which his head was afterwards placed. He met his end with courage and with many pious expressions, but to the last maintained his innocence with such vehemence that his enemies gave out that he had "died in a fit of fury."1571The injustice of his sentence was recognised and his conviction and attainder was afterwards reversed and annulled by parliament (22 June, 1689).1572

Execution of Mrs. Gaunt, 23 Oct.

Execution of Mrs. Gaunt, 23 Oct.

Execution of Mrs. Gaunt, 23 Oct.

Of the three others who had been tried with Cornish, two were reprieved (one was afterwards executed), but the third, Elizabeth Gaunt, was burnt at Tyburn the same day that Cornish suffered (23 Oct.) for having harboured an outlaw named Burton and assisted him to escape beyond the law. He had been implicated in the Rye House Plot, but with the aid of Mrs. Gaunt, who lived in the city, had contrived to avoid capture. In order to save his own skin the wretch did not hesitate to turn king's evidence and to sacrifice the life of his benefactress, a woman who is described as having "spent a great part of her life in acts of charity, visiting the gaols and looking after the poor." She too died with great fortitude, arranging with her own hands the straw around her, so as to burn the more speedily.1573

The revocation of the Edict of Nantes, Oct., 1685.

The revocation of the Edict of Nantes, Oct., 1685.

The revocation of the Edict of Nantes, Oct., 1685.

Parliament began to be alarmed at the favour shown to Catholics, and this alarm was increased by a report from France that Louis XIV, with whom James was known to be closely allied, and on whom he depended, like his late brother, for pecuniary support, had revoked the Edict of Nantes granted by Henry IV in favour of his Protestant subjects. The report was soon confirmed by the appearance of numbers of French Protestants—refugees from persecution—in England, and more especially in the city of London. What Louis had done in France James, it was feared, would carry out in England by means of his standing army commanded by Roman Catholic officers. Hence the alarm which pervaded not only parliament, but also the city and the nation at large.

Session of parliament, 9-20 Nov., 1685.

Session of parliament, 9-20 Nov., 1685.

Session of parliament, 9-20 Nov., 1685.

Hence too it was that when the Houses, which had been adjourned during the campaign in the West, met on the 9th November,1574they remonstrated with him for the favour he had shown to Catholics in direct contravention of the law. Finding himself unable to bend parliament to his will, he determined to do without one, and accordingly, after a brief session, it stood prorogued (20 Nov.),1575never to meet again during the present reign.

James and the Catholics, 1686.

James and the Catholics, 1686.

James and the Catholics, 1686.

Without a parliament James could act with a free hand. By a piece of chicanery he managed to get a legal decision acknowledging the dispensing power of the king.1576He established an Ecclesiastical Commission Court, with the infamous Jeffreys at its head, the first act of which was to suspend the Bishop of London for upholding the Protestant faith. He removed the Earl of Clarendon (son of the late Chancellor), who had recently been appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,1577and appointed as lord deputy the Earl of Tyrconnel, a Roman Catholic of low character, who had gained an unenviable notoriety as the "lying Dick Talbot." The country was over-run with Papists from abroad. All the laws against the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion were set at defiance. There was no disguise. Mass was publicly celebrated at Whitehall and Roman Catholic chapels sprang up everywhere, giving rise to no small dissatisfaction and tumult. The agitation in London was great, but greater in the city, where men had been less accustomed to the[pg 517]sight of the Romish ceremonial than those who lived in the neighbourhood of the court. Riots in the city were of frequent occurrence, more especially on Sundays, when the Roman Catholics were more in evidence than on week days. A Roman Catholic chapel had recently been erected by the Elector Palatine in Lime Street. An ineffectual attempt had been made by the mayor and aldermen to stay the work. They were summoned to appear before the king and reprimanded. The work was accordingly allowed to go on and the chapel was opened. On Sunday, the 18th April (1686), the priests attached to the chapel were followed by a mob into Cheapside, and matters would have gone hard with them had not the mayor and aldermen appeared on the scene with a regiment of trained bands. James again sent for the mayor and told him that if he could not keep better order in the city he should himself send some "assistance."1578Nevertheless another riot broke out on the following Sunday. A mob entered a Roman Catholic chapel and carried away a crucifix, crying out they would have no "wooden gods." A cross was set up on the parish pump and mock obeisance made to it. The priests were insulted, but no violence was offered them. When the mayor appeared to quell the tumult the crowd affected to disbelieve that his lordship was in earnest. "What! the lord mayor of our city come to preach up popery! too sure, it cannot be!" When the trained bands were ordered to disperse the crowd they declared that in conscience they could not hinder them in their work.1579

The camp at Hounslow opened, 28 May, 1686.

The camp at Hounslow opened, 28 May, 1686.

The camp at Hounslow opened, 28 May, 1686.

These disturbances were very injurious to the trade of the city, and caused a considerable fall in the amount of customs paid for merchandise entering the port of London. A regiment or two of the standing army which James had formed might any day appear in the city. "I shall not wonder if the Scotch regiment of guards now quartering at Greenwich be quartered in Cheapside before this week is out," wrote a contemporary on the 27th April.1580A month later the army was encamped at Hounslow, the king himself being also there, ready to send "assistance" to the city should occasion arise.1581

The Declaration of Indulgence, 4 April, 1687.

The Declaration of Indulgence, 4 April, 1687.

The Declaration of Indulgence, 4 April, 1687.

For a time James had entertained the hope of obtaining favours for the Catholics with the goodwill of the Church of England, whilst continuing the persecution of dissenters. Finding this impossible he determined to make friends of the dissenters, and to include them in a general declaration of indulgence. Accordingly on the 4th April, 1687, there appeared a Declaration of Indulgence suspending all laws against Roman Catholics and dissenters alike.1582

Corporations further "regulated," 1687.

Corporations further "regulated," 1687.

Corporations further "regulated," 1687.

James would willingly have obtained parliamentary sanction for his declaration if he could. To this end he again took to tampering with corporations throughout the country, in the hope of securing thereby a parliament favourable to his policy of toleration. Six commissioners were appointed in November to "regulate" all the corporations of England, by turning out all who were opposed to the abolition of the penal laws and Test Act and putting in their place those who[pg 519]favoured it.1583In London dispensations were granted to the livery companies relieving their members from taking the oaths and test, whilst similar dispensations were included in the royal commissions appointing aldermen. In many of the companies Tories of a too pronounced character were turned out and their places taken by dissenters.1584Everywhere dissenters were treated with the greatest consideration. Notwithstanding every effort, however, to capture the constituencies at the next elections, James found public opinion against him to be too strong, and all thought of summoning a fresh parliament had to be abandoned.

The king and the Court of Aldermen, June, 1687.

The king and the Court of Aldermen, June, 1687.

The king and the Court of Aldermen, June, 1687.

In the meanwhile addresses flowed in from various parts of the country thanking the king for his declaration. Presbyterians, Quakers, Independents, Congregationalists alike sent addresses, but as yet no address was presented on behalf of the Court of Aldermen—the governing body of the city, now that the Common Council was in abeyance. That body had to be largely remodelled before it would consent to present any such address. On Thursday, the 16th June, the infamous Jeffreys, who had been rewarded with the seals for his work at the Bloody Assizes, appeared before the Court of Aldermen and declared his majesty's pleasure that in future that court should nominate and recommend to the Crown such persons as they thought fit to be aldermen as vacancies occurred, and that no one so nominated[pg 520]should be exempt from service except for insufficiency of estate, to be declared on oath. Those who were capable of serving and refused to serve when nominated by the court were to be fined, and the fines were to be devoted to the use and benefit of the city's orphans. The ancient privilege, too, of the mayor drinking to a future sheriff received the king's sanction.1585Having listened to the lord chancellor's message the court resolved to wait upon the king at Windsor on the following Sunday to thank his majesty "for that and all other his majesties acts of grace to this court and city."1586Both the mayor and the Court of Aldermen lost no time in exercising their privileges, but they experienced great difficulty in getting any one to serve sheriff or alderman. Fines ran up apace, until no less than £8,500 had been paid by persons desirous at any cost to be discharged from filling either of those thankless offices. Many of the aldermen either voluntarily resigned their gowns or were dismissed from the court because they were unwilling to vote an address of thanks to James for his declaration.1587

Thanks from Court of Aldermen for Declaration, 26 July, 1687.

Thanks from Court of Aldermen for Declaration, 26 July, 1687.

Thanks from Court of Aldermen for Declaration, 26 July, 1687.

At length the court was sufficiently packed with dissenters to pass an address to the king (26 July) thanking him for his declaration, and assuring his majesty of their readiness to stand by him with their lives and fortunes.1588The orphans of the city also voted an address,1589as well they might, seeing the amount of money that the declaration had been the means of bringing into the orphans' fund.

William Kiffin appointed by the king alderman of Cheap, 6 Aug., 1687.

William Kiffin appointed by the king alderman of Cheap, 6 Aug., 1687.

William Kiffin appointed by the king alderman of Cheap, 6 Aug., 1687.

His reluctance to accept office.

His reluctance to accept office.

His reluctance to accept office.

At last consents, and is sworn, 27 Oct., 1687.

At last consents, and is sworn, 27 Oct., 1687.

At last consents, and is sworn, 27 Oct., 1687.

Not every dissenter welcomed the king's declaration. To many of them it seemed—what the king intended it to be—only a lever for raising the Roman Catholics. Baxter, to whom friendly overtures were made by government to win him over, refused to join in any address of thanks for the declaration. John Howe declared himself an opponent of the dispensing power, and Bunyan declined to enter into any negotiations on the matter at all. William Kiffin, on the other hand, an influential Baptist in the city, succumbed to the threats, if not to the blandishments, of James.1590In addition to possessing spiritual gifts of no mean order, Kiffin was also a man of wealth and position in the world of commerce. In every way he would prove a valuable ally, if only he could be won over. Against this, however, there was one great impediment: the recollection of the judicial murder of his two grandsons, Benjamin and William Hewling, by Jeffreys at the Bloody Assizes. Fondly imagining that the memory of that foul act could be blotted out and the stricken heart salved by an increase of wealth or elevation in rank, James sent for him to court, and after some preliminary remarks touching the royal favour that was being shown to dissenters, told Kiffin that he had put him down as an alderman in his "new charter," alluding no doubt to the royal commission of 6th August, in which Kiffin's name appears as alderman of Cheap ward in the place of[pg 522]Samuel Dashwood. On hearing this Kiffin replied, "Sir, I am a very old man,"—he was seventy years of age when he lost his grandchildren—"I have withdrawn myself from all kind of business for some years past, and am incapable of doing any service in such an affair to your majesty or the city. Besides, sir," the old man continued, with tears running down his cheeks, and looking the king steadily in the face, "the death of my grandsons gave a wound to my heart which is still bleeding, and never will close but in the grave." For a moment the king was abashed, but quickly recovering himself told Kiffin that he (James) would find "a balsam for that sore." The old man still held out, until, hearing that legal proceedings were about to be taken against him, he took counsel's opinion as to what was best to be done. He was told that he was running a great risk by refusing to become an alderman, for the judges, as they then were, might subject him to a penalty of ten, twenty, or thirty thousand pounds, "even what they pleased." Under such circumstances he consented to be made an alderman, rather than bring ruin on himself and family. He, however, put off the evil day as long as he could, and was not sworn into office until the 27th October.1591

Kiffin expressed himself as pleased with the reception he met with in his ward, where he was almost a stranger. But much of the business which the Court of Aldermen was called upon to execute in those days was distasteful to him. "We had frequently orders from the king" (he writes) "to[pg 523]send to the several companies to put out great numbers of liverymen out of the privilege of being liverymen, and others to be put in their rooms; most of which that were so turned out were Protestants of the Church of England. There has been a list of seven hundred at a time to be discharged, although no crime laid to their charge." The royal commission which appointed him an alderman also created him a justice of the peace and a member of the Court of Lieutenancy, but to use his own words, "I never meddled with either of those places, neither in any act of power in that court [i.e., Court of Aldermen] touching causes between man and man, but only such things as concerned the welfare of the city and good of the orphans, whose distressed condition called for help, although we were able to do little towards it." He was not called upon to discharge his invidious duties for any great length of time; for after being in office only nine months he obtained his discharge, to his "very great satisfaction." He continued to live for another thirteen years, dying on the 29th December, 1701, in his 86th year, and he was buried in Bunhill Fields—that "God's acre" which holds the dust of so many of his fellow non-conformists.

Sir John Shorter, mayor, Oct., 1687.

Sir John Shorter, mayor, Oct., 1687.

Sir John Shorter, mayor, Oct., 1687.

In September the king had issued a patent for Sir John Shorter to be lord mayor for the year ensuing. Shorter was a dissenter—"an Anabaptist, a very odd ignorant person, a mechanic, I think," wrote Evelyn1592of him—and on that account a clause was inserted in his commission permitting him to have any preacher he might choose.1593His granddaughter[pg 524]was married to Sir Robert Walpole. He was at one time alderman of Cripplegate ward, but in December, 1682, he fell foul of Charles II for attending a conventicle at Pinmakers' Hall, and the Court of Aldermen received orders to remove him.1594He had recently, however (6 Aug., 1687), been restored to his aldermanry and to his rank of precedence by commission from James,1595and now, by the same usurped authority, he was to become lord mayor. The feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.) happening this year to fall on a Friday, the installation of the new lord mayor, as well as the banquet to which James and the Papal Nuncio had been invited, was postponed until the following day. The aldermen agreed to defray the cost of the entertainment out of their own pockets,1596each laying down the sum of £50. Kiffin also sent £50, although he had not yet been sworn a member of the court; but he afterwards regretted having done so when he learnt that the Pope's Nuncio and other priests had been invited as guests.1597The day passed off well. The Goldsmiths' Company, of which the new lord mayor was a member, made a particularly brave show. The entire roadway from Charing Cross to the city had been fresh gravelled that morning, and the king, who was accompanied by the queen, expressed himself as well pleased with the entertainment afforded him.1598

The Dissenters supreme in the city.

The Dissenters supreme in the city.

The Dissenters supreme in the city.

The Dissenters now had matters all their own way. The livery companies had become so leavened with an influx of new members, whose claim for admittance rested chiefly on their antagonism to the established Church, that most of them now sent in addresses to the king thanking him for his Declaration of Indulgence. The Barber-Surgeons and the Apothecaries had already done so; so had the Clothworkers, the Mercers and the Glovers. Their example was now followed by the Cutlers, the Goldsmiths, the Haberdashers, the Joiners and the Weavers.1599The mayor, who kept his mayoralty at Grocers' Hall, openly held a conventicle there on Sunday, the 6th November,1600whilst he declined to listen to a sermon by the learned Dr. Stillingfleet in the Guildhall chapel.1601More than this, he would have turned the chapel itself into a conventicle could he have had his own way.1602

The second Declaration of Indulgence, 27 April, 1688.

The second Declaration of Indulgence, 27 April, 1688.

The second Declaration of Indulgence, 27 April, 1688.

In the Spring of 1688 James published a second Declaration of Indulgence varying but slightly from the former one, and ordered it to be read in the churches of London and Westminster on the 20th and 27th May, and in the country on the 3rd and 10th June. This was more than the clergy could stand. A meeting of bishops was held at Lambeth for the purpose of drawing up a petition to the king praying[pg 526]that the clergy might be excused reading an illegal document in the midst of public service. This petition was signed by Sancroft, the primate, and six bishops. Although the Bishop of London was not among those who signed the petition—he at the time being under disability—there is reason for believing that Compton had been taken into counsel by those who drafted it.1603On the petition being presented James pretended the utmost surprise, and insisted that the presentation of such a petition was "a standard of rebellion." This took place on Friday preceding the first Sunday (20th May) when the Declaration was to be read in the London churches. When Sunday arrived people flocked to the churches to hear what would happen. Only a few of the London clergy attempted to read the Declaration.1604In the country not more than 200 clergy carried out the king's orders, "and of these some read it the first Sunday, but changed their minds before the second; others declared in their sermons that though they obeyed the order they did not approve the Declaration." One minister in particular told his congregation that though he was obliged to read it they were not obliged to hear it, and waited until all had left the church before he commenced reading the hateful document. In other places the congregation took the initiative and rose to go as soon as the minister commenced reading it.1605

The seven bishops committed to the Tower.

The seven bishops committed to the Tower.

The seven bishops committed to the Tower.

What followed is well known. On Friday the 8th June the Archbishop of Canterbury and the six bishops who had signed the petition were summoned[pg 527]before the council and asked if they acknowledged their respective signatures. They were next required to enter into bond for appearance before the King's Bench. This they declined to do, and were thereupon committed to the Tower.1606To have carried them through the streets of the city might have caused a riot; they were therefore conveyed to the Tower by water, "and all along as they passed the banks of the river were full of people, who kneeled down and asked their blessing, and with loud shouts expressed their good wishes for them and their concern in their preservation."1607The enthusiasm of the Londoners did not end here. They continued to flock to the Tower, filling the small chapel where the bishops attended service to overflowing in order to gaze upon their beloved pastors and receive their blessing.1608After being kept in separate confinement, and allowed to meet only at meals and in chapel, for ten days, the bishops were allowed to come out on bail.

Trial and acquittal of the bishops, 29 and 30 June, 1688.

Trial and acquittal of the bishops, 29 and 30 June, 1688.

Trial and acquittal of the bishops, 29 and 30 June, 1688.

On the 29th June they appeared before the King's Bench on a charge of publishing a seditious libel. A technical difficulty presented itself at the outset, but this was got over, and after a trial of some hours the question of their innocence or guilt was left to a jury drawn, not from London, but from the county of Middlesex. One of the panel stuck out against the rest, and wished to bring in a verdict of guilty, but after being locked up through the night he allowed himself to be persuaded by his fellow-jurymen, and on the morning of the 30th June a verdict of not guilty was found. Thereupon "there were such shoutings, so long continued, and as it were echoed[pg 528]into the city, that all people were struck with it."1609Bonfires were lighted, guns discharged and church bells rung, not only in London but throughout the kingdom.

Disaffection among the troops at Hounslow.

Disaffection among the troops at Hounslow.

Disaffection among the troops at Hounslow.

The beginning of the end was approaching. Already the troops encamped at Hounslow, on which James placed so much dependence, showed signs of disaffection. He had hoped that his army would have overawed London, instead of which the free spirit of London had, as a result of his policy, entirely captivated his army. So long as the king was in their midst the troops maintained a respectful demeanour, but as soon as his back was turned they threw off all restraint, and joined in the general exultation at the late joyful deliverance to the Church of England.1610

The birth of Prince Charles Edward, 10 June, 1688.

The birth of Prince Charles Edward, 10 June, 1688.

The birth of Prince Charles Edward, 10 June, 1688.

The birth of a prince (10 June), which had recently taken place, served to hasten the crisis. Those who were willing to have waited patiently for a recurrence to the old order of things at the king's death now saw their hopes dashed to the ground. The king's heir and successor, brought up, as he undoubtedly would be, in the tenets of his father, promised them little relief. Even before the birth of the prince overtures had been made to William of Orange to appear in England at the head of an army. Nevertheless the Court of Aldermen displayed its loyalty by resolving that the conduits in Cheapside and at the Stocks Market should run with claret on Thanksgiving-day. The sheriffs were to take the matter in hand, whilst the sum of £50 was raised by the court to defray the cost, the mayor contributing £10, each of the sheriffs £5, and the rest of the[pg 529]aldermen the balance between them.1611Later on (29 June) the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs waited upon the infant prince and kissed his hand. The various nurses were presented by the Chamberlain with the respectabledouceurof sixty guineas, whilst ten guineas were given to the lord chancellor's messenger who brought the news to the city of the prince's birth.1612

Invitation to William of Orange, 30 June, 1688.

Invitation to William of Orange, 30 June, 1688.

Invitation to William of Orange, 30 June, 1688.

The day that saw the bishops acquitted a letter was despatched, signed by Shrewsbury, Danby, Compton (the suspended Bishop of London) and others, to the Prince of Orange, again inviting him to land in England with an armed force, and promising to render him every assistance. After some hesitation William accepted the invitation, and began to make preparations, both naval and military, for his descent on England. Towards the close of September news came from Holland of the vast preparations that were being pushed forward in that country. A fleet of sixty sail was in readiness, and the prince himself was shortly expected on board. James lost no time in informing the lord mayor of the state of affairs, and desired that he and the aldermen would take measures for preserving the city in peace.1613On the 28th he issued a proclamation informing his subjects of the threatened invasion, and calling upon them to lay aside all jealousies and to unite in defending the country against the foreign enemy.1614

Restoration of the City's liberties, 6 Oct., 1688.

Restoration of the City's liberties, 6 Oct., 1688.

Restoration of the City's liberties, 6 Oct., 1688.

James saw, when it was too late, that he had over-taxed the patience of his subjects. He was now[pg 530]ready to make any and every concession. As for the citizens of London, they should have their charter restored. Accordingly, on Saturday the 6th October Lord Chancellor Jeffreys appeared before the Court of Aldermen with two separate grants under the great seal, the one appointing Sir John Chapman to be mayor (in the place of Sir John Eyles1615) up to the feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.), with liberty to the citizens in the meantime to elect one of their own choice to be mayor for the year ensuing; the other, continuing in office Sir Samuel Thompson and Sir Humphrey Edwin, then sheriffs, until a new election of sheriffs should be made by the citizens. The newly-appointed mayor and the existing sheriffs thereupon went down into the Guildhall, accompanied by the lord chancellor, who informed the citizens of the restitution of their liberties.1616The mayor and sheriffs having taken the oaths and subscribed the declaration prescribed by the Corporation Act, the aldermen returned to their chamber, and such as had been aldermen at the time of the judgment upon the writ ofQuo Warrantoand were then present were forthwith sworn in for the respective wards from which they had been deposed. The court next proceeded to draw up an address to the king, in which his majesty was assured that with all duty and faithfulness they would cheerfully and readilydischarge the trust reposed in themto the[pg 531]utmost hazard of their lives and fortunes.1617One cannot help noticing how studiously different the wording of this address is from those previously presented. Not a word about defending his majesty's person with their lives and fortunes; these are thenceforth to be expended in guarding their own liberties! When the Court of Aldermen met three days later (9 Oct.) the common sergeant, the town clerk, the comptroller, swordbearer, common crier and other officers who had been ousted from their places under theQuo Warrantowere formally re-instated;1618and the same day Chapman issued his precept for a Common Hall to meet on the 11th for the election of sheriffs for the year ensuing.1619Several aldermen who had lost their places in 1683 declined to be re-instated, among them being Sir Robert Clayton.1620Sir George Treby, who had been recorder at the time of the confiscation of the city's liberties, also refused to accept office again; but the Court of Aldermen finding great difficulty in getting a suitable person to accept the appointment, Treby was finally induced to change his mind, and before the end of the year he occupied his old place and continued to occupy it until, in 1692, he was made chief justice of common pleas.1621

The city was still without a Common Council, and it was not until the 26th November that the Court of Aldermen advised the mayor to issue his precept for an election of common councilmen to take place on the 28th. The council so elected was to be but a provisional one until the regular election should take place on St. Thomas-day (21 Dec.).1622On the 1st December the new Common Council sat for the first time,1623none having met since the 2nd October, 1683.

Writs for a new parliament.

Writs for a new parliament.

Writs for a new parliament.

The day that a new Common Council was elected Jeffreys (who was already packing up to be off) notified that writs were about to be issued for a new parliament. The House was to meet on the 15th January (1689). James had purposed summoning a parliament for November (1688), and some of the writs had been actually sent out, but the Dutch preparations so alarmed him that the writs were recalled.1624

Question as to the legitimacy of Prince Charles, 20 Oct., 1688.

Question as to the legitimacy of Prince Charles, 20 Oct., 1688.

Question as to the legitimacy of Prince Charles, 20 Oct., 1688.

In the meantime an extraordinary council had been held at Whitehall (20 Oct.) which the mayor and aldermen of the city had been invited to attend. The object of the meeting was to dissipate any doubt that had been entertained as to the infant prince being actually the king's son. There had been rumours to the contrary, and as the king was about to enter upon a dangerous enterprise in person, he declared his intention of settling the question beyond all doubt before leaving. Some twenty witnesses were accordingly examined then and there as to the prince's legitimacy, the king offering to send for the[pg 533]queen herself if the meeting so wished. This offer, one need scarcely say, was declined.1625The same day proclamation was made for guarding the sea coast and withdrawing all draft cattle into the interior.1626

A "mass house" in the city wrecked by the mob, 29 Oct., 1688.

A "mass house" in the city wrecked by the mob, 29 Oct., 1688.

A "mass house" in the city wrecked by the mob, 29 Oct., 1688.

The feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.) falling on Sunday, Sir John Chapman, who had been re-elected mayor by free choice of the citizens, proceeded to Westminster by water according to custom on the following Monday, accompanied by the aldermen, and was sworn before the barons of the exchequer. He returned to Grocers' Hall and there entertained the lords of the council, the judges and many of the nobility. Notwithstanding the precautions taken against riot during the mayor's absence from the city the mob broke out and sacked and burnt a "mass house" in Bucklersbury. For this disturbance the mayor and sheriffs were called to account by the king.1627

Arrival of William and his march on London, Nov., 1688.

Arrival of William and his march on London, Nov., 1688.

Arrival of William and his march on London, Nov., 1688.

On the 5th November the Prince of Orange successfully effected a landing in Torbay. As soon as the news reached London James again sent for the mayor and aldermen, ordered them to take care of the city, and, if he should fall in battle, to proclaim the Prince of Wales successor to the crown.1628William proceeded to march upon London. At Exeter he was well received, but some little time elapsed before the gentry showed any disposition to throw in their lot with the prince. On the 17th James set out with his army to meet the invader, after receiving an assurance from the mayor and aldermen that they would take[pg 534]care of the city during his absence.1629He reached Salisbury, but soon found himself deserted by officers and friends. Among the former was Lord Churchill, afterwards known as the Duke of Marlborough, and the greatest soldier of the age. Left almost alone, James returned to London, having been absent from the capital less than ten days. Like his name-sake the Conqueror, William made no haste to reach London, but advanced by slow marches, putting up at various gentlemen's houses on the way. It was agreed that both armies should remain at a distance of forty miles from London in order to allow the new parliament to meet in safety.

Renewed attacks made on Catholics in London.

Renewed attacks made on Catholics in London.

Renewed attacks made on Catholics in London.

Since the news of the prince's landing there had been a renewal of the attacks made on Roman Catholics and their places of worship in London. On the 11th November the mob broke into St. John's, Clerkenwell, where rumour declared there were stored gridirons, spits and other instruments for torturing Protestants. The troops were called out and one or two of the rioters killed. It was deemed advisable to close all the Roman Catholic chapels except the royal chapels and those belonging to foreign ambassadors.1630Another sign of the times was the fact that the sceptre belonging to the statue of Queen Mary set up in the Royal Exchange had either accidentally fallen or (as was more probable) had been forcibly struck out of her hand.1631On the 7th December the mayor issued a precept to the aldermen of each ward for[pg 535]a careful search to be made in the city for all Papists and suspicious persons. He did this because he understood that the inhabitants of the city were much alarmed at the great resort of Papists to the city who were believed to be meditating some attack upon London.1632

Proceeding in the city after the king's flight, 11 Dec., 1688.

Proceeding in the city after the king's flight, 11 Dec., 1688.

Proceeding in the city after the king's flight, 11 Dec., 1688.

The negotiations which had been opened with William were only intended by James to serve the purpose of giving the latter time to place his wife and child in a place of security before he himself should seek safety in flight. On the 11th December he attempted to make good his escape. As soon as it was known that the king had left London a great number of lords, both spiritual and temporal, came to the Guildhall, as to a place of security, the better to consult and take measures for the common weal. Having informed the Court of Aldermen of the king's flight the lords retired into the "gallery adjoining to yecouncell chamber," and there drew up a Declaration,1633containing in effect their resolution to assist the Prince of Orange in maintaining the religion, the rights and the liberties which had been invaded by Jesuitical counsels. This was communicated to the Court of Aldermen, who thanked the lords for the favour shown to the Court. As the occasion was an important one it was deemed advisable to summon forthwith a Common Council, as well as the law officers of the City, to advise the aldermen as to what was best to be done.1634A Common Council was accordingly held that same day. Being informed of the state of affairs, the court quickly resolved to[pg 536]follow the example set by the lords, and themselves to present an address to the prince.1635An address was accordingly prepared, in which, having warmly acknowledged the prince's zeal for the Protestant religion and expressed regret at the king's measures and his recent flight, the citizens implored the prince's protection, promising him at the same time a hearty welcome whenever he should repair to their city. The lieutenancy of the city followed suit the same day with another address, in which his highness was assured that measures had been taken for preserving the city in peace until his arrival.1636The lords, having finished their business in the city, dined the same evening with the lord mayor at Grocers' Hall.1637

Letter from the prince to the city, 17 Dec., 1688.

Letter from the prince to the city, 17 Dec., 1688.

Letter from the prince to the city, 17 Dec., 1688.

On the 17th a letter from the prince was read before the Common Council. The terms of the letter are not recorded in the City's archives, but it probably contained some reference to the peace of the city, for the council, after preparing an answer to it, forthwith gave orders for the guards of the trained bands to be increased by three regiments.1638

The prince enters London, 18 Dec.

The prince enters London, 18 Dec.

The prince enters London, 18 Dec.

The following day (18 Dec.) the prince himself entered London, and the council, having heard of his arrival, immediately despatched the sheriffs and the common sergeant to learn when his highness would be pleased to receive a deputation from the city. It was arranged that the aldermen and their deputies and one or two members of the council of each ward,[pg 537]according to the number of its representatives, should form the deputation.1639The lord mayor (Chapman) being indisposed was unable to attend. He had recently been seized with a fit of apoplexy whilst trying the terrible Jeffreys, who had been discovered and apprehended in disguise at Wapping. But Treby, the recorder, was there, and made a speech on the City's behalf.1640

A representative assembly meet to discuss the state of affairs, 26 Dec., 1688.

A representative assembly meet to discuss the state of affairs, 26 Dec., 1688.

A representative assembly meet to discuss the state of affairs, 26 Dec., 1688.

A Convention Parliament to meet, 22 Jan., 1689.

A Convention Parliament to meet, 22 Jan., 1689.

A Convention Parliament to meet, 22 Jan., 1689.

By this time James, who had been foiled in his first attempt to reach the coast, and had returned to London, had, with the connivance of the Prince of Orange, been more successful in a second attempt, and had crossed over to France, where he spent the remainder of his days. The country was therefore left without king, parliament or legal system for its government. In London the Corporation of the city was almost the only authority that remained unaffected by the king's abdication; and it is significant as well of its power as of the respect which that body commanded that when William was endeavouring to form an authoritative assembly by summoning all the members who had ever sat in parliament under Charles II,1641he likewise desired that the lord mayor of the city, the entire Court of Aldermen and fifty representatives of the Common Council should attend.1642This assembly met on the 26th December, and after due consultation decided to adopt the same procedure as was adopted in 1660 before the return of Charles II. As there[pg 538]was no king there could be no writs for a parliament, but William could call a Convention, which would be a parliament in everything but name. A Convention was accordingly summoned to meet on the 22nd January, 1689. The election of the city members to serve in the convention was ordered to take place on Wednesday the 9th January,1643when the choice of the citizens fell upon their former well-tried representatives, Sir Patience Ward, Sir Robert Clayton, Pilkington (who had regained his liberty in August, 1686)1644and Love.

Letter from the prince desiring a city loan, 8 Jan., 1689.

Letter from the prince desiring a city loan, 8 Jan., 1689.

Letter from the prince desiring a city loan, 8 Jan., 1689.

In the meantime (8 Jan.) the prince wrote to the civic authorities setting forth the inadequacy of the revenue to supply three pressing wants. These were the maintenance of the navy, the partial disbandment of the army and the furnishing of a force for the speedy relief of the Protestants in Ireland. He desired the City, therefore, to advance him such a sum as could be "conveniently spared."1645The City was still to keep up its character as the purse of the nation. The Common Council, having heard the letter read, at once resolved to assist the prince to the utmost of their power. A committee was appointed to settle with the revenue officers the nature of the security, and orders were given for precepts to be sent to the aldermen to raise subscriptions in the various wards.1646Sir Peter Rich, who had recently been re-instated in the office of city chamberlain from[pg 539]which he had been ousted, was instructed to pay into the exchequer all money received on account of the loan, and to strike tallies for the same in his own name in trust for the use of the several lenders. Ten days later (18 Jan.) the committee reported the steps taken for the security of repayment of the money already paid into the exchequer, and the council recommended that similar steps should be taken with respect to those sums yet to be paid in. It was at the same time unanimously agreed to ask the Prince to dinner in the city, and the recorder, the sheriffs and the common sergeant were instructed to wait on his highness and learn his pleasure.1647

Meeting of the convention parliament, 22 Jan., 1689.

Meeting of the convention parliament, 22 Jan., 1689.

Meeting of the convention parliament, 22 Jan., 1689.

On the 22nd January the Convention met. On the 28th the Commons declared the throne to be vacant, and on the 6th February a vote to similar effect was passed by the Lords. Some over-zealous inhabitants of the city had in the meanwhile prepared a petition, which they purposed presenting to the House of Lords, praying that the crown might be offered to the Prince of Orange and his consort. The prince ordered the lord mayor to put a stop to such proceedings, and a precept (200 copies of which were ordered to be printed) was accordingly issued to this effect.1648

William and Mary proclaimed king and queen, 13 Feb., 1689.

William and Mary proclaimed king and queen, 13 Feb., 1689.

William and Mary proclaimed king and queen, 13 Feb., 1689.

A Declaration of Rights was drawn up condemning the unconstitutional acts of James II, and offering to settle the crown on William and Mary and their children, with remainders over. On the 13th February this offer was accepted,1649and the prince and princess[pg 540]were forthwith proclaimed king and queen with the usual ceremony. The next day the Common Council unanimously agreed to wait upon their majesties and congratulate them upon their accession to the throne.1650

Coronation of William and Mary, 11 April, 1689.

Coronation of William and Mary, 11 April, 1689.

Coronation of William and Mary, 11 April, 1689.

At the coronation banquet of the king and queen, which took place on the 11th April, the masters of the twelve principal livery companies were for the first time nominated by the Court of Aldermen to join with the lord mayor in assisting the chief butler,1651and they continued to be so nominated on like occasions up to the coronation of George IV, when in consequence of a change of masters taking place between the time of their nomination and the day of the coronation, the new masters presented a petition to the Court of Claims praying to have their names inserted in the place of the former masters whose term of office had expired. This petition was opposed by the Remembrancer, on behalf of the City, on the ground that the masters of the livery companies enjoyed no peculiar right to serve on such occasions, and after some deliberation the commissioners declined to interfere, inasmuch as the power of nominating the twelve citizens rested absolutely with the Court of Aldermen.1652The lord mayor and swordbearer were resplendent at the coronation ceremony in new crimson and damask gowns, whilst the city's plate—again lent for the occasion—added lustre to the banquet.1653

Back to IndexNext